Jump to content

My Site's new design

~pcwiz

By ~pcwiz,
in Web and Graphical Design

 Share

Rate pcwizcomputer.com's new design  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you rate the new design (0-worst 5-best)

    • 0
      10
    • 1
      7
    • 2
      10
    • 3
      4
    • 4
      5
    • 5
      2

75 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

scj312
scj312
Posted
Posted
rding the width, I don't think I'll change it because: If you check my guides, they have lots of big wide screenshots on them so if you make the width small and the images are large, it will make it look ugly.
Thumbnails.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK well the site has been updated to look good on lower resolutions. Unfortunately I can't test it out over here because my monitor goes all weird when you put the resolution under 1280x1024. Can someone test the site out on 1024x768 and post a screenshot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scj312
scj312
Posted
Posted
OK well the site has been updated to look good on lower resolutions. Unfortunately I can't test it out over here because my monitor goes all weird when you put the resolution under 1280x1024. Can someone test the site out on 1024x768 and post a screenshot?
Or, you could install the Firefox Web Developer toolbar. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

While yours does have the flashy flash animation, the design is minimalist (doesn't look great) and it takes too long to load.

 

Me and skyhighmac are still in the process of perfecting the site to work on 1024x768 and lower resolutions

 

EDIT: Took a look at the site in 1024x768 and it seems that the only thing we have to do to fix it is to make the logo image a bit smaller. Then the search box wouldn't overlap it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inimicus
inimicus
Posted
Posted

The horizontal scroll is gone. It looks better. Notice how it looks like you have significantly more copy on the page?

 

I still stand by my original assessment, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyhighmac
skyhighmac
Posted
Posted
Site still looks crappy. Looks like someone who started html programming.

 

Check out mine http://nguy.ca

Thats flash dude. pcwiz needed a si,ple webiste, one that you can use the back buttons with. Al flash site with all his stuff would be huge. I am suprised by how many people think they are geniuses when they aren't. At least I'll admit I'm not a genius, I'm godd, but not perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks! I have almost perfected the site to work on low resolutions. I will give an update when I am done.

 

EDIT. Done. The Site should look good on pretty much any resolution now. Feedback please.

 

EDIT: The site looks bad on 800x600 and lower. I'm sorry but there is nothing I can do about very low resolutions. Who agrees?

 

I am not going to do anything about the site looking bad in 800x600 or 640x480 because even check out InsanelyMac on those 2 resolutions. It looks hideous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Escape311
Escape311
Posted
Posted

relay: I DO like the site for the animation aspects of it. Very cool work. However, if you're going to offer a "crappy" comment, give details as to why you think it's "crappy". I think it personally looks far beyond somebody that just learned HTML.

 

pcwiz and skyhighmac: I think the site looks fine. Straight to the point and easy to navigate (which is highly important). I wouldn't really stress over lower resolutions. You're not going to make it perfect with everything without writing massive amounts of code and different style sheets for different platforms, resolutions, etc. The vast majority of people that visit the site will more than likely have a resolution of AT LEAST 1024x768. If not, then it's really not a big deal anyways. True it is better to use percentages rather than pixels when dealing with width but if it doesn't work with the design then it doesn't work. Unfortunately, with web design, you'll never please everybody. As an example, I just built this site for the fire district my step brother works for. It all looks fine above 1024x768 and even when you size your window down the text will wrap. But on 2 pages there are flash videos that don't scale down so on very low resolution, they push off the page. Out of the many, many people that have seen it, 2 people complained about the display of it on lower resolution. Again, you can't please everybody. Keep tweaking and it can only get better. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, resolutions are fixed. Now what?

 

I agree with Escape311, you can't please everyone and as you see, half think its bad and half think its good and thats good considering that this is web design we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

I just pulled up some resolutions data from my Analytics account:

 

1.

1280x1024

10,916 27.19%

2.

1024x768

7,031 17.51%

3.

1280x800

6,092 15.17%

4.

1680x1050

4,786 11.92%

5.

1440x900

3,743 9.32%

6.

1920x1200

1,871 4.66%

7.

1600x1200

1,343 3.35%

8.

1400x1050

1,179 2.94%

9.

1152x864

806 2.01%

10.

1280x960

532 1.33%

 

Tells me what resolution and how many people used that resolution. The website works well in all the resolutions that are listed here. It seems that barely anyone has viewed the site in 800x600 or 640x480 so I don't care about that. Besides, to be using 800x600 or lower resolutions you'd have to be using a very tiny monitor which no one uses anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wanted to say something about the votes:

 

Some people vote 0 just to be plain mean. I'm not saying that everyone who voted 0 had this in mind but its a fact on polls. I don't get why people try to ruin in for people who actually want to help.

 

21 people have voted so far and only a few people have given actual reasons and those people are the honest ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Humey
Humey
Posted
Posted

Sorry guys but I have to agree with the majority here. Fair enough skyhighmac you said that it was only "pro-bono" work, but come on everything on there is inline styles, and the styles you have defined dont even have any relevant naming.

 

You've got tags that dont have any content in them and you seem to have had some sort of split personality conflict while writing the code, as I mentioned most of the code is inline but on some you have added font tags after the P tag. Just seems all backward to me.

 

Looking over the source as well its really messy, if someone was charged with building more onto this later they would have abit of a mess on their hands. All designers and coders I have worked with have always indented and seperated their code. This is just way to messy for me.

 

I wont even get started on the design and colour scheme, best left alone.

 

I'm just glad you didn't have to pay for this pcwiz, even at a pro-bono standard, at least put some real effort into it. Especially, skyhighmac, as you are putting your name to it, I'm sure you have this one right at the top of your URL's on your resume.

 

Just a quick edit note, for building and coding in HTML/XHTML CSS, Dreamweaver is pants. I do all my coding in TextMate, it rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cbmkgd
cbmkgd
Posted
Posted

Design-wise, the pure blue links on black background is definitely a bad choice for the eyes; look at the links in the forum for an example of proper choice of link color/hue.

The darkish green headers aren't too nice looking either. I'd test for other colors that suits well with a black/dark background and overall look.

 

As for the quick-link navigation (link lists), right now only the software section needs it; the other sections are too small yet and these quick-link lists don't have much utility, and so they look misused. They can be commented out and reappear when there's at least 1 1/2 to 2 pages worth of content. (unless of course one is on a 800x600 resolution, which I doubt nowadays).

 

The icons near the section titles look tacky too, very 1990-ish.

 

Concerning the state of the code, it is standard Dreamweaver arrangement; it's a question of taste. Although I myself like to hand code and have a clean source, I won't remove points for this.

 

For all these reasons, and some global considerations (stepping back, looking), I'll grade the design (not the content) a 3, since there isn't a 2 1/2. And this isn't mean, it's even generous, whatever interaction i've had with you in the past.

 

Advice: look at the forum design (which i didn't include in the grading): it looks great for a darkish look, and for consistency it would make sense to synchronize the looks with the main site; and if there was a choice, I'd base the synchronization with the forum's look, not the main site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~pcwiz
~pcwiz
Posted
  • Author
Posted

So what do you suggest I change the colors to? If you could give me the color numbers (e.g. #0000), I can very easily change them.

 

And the forum theme is not my own, its a theme from the SMF Forum Mods section by a user named Bloc. I have no clue as to how it is made although I have the source files and images if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...