Website Design

[Chad D]

Aloha
no please help people just looks suspicious
that is all
so if it is legit sorry

I would tell him not to use this as it is very expensive for a
template
especially hosting fees etc...

I would say STAY AWAY FROM THIS !!!!!!!

lots of free template pages etc...

I am looking to develp a pro photography website.

Mark,
have a look at http://www.photobizonline.com .

--
Chad D
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com

--
Chad D
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com

 

[Joe Farrugia]

What about YOUR Mr. Donaldson?

It might be beautiful, but it takes AGES to load on a relatively fast connection - let alone a dial-up internet connection!! (I quit trying to load it after a few attempts)

And you spent $8k on that??? What a rip-off.

Mr. Donaldson, resarch shows that internet users first look for CONTENT in a website - followed by ease of use & ease of navigation through the site. Your site, tdphoto.com, fails miserably in this department.

CONTENT, Mr. Donaldson, not frills.

It certainly is NOT easy to load.

Hey, you're lucky, you have colleagues who take care to listen to you when designing your site. Go to them again, & make them do a major redesign in terms of programming that allows QUICK ACCESS to your site.

Hope you find my rather harsh comments useful.

Regards from Malta

JF

http://www.jfphotostudio.com
[email protected]

 

[Ron Reznick]

Mark, the only way something like that could be pulled off is if the individual images were simply thumbnailed into pages and linked to files on the web. These would open in a window with the default background and no caption, and a Back-button (or keystroke) would be required to go back to the site. This is the way I set up my photo-site to save time as I have around 500 images up there, but the multiple sections still required time.

A website of this nature usually takes about two hours for structure and style creation assuming no custom graphics have to be created. Creation of custom buttons, graphics, backgrounds, etc. takes additional time. Depending on the page complexity, a single page can be from 0.5 to 1.5 hours (sometimes more with complex type/graphics layouts). Let's say you have 10 pages. What you are looking at is likely to be at least 10-12 hours of work. Depending on the individual page complexity, of course.

Now you have your Flash creation. More time, again depending on complexity.

I charge $75/hour and can accomplish the entire graphics/web creation task. If you create your own Flash component, of course that reduces the time.

Can you see why I could not do this for you? Many other web-designers would be faced with similar time/cost restraints. If you go to someone with less experience who creates for less dollars per hour, it's also likely that you will get lesser-quality results in possibly a lot more time, and the cost would again be higher (or equal to) your budget but in this case with lesser results. You have to decide what the project is worth to you.

If you create the graphics and design, this can save time. If you create the Flash, this can as well. If you supply the designer with all of the components and a solidly thought-out design to implement, you might -- MIGHT -- be able to pull this off as described above for $500.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

It is my impression that loading photos off a high res CD does not
take much time. One hundred photos could be loaded in a couple of
hours.

Flash and graphics of course will take time.

Mark

I think you're underestimating things a bit.

A FAIR web developer who knows what he's doing might only want
$50/hour. So you're saying you want a 111-page,
professional-looking web site designed, WITH a decent interface and
graphics, and WITH a flash-intro that's not lame, and you're
willing to pay a whole day's wages to do it? Wow.

On the other hand, someone could probably build a cookie-cutter
site using pre-built, or slightly modified, Front Page graphics
relatively quickly. Flash is still pushing it, however.

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

 

[Johnny Apertureseed]

Joe,

Before you flame me like this, try reading my post. First of all, I said it was being built, not up yet. Second of all, in its current incarnation, it's geared toward broadband users only, my clients are all broadband users, high-end advertising agencies, design firms, larger magazines and the like. Hardly geared toward dialup users who are quick to fly off the handle.

-Tony

 

[Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.]

Joe .... I found your post confrontational and offensive. After thinking about it ... it is offensive because it offers your negative opinion without explaining your position and suggesting a solution.

I come here to learn ... and at very limited times share what I know. I stand ready to learn from you: share with me your solutions
Warmest Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com

 

[Chad D]

Aloha

well I must say your site in my eyes is screaming of help needed so before you cast stones at those without seeing or reading his post completely and realizing it is not up yet

better to say this is why I do not like it
or something rather than saying it sucks period ???

I have been doing webdev full time now for quite a while it is how I make a living I understand design and info architecture etc...

What about YOUR Mr. Donaldson?

It might be beautiful, but it takes AGES to load on a relatively
fast connection - let alone a dial-up internet connection!! (I quit
trying to load it after a few attempts)

And you spent $8k on that??? What a rip-off.

Mr. Donaldson, resarch shows that internet users first look for
CONTENT in a website - followed by ease of use & ease of navigation
through the site. Your site, tdphoto.com, fails miserably in this
department.

CONTENT, Mr. Donaldson, not frills.

It certainly is NOT easy to load.
Hey, you're lucky, you have colleagues who take care to listen to
you when designing your site. Go to them again, & make them do a
major redesign in terms of programming that allows QUICK ACCESS to
your site.

Hope you find my rather harsh comments useful.

Regards from Malta

JF

http://www.jfphotostudio.com
[email protected]

--
Chad D
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com

 

[Peter Phan]

Tony, even on my DSL connection the load time is uncomfortably long. Plus, on the initial start-up screen the "Welcome" hotspot you click to enter is obscured in the lower right corner of my 17" monitor unless I scroll down to it or remove my nav bars to see it. Not knowing it was down there, I was left sitting there staring at the screen and listening to that goofy music for longer than I wanted to. Once I entered and waited for the Flash graphic to load and fall into place, I clicked into the "personalities" gallery and enlarged a photo to look at. Then, the only way to back out of the enlarged photo for additional viewing of the other images is to click the back button, which takes you back to the "TD Photo Welcome" screen, with a short load time and that annoying music again!!! Then you have to re-enter and wait for the second Flash graphic to fall into place again just to view another image. I stopped there. Very poor site navigation. Tell these guys to fix it because trying to getting around the site gets old fast.

 

[Mike Price]

Before you flame me like this, try reading my post.

I'd hardly call Joe's post a "flame". He actually makes some very valid points that you would do well to consider.

In my opinion, the design of your site gets in the way ogf the message you are trying to get over. Joe's criticsim was very apt - as they say "harsh but fair".

With regard to connection speeds, I'm on broadband. I went to your site, was unimpressed by the slow load of the first intro. I then waited expecting the main site to load until I realised I had to do something to enter the site. Then when the next "Loading" caption came up I decided not to bother.

First of all, I said it was being built, not up yet.

You're post was very confusing on this issue because you stated that your site gets you lots of work. Yet then you state that it's still being developed.

Is the current incarnation getting you lots of work? Would it have been better to leave a previous version up until the new one is finished?

If it is only work in progress why are you holding it up us an example of a good website for the purpose?

 

[Johnny Apertureseed]

Mike,

My current site DOES get me a lot of work. It does load slowly, and it is nothing like what the new version is about. I'm having the site designed BY designers, FOR designers. I do agree that it should be first about the content, though I also know that great content featured in bad design is just as uncompelling. I've seen some of the sites of some people who have made these kinds of comments, and have been quite unimpressed with the form as well as the function of their sites. I notice that you are a programmer/designer, yet no chance to view any of your work via your profile. I'm hoping hersham.net is not your design work.

If you work with highly creative people, so left-brain design and cookie-cutter functionality doesn't work. My site in previous incarnations has won awards for the designers, and clients for me, which seems a pretty good situation. I worked with my designers on the upcoming design to make sure it is about the images, but presented in an enjoyable, compelling way.

-Tony

 

[Johnny Apertureseed]

Peter,

My current site, NOT my new site, which you are commenting on, is not designed for you, a salesman. I checked with my clients, current and future, and they are almost exclusively on Macs using IE 5.x and have monitors larger than 17", with fast broadband connections. Not your average DSL. Most view their browsers full-screen. So if you are on a PC with the default resolution of 800x600, you won't see the navigation. There are also buttons at the lower right for navigation. It is absolutely not designed for the average guy. I agree that the current design isn't where I want it to be, that's why I'm having it redesigned.

-Tony

 

[Mike Price]

I notice that you are a
programmer/designer, yet no chance to view any of your work via
your profile.

Please note myprofile says "website engineer" NOT "designer". When I need fancy graphics, I bring in a graphic designer.

My particular line of work is more about serving data from databases and other programmed pages. If you want to see some of my work (so that you can make some judgement about me - it's only fair! - give you a chance to come up with some constructive criticism) have a look at http://www.esherrfc.org . The main point is that there is a complex database holding fixture data, news stories, membership details etc

I'm hoping hersham.net is not your design work.

So do I!

If you work with highly creative people, so left-brain design and
cookie-cutter functionality doesn't work. My site in previous
incarnations has won awards for the designers, and clients for me,
which seems a pretty good situation. I worked with my designers on
the upcoming design to make sure it is about the images, but
presented in an enjoyable, compelling way.

That's what we all strive for. Good graphics will certainly attract and impress people but slow loading and poor navigation will frustrate, annoy and alienate people. (These are not comments about your particular site)

Mike

 

[angelman]

have to say that the site loads very quickly here. Admittedly I do have a very fast connection, but it looks great. I am sure my connection is similar to those of your clients too.

Maybe a little heavy on the flash but if I didnt know better I would be impressed...

Its clean, simple, nicely laid out..

good effort.

I notice that you are a
programmer/designer, yet no chance to view any of your work via
your profile.

Please note myprofile says "website engineer" NOT "designer". When
I need fancy graphics, I bring in a graphic designer.

My particular line of work is more about serving data from
databases and other programmed pages. If you want to see some of my
work (so that you can make some judgement about me - it's only
fair! - give you a chance to come up with some constructive
criticism) have a look at http://www.esherrfc.org . The main point is that
there is a complex database holding fixture data, news stories,
membership details etc

I'm hoping hersham.net is not your design work.

So do I!

If you work with highly creative people, so left-brain design and
cookie-cutter functionality doesn't work. My site in previous
incarnations has won awards for the designers, and clients for me,
which seems a pretty good situation. I worked with my designers on
the upcoming design to make sure it is about the images, but
presented in an enjoyable, compelling way.

That's what we all strive for. Good graphics will certainly attract
and impress people but slow loading and poor navigation will
frustrate, annoy and alienate people. (These are not comments about
your particular site)

Mike

 

[Johnny Apertureseed]

My particular line of work is more about serving data from
databases and other programmed pages. If you want to see some of my
work (so that you can make some judgement about me - it's only
fair! - give you a chance to come up with some constructive
criticism) have a look at http://www.esherrfc.org . The main point is that
there is a complex database holding fixture data, news stories,
membership details etc

Mike,

Easy to navigate, I love the bee color scheme. I personally love British sites and language. Very good.

That's what we all strive for. Good graphics will certainly attract
and impress people but slow loading and poor navigation will
frustrate, annoy and alienate people. (These are not comments about
your particular site)

Mike

I can't agree more on all these points.

Cheers,

Tony

 

[Johnny Apertureseed]

have to say that the site loads very quickly here. Admittedly I do
have a very fast connection, but it looks great. I am sure my
connection is similar to those of your clients too.

Maybe a little heavy on the flash but if I didnt know better I
would be impressed...

Its clean, simple, nicely laid out..

good effort.

Thanks, Angelman. Like your site as well. The little bits of flash are very cool, design is nice. Showcases the great work well. Another thing I really like - special effects.

Cheers,

Tony

 

[Kel Toookay]

Tony,

I am using a puny little 56k modem, so it took a while to load (as do all graphics intensive sites). But once it came up I was impressed. It's nice to see somebody who actually hired a DESIGNER to do their site instead of doing it themselves like soooo many "pros" on these forums.

I don;t know why people who are photographers feel they can also do the design, spec the type, plan the site, etc.

I just bought a dentist drill on ebay, so I will be doing my own dental work, I just gotta find a big mirror and one of them spit bowls!

I guess it depends on your intended client, they all have different needs. A wedding guy or "grip and grin" photogrpaher doesn't need a site like Tony's. it would be way off the mark.

It's easy for a good designer (client) to spot a home made website. To be considered for high end jobs, you gotta present the whole package, from professionally designed biz cards and letterhead/invoices to website and of course portfolio. Your new site is certainly aimed at the higher end market. It will most likely need some tweeking once you get it all together, but I think it will be great. Good Pictures too!
--

Mike

 

[PatiO]

Hello, Tony:

Rather than have to field all these critisizms (some constructive and some not), I would bring in an experienced xhtml author and let him/her prepare the site to accept viewers with modems as slow as 28mb, viewers with 14" monitors, viewers with AOL browsers and even PC owners. It is no big deal for a web site author who has faced and overcame these obsticals before and there are a ton of them available. All of the critical remarks here about your site, for the most part, are pretty well on the mark. But that isn't to say you cannot overcome them all and have a very nice site that is viewable by all. You never know, there are some pretty big clients even out here in 'fly over country'. Good luck. PatiO.

PS: I would like to come back and see it when it is finished. Give us a heads up here, please. (I couldn't see it before as I am in a 56k-only area.)

 

[Chad D]

Aloha
just a couple thoughts on the criteria to try to match

modems as slow as 28 ? well actually a mid point of around 42 is the norm to build for a low end site

14" monitors hmmmm this was maybe 5 years ago the norm being built for is 17" but actually it is more the resolution you build for most designers now will build for around 1000 width then the next is around 800 width pretty much nobody builds for 640 anymore above this mark some are building out to 1200 but not to many the height doesnt really matter unless you are building certain sites now half of the proper developers are starting to detect your resolution plugins etc... color depth and so on and then direct to a site for that (usually 2 sites) or select the proper style sheet etc.. for the site you have

most build with aol in mind but do not like to actually more and more are not building for Netscape as it handles things so poorly (not going to get into an argument over this one let the stats speak for themselves) so figure that half the designers have abandon building for Nutscrape

even PC owners ??? shouldnt this be even MAC or other owners ??? PC I gather you mean windows users ?? which is around 85 % of the net users so this is the norm

Hello, Tony:
Rather than have to field all these critisizms (some constructive
and some not), I would bring in an experienced xhtml author and let
him/her prepare the site to accept viewers with modems as slow as
28mb, viewers with 14" monitors, viewers with AOL browsers and even
PC owners. It is no big deal for a web site author who has faced
and overcame these obsticals before and there are a ton of them
available. All of the critical remarks here about your site, for
the most part, are pretty well on the mark. But that isn't to say
you cannot overcome them all and have a very nice site that is
viewable by all. You never know, there are some pretty big clients
even out here in 'fly over country'. Good luck. PatiO.

PS: I would like to come back and see it when it is finished.
Give us a heads up here, please. (I couldn't see it before as I am
in a 56k-only area.)

--
Chad D
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com

 

[Johnny Apertureseed]

Honu,

Man, you crack me up. "Nutscrape!". I was a die hard Netscape user till the most recent version, my bank desn't support it and it doesn't support half of the web. I HATE Microsoft's products for the most part, but have grown to know that Exploder is a necessary evil, as my clients use it mostly and it is the most supporting and stable.

New site will be more friendly to the low-end users, but I still have no concern for average home users, as that is not the traffic I care for on my site. If I was building a site to attract average citizens, I'd definitely pay attention to what they look for in a site and what their habits are, they would be my end users. But this isn't the case. I constantly communicate with clients about what they like, what they want, etc. in a site, as more than just a static portfolio. Good design does speak volumes about the respect I have for designers.

I have one client who uses Awful OnLine, but she's the only one, and she's savvy enough to have it set up right to see everything on the web. Any time I talk to potential clients I talk them up about their web habits if I can, casual surveys of what works and what doesn't.

The new site redesign should be done in a couple of weeks. It's gone together fast, and I spend a lot of time online these days keeping up with all the little stuff the designers need via web (ah, without the web there'd be even WORSE traffic here in LA-LA land...).

Anyway, cheers, Honu and all who have commented.

-TD

 

[Chad D]

Aloha
yeah my buddy started calling that when we were building online aps
frigin thing

anyway looking forward to seeing your site

also the point that I make quite often is so many photographers have crappy websites they are artists and the site should project there image ????

and they dont !!!

your site tends to seem to hit the mark with what and who you photograph

there is no site that hits everyone mark no matter what

anyways
later
Chad

Honu,

Man, you crack me up. "Nutscrape!". I was a die hard Netscape user
till the most recent version, my bank desn't support it and it
doesn't support half of the web. I HATE Microsoft's products for
the most part, but have grown to know that Exploder is a necessary
evil, as my clients use it mostly and it is the most supporting and
stable.

New site will be more friendly to the low-end users, but I still
have no concern for average home users, as that is not the traffic
I care for on my site. If I was building a site to attract average
citizens, I'd definitely pay attention to what they look for in a
site and what their habits are, they would be my end users. But
this isn't the case. I constantly communicate with clients about
what they like, what they want, etc. in a site, as more than just a
static portfolio. Good design does speak volumes about the respect
I have for designers.

I have one client who uses Awful OnLine, but she's the only one,
and she's savvy enough to have it set up right to see everything on
the web. Any time I talk to potential clients I talk them up about
their web habits if I can, casual surveys of what works and what
doesn't.

The new site redesign should be done in a couple of weeks. It's
gone together fast, and I spend a lot of time online these days
keeping up with all the little stuff the designers need via web
(ah, without the web there'd be even WORSE traffic here in LA-LA
land...).

Anyway, cheers, Honu and all who have commented.

-TD

--
Chad D
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com

 

[Mike S40523]

I would charge at least $2500 or more for such a site probably closer to $4000. $500 will buy you a 1 or maybe 2 page simple site with no Flash. I charge $125/hr and I have been told my prices are low

There is a lot more work involved than the original poster realizes

A website of this nature usually takes about two hours for
structure and style creation assuming no custom graphics have to be
created. Creation of custom buttons, graphics, backgrounds, etc.
takes additional time. Depending on the page complexity, a single
page can be from 0.5 to 1.5 hours (sometimes more with complex
type/graphics layouts). Let's say you have 10 pages. What you are
looking at is likely to be at least 10-12 hours of work. Depending
on the individual page complexity, of course.

Now you have your Flash creation. More time, again depending on
complexity.

I charge $75/hour and can accomplish the entire graphics/web
creation task. If you create your own Flash component, of course
that reduces the time.

Can you see why I could not do this for you? Many other
web-designers would be faced with similar time/cost restraints. If
you go to someone with less experience who creates for less dollars
per hour, it's also likely that you will get lesser-quality results
in possibly a lot more time, and the cost would again be higher (or
equal to) your budget but in this case with lesser results. You
have to decide what the project is worth to you.

If you create the graphics and design, this can save time. If you
create the Flash, this can as well. If you supply the designer with
all of the components and a solidly thought-out design to
implement, you might -- MIGHT -- be able to pull this off as
described above for $500.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

It is my impression that loading photos off a high res CD does not
take much time. One hundred photos could be loaded in a couple of
hours.

Flash and graphics of course will take time.

Mark

I think you're underestimating things a bit.

A FAIR web developer who knows what he's doing might only want
$50/hour. So you're saying you want a 111-page,
professional-looking web site designed, WITH a decent interface and
graphics, and WITH a flash-intro that's not lame, and you're
willing to pay a whole day's wages to do it? Wow.

On the other hand, someone could probably build a cookie-cutter
site using pre-built, or slightly modified, Front Page graphics
relatively quickly. Flash is still pushing it, however.

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

--
Michael Stone
http://www.pbase.com/mbstone
C2100
There are no strangers. Only friends we haven't met.