ryanfait.com/portfolio/

I took all of your advice about my portfolio page and here's the result. I stepped back to using Ajax again, but this means that there is no scrolling necessary (unless you're on a PDA or something). I've only tested in Safari, Firefox, Camino, Mozilla, Omniweb and Opera (which the JS is broken in). I shrunk the screenshot so it's not overlapping into the red and move the thumbnails to the right.

I'm still on vacation so I haven't had a chance to test it out on a PC. I'm being rather brave by sticking it up on the internet with not only the possibility that the CSS might be broken, but also the JavaScript.

My main objective with this post is to receive suggestions and critiques, but for those of you using IE 5.5 or above, I would be delighted if you could slip in and tell me if it looks normal and if it works or not.

sorry mate, but that is even more screwed up in IE7 than it was before - 2 pages this time -

__________________
My Recipe forum...don't click here

Hm. Which pages? I couldn't press you for a screenshot, could I? I do appologize if you got any undefined alerts; I was trying to sort out a problem in Opera.

I'm baffled as to why it's not working in Opera. I opened up a JavaScript thread about it if anyone cares to help.

JavaScript problem in Opera

I just added a PHP function that hides the JavaScript from IE browsers. To bypass it and load the right JS script, use this address:

http://ryanfait.com/portfolio/?bypass=true

see attachments

__________________
My Recipe forum...don't click here

How odd. I do thank you for taking the time to upload a screenshot.

I'm working on fixing it now.

no probs

__________________
My Recipe forum...don't click here

I'd give it 3/10 for design.

Yeah, I'm definitely geared more towards minimal that you are, but I would love some critiques, suggestions or comments.

yes. you're a great coder. your design is simple. and your site makes an initial impact i feel. but that doesn't last too long. i think it needs more contemporary effect. attention to detail is key. just keep playing around, and adding things. give the to, for instance a shadow effect like on www.timothy-clark.com/mag. Put glossy effects on buttons etc.

I think that's what it needs. The colours red and black are OK together, but think about what kind of message that gets across. it's quite a 'dungeoney' combination. It maybe needs more white. red, white and black always works, like Flash's own colour scheme. you've split the screen into two sides. i don't like it.

yes. you're a great coder. your design is simple. and your site makes an initial impact i feel. but that impact doesn't last too long. i think it needs more contemporary effects. attention to detail is key. just keep playing around, and adding things. give the top, for instance a shadow effect like on www.timothy-clark.com/mag. Put glossy effects on buttons etc.

I think that's what it needs. The colours red and black are OK together, but think about what kind of message that gets across. it's quite a 'dungeoney' combination. It maybe needs more white. red, white and black always works, like Flash's own colour scheme. you've split the screen into two sides. i don't like it.

Yep. We have different tastes alright. I would no sooner put glossy buttons on my site than stick a nice large ad for a triple X website over the top of my header. I'm a minimalist from top to bottom, from websites to home furnishings. My site is solely to advertise my business as a web design company, so I don't want my visitors to be distracted by 30 pages of random material that, in all likelihood, they're not going to be interested in, nor do I want an abundance of unnecessary graphics, bevels and drop shadows. I take the phrase "less is more" to heart. My site shows that I'm one-man company; it subtly assures visitors that I'm not hampered by typicality or pedestrian corporate imagination.

but i don't believe your site gives any impression that it's related to web design. imagine that the text was gobble-dee-gook. What would most people assume your site is purely on the basis of its appearance? My guess is that it would be anything but visually attractive design. The biggest quarm is the colour scheme, definitely.

Minimalism? Fine. But something too minimal simply shows lack of effort and little involvement or consideration about aesthetics, and that you don't appreciate or enjoy engaging in the subtleties and nuances of web design. Two sides - one red, one pure black.

You really should go with white and red. Your combination of colours is evil, devilly and not relevant at all. Even the text symbolises this. Things that spring to mind:

Nazis
Death
Goths

I know my site is dark too, and I've been accused of it being a bit gothicky. But I counteract that with vibrant colours and glassy effects, giving the look I desire, and making something 'good' something 'cool'. You must start to think about all these factors and layers. You are clever enough, but you need to develop a more artistic mindset that considers the visitors' response to your choices. What do certain colours signify? etc. I'm trying to help, like you helped me so kindly and well.

Take out all the content on your site and have someone try to guess what it's for. Content defines a site, not the design. A design is a tool there to assist the content.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Aesthetics means beauty. I think my site is killer, so I've done my job with aesthetics from my point of view. We have different senses of style, yes, but don't tell me I have little consideration for beauty.

By disregarding the details on my site, I might as well say this about your site: A single box of white with gray around it.

What colors are 'relevant' to web design, exactly?

In addition, red means love, passion, life and sexuality while black also means enigma, power and independence. Every color has positive and negative connotations. It's up to the visitor to decide what they see, and I can honestly say I'm not at all worried about someone associating my site to the Nazi party.

Bingo! That's exactly what I've done!

I agree, that's why I'm so interested in your comments. It's the first of it's kind about my site, both on these forums and off.

Of course, if you took everything out it would be a blank canvas about nothing. You must situate the content within the right context. That what these design programs give you the opportunity to do. And I'm saying you've created a bad/distasteful context, which inevitably lets the content (what it is) down. Do you think Apple would have their current success if their computers were ugly and their site looked like a submission directory? Your (and my) content is all over the web, in bucket loads. Thus, it's your primary goal to create an exciting new twist that stands out from the crowd.


I didn't. Aesthetics doesn't have to have anything to do with beauty at all. The two are completely different. Aesthetics simply means to do with the eye - things that can be seen. Beauty is a whole other debate, which usually results in the old adage, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". It's an intangible concept.



Great isn't it. Really makes visitors click on the design services.

Rather worrying. There are no colours that signify web design. You are right about the variety of connotations each colour has. What I'm criticising is the combination. The combination of red and black, in such a visually strong way, connotes ideas of what I mentioned. Of course, largely, we don't have a choice about how we respond to colour's meanings. It's embedded within our psyches. And so you have to think about what the majority of people would assume or feel in order to create a successful interface which delivers the right response.


I remember when I had my first interrogation by someone about my site. I took it a lot worse than you have. But inevitably it led me to improve my site and my company, and became invaluable. I'm not throwing unthoughtful insults at you here. I hope to see your site take the same developments as mine has through the months, even though, as you make me consider, I still have a lot to do. The main difference between us at the moment is that I can give concise, valid reasons for every aspect of my web site, because of the amount and breadth of my consideration of it. I don't feel you can do the same yet. And so I'm trying to broaden your concept of of what you create.

Two more points:

1/. What you'll find is that how impressionable you are, and how much critics' opinions affect you, will decrease the more you work on your site. Hopefully, my comments will make you change things, evolve it into what you really want. Remember, we all have our own opinions, and so eventually you must settle on what you like. Critics' opinions do not change my site much now, because I am confident in it, and have developed it into a secure design that I am secure with, and continually receives high praise.

2/. I think we should collaborate. Would you like to? Are you available? You code, I'll design.

i would allow the user to click on the thumbnail of the site and be brought to the web page listed in your portfolio so the user doesn't just have to look at a small low res image to judge your design skills. just my two cents

As the basic thesis of your first comment in the last post, I feel that I achieved that to no end. I'm confident in my

Straight out of the New Oxford American dictionary:

adjective
1. concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty
2. giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance

That's why I chose the two. It's such a bold combination that I have long felt they produce these connotations: luxury, power and confidence.

I know.

Oh I can. And what's more, I can do so consciously. My consideration spans through the 15 designs I had in mind for this site and the nearly 90 logos I drafted; my consideration flowed into the many individually kerned letters found in the designs; and my consideration draws from the exhaustion of a thousand possibilities and instances on my website in seek of perfection. Don't kid yourself, I know every last corner on my website and why it's there.

Which brings me back to the point. I'm here to extend that perfection. I love receiving advice, and I always mull it over, weighing the pros and cons of the suggestions.

What you want and what I want are two entirely different things. By now, you've obviously perceived that glassy buttons and aqua effects are not what I want, and the color combination I've used is.

I've remade my portfolio page twice solely because of opinions expressed on this site, but only because I saw reason in them. However, I'm afraid there is little that can dissuade my use of black and red or my desire for a half and half layout.

PM me if you want to hire me, but I like designing as much as coding. I'm not going to give one of the two up for a non-paying job when I'm good at both.

Yeah, I still have yet to link it up. I've got testimonials, screenshots and websites to showcase yet. I'm workin' on it!

Aesthetics (also spelled esthetics or æsthetics) is a branch of value theory which studies sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment or taste. What makes something beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic? Aesthetics is closely allied with, or perhaps synonymous with, the philosophy of art.
The term aesthetics comes from the Greek ????????? "aisthetiki" and was coined by the philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten in 1735 to mean "the science of how things are known via the senses." [2] The term aesthetics was used in German, shortly after Baumgarten introduced it, but was not widely used in English until the beginning of the 19th century.[3] However, much the same study was called studying the "standards of taste" or "judgments of taste" in English, following the vocabulary set by David Hume prior to the introduction of the term "aesthetics."

Hence, the phrase 'aesthetically pleasing'. i.e. something can also be aesthetically repulsive.

Not only does aesthetics not have to involve beauty, but beauty in itself is a debate, a concept and essentially a meaningless word. I think you need to put down your silly American dictionary. It's aesthetically wank.

OK, I confess, I've learnt that aesthetics also involves other senses besides the optical, but you are more wrong without doubt.