Page 1 of 2
Another new design (critique please)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:44 pm
by Luke
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:24 pm
by dallasx
I personally think it looks good.
The only thing I notice with the graphics are that they have that low quality jpg blotch.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:22 pm
by Luke
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!
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:11 pm
by Nathaniel
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!
If speed is an issue...
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

The buy page is excellent. The 1 - 2 - 3 step breadcrumbs are a nice touch. I might change the "select state" box to have a grey background and the same width as the text boxes, though.
- Nathaniel
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:39 pm
by neophyte
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

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:36 pm
by Roja
- 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.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:37 am
by yum-jelly
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
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:01 pm
by Luke
Thanks for all the advice.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:20 pm
by wtf
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
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:30 pm
by Luke
Oh thank you...
It didn't send the email though.
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:28 pm
by alex.barylski
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!
Why not use PNG???
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:33 pm
by Chris Corbyn
Hockey wrote: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!
Why not use PNG???
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.
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:30 pm
by Roja
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.
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).
However, your other contention is correct - photos are the most common type of image where a large difference between jpg and png will occur.
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:45 am
by Chris Corbyn
Roja wrote: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.
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).
However, your other contention is correct - photos are the most common type of image where a large difference between jpg and png will occur.
I haven't used that no. It does make sense what you say though

I haven't checked whether or not that's the same with GIMP or not, which is the graphics application I use primarily.
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:28 am
by Bill H
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.