Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: ckimmerle on January 14, 2007, 11:02:03 pm
-
I've spent the past couple of months designing and redesigning my new photo gallery and finally decided on a completely basic design with no Flash, no frames, no splash page, and no javascript. Just plain ol' simple.
I know that in another thread the overwhelming preference was for simplicity, but I am wondering if I went too far. Thoughts?
www.chuckkimmerle.com (http://www.chuckkimmerle.com)
Thanks,
Chuck
-
I like it ;-)
simple, easy to navigate. I especially like that the prev/top/next buttons don't change positions between images which to me is a real put-off with many galleries.
one suggestion: on the index page, add hyperlinks to the gallery token <img> images in addition to the links under the gallery titles. my first impulse was to click on the images rather than the words to enter the gallery.
regards,
Gregory
-
I like it a lot. It has a simple elegance and no annoying flash to get in my way.
I like your landscapes a lot, too.
My one minor druther: Could you show some thumbnails unobtrusively so that it would be easier to get to a particular image? Just my 2 farthings.
-
Chuck,
Plain ol' simple works great with my plain ol' simple mind.
Besides that the photography is superb, the site is easy to navigate and I don't have to guess what to do next and twiddle my thumbs while the photos load.
My vote......two thumbs up!!
Rich
-
Great elegance. I would only change two minor things:
1. try to obfuscate a little your email address (unless you have a very
good anti-spam filter)
2. on the "photographer" page one finds the only piece of blue text in a site that
is entirely built in black and white with a subtle hint of red -- I would change
that to a color more in line with the overall style
-
See this related LL thread for more info on designing web photo galleries:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=13890&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13890&hl=)
-
I know that in another thread the overwhelming preference was for simplicity, but I am wondering if I went too far. Thoughts?
www.chuckkimmerle.com (http://www.chuckkimmerle.com)
Chuck,
First off, I think your work in Gallery 1 (http://www.chuckkimmerle.com/land01.htm) is really great. I love your treatment of those shelter belts.
Here are my comments:- Include a link to the respective gallery on the image thumbnails on your main page. I clicked the image and thought the link was busted.
- On your index page you are using five fonts. That's four too many. Choose one and stick with it, and you'll find your index page looks more unified and better laid out.
- I think the navigation arrows in gallery don't fit the style of your photography. It's a subjective thing, but I think simpler graphic arrows would fit your style better. For another example, look at the arrows in these galleries. (http://www.nick-hermanns-photography.de/) He uses very simple triangles. Neat and discreet.
- You might also want to add a link to each gallery image which takes the browser to the next image or to a print-for-sale info page.
- Link your copyright footer to this page (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html) to help everyone understand what your copyrights are.
Again, great work. Start selling 'em.
-
Chuck: Simple is definitely good. Clean, uncluttered. Other comments have been well made so I won't add anything other than thanks for sharing you work!
Mike.
-
Chuck, I've participated in the other forum thread on website design that someone has referenced in this thread. After a particularly wide-ranging caffeine/adrenaline-fueled rant I was asked, not unjustly, to give an example of a website design I DO like.
I'd nominate yours. I don't think you can be too simple when the object is to present beautiful work in a way that does it, and its author, credit. Other than minor quibbles about the size of the arrows, typefaces, and some of the navigational/link suggestions that others have offered, I can't really think of anything I'd do differently.
Easy to see why you've won awards for your work. Thanks for sharing it here.
-
I wish more websites were like yours. Easy navigation, and the quality of your work speaks for itself so nothing flashy is needed. The only suggestion I'd make is remove gallery 1 2 and 3, and turn the images into thumbnails which take you to the associated galleries. The picture speaks far more about what's in there, and so labelling "gallery 1 2 3" is unnecessary.
-
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all of the ideas, many of which were right on the money, and will be implemented as soon as I get some time.
The funny thing about this whole process is how long I spent designing and redesigning and re-redesigning the navigation arrows. But I agree that they're missing something (quality?) Back to the drawing board for those.
Chuck
-
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all of the ideas, many of which were right on the money, and will be implemented as soon as I get some time.
The funny thing about this whole process is how long I spent designing and redesigning and re-redesigning the navigation arrows. But I agree that they're missing something (quality?) Back to the drawing board for those.
Chuck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For some, a person can never be too rich or too thin. For me, a web site can never be too simple. (How I long for those good old days when Yahoo's site was a simple list of places to visit in the Bay Area, cooked up by two students.)
Having said that, here are a few comments:
A simple and to the point site.
It would be more informative if the Gallery names are something other than 1, 2 and 3.
Very legible text, but I can use a slightly bigger font size and line spacing.
On the Photographer page, replace "return to the main gallery page" with the menu buttons and gallery links on the home page. One less click to get there. Similar comment for the enlargement pages.
I'm still unsettled whether I want to display my web images with or without borders. If I choose to display with borders, I would want the border widths vs image size to be scaled to my matted prints'. Since I like wide borders, that would mean reducing the web image sizes. In your case, the borders are too narrow for my taste. Same size images have different.border widths. At least one image's bottom border is narrower than the side and top borders. I doubt very much that's how you mat your prints.
-
Chuck, I've participated in the other forum thread on website design that someone has referenced in this thread. After a particularly wide-ranging caffeine/adrenaline-fueled rant I was asked, not unjustly, to give an example of a website design I DO like.
I made that request, and didn't mean to be critical about your "rant". Really good web gallery sites are not easy to find. I, for one, would have a hard time coming up with one that I am completely (or almost) satisfied.
So don't cheat, go find a few for us.