Review please

Just after some feed back for a site I'm working on. Currently its just the first page that done but im working on the others.

Whats your thoughs giuys?

link:http://www.griffinwebdesign.co.uk/feelgood

Looking good so far, there a few erros you might want to sort.

It was VERY slow to load, not sure if this happens to everyone or not.


I think a few people might not like your navigation, but i like it, it's different than the usual hover affects. When you do more pages think of someway to highlight the current page, perhaps with an blue underline to math your colour scheme?

Your home page is a bit text heavy, i would cut down and only have really important items on there, or maybe a read more link to reduce some of the text.

overall there are a few things missing, but a good site

__________________

Hi Craig, cheers for the feedback. It should load pretty quick the only thing that mite slow it up is the google map but not by much. I'll have a look at reducing then text.

"overall there are a few things missing" could you elaborate on that a bit so I can put them in.

Cheers

You're favicon tag needs ommiting

Code: Select all

<link rel="shortcut icon" href="lib/i/favicon.ico">

Should be

Code: Select all

<link rel="shortcut icon" href="lib/i/favicon.ico" />

And i'm not so keen on the way the other links practically disapear when you mouse over the nav.

Other than that i like it and i do agree it's too much text for the first page.

First pages should always be quick and snappy to grab attention... loading time was fine for me (my browser timed it at 2.873 seconds).

I really like the accesibilty bit though... i think i may one day steal that idea

P.S i've seen your portfolio dozens of times... lol... it's just one of those sites i'm accidently stumbling across... so congrats on that lol

Did not see the accesability bit, love that if I'm not mistaken that's a bit of mootools magic

When i said i few things missing i actually meant the opposite of that, a few too many things

I don't think the contact section at the bottom needs to be there, giving that it's own page will reduce the load of the home page, and make it look clearer and cleaner though, i would keep the blue of the footer though, it's a good contrast to the black.

Trim down the homepage though and you've got a really good site there IMO

__________________

Bocaj: cheers bud I have changed the favicon bit. Feel to use the accessibilty tab if you want I got idea from http://woork.blogspot.com/2008/03/sl...otools_05.html and modified it.

unitedcraig: yep that would be mootools, thanks for clearing your post up for me al see what i can do.

Overall, the website looks very appealing, but there are a few things I would definately look into.

I like the menu, but as soon as you rollover the text, I am instantly put off when the other links disappear, this is just a personal preference so don't hold me on this, if most people like it, then who are you to listen to my opinion :P

Again as said before, took a while for the page to load for me, try making the images smaller or saving the images as gif's.

But overall you have a very appealing website.

__________________

What would saving as gifs other than increasing the file size achieve?

gifs are used for uncomplicated graphics with a limited number of colours, jpegs are used for images/photos.

Gifs don't increase file sizes, the decrease them, compared to Jpg's they do, well something needs to change then, because the load time is just to much.

Like me, if a visitor has to wait to long, they move on and find another website.

__________________

Sorry but your wrong there bud, if the picture is complicated ie a photo you would take with a camera then a optimised jpeg is going to be smaller than a gif and be of better quality.

Go check it out in photoshop then reply back.

There are other formats, png is a good one for the web... gifs are only good up to 256 colours, and with complex images the quality isn't worth the file size.

While jpg can be good for complex images (i.e photo's) png seems to be a good in between.

Other than photo's on the web, i never use jpg.

If your using CS3 theres an option under file 'save for web' that allows you to do a good comparison.

Anything prior to CS3 then it's in image ready.

I think the main problem with loading time is most probably the google map at the bottom (google maps is/has always been dead slow on my pc, wether that occurs with most people idk).

Bocaj yeah I use CS3, you should only use jpeg not png as support for this isn't across all browsers ie IE6 (still a large market share). You can use hacks but jpeg is better anyway for photos.

Trust me on this one

That's only if the png's are using alpha transparency... if your not using it you don't need the hack, they work on IE6 fine, it's just the alpha transparency that isn't supported correctly.

OMG can someone else please come in and tell these guys that jpg is better for photos than png or gifs.
Bocaj please just trust me on this one!

I never said that png was better for photo's...

yes but we were talking about photos then you came in read the whole post

I think we've got our wired crossed... no one ever mentioned the photo's, the way i understood it people were talking about images, this includes graphics as well.

Images not photo's

See here

It includes a good breakdown of different images with different formats in the comparison chart at the bottom

You can clearly see where it's apropriate to use different formats for different images.

Your photo's should remain jpg, however your header may be of a smaller file size when converted to png

the "images " in question are photos plus the main header and in both instances jpeg is the best format to use if you use pgn-8 or png-24 for file size reason which is what we have been taking about throughout.

Bocaj its ok to be wrong I won't hold it against you.

I loaded your header into photoshop set it as png, optimised the settings and hey presto... a smaller file size.

You're really quite arrogant ¬.¬

I have the original psd and did the same and hey presto... a smaller file size

You're really quite arrogant. Your 17 and I doubt working professionally in this industry so when someone is trying to help don't call them arrogant!