Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Randal32 on March 27, 2007, 03:32:58 pm
-
I've been using PS and Lightroom's custom web galleries for clients but was wondering what else was out there?
Any thoughts on any other good programs?
-
jalbum is nice
-
At the risk of opening up the old "Flash vs. not-Flash" debate again, I'll throw in my vote for SimpleViewer. (http://www.airtightinteractive.com/simpleviewer/)
-
yeah i like simpleviewer. but for this purpose i want html, so my clients can "grab" pix they want.
However, I love flash for portfolio sites! Mine is... http://www.randalford.com (http://www.randalford.com)
-
yeah i like simpleviewer. but for this purpose i want html, so my clients can "grab" pix they want.
However, I love flash for portfolio sites! Mine is... http://www.randalford.com (http://www.randalford.com)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=109051\")
The text on your site is so faint and small it is almose illegible. The page is not centered within a window. Hate flash. Nice images though. For more web gallery critiques, check out:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13890]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=13890[/url]
-
The text on your site is so faint and small it is almose illegible. The page is not centered within a window. Hate flash. Nice images though. For more web gallery critiques, check out:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=13890 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13890)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yeah i know its hard to read. if your monitor is calibrated it shouldnt be a problem though =)
and why would the page need to be centered? are you a designer?
the site has won multiple awards for design....
-
yeah i know its hard to read. if your monitor is calibrated it shouldnt be a problem though =)
and why would the page need to be centered? are you a designer?
the site has won multiple awards for design....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On my monitor, the text on the "enter" page is completely illegible. I've tried, but I've no idea what you are trying to communicate.
I agree about the images, though.
Jeremy
-
the site has won multiple awards for design....
Well, that just goes to show -- again -- that design and usability go together like a cactus and a balloon.
I loved the first picture in the humans gallery, but the user interface was so lousy that I didn't feel inclined to move on, in spite of the picture quality.
-
Well, that just goes to show -- again -- that design and usability go together like a cactus and a balloon.
I loved the first picture in the humans gallery, but the user interface was so lousy that I didn't feel inclined to move on, in spite of the picture quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Other than the type being too light, what didnt make you inclined to move on? I have art buyers, art directors, and creative directors from agencies all over the country compliment the usability of the site.
-
Other than the type being too light, what didnt make you inclined to move on? I have art buyers, art directors, and creative directors from agencies all over the country compliment the usability of the site.
The controls for selecting the next image in a series, for instance.
Everything is small and fiddly, and the user has to guess what is what.
It's a classic case of bad usability, sorry, regardless of the positive feedback you get.
-
Other than the type being too light, what didnt make you inclined to move on? I have art buyers, art directors, and creative directors from agencies all over the country compliment the usability of the site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point, who cares what anybody except the clients think...
I couldn't read your frontpage on my laptop because the type IS to small for my laptop, but the shots got my attention so I had a look..
Nice shots.
-
The controls for selecting the next image in a series, for instance.
Everything is small and fiddly, and the user has to guess what is what.
It's a classic case of bad usability, sorry, regardless of the positive feedback you get.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some people see "small and fiddly" as "sharp and clean"
I would love to see what you consider a good case of usability and design.... please send along. I'm sure the photography is good and type huge on your windows OS PC.
You can use either the arrows or small boxes to select the next in the series. I dont belittle the intelligence of my clients by putting next and previous
-
Some people see "small and fiddly" as "sharp and clean"
I would love to see what you consider a good case of usability and design.... please send along. I'm sure the photography is good and type huge on your windows OS PC.
You can use either the arrows or small boxes to select the next in the series. I dont belittle the intelligence of my clients by putting next and previous
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The first page type is illegible on my calibrated (6500K) nec 1980sxi lcd display running Safari. It took me a little while to figure out that you needed to wait for the squares to be shaded in before clicking on them. In general it is designed well though, and the pictures are impressive.
Mark
-
The first page type is illegible on my calibrated (6500K) nec 1980sxi lcd display running Safari. It took me a little while to figure out that you needed to wait for the squares to be shaded in before clicking on them. In general it is designed well though, and the pictures are impressive.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I appreciate the feedback... I'll change the type =)
-
I appreciate the feedback... I'll change the type =)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The images are what you are selling & thus the subtlety of the text is essential. The text is just a directional guidence for the images. One does not want the text to be visually conflicting with images, that IS how MY site is & A.D & buyers love it. I wouldn't change a thing, if you really really want to then increase the size of blank boxes for the thumbnail. Bravo!!
-
It works for me. The fonts are quite legible on my Macbook on Safari. The navigation is fast & easy to use. Non-photos are minimal, not trying to clutter the images with graphic disractions. I don't see any problems and I like the clean look.
David
-
Some people see "small and fiddly" as "sharp and clean"
I agree that they might be seen as "sharp and clean", but when it becomes an exercise in manual dexterity to select an image or category, and the user interface is slow because the flash code is inefficient, it's still "fiddly".
I would love to see what you consider a good case of usability and design.... please send along.
Yes, I would love to see good usability and design, too. Unfortunately, it's in short supply.
But please look up the thread that Chris directed you to, it contains a far more thorough discussion about the topic, and it's best not to repeat it here.
I'm sure the photography is good and type huge on your windows OS PC.
What are you getting at with this statement?
You can use either the arrows or small boxes to select the next in the series. I dont belittle the intelligence of my clients by putting next and previous
But what do the little boxes signify? How do I know which image I'll see by clicking one particular box? What is the purpose of many small boxes, if I can't predict what I'm getting?
I'm not arguing that you should type "next" and "previous", the symbolism of right and left arrows are well enough established in user interface design. But the arrows are small, and difficult to hit.
My guess is that the reason you're getting good feedback is because of the quality of your pictures more than the quality of the user interface. People who are dissatisfied move on to other sites. (Well, except when you're soliciting feedback.)
-
My guess is that the reason you're getting good feedback is because of the quality of your pictures more than the quality of the user interface. People who are dissatisfied move on to other sites. (Well, except when you're soliciting feedback.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I must agree with all of Jan's post. I, too, was stopped by the difficult-to-navigate site, so I never really got into the photographs. They may be superb, but I'm not willing to work so hard to get to them.
-
But please look up the thread that Chris directed you to, it contains a far more thorough discussion about the topic, and it's best not to repeat it here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the reference, Jani.
The last post in that thread was two months ago, but it is still getting ~50 hits everyday. Apparently many continue to get some mileage out of it. But these viewers probably are open minded, thick skinned, and don't already have a "perfect" web gallery design.
-
The last post in that thread was two months ago, but it is still getting ~50 hits everyday. Apparently many continue to get some mileage out of it. But these viewers probably are open minded, thick skinned, and don't already have a "perfect" web gallery design.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chris,
That thread is going to be my "bible" when I finally get around to updating my own much-less-than-perfect website. It really covers so many of the important issues so well. Thanks for all your contributions to it!
Eric
-
Randal, your site design works for me.
Feel free to check mine out if you get a chance.
Scott
www.scottdobry.com
-
Ha...Randal's site is excellent. Clean, simple..I'm not sure what you guys are seeing or not seeing here but I can read everything I need to read. I can leave my mouse on the forward arrow and just click it..it doesn't jump around..neato and good work.
The type is a bit pastel and washed but I can read it..this from a guy who's eyes need some contrast to be happy when reading.
Off center? Why should it be centered? Who said anything should be centered? The Church Lady may want everything centered, balanced and in three's, but it looks fine to me.
That old Design vs Usability argument does not apply here. I got through the site with no usability issues...I used the crap out of it and then dumped it for another hotty..so be it.
: )
Edit..Scott...Good work on your site but IMO tooo much Flash play going on..slow fades, stuff moving. I like how the next image number shifts to your mouse point so you don't have to move anything. All in all i think there is to much Flash messin around...give your web guy a spanking.
My rule for looking at portfolio websites is that I want to be as close as possible to the feeling of having my legs kicked up on a desk while flipping through a nice book. If stuff is moving around flashing and fading, im bugged ( I like a fade at a decent tempo but not to slow).
-
and why would the page need to be centered? are you a designer?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most sites benefit from centering, though I think yours get away with it OK.
But I'm viewing it on my compact laptop and was a bit bafffled about the navigation, as it was invisible due to being off the bottom of the page. Which is a bit daft, as site does actually fit quite icely on the screen, but only if scrolled down to get rid of the extra white dead space at top of screen. I like white space, but in this case it screws up the site on smaller monitors and will mean you'll lose some visitors needlessly.
BTW my browser has less clutter and more vertical site height than many people's set ups and my laptop monitor size is not that unusual - 1280x800px.
I like the site, bar the extraneous white space and the pointless enter page [pet hate of mine], but whatever the design someone will always carp.
Oh the pictures are quite nice too.
-
Chris,
That thread is going to be my "bible" when I finally get around to updating my own much-less-than-perfect website. It really covers so many of the important issues so well. Thanks for all your contributions to it!
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, thanks for the kind words. But a "bible"!?!? Gosh.
BTW, do drop by the "Keeping the Culture Alive" exhibit/salon near you. You'll be surprised who you may run into. Wink-wink.
-
BTW, do drop by the "Keeping the Culture Alive" exhibit/salon near you. You'll be surprised who you may run into. Wink-wink.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow! Hey thanks for the heads up, Chris. I wish I had known about Clement's talk earlier (Friday the 13th, in Brookline, Mass., for anybody near Boston that evening). It happens that I already have concert tickets for that evening, but I will definitely get over to see his show.
I guess I need to start checking local listings more often.
-Eric
-
That old Design vs Usability argument does not apply here. I got through the site with no usability issues...I used the crap out of it and then dumped it for another hotty..so be it.
If you think it does, then you've clearly not understood what the old Design vs. Usability argument is about.
I recommend reading some of Jakob Nielsen's work for starters.
Basically, usability isn't a one-size-fits-all thing.
For instance, Slashdot obviously has sufficient usability for most of their target audience, yet it probably isn't ideal for designers.
Happy reading.
-
Jani, I found that site to be very usable. I go through it, enjoyed the work and I thought the design was fine..clean and crisp and It went with the general palette of the guys work. You may be misunderstanding the context of the guy's site.
How much more do I need to understand? His site has an obvious target market..high end advertsing..Why should he even consider any other demographic?
Jacob's work is familiar to me, Jani. I take him with the appropriate grain of salt. He has good practical ideas and observations about functionality, many of which I agree with. However, he is a bit extreme in many ways. IMO of course.
Most of his opinions and writings swirl around sites that are viewed by the greater world..commerce, public resource..on and on. His actual site is a menace to my eyes in some ways and I don't think it's organization is reinforcing all of his beliefs. He could use a good designer : )
I strongly feel that context is very important here. Photo portfolio sites, targeted to potential clients, tend to exist in a somewhat confined world where they need to project a certain image, an understanding of style..Photographers are appealing to designers, art directors, art buyers for work. Those folks look at lot of work and they do develop impressions about artists based on the look of a site...they are also very keen on usability and they hate clumsy sites. I am pretty damn sure that most who look at Randal's site, in his professional world, will have not many problems with his appraoch. Im sure he will tell you this and it's probably accurate.
Randal's site didn't cause me any problems. It was fast and friendly for me, I didn't have to move my mouse at all, once i was inside a gallery...just a click and a new image. I didn't find that the arrows were to small at all and the fact that they stayed in the same place, pictue to picture, was good. What resolution is your monitor set to?
The little series of boxes you mentioned in an earlier post? Those just show you where you are in the gallery..near the beginning or near the end, strictly navigation on a line.
Why aren't there any thumbnails on that site? Well, that is a decision that a person needs to make...Many times, when a photographer is planning a book for snagging clients..he spends much time on the order and rhythm of the images, how and when to introduce spreads...there is a considered rhythm and order to the whole plan. Some photogs like to keep the next page as a surprise, like looking at an actual portfolio, where you don't see whats on the next page until you turn it over. There is merit and virtue in both approaches. There are also many designers in general that appreciate the fact that artist put energy into details of the ordering when presenting their work. So, to thumbnail or not to thumbnail?...I don't think you can argue for or against either one. It's a definite personal and conceptual choice that has much to do with how you want your work, to work.
Im not a fan of flash at all, I prefer HTML. However, if it's working ok and is relatively fast I can deal with it.
-
Thanks for the replies.... interesting topic...
Pete, glad you see what my clients see =)
The thumbs are to show how far you are in the gallery and as a design element. the reason the thumbs dont have pix in them is because it would make it harder and more cumbersome to update the site.
i update my site almost every month in flash and couldnt imagine having to mess with thumbz too...
my site was designed on a mac for mac users... i know it has its pros and cons.
-
my site was designed on a mac for mac users... i know it has its pros and cons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110860\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Much as I dislike Flash in general, and the arrogance of that fanboy BS, I am surprised your site is attracting criticism. It has a distinctive, coherent elegance, and works pretty well IMHO.
John