Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The NEW LuLa Look  (Read 9464 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2883


« on: October 09, 2013, 12:17:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to commandeer the physical screen size which messes-up because even when the web browser window is "full-screen", the OS can restrict the browser window to part of the screen to allow for side bars (Mozilla Firefox on Ubuntu).

Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2013, 12:27:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Ditto with Firefox 24 on a Windows PC. The browser doesn't resize the window to fit the screen.  Tried emptying the browser cache with no effect.

However, works fine on my iPad and Safari with iOS 7.02.

Paul
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2013, 01:03:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Ditto with Firefox 24 on a Windows PC. The browser doesn't resize the window to fit the screen.  Tried emptying the browser cache with no effect.

However, works fine on my iPad and Safari with iOS 7.02.

This is the second website I've seen with a "new look" in the last week that has exactly this "issue". However that was just a "proposed" new look and there was a *LOT* of feedback saying that the new design did not work very well on wide screens. Forum screens on LuLa seem to be working as before which is something. Lets hope that the "browser resizing" problems are fixed before the new CSS is applied to forums too.

On a more general note it would seem that websites are being redesigned to suit tablets/phones and people with computers (be they desktop or laptop) are being forgotten about.

Edit: I've attached a screen shot of the front page as it is currently presented in case anyone is wondering what the "grey bars" and "not resizing" problem is all about along with a snapshot of the bottom of the page I'm on showing much fuller use of the screen.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 01:06:37 AM by dreed » Logged
Photo Op
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2013, 01:51:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Let's "see". The previous design had space for three ads along the top. Now there's seven "ads" with space for more along the side. Wonder why they went to this design? Oh ya, visitor readability.
Logged

David
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2013, 01:55:05 AM »
ReplyReply

just sucks

It took me some time after I discovered that there should be a top navigation bar (because there where some pics of the homepage on the home page!).  The top navigation needs javascript even to be visible and this is disabled by me for very good security reasons.
Such a top navigation bar is perfectly possible without javascript.


When I go to the shop (to buy the new c1 tutorial) I just get a blank page with a lula banner on top.
You probably want the customers to allow a extra unknown third party to run javascipt on there computer.


Alain

 
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2013, 02:24:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Much prefer the white on grey. Generally an improvement as far as I can tell.

Jim
Logged
Robert-Peter Westphal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2013, 02:36:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hallo,

I really like the new design as far as I can judge after clicking around for some time.

What I found is that, to my knowledge, is hat a 'back to Lula' button at the shop is missing. You have to use the backspace key to come back to Lula.

Robert
Logged

'visit my completly renewed gallery at http://www.naturfotografie-westphal.com '
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2013, 03:00:25 AM »
ReplyReply

A big improvement. Much easier to read now each line isn't 24 inches wide. Orange+red+gold+LIME+green text looks a bit garish (using Frontpage, eh?), but overall a welcome change.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 03:02:17 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2013, 03:03:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Much easier to read now each line isn't 24 inches wide.
Ever thought of resizing your browser window ?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2013, 03:15:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Well-designed sites don't force one to do so.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2013, 03:15:53 AM »
ReplyReply

White on grey is definitely nicer to read and an improvement.

However the decision to put the advert bar on the LHS is a poor one.
I never see adverts because of the browser I use, so it's just become a big waste of space. The irony is that for a site devoted to photography, where composition is so important, it just looks a terrible design now. At least when the empty space was confined to the top of the page the overall layout remained elegant when no ads were showing.

One step forward, two steps back.
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2013, 03:19:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Much prefer the white on grey. Generally an improvement ...

+1
But would add a suggestion that the layout would have a 'more natural feel' if the ads were on the right hand side.
Logged
pcox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2013, 03:39:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't speak for Kevin and the crew, but restricting the content to a certain width is very common (my own site does this). It ensures readability at any browser size. From a design perspective it's very hard to make a website look well when the content can be pushed and squeezed to fit every conceivable window width. Instead you pick one width that will fit comfortably on even the lowest common screen resolution and stick with that.

I think the new design looks very well and is a great improvement over the old one. Of course there's some time needed to get used to it, especially if you've been reading the site for years and know the old layout intimately.

Good job guys!

Cheers,
Peter
Logged

Peter Cox Photography
Photography Workshops in Ireland
Fine Art Landscape Photographs
www.petercox.ie
ripgriffith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2013, 03:50:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry, but this new website has all the flaws (your pet-peeve, Michael) of a new camera that was designed without  the input of a photographer or, in this case, the viewer.  Not to put too fine a point on it, it sucks!  It doesn't adjust to screen size, it is difficult to navigate and, as was mentioned in other posts, requires javascript, which many of us have disabled for security reasons.  Finally, to be hit in the face with such overwhelmingly aggressive ads makes me want to immediately go somewhere else.  This is very sad for me, because LL was, until today, my go-to website after checking my emails in the morning. Without some rather quick firmware changes, I might  have to find something else to read in the mornings with my coffee. Cry
Logged
caerphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2013, 05:10:28 AM »
ReplyReply

As others have said, the fixed width of articles is a major issue. It's great that it doesn't expand to ridiculous sizes when the browser window is wide, but it's a problem for windows that are less than 1280 pixels wide too. Having a design that scales to narrower widths would also make it work better on iPads etc.

Also, Arial, really? There's much better choices available these days with webfonts. Arial is just ugly and hard to read, and neither it nor Helvetica were designed for use in body text.

I also have issues with the CMS, because there's a lot of inline styling that doesn't need to be there, but this is more of an under-the-hood thing that most people won't even notice. Stuff like:

<span style="font-size: 12pt;">

should not be there. Also, '12pt'? This isn't print, fonts shouldn't be sized in points on web pages. Use pixels, ems or percent sizes.

FWIW I disagree with the complaints about requiring JavaScript to use the menu. It's fine to require it, and practically every site in existence does the same these days. Disabling JS in one's browser is more trouble than it's worth, for dubious security 'benefits' that nobody can seem to provide actual examples of.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 05:31:10 AM by caerphoto » Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2013, 05:19:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Let's "see". The previous design had space for three ads along the top. Now there's seven "ads" with space for more along the side. Wonder why they went to this design? Oh ya, visitor readability.

So now they need 7 ads to support the website as to when it first went ad-based, it was 3. How many years before it is 14?

This is the problem with web sites that depend on ad revenue to survive. Ads are returning less money over time so websites need more of them. Eventually ads and ad placement takes over the website

I'd much prefer to see the website return to selling "Luminous Landscape Journal" videos but maybe it became uneconomical to sell make and sell them?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2013, 05:39:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, Arial, really? There's much better choices available these days with webfonts. Arial is just ugly and hard to read, and neither it nor Helvetica were designed for use in body text.
I don't think that's a big worry. But Michael has a Creative Cloud subscription, so a font from the Typekit service might look better.
Logged

caerphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2013, 07:02:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that's a big worry. But Michael has a Creative Cloud subscription, so a font from the Typekit service might look better.
I disagree. The typography is absolutely fundamental to the experience of reading articles, and to use such a reader-hostile font speaks ill of the site, and furthermore implies, rightly or wrongly, that this aspect wasn't even given any attention, that the designer just used Arial/Helvetica because it's the default.

edit:
Lest I sound overly negative, I do think the background is a significant improvement over the light-grey–on–black.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 07:10:30 AM by caerphoto » Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2013, 07:12:40 AM »
ReplyReply

... and furthermore implies, rightly or wrongly, that this aspect wasn't even given any attention, that the designer just used Arial/Helvetica because it's the default.

And probably the cheapest (from a licensing point of view)
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2013, 07:31:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael has access to TypeKit fonts through his CC subscription, so it may not add any cost. While Arial/Helvetica work perfectly well, it wouldn't take much effort to use something more distinctive.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad