Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Good and bad web gallery designs  (Read 80636 times)

Nill Toulme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
    • http://www.toulmephoto.com
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #80 on: January 12, 2007, 09:29:37 am »

As long as you guys are handing out free critiques, please have a go at my site.  It's entirely home-brewed, originally designed in Word of all things.  The galleries are generated by BreezeBrowser.  I am just making the transition from compulsive amateur to "pro."

The rotating images on the front page are badly out of date and due for freshening, BTW.  Not my best work, which is of course what they should be.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged

GerardK

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
    • http://www.kingma.nu
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #81 on: January 12, 2007, 11:04:35 am »

Lois,

Thanks very much for the compliment and the links. I'll check them out!


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu
Logged

Chris_T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #82 on: January 12, 2007, 03:39:50 pm »

Quote
- Regarding slow iWed sites.  Elenor's not going to see any major speed benefits due to the underlying architecture of iWeb.  Crazy as it sounds all of the pages (including text) are rendered as images before upload.

O my god! Could I tell this is happening from the source code? I didn'l read that very carefully.

Quote
This is a quick and dirty solution which allows the very free approach to layout and editing that iWeb is so good at.  It's rather lazy to say the least!  There has been quite a bit of pressure on Apple to put it right when the next version of iLife is released.  An alternative and some would say much better tool is RapidWeaver from http://www.realmacsoftware.com/ It's been around for a quite a while so it's developed a loyal following.  It build strict CSS compliant pages.  As befits it's age there are all sorts of useful plug-ins around to aid building a site.

And I have such high regards for Apple.

Quote
Regarding design, the following keywords come to mind.  Effortless, simple, clean, focused.

Now you are talking.

Quote
Large companies have the time and resources to extensively test operability.  Individuals and small companies do not.

Many sites are so blatantly broken (borken links, mispellings, etc.) that I often wonder if these web designers tested them at all. Both the authors I recommended spent much verbage on the need for testing.
Logged

Chris_T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #83 on: January 12, 2007, 03:46:02 pm »

Quote
I think you have avoided most of them. And I love your images, especially the motion ones.

I discussed some of the practical pros and cons in a rather old article here:

http://www.lois.co.uk/web/articles/frames.shtml

which doesn't cover accessibility. You can find out a bit more here:

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#fr...text-equivalent

http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/webframes.html
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lois, thanks for the article on frames. I also enjoy reading the rationales behind your own site's design choices.

So that you don't feel left out, here are some (very subjective and nick picking) comments on your photo site:

[a href=\"http://photos.lois.co.uk/]http://photos.lois.co.uk/[/url]

What I like:

- Simple but elegant: minimal and consistent use of background/font colors

- Very legible: large font size and line spacing. (Am I repeating myself?)

- Speedy loading.

- Great description on each image and excellent comments on links. Wish more people will do it.

- The search options can be useful, but I didn't try it.

Other comments:

- Why is the navigation menu at the bottom of a page instead of the top (where all viewers are now "trained" to find it)? I almost missed it the first time.
.
- Why are the thumbnails displayed in a single vertical column? It means more vertical scrolling, and also leaves a big blank area to the right of the column.

- Once a thumbnail is enlarged, there is no navigation to view the next/previous enlargement.

- On the Portfoliolist page, Harbor Lights' image is missing. I think the text associated with each image on this page will look better if all the lines' starting points are aligned to the right of the image.
Logged

Chris_T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #84 on: January 12, 2007, 03:55:13 pm »

Quote
As long as you guys are handing out free critiques, please have a go at my site.  It's entirely home-brewed, originally designed in Word of all things.  The galleries are generated by BreezeBrowser.  I am just making the transition from compulsive amateur to "pro."

The rotating images on the front page are badly out of date and due for freshening, BTW.  Not my best work, which is of course what they should be.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You asked for it. Here are my comments on your site:

[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net/]http://www.toulme.net/[/url]

- The rotating images are very annoying. Without your warning, I wound not have entered the site.

- Once in a page (sitemap, sports, etc.) all the top level menu buttons (souls, sounds, etc.) are lost. The exception is "order prints". I wonder why. <g>

- In the Sports page (and perhaps other pages as well), I expect the blue colored "soccer", "basketball" etc. to be links. But no, the black text underneath them are the links. Then each of these links opens yet another page with dozens of more links. When I finally get to see some images on a thumbnails page, I have no clue how many images are in this gallery. When I enlarge a thumbnail, I still don't know how many images I will see. (But I begin to realize why there are 50,000 images on your site!)

Here are a couple of suggestions:

- I think using multiple fly-out drop-down menus can improve the navigation. For example, the Sports page will display only the blue text (soccer, basketball, etc.) as menu buttons (NOT links) and NO black text. Clicking on soccer will display a fly-out drop-down menu with a menu option (NOT link) list which is the same black text list under soccer on the existing page (i.e., Atlanta Youth Soccer Association, Woodword Academy, etc.). Clicking on one of these menu options (e.g. Atlanta Youth Soccer Association) will display yet another fly-out drop-down menu which will list more menu options such as fall_2006, spring_2006, etc.) Clicking on one of these (e.g. fall_2006) will display the last fly-out drop-down menu which list the gallery thumbnail pages of each game in fall_2006 as links.

- For those who are not interested in viewing all the images of each game, provide a small gallery of your favorite/best images.

- Add a search function, like Lois'. Your site can use one!

- As I mentioned earlier, gallery size does matter.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2007, 03:57:58 pm by Chris_T »
Logged

peterpix2005

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
    • http://perpublisher.com
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #85 on: January 12, 2007, 04:29:14 pm »

Perhaps some comments on my site, I have to work on the galleries obviously but that's coming.

Peter Randall
http://petererandall.com/
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #86 on: January 12, 2007, 05:19:48 pm »

This will be an odd post, catching up with almost two weeks of not nearly enough time to participate in an interesting thread.

I'll just summarize my responses to a bunch of posts, one post per person I'm responding to (as an arbitrary division).

Gallery examples

Quote
My preference is to display a block of thumbnails and one enlargement, all on one page. This way, the viewers can have a top level view of the gallery (or part of it) and be able to select any thumbnail of his choice, all on one page. I think this is a much better way to navigate a gallery. The following pages are such designs, but they do have their own navigation problems though.

http://www.lezarimages.com/2939OrdwayPk.php
My first reaction was "ow, cluttered!"

This doesn't work very well, and the explanatory notes are only annoying.

Quote
http://www.richardadamsphotography.com/Gal...gland/index.htm
Where are the photographs? All I see is a product site that tries to sell me services, or web links. Not a good site for showing off a photo gallery at all.

Perhaps the link died during the past ten days and I'm redirected to a main page or something, but it doesn't really say; bad usability.

(...)

Design templates/scripts

Quote
Agreed that thumbnail size is a tradeoff. The two sites I referred to both have too many thumbnails on a page. A compromise for such a design is to limit the number of thumbnails to say six or eight in the block on a page, and be able to advance to the next block(s) on a new page for a gallery with lots of images. With a smaller thumbnail block, there is more room to fit a larger enlargement on the same page. Luminous Lanscape chooses the other extreme, in their galleries, there are NO thumbnails.

BTW, does anyone know of a non-Flash template or script that can produce such a page?
I can't say that I do, but by juggling JavaScript/ECMAscript and xmlhttp ("AJAX"), it should be doable.

Maybe that's an excuse for finally learning Ruby.


(...)

Books and web site design

Quote
As a matter of fact, I did try to learn what I can. I started out with many html and css books, and was about to dive in. Thank god I didn't. After reading the following two books, I have a completely different view about site design. It is a heck of lot more than just HOW to code. It is more about WHAT to code! My scrutiny of others' sites are learned from these books, combined with my biased preferences.

Don't Make Me Think by Steve Krug
http://www.managementconsultingnews.com/in...g_interview.php
That book has seen quite a few recommendations.

I'd like to add the following books to your reading list:

Designing Web Usability - the Practice of Simplicity (Jakob Nielsen, 2000)
Homepage Usability - 50 Web Sites Deconstructed (Jakob Nielsen, 2001)

I also suspect that his latest book, Prioritizing Web Usability (2006) is worth a read, but I haven't delved into it myself yet.

As with many others, I tend to prioritize by putting my time ahead of designing the perfect web pages, and allow some basic compromises that make me less than happy.

(...)

User interface consistency

Quote
Consistency is very important. If there is inconsistency, a viewer (like me) would wonder does the inconsistency mean something.
I then must recommend that you read the following article:

The Case Against User Interface Consistency (Jonathan Grudin, 1989)



Brief summary: there is a balance; a little bit of inconsistency may be healthy.

(...)

Colour conversion

Quote
2a. After flattening and before converting to srgb, first convert a 16bit file to 8bit.
That may introduce rounding errors resulting in visible image quality loss, especially when the differences between the colour spaces are large.

While converting in 16-bit mode will still result in rounding errors, they will be less significant than if you do them in 8-bit mode.

Convert to sRGB first, then to 8-bit mode.

(...)

CSS and floating elements

Quote
While I have read up on css, my coding experience is minimal. In your case, have you tried creating several nested blocks (I'm too lazy to read your source code)? That way, you can separate the links, etc. in differenent blocks and position or nest the blocks accordingly. From my reading, controlling the borders within each block or between the blocks seem quite straight forward. But then, I have yet to code such a page.

What I find frustrating is that there are plenty of css tutorials on handling text, but not many on images. I have yet to find one on how to centrally position an image in a css block. Sounds simple though.

It may sound simple, but browser bugs may get in your way here. The chance of success is greater with Opera than any other browser, and lowest with Internet Explorer.

But, in principle, if you add an alignment parameter of center for the object you want centered, it should work. Just keep in mind that it will be centered in relation to the block around it, not the page.


Gallery critique

In brief, I'm most happy with Lois's site.

My own? A mish-mash of different ages of web design and photography, and unfortunately not something I've put a lot of effort into. I like the fact that I've mainly managed to stick to simplicity, but I think I'm too chatty, and that the images I present aren't interesting enough. That's why there are few updates to these images, too.

But since I may want to improve my own web visibility as a photographer and start advertising myself, I'll have to get down and dirty and find my own expression. The web presentation becomes increasingly important, and I'll be damned if I don't nail it.

In some ways, it's a bit annoying that photographers may need to acquire yet another skill set in their profession, that of specialized web design. Then again, it can be compared to composing a decent "real life" gallery exhibition, which also is a job requiring skill and experience.
Logged
Jan

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #87 on: January 12, 2007, 05:23:53 pm »

Quote
A php gallery uses a MySQL database
That in itself has nothing to do with PHP, and there are PHP galleries which don't use MySQL or a relational database at all.

Quote
and its greatest benefit is the ability to include IPTC data, captions and searchable key words (for those of us that sell stock photography).
You don't need PHP+MySQL for that.

Quote
The greatest benefit to a php gallery is that it's dynamic server side programming. Everything is executed on the server and the html is generated on-the-fly.
That is also its greatest downside; everything has to be dynamically executed on the server, unless you add a reverse proxy with caching. That is, unless you have another small web server in front of it, which caches the content generated by PHP.

And why is dynamically executed code bad, except for my repeated warnings against the security issues?

It is resource intensitive. It is far easier and quicker for a web server to provide what we call "static" content, or pre-loaded content.

Quote
No plug-ins, browser extensions or Java is needed. The browser can be Windows, Mac, Unix, or even Blackberry. Pages load as fast as your server can generate them.
And with static content, they load even faster, since the web server doesn't have to generate them.

The downside to static content is, of course, that you have to generate your galleries before presenting them, either through software like Photoshop, Lightroom, diverse "album" software, or on server-side installed software that also generates static content.

Quote
Another benefit is that you can add and delete images and/or folders of images and the php script will change the site as the content changes. This makes gallery generation while working on location a breeze.
As far as I know, Album also offers similar functionality, yet it serves static pages.

I'm still undecided whether I'll go back to rolling my own HTML, use a ready-made product like Gallery, or do something else.


Quote
What do you all think of this portfolio presentation?
I like the presentation, though I don't see why Flash needs to be used here, except for showing a progress bar an "loading photograph". I concur with Chris T's comments on the obvious bugs in the Flash code.

There's a huge downside here, however, and that is that most of your images are over-compressed, showing clear artifacts that detract from the viewing pleasure of otherwise lovely photographs.

To me, you've compromised too much on the important bit: the presentation of your photos. Is the excellent speed worth that price?
Logged
Jan

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #88 on: January 12, 2007, 05:24:41 pm »

Quote
Interesting.. It took me about 2 sec to load the site from where I am.

I experience the same thing with my new site. It takes me about 20 sec to load the site, others tell me it takes 2 sec and no problems..

It seems the choise of hosting service, the location of the server ++ are all important factors ?
The location of the server in relation to you, yes, but not the geographical location as much as the network location.

Your neighbour's computer may be further away on the net than a website 500 km away.

Basically, the perceived "speed" of a web site depends largely on four factors (not in any particular order, but numbered anyway):

1) Available end-to-end network speed and capacity (from your computer to the server and back)
2) Available server speed and capacity
3) Website complexity
4) Available personal computer speed and capacity

You can go insane trying to figure out the problems if you don't know much about computers, networks and programming. Many professionals get confused, mainly from lack of wide experience and/or education.

For the record, the flash site takes 20-25 seconds to load for me. When I'm viewing web pages interactively, that's about four to five times as long as I'm willing to wait.

That labels me as an impatient guy, at least compared to studies around 1999/2000, when people tended to lose interest if a web site took more than 10 seconds to load.

Flash pages would do well to have a quicker initial load time (and thus a very small script size), and perform some fancy background loading tricks. That's basically what AJAX is about; load only the necessary framework to get the web page up quickly, load the content that's not immediately necessary in the background. An example of the latter is Gmail.
Logged
Jan

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #89 on: January 12, 2007, 05:25:20 pm »

Quote
That's what I thought as well!  When I put borders around the different css elements on the page I don't see anything that is pushing the links down further but for some reason they still sink.
Boxes don't only have borders, but they also have padding and margin properties.

If you reduce a margin, the spacing to other elements will be reduced.

If you reduce padding, the spacing to the border will be reduced.


Quote
Anyway, it's working now - it bases the different sizes on browser width of 1240 - above that you get the larger version, below you get the smaller.
What happens if you fail to detect the browser width, for instance if the user has disabled javascript?
Logged
Jan

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #90 on: January 12, 2007, 05:30:37 pm »

Quote
Perhaps some comments on my site, I have to work on the galleries obviously but that's coming.

Peter Randall
http://petererandall.com/
Simple and elegant on the front pages, and still simple and easily loaded on the following pages. Navigation is easy, too.

But it doesn't look very professional today, mostly because it's a run-of-the-mill gallery style. Just a little bit of work with the graphical elements in the galleries, and I think you're there. Is there a way you can include elements from your main page, perhaps?
Logged
Jan

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
    • Shadows Dancing
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #91 on: January 12, 2007, 05:59:55 pm »

Ok, so stay away from flash is the majority opinion.  How about what gamma to use for your images.  

I do all of my work on a Mac G5 out to the Epson 4800 and stay in a gamma of 2.2.  I've built my web site on that gamma but wonder what is the typical gamma on most folks monitors that they will be viewing my site on.

http://www.shadowsdancing.com

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #92 on: January 12, 2007, 06:57:09 pm »

Quote
Ok, so stay away from flash is the majority opinion.  How about what gamma to use for your images.

I do all of my work on a Mac G5 out to the Epson 4800 and stay in a gamma of 2.2.  I've built my web site on that gamma but wonder what is the typical gamma on most folks monitors that they will be viewing my site on.
Typical gamma will be around 2.2 unless it's an ancient Mac, and monitors usually are calibrated for that gamma.

If you want a source for this, try "Real World Color Management", ISBN 0-321-26722-2.

Quote
http://www.shadowsdancing.com
I like your site design. While it's not perfect, it's mostly aesthetically pleasing to my eye, though it is a bit too long vertically; inter-gallery navigation is below the horizon on most displays.

You might want to try adopting Ctein's grayscale wedges to help people along, in case their monitors need adjustment to get a half-decent contrast and brightness.
Logged
Jan

John.Murray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
    • Images by Murray
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2007, 12:09:20 am »

What a fun thread!  Great ideas - great images!

I'm quite taken with jAlbum a nice static site generator with a slick FTP upload utility.  My site is a bit modified from the generated version:

http://imagesbymurray.com

The grayscale ramp is an excellant idea - I put one in the Help and About pages.  I'm also very carefull to make sure keyboard users have a way to navigate the site - something that many Flash components ignore.  Another common and very appropriate feature for a photo site are the "bread crumb" links at the top.

cheers - John
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 12:15:44 am by Joh.Murray »
Logged

Nill Toulme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
    • http://www.toulmephoto.com
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #94 on: January 13, 2007, 12:25:30 am »

Quote
You asked for it. Here are my comments on your site:
...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Chris.  The flyout menus are a great idea.  I will look into that.

The typical visitor to my site is looking for a particular event or group of events, e.g., Woodward basketball games, as opposed to simply poking around to see what's there.  Does looking at it from that standpoint change your opinion at all?

I guess that might be cast as a more general question too — i.e., to what extent should the design and navigation of a site take into account the expectations and intentions of the typical visitor, as opposed to meeting some more general overall ideal?

Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #95 on: January 13, 2007, 08:22:52 am »

Quote
The typical visitor to my site is looking for a particular event or group of events, e.g., Woodward basketball games, as opposed to simply poking around to see what's there.  Does looking at it from that standpoint change your opinion at all?

I guess that might be cast as a more general question too — i.e., to what extent should the design and navigation of a site take into account the expectations and intentions of the typical visitor, as opposed to meeting some more general overall ideal?
The answer is abundantly clear:

It depends.

If you're mainly interested in catering for the typical visitor you describe, and don't care about the others, then you should take care of that visitor. Find a few representative of that group of visitors, and ask them what they think of your site; do they find what they want to find, do they miss anything? Do they find your design aesthetically pleasing? Etc.

If you want to cater for a larger group while still taking care of the special interest groups, that adds a bit of extra work. Unless you can somehow direct the ones who are interested in those particular events directly to those events, you'll need a front page that makes it abundantly clear where you find what. And you should still talk to the different groups.

Perhaps you could include a small search engine (Google works here, too) based on keywords and descriptive text found within your site, perhaps you want to present both a traditional hierarchical navigation as well as an index or (urgh) a site map.

(I generally dislike "site maps" as found on most sites; they're not maps, they don't help in finding deeper links, they're often just a list of the main navigational elements on the front page.)
Logged
Jan

Hendrik

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
    • http://www.hendrik-fotografie.nl
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #96 on: January 13, 2007, 09:16:24 am »

Wow, some have really negative opinions about Flash.  

I agree with the statement that flash used badly is bad, but that’s the case with every other tool you use to create your website. Flash is not always bad.

My own website is in flash, but I think it’s not slow. I’m already working on a new design, because some parts can be improved, but I like the overall look (opinions may differ).  

As with everything, it’s in my opinion wise to make notes on what goal you have with your website. Is it to show your art to the general public? Is it a portfolio for the graphic sector? Is it to attract new customers? Is it to sell products … or whatever. Decisions must be made based on your target audience you have in mind.

For example take this: www.robertcharlesphoto.com Maybe not the best flash-site, but they have something to say and I think they succeeded. For me it creates an intimate atmosphere or mood and it makes me confident that they can capture my family the way I like. Their target is clear: families. If they want to impress the professional art industry, they had to come with something else.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2007, 11:25:42 am »

Very interesting thread. A couple of peripheral notes:

I just googled "dial-up percentage" and there's a report that says dial-up decreased to 44 percent in 2006 -- 56 percent of web users are now on high-speed broadband. That's an eleven percent increase in 2006 alone. In a couple of years, I would say that dial-up won't be worth designing for, especially for photogaphy websites (I would be willling to bet that people who are interested in photography on the web are much more likely that the average user to be on a high-speed connection.)

Literary agents will tell you that the people most worried about sending their story off to NY, where it'll immediately be stolen or plagiarized, are the very people who should be least worried about it...and serious professionals don't worry about that at all. I have the feeling (but I may be wrong) that the same is true with photography. Who knows how many images there are on the web? It's gotta be literally in the billions...and they're mostly low-res. One might get picked up now and again, but I don't think it's a big danger; you're not going to lose major revenue from photo theft at 72dpi  

If I were designing a photo website, I would take a long look at the opening page of either Lightroom or Aperture.

A lot of you guys are very good photographers.

JC
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2007, 01:21:31 pm »

Quote
Wow, some have really negative opinions about Flash.   

I agree with the statement that flash used badly is bad, but that’s the case with every other tool you use to create your website. Flash is not always bad.
Flash in itself may not be intrinsically bad, except for the lack of possible indexing and the requirement of a browser plugin.

Quote
My own website is in flash, but I think it’s not slow. I’m already working on a new design, because some parts can be improved, but I like the overall look (opinions may differ). 
"Voor deze site heeft u Microsoft Internet Explorer versie 5.5 (of hoger) en de Macromedia Flash plugin versie 7 (of hoger) nodig."

You might say that opinions may differ, yes.

For one thing, you don't need Microsoft Internet Explorer to view flash pages.

And if you're designing your web pages for Internet Explorer only, I can see why you need to redesign; IE 7 is not design compatible with IE 6 and previous versions.

Perhaps you should consider following web standards instead, and make exceptions for IE when IE doesn't follow the standards?

Quote
For example take this: www.robertcharlesphoto.com Maybe not the best flash-site, but they have something to say and I think they succeeded. For me it creates an intimate atmosphere or mood and it makes me confident that they can capture my family the way I like. Their target is clear: families. If they want to impress the professional art industry, they had to come with something else.
Let's see; annoying pop-up window, and almost 30 seconds to load (most of it on animations) on my broadband connection, even after I noticed that I could click "skip intro" to get, well, an intro ...

An additional 12-15 seconds to load the "galleries", most of the time spent on animations.

The rest is pretty quick, but there are no images that are above a slightly large thumbnail size that I can see. The thumbnails are so small that you can't see what you're going to look at next.

Perhaps the animations and general design are okay, but the picture presentation is, unfortunately, lousy.

Basically, the designer has fallen into the trap of using Flash because Flash is kewl, d00d! Not because he added features that were necessary, useful or impossible to do with a more basic presentation.

"Has potential, but a lot of work is needed."
Logged
Jan

Chris_T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
Good and bad web gallery designs
« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2007, 02:48:13 pm »

Quote
Perhaps some comments on my site, I have to work on the galleries obviously but that's coming.

Peter Randall
http://petererandall.com/
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here are my comments on your site:

[a href=\"http://petererandall.com]http://petererandall.com[/url]

Almost all the things I like about Lois' site apply to yours as well. In addition, I like your fixed design as opposed to Lois' fluid design. I think for a site dominated by (large) images, a fixed design works better. Also I like the centered active area. Almost every page fits nicely on my 1280x1024 window without the need of scrolling. I like that a lot. I suspect that your design targetted this intentionally, and some thoughts had gone into deciding each page's content and the number of pages. Last but not least, your thumbnails+enlargement layout is what I have in mind.

When I first entered the Isles of Shoals gallery, only the thumbnails are displayed without an enlargement. Perhaps displaying the first thumbnail as an enlargement will be better. After an enlargement is displayed there is no navigation for the next/previous one. BTW, my planned gallery layout is very close to yours. There will be no text at the top, the number of thumbnails is six, and the enlargement size is 300x450 pixels. It will fit nicely in a 1024x768 window (my target) without vertical scrolling. For each enlargement there will be captions, and next/previous navigation. For a gallery with more than six images, there will be navigation to load the additional thumnails. When advancing from one enlargement to another, only the new enlargement will be loaded, but not the thumbnails. (I think I need to use iframe for that, yuck.) All I have to do is figure out how to code this. How was yours done? (No. I won't steal your code.)

I wish your Ghana gallery is done the same way as the Shoals gallery. Then, I can see how you handle a large gallery with the same page layout. I have a plan but have yet to figure out how to code it.

The Ghana page's navigation menu at the top is very different from the other pages'. I suspect that this page is "borrowed" from another source, or done by a different designer. Have a good trip. Wish I'm coming along.

Among all the sites reviewed so far, I like yours the most.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up