Since my 1DSIII is in the shop . . .

[dwdallam]

I had to commit my 1DS3 to support again because after I updated the latest firmware, the unit wouldn't turn on. So I have time to catch up on other related things, like redoing a new face for my website. I've been putting it off forever.

So I finally got my website looking like the feel I was always going for but never had the time.  This time I got it right.

Everything is done in CSS and SSI (Server Side Includes), which means I only have to update either a simple txt file or simple css. There are no tables in the entire site (except the contact t page with a form, which I just don't want to bother with). Other than that, it's  extra clean and fast. If you check it out, you can go to the home page page and choose "View Page Source" and you will see how little code there is in the page itself. The image page is different because it has the front end for a full database, which I'm going to update in a couple of months also.

Anyway, I'm happy with this part of it that is now done (Hopefully for a long time)! I use to design web pages and ads and my style was always minimalist (most of the time) with a strong ethic of color coordination, consistency, ease of navigation, fast loading times, and a clean, information oriented interface.

What do you think?

www.dwdallam.com

[Jeremy Roussak]

I had to commit my 1DS3 to support again because after I updated the latest firmware, the unit wouldn't turn on. So I have time to catch up on other related things, like redoing a new face for my website. I've been putting it off forever.

So I finally got my website looking like the feel I was always going for but never had the time.  This time I got it right.

Everything is done in CSS and SSI (Server Side Includes), which means I only have to update either a simple txt file or simple css. There are no tables in the entire site (except the contact t page with a form, which I just don't want to bother with). Other than that, it's  extra clean and fast. If you check it out, you can go to the home page page and choose "View Page Source" and you will see how little code there is in the page itself. The image page is different because it has the front end for a full database, which I'm going to update in a couple of months also.

Anyway, I'm happy with this part of it that is now done (Hopefully for a long time)! I use to design web pages and ads and my style was always minimalist (most of the time) with a strong ethic of color coordination, consistency, ease of navigation, fast loading times, and a clean, information oriented interface.

What do you think?

www.dwdallam.com

First thoughts:

The overall impression is clean and tidy, without gimmicks. That's good. It loads reasonably fast as well.

I think on a smaller screen than I'm using at the moment (such as a laptop screen), the rather large banner at the top of each page would be an irritation. It wastes a lot of space.

It would be nice if you could somehow disable the link which points at the current page (I'm not expressing that very well). So, for example, when you're at the home page, "Home" is no longer active, and a different colour.

The galleries work nicely, and I like the fact that the next/previous buttons stay in the same place when the image size changes, so I'm not tracking them with the mouse. However, the arrow keys don't work (at least they don't on my Mac/Safari combination) - yes, I'm a bore on the subject. I think also you have overdone the copyright symbol: the images are nice to look at, and they're pretty much ruined by the huge c in the middle. I understand your reasons, but there must be a less obtrusive way to protect yourself, surely. You might like to give the files slightly more comprehensible names, if you're going to make the names accessible at all: "2006_07.08_WoodMar079" doesn't mean an awful lot, to me at any rate, and even that name is truncated (with an ellipsis) in the list to the left of the image.

Tiny point: on the last line of the Pricing page, "any time" should be two words (or, I suppose, remove "at").

I'm not overly keen on your home page image, but de gustibus...

IMHO, as ever.

Jeremy

[dwdallam]

First thoughts:

The overall impression is clean and tidy, without gimmicks. That's good. It loads reasonably fast as well.

I think on a smaller screen than I'm using at the moment (such as a laptop screen), the rather large banner at the top of each page would be an irritation. It wastes a lot of space.

It would be nice if you could somehow disable the link which points at the current page (I'm not expressing that very well). So, for example, when you're at the home page, "Home" is no longer active, and a different colour.

The galleries work nicely, and I like the fact that the next/previous buttons stay in the same place when the image size changes, so I'm not tracking them with the mouse. However, the arrow keys don't work (at least they don't on my Mac/Safari combination) - yes, I'm a bore on the subject. I think also you have overdone the copyright symbol: the images are nice to look at, and they're pretty much ruined by the huge c in the middle. I understand your reasons, but there must be a less obtrusive way to protect yourself, surely. You might like to give the files slightly more comprehensible names, if you're going to make the names accessible at all: "2006_07.08_WoodMar079" doesn't mean an awful lot, to me at any rate, and even that name is truncated (with an ellipsis) in the list to the left of the image.

Tiny point: on the last line of the Pricing page, "any time" should be two words (or, I suppose, remove "at").

I'm not overly keen on your home page image, but de gustibus...

IMHO, as ever.

Jeremy

Wow I didn't expect a full reading and analysis, but thanks for sure. "anytime or any time is acceptable now, as it's in all English dictionaries, but you are right that the traditionally the word was two words, a phrase.

Well, the banner is less than 100 pixels tall, so even on a 1280x1024 resolution that's taking up less than 10% of the screen. I did contemplate making it 50 pixels, and now maybe I will do that. But resolutions less than 1024px tall are now rare.

The links you mention where one should be dead when you are at that page is something I always did. However, anymore it's just more coding. Most designers don't bother anymore.

The gallery will be soon replaced, but I'm wondering what arrows you are talking about? Do you mean the browser forward and backward arrows? I have no idea why those would not work, as they work on IE and Firefox using Windows.  I am not seeing anymore arrows though so you got me curious. As far as the watermark (copyright) yeah I know. I've been meaning to do something about it, but I'll probably just blow it off until I update the entire database and front end simultaneously.

The names of the images are categorized by file name. So the naming allows me to know where any file is immediately, by date and then description. It only needs to make sense to me really.


Thanks a lot for the time you took.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Wow I didn't expect a full reading and analysis, but thanks for sure. "anytime or any time is acceptable now, as it's in all English dictionaries, but you are right that the traditionally the word was two words, a phrase.

Well, the banner is less than 100 pixels tall, so even on a 1280x1024 resolution that's taking up less than 10% of the screen. I did contemplate making it 50 pixels, and now maybe I will do that. But resolutions less than 1024px tall are now rare.

The links you mention where one should be dead when you are at that page is something I always did. However, anymore it's just more coding. Most designers don't bother anymore.

The gallery will be soon replaced, but I'm wondering what arrows you are talking about? Do you mean the browser forward and backward arrows? I have no idea why those would not work, as they work on IE and Firefox using Windows.  I am not seeing anymore arrows though so you got me curious. As far as the watermark (copyright) yeah I know. I've been meaning to do something about it, but I'll probably just blow it off until I update the entire database and front end simultaneously.

The names of the images are categorized by file name. So the naming allows me to know where any file is immediately, by date and then description. It only needs to make sense to me really.


Thanks a lot for the time you took.

You're very welcome!

I'm sure you're right that vertical resolutions of less than 1024 are very rare on desktop machines. I'm using mine now, so I can't check what the vertical resolution of my 15" MacBook Pro is, but I'm pretty sure that it's less than 1024 (900, perhaps?).

The arrow keys are the ones on the keyboard: I'm sure I'm not the only person who likes to use them to negotiate galleries.

If the names need to make sense to you only (and I fully agree that that's likely!), why have them visible at all? The names are just clutter and spoil the otherwise clean look of the site.

Jeremy

[dwdallam]

You're very welcome!

I'm sure you're right that vertical resolutions of less than 1024 are very rare on desktop machines. I'm using mine now, so I can't check what the vertical resolution of my 15" MacBook Pro is, but I'm pretty sure that it's less than 1024 (900, perhaps?).

The arrow keys are the ones on the keyboard: I'm sure I'm not the only person who likes to use them to negotiate galleries.

If the names need to make sense to you only (and I fully agree that that's likely!), why have them visible at all? The names are just clutter and spoil the otherwise clean look of the site.

Jeremy

Ahhh I see the arrow keys on the keyboard. I get it. I think resolutions of 1024 are still pretty popular. I did some statistical research for browser stats. If I se the entire site so that it looks acceptable on 1024x768 or 900 height even, then on larger resolutions it will look too small. And so it is with design--one of the reasons I got out of it because it drove me nuts! I figure if someone is on their cell phone or a 15" display and 800x600, well, too bad--lol. They'll just have to scroll around.  

I can turn the names off easily, but for purchases, people need a way to tell me which image they want.

[joedecker]

Really nice, I need a  big overhaul of my site and simplification will be #1 on my agenda as well.

In poking around the site there were only two things that distracted me.  I don't think the header is too large in pixels necessarily, but it does grab the eye and yank it to your name.  This is in some ways a good thing, but it does that in many cases at the expense of letting the eye go to your images, and that's a pity, because you have some really nice work.

The names caught my attention, too, and I hadn't noticed the OP had mentioned it.  My plan for the revamp is to use a four-digit code for the stuff on my site (it's already done that way inside), which is short enough to be memorable if folks call me on the phone or want to grab the number and drop it in a email.  I don't know if that's technically feasible for you, I have a couple custom perl scripts I use to manage the gallery on my site.

And, just for the record, I could probably name 30-40 constructive suggestions I could make to my own site, the emphasis in my comments should be on the "Really nice."

Take care,

--Joe

[mike.online]

one of the better ones out there. i like the low tech look and feel of the galleries. a bit too Halloween for me, but thats personal taste. great site though i like the navigation elements

[dwdallam]

Hey thanks to both of you. I like low tech unless there is a reason for high tech. I agree the banner is loud. I may tone it down  couple of notches. That comes from my design days when I wanted a client's name to stick.

[dwdallam]

Really nice, I need a  big overhaul of my site and simplification will be #1 on my agenda as well.

In poking around the site there were only two things that distracted me.  I don't think the header is too large in pixels necessarily, but it does grab the eye and yank it to your name.  This is in some ways a good thing, but it does that in many cases at the expense of letting the eye go to your images, and that's a pity, because you have some really nice work.

The names caught my attention, too, and I hadn't noticed the OP had mentioned it.  My plan for the revamp is to use a four-digit code for the stuff on my site (it's already done that way inside), which is short enough to be memorable if folks call me on the phone or want to grab the number and drop it in a email.  I don't know if that's technically feasible for you, I have a couple custom perl scripts I use to manage the gallery on my site.

And, just for the record, I could probably name 30-40 constructive suggestions I could make to my own site, the emphasis in my comments should be on the "Really nice."

Take care,

--Joe

Really nice stuff you have done on your site Joe. I aspire to be as good as you.

[budjames]

Sorry, but my first impression is that the woman on your home page is scary. The layout is nice though.

Also, someone told me long ago, only show your very best images. In your case, I think that you can say more with less.

My 2 cents.

Bud

[dwdallam]

Sorry, but my first impression is that the woman on your home page is scary. The layout is nice though.

Also, someone told me long ago, only show your very best images. In your case, I think that you can say more with less.

My 2 cents.

Bud

Yes, the image is not a pretty fashion shot or beautiful, young senior portrait. It's suppose to be somewhat scary and more fine art image rather than pretty portraiture. And you are spot on about showing less, especially in the portrait section. Thanks for reminding me to do that.

[joedecker]

Really nice stuff you have done on your site Joe. I aspire to be as good as you.

That's very kind, thank you.

--Joe

[HickersonJasonC]

My first three thoughts in order before I read any of the other posts here:

1. wow, that banner is huge

2. nice photos, too bad the copyright symbol is so gigantic and obtrusive

3. this feels like a "stock photo" website (i know you are selling the images, but the site just has a "for sale" look)


Also, I agree with Jeremy, common usages of anytime/any time would be:

Prices subject to change at ANY TIME.

and/or

Prices subject to change anytime.

While not necessarily incorrect in the reverse, you'll never see them used that way and it just sounds nicer in two words.



Jason

[GiorgioNiro]

Maybe rethink the NON Profit stuff.

It is generally refered to as Not for Profit.

Less is more, just post your very best photos.

[RobertJ]

I like it.  Nice and simple is always the best way to go.

However, it doesn't pass the W3C standards markup validity test.  Not that it's the end of the world to leave it the way it is, but try fixing your errors: http://validator.w3.org/

[dwdallam]

Thanks for all the comments. No it doesn't pass the WC3. I could care less. All the tags are valid css or html, although some may be in transition. As far as access to disabled people, such as blindness, again, uh, it's a photography site, so I'm probably not going to worry about the blind using it. If it were mostly information about the history of photography, then it would be information well worth making access to it for the blind. Not all of the images have alts, etc., etc., yeah I could care less really.

As far as the people photos go, I will clean out everything but the best, since people don't buy those. On the other hand, sometimes I don't put something up that others find they like more than the ones I post.

Thanks much for the comments.


I got my camera back today. I submitted it to mail, priority, on 4-9 and got it back today 4-21. Not bad, and that was without belonging to the Canon Pro group too.