Another new design (critique please)
Moderator: General Moderators
If speed is an issue...One armed space goat wrote:yea... that's cuz the guy who I made the site for wanted it to load as fast as possible... I tried to lower the quality as much as possible without sacraficing looks too much. Thanks!
You could save 7k by turning this into text and styling it with CSS.
You could save a bit more by turning click to start into just the lock icon, with CSS styled text.
The rest of the images are justifiable, I think.
The only other thing I'd change offhand is add more left-padding to "The Problem: ... The Solution: ..." paragraphs.
I like the color scheme, easy on the eyes
- Nathaniel
Nice site. I like it!
Just a couple of suggestons.
The vertical text on the left is over optimized. On my monitor I'm seeing pixelation. It's a low res jpg. Turn it into a gif. You can probably get a way with a two color gif. It'll be extremely light weight and look better. I almost always use Gif's when working with simple graphics and color.
I think I'd like to see the gif's at the top roll over to a new color. Yellow might be a nice color. The outlining wasn't quite enough for me.
Cheers
Just a couple of suggestons.
The vertical text on the left is over optimized. On my monitor I'm seeing pixelation. It's a low res jpg. Turn it into a gif. You can probably get a way with a two color gif. It'll be extremely light weight and look better. I almost always use Gif's when working with simple graphics and color.
I think I'd like to see the gif's at the top roll over to a new color. Yellow might be a nice color. The outlining wasn't quite enough for me.
Cheers
- The HTML doesnt validate (Not really a webpage by the definition of html you chose)
- The CSS doesnt validate
- Not WAI compliant
- "Click Here" is extremely bad. (Google for reasons)
- The javascript should be an external file, allowing browsers to cache it, speeding up the page load
- Tables for layout? Could use css instead - save some more bandwidth
- Contact Us and FAQ don't line up - Faq's top line is higher than Contact Us's.
- The CSS doesnt validate
- Not WAI compliant
- "Click Here" is extremely bad. (Google for reasons)
- The javascript should be an external file, allowing browsers to cache it, speeding up the page load
- Tables for layout? Could use css instead - save some more bandwidth
- Contact Us and FAQ don't line up - Faq's top line is higher than Contact Us's.
I like colors, but it does have some errors. Also I think the header logo is way to big. I have never understood why people design such huge logos. I think big header logos are fine for forums and webmail systems where you have many controls that fill a area up with user defined tools. But just a big image that does nothing makes me think that ran out of idea's for real content. Also the images are small in size (bytes) but they still account for nearly 50% of the pages content which is way to much...
But like I said, I do like the colors, a really nice blending effect!
yj
But like I said, I do like the colors, a really nice blending effect!
yj
You should handle contact form via post
http://securityfreeze.us/contactus.php?errors=no
I've changed it to errors=yes and it seems it sent mail
http://securityfreeze.us/contactus.php?errors=no
I've changed it to errors=yes and it seems it sent mail
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
PNG isn't always a lower filesize. It's often higher. You simply need to choose the correct format for the job. In general, JPEG is a lower size for photos whereas PNG is a lower size for graphics such as logos etc with less colors.Hockey wrote:Why not use PNG???The Ninja Space Goat wrote:yea... that's cuz the guy who I made the site for wanted it to load as fast as possible... I tried to lower the quality as much as possible without sacraficing looks too much. Thanks!
Have you used pngcrush much? Most people that think png is "often" higher are used to the (<span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span>-poor) output from Photoshop, which is aimed at quality, not filesize. Photoshop+pngcrush will virtually always result in smaller filesizes than a jpg, unless the jpg quality is stupidly low (60% or less).d11wtq wrote:PNG isn't always a lower filesize. It's often higher. You simply need to choose the correct format for the job. In general, JPEG is a lower size for photos whereas PNG is a lower size for graphics such as logos etc with less colors.
However, your other contention is correct - photos are the most common type of image where a large difference between jpg and png will occur.
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
I haven't used that no. It does make sense what you say thoughRoja wrote:Have you used pngcrush much? Most people that think png is "often" higher are used to the (<span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span>-poor) output from Photoshop, which is aimed at quality, not filesize. Photoshop+pngcrush will virtually always result in smaller filesizes than a jpg, unless the jpg quality is stupidly low (60% or less).d11wtq wrote:PNG isn't always a lower filesize. It's often higher. You simply need to choose the correct format for the job. In general, JPEG is a lower size for photos whereas PNG is a lower size for graphics such as logos etc with less colors.
However, your other contention is correct - photos are the most common type of image where a large difference between jpg and png will occur.
- Bill H
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1136
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 10:16 am
- Location: San Diego CA
- Contact:
Just one note on content: I tend not to trust a site which does not include (or obscures) any names, addesses, or phones numbers for the proprieters. It says "this company exists only on the Internet" which is how scammers operate. I'm not suggesting that you are one, merely offering what the lack of information on your website can connote.