Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Site Design  (Read 18290 times)
dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2006, 02:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The new look works very well on my screen, but ...

... it is now very hard to print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the site is dynamically generated (I believe the nav bar at least is added dynamically), it shouldn't be too hard to put a "printable version" link on article pages that leaves off the nav bar.

- DL
Logged

ArthurMarshall
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2006, 08:20:39 PM »
ReplyReply

LL is a wonderful resource, however it is presented.

I have to admit, I don't like the new side bar, both because of the colour and the use of screen real estate.  The colour is probably the bigger issue (like a distracting highlight, I can't take my eye off it).  Maybe this is only because it's new.

My 2 cents.  Love the site in any case.

Arthur
Logged

Arthur
Dave Millier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 20, 2006, 02:23:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi All

I thought I might add my thoughts about the new design.

First of all I'm a professional web developer so it's part of my job to keep with the latest  thinking on design/usability/accessibility (not that that necessarily makes me any kind of expert).

I'm not going to comment too much on the visual design as to a certain extent that is a matter of taste. The LL visual design has never been much to my taste but plenty of others seem to like it; half a dozen of one and 6 of the other.

However, whatever your taste in design, the new site (and probably the old) breaks a number of well supported usability principles. These are not matters of taste, rather they are principles drawn up from thousands of hours of testing with real people in real world scenarios by experts. I've done a fair amount of testing myself with my intranet and internet sites and have seen nothing to dispute these principles: employ them intelligently and people can understand and use your site easily; break them and there are usually difficulties.

Home page

1. When you land on a home page, you need to be able to orientate yourself instantly.

- That usually means a horizontal banner that holds the site name, perhaps  
supported by an explanatory sentence or two.

- This needs to be at the top of every page. Hiding the logo/title on the side bar doesn't work.  

- The welcome message is below the fold of the page on my 21inch monitor. This is design disaster

2. Navigation/search

-Horizontal menu for primary navigation supported by a sidebar for secondary navigation. This is now a de facto standard. It can be broken of course, but generally unless there is a compelling reason to do so, using a different scheme worsens findability.      

- Having a search box rather than a search link on every page is a huge usability improvement. But it would be better at the top right of the horizontal banner. It's a ded facto standard and where 98% of people expect to find it. You can put it elsewhere but it is reduces usability.
 
3. Readability

- The text is far too wide.  People are most comfortable with text that is about 12 words or so wide.  Very wide text is tiring to read and it is difficult to find your place again after you turn away for a gulp of tea. On my screen the test can be 30 words across - far too wide.

- Dark text on a light background is easier to read - there are years of usability test data to support this.

- Centre justification - fine for restaurant menus and posters but not for web pages.

4. Advertising

Obviously you need to advertise the video journal. But putting it in a box at the top of the page is a problem. Experienced surfers simply mentally blank out anything that has the appearance of a banner ad. It is better to make a feature of it using styling that doesn't look like a commercial banner ad.

One could go on (with more or less any site actually) but I'll stop now. All site design is a compromise but there are good practice guidelines gleaned from hard experience that you break at your peril.

Hopefully some food for thought...

Regards

Dave
Logged

My website and photo galleries: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #63 on: November 20, 2006, 03:54:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the site is dynamically generated (I believe the nav bar at least is added dynamically), it shouldn't be too hard to put a "printable version" link on article pages that leaves off the nav bar.

- DL
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Using CSS you can have a print version that is called up when printing, which bins all the non relevent stuff, so no need for a link to Printable version.
Whoever did this site is not too hot on how to best implement CSS it seems.
Avisit to the Zen Garden is in order!  
[a href=\"http://www.csszengarden.com/]http://www.csszengarden.com/[/url]
The home page is there for others to make alternative versions of that page and content, just by using CSS. Some very, very impressive design to be found there and the book [of the site] should be in every web designers library.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
drm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 20, 2006, 10:42:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Using CSS you can have a print version that is called up when printing, which bins all the non relevent stuff, so no need for a link to Printable version.

Actually, if you just set "media: screen" on the main stylesheet, it will ignore it for print, and quite possibly print out something relatively palatable. If you're lucky.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
dandill
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2006, 07:51:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
2 - A side bar that goes up when i scroll down is of no use when i get down to the half of the page.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also, the left side bar permanently reduces available screen space, whether the navigation is visible or not.

If the menus could be placed along the top, then site *content* could utuilize the full screen width. In my opinion, that would be better use of screen real estate.

Anyow, as always, thanks so much for LL.

Dan
Logged

Dan Dill
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2006, 08:07:40 AM »
ReplyReply

We're considering various page layout options. Stay tuned.

Michael
Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2006, 09:02:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We're considering various page layout options. Stay tuned.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that is welcome news to some of us. I also Like Miller's analysis. As a professional he can comment on what works for many not just what we, as individuals, prefer.

One of the main considerations is that I believe most of us come here for content; that is, not because we expect a glitzy 'sell' on something. The ideas are what is persuasive. That said, it is also a site with mis of text and image, so some of the 'dark on white' comments may not fully apply.

I for one found the older (very similar) version restful for my 63 (soon 64!) year old eyes. The dark background really improves images and allows the 'updates' etc to stand out. Thegreen bar really jars now.

In the end, I suggest it is the usabilityy features as much as aesthetic that drive our preferences here.

Anyway, as usually, Michael, you have taken a deliberate and thoughtful approach, rather than rushing anything. The same likely holds for considering these comments, except

you WILL be giving more weight to the 'mature' resoponses, yes?  

regards
Victor
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 09:03:53 AM by vgogolak » Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2006, 10:19:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the end, I suggest it is the usabilityy features as much as aesthetic that drive our preferences here.

Anyway, as usually, Michael, you have taken a deliberate and thoughtful approach, rather than rushing anything. The same likely holds for considering these comments, except

you WILL be giving more weight to the 'mature' resoponses, yes?  

regards
Victor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I, too, found Dave Millier's analysis right on the mark. So add another 'mature' vote (67 year-old eyes.)

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2006, 12:58:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also, the left side bar permanently reduces available screen space, whether the navigation is visible or not.

If the menus could be placed along the top, then site *content* could utuilize the full screen width. In my opinion, that would be better use of screen real estate.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For text pages there's usually excess width available anyway. On my site I just suppress the left nav bar in image galleries where you've got better use of the space, but leave the menus there otherwise.

- DL
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2006, 06:40:42 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, without wading through 4 pages, at first it didn't fit my work monitor and now it does
Logged
dtrayers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 23, 2006, 11:06:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Many of the pages now fit on my 1600x1200 monitor, but some still require horizontal scrolling.  Two examples:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/matting.shtml

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml
Logged

- Dave
Mark Guertin
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



« Reply #72 on: November 23, 2006, 11:11:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Many of the pages now fit on my 1600x1200 monitor, but some still require horizontal scrolling.  Two examples:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/matting.shtml

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Curious.  What browser are you using for this (on what OS) ... and did you set any of your OS or browser display options to "large" or anything along those lines?
Logged
dtrayers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2006, 08:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Curious.  What browser are you using for this (on what OS) ... and did you set any of your OS or browser display options to "large" or anything along those lines?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

IE7 with WinXP.  All normal settings.  Most pages are ok, but these are two examples.
Logged

- Dave
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2006, 07:10:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Those two pages work just fine with Opera on my 1600x1200 screen (using XP pro.) I suspect IE is the culprit (as usual.) I keep several browsers on my system and use them as needed. My preferences are, in order: Opera 8.54 (waiting for version 9.10 to get the bugs out), Firefox 2.0, Netscape 8.1; and (for the most wilfully misbehaving websites) IE 6 (I'll wait for more bugs to be out of 7 before I subject my system to it.)

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Sarouk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #75 on: November 28, 2006, 09:05:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I have (and use) different systems and some of older ones have resolution at 800x600 and I have to scroll the page horizontally to read the articles. Which make the site 'painful' to use on them.

Also I am a web designer and I make sure my designs display without horiz. scrolling for 800x600 because too many peoples are still using that size. Peoples have told me that they avoid sites that 'force' them to scroll horizontally.

Another thing is when I print an article, in this case 'Understanding Polarizers' article the right part is cut-off so I cannot even read the printed version. To have a readable version I had to save the whole page on my system, load it in Dreamweaver and fix it so that it print correctly. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it all the time.

I'm using Firefox on Window 2000/XP. Opera print it properly. However I uses Firefox almost exclusively. Opera is installed only on a test machine (800x600 res.)
« Last Edit: November 28, 2006, 09:07:17 AM by Sarouk » Logged
Forsh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 18, 2006, 03:53:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow, I almost thought that I came to the wrong site. I like the toolbar on the left.  
Logged

Futenma Shrine My HDR Photography from Okinawa Japan.  | okinawa japan Other from Okinawa Japan. So what do you do? You don't want create a scene as they can call upon their members beating you down with their home made reflectors in nanoseconds, and creating an international incident over a pix of the rare Zebra butterfly is probably not a great idea.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad