| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 11/17/2007 : 12:39:54
|
Hi Gang
I'm helping to start a new kind of local ethical shopping around here, called Looks [local organics of kent and sussex]
It's launching next Saturday 24 November, and the brand-new website tells all about it. If anyone has a spare few moments, I'd love some feedback on the site - anything constructive to improve it.
It does require Flash.
TIA for your help.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 11/17/2007 12:40:33 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 14:01:46
|
Firstly, this isn't a criticism of your site BB, but...
I'd just like to go on record as saying I despise Flash. In many ways it's like CGI in that it makes some things easier to do, but it really doesn't do anything we couldn't do before. It still amazes me the number of people who believe that Flash somehow instantly makes a website more professional. A turd is still a turd whether it has a Flash interface or not.
And I don't even know where to start on the accessibility issues of Flash.
Anyhow... back to the site in question. I feel I should mention that it's generally considered bad to use frames nowadays, once again for accessibility reasons, but also because people simply hate trying to figure out which scroll bar to use. The site also doesn't seem to have a consistent look- one page is laid out one way and the next a completely different way. The font also seems to change from page to page which is a little off-putting.
Also, not many non-Asian sites put the logo in the top right corner simply because of the way we read. Sure it makes your site look different and quirky, but there was a definite short moment for me when I couldn't figure what the site was called or about.
I'm confused as to why the text needs to scroll on the About Looks page, since it all fits into the available scroll area anyway. Maybe it's just me, but I missed the text at first, then when I noticed it the start of the paragraph had scrolled out of view so I had to wait for it to come around again to read it 
On the Find Us page, you could actually integrate a Google map straight into the page so people could scroll around and zoom in, etc... without needing to leave the site. This is really simple to do and definitely makes a site look good.
Fun Stuff, I'm not sure what to make of  Seems a bit out of place and like it's filler.
The different pages are nicely split so you know exactly where you need to go but since it's Flash navigation any blind or mobile users are unlikely to be able to move around the site.
I hope this doesn't come off as overly critical- I do think you could have a really nice site there if you just kept it simple and about what it's about. It doesn't have to have whizzy things flying about and I don't think it would take too much work to simplify it a little
If you do want to keep all the Flash though, I'd say my main criticism is that the site is inconsistent. Settle on a basic page layout (that each of you pages would fit into roughly) and then code all your sub-pages in that same arrangement. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 15:01:02
|
Thanks so much, benj for taking time to look and comment.
I'll consider all you say very carefully and weigh it up with what the locals feel. So far everyone was adamant they didn't want a "corporate look." I've even got a quote on my note-pad: "I hate websites where every page looks the same." Different strokes, eh?
Not sure what you mean about the fonts - they're all the same on every page [except wording within images, logos, applets - not always in my control]. But all the text conforms to the css stylesheet.
Just a brief question on the map thing -- when I tried to embed one on another site I did - though it was over a year ago - my client got complaints that too many people couldn't access/handle it. In fact that was the only complaint he received, so of course I removed it, and haven't attempted it since. Do you know whether they've improved it lately?
[I was only getting the complaints 3rd hand as it were - but it might have had something to do with different browsers ... mostly, the impression I got was that inexperienced users just kept getting flummoxed by the zoom in/out facility and kept losing their place. One, I recall, told my client he wound up in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!]
Mostly this site is for middle-aged rural types who maybe check their eMail once a week.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 11/17/2007 15:05:10 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 15:21:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Thanks so much, benj for taking time to look and comment.
I'll consider all you say very carefully and weigh it up with what the locals feel. So far everyone was adamant they didn't want a "corporate look." I've even got a quote on my note-pad: "I hate websites where every page looks the same." Different strokes, eh?
Corporate is one thing, knowing where everything is going to be is quite another. I know fwfr isn't perfect in this way, but just think how much less usable it would be if the search box was at the top of the page on one screen and then at the bottom or side on another? It's just about making the process of the using the site as thoughtless for the visitor as possible. Sure, a user may not know where to look for something the first time they hit the site, but once they've figured it out on one page they shouldn't need to go through the whole process again on another page- it's just too much like hard work.
This doesn't mean the site has to be bland and every page look the same- I'm talking about clearly defining where the content begins and ends, what a heading looks like, deciding if you're using one column or two, keeping the same font everywhere. Beyond that, toss in images, links, headings, etc... wherever you need to- just don't overflow into the basic framework.
quote:
Just a brief question on the map thing -- when I tried to embed one on another site I did - though it was over a year ago - my client got complaints that too many people couldn't access/handle it. In fact that was the only complaint he received, so of course I removed it, and haven't attempted it since. Do you know whether they've improved it lately? I was only getting the complaints 3rd hand as it were - but it might have had something to do with different browsers ... mostly, the impression I got was that inexperienced users just kept getting flummoxed by the zoom in/out facility and kept losing their place. One, I recall, told my client he wound up in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!
I'd never heard of anyone having problems accessing a Google map. As far as I knew it worked on pretty much any browser- Google are very good in making things as low-tech as possible. For example, as powerful as Google maps are, they don't use anything other than HTML and Javascript. This may not mean much to non-coders, but trust me- it's a seriously impressive achievement. I think even Microsoft's Virtual Earth requires some sort of plug-in, which I think is a large part of the reason hardly anyone uses it.
Do you know what browser it was that had the problem displaying Google maps?
As for zooming and panning I think these can be disabled via the API, but by that point it's defeating the point of using Google maps- probably best to stick with a gif
quote:
Mostly this site is for middle-aged rural types who maybe check their eMail once a week.
More reason to make the site as clearly laid out as possible, surely? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 15:30:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
Corporate is one thing, knowing where everything is going to be is quite another. I know fwfr isn't perfect in this way, but just think how much less usable it would be if the search box was at the top of the page on one screen and then at the bottom or side on another? It's just about making the process of the using the site as thoughtless for the visitor as possible. Sure, a user may not know where to look for something the first time they hit the site, but once they've figured it out on one page they shouldn't need to go through the whole process again on another page- it's just too much like hard work.
re: the map thing - sorry, can't recall the browsers involved - it was a while ago.
But now I'm really confused by your comment about where everything is. All the menu stuff should be the same whichever choice you make - all the internal links are set to appear in that larger, lower display frame. Except for the two Fun pages [included because there was a request] - they should open new windows but have a close window option on the page. All external links are set to open another window, so people don't feel they've lost the Looks site.
As you know, I still can't get my IE6/7 working properly - so have only tested it on Firefox and Slimbrowser where it seems to be ok. Are you losing the menu frame when you click a choice?
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 15:47:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
But now I'm really confused by your comment about where everything is. All the menu stuff should be the same whichever choice you make - all the internal links are set to appear in that larger, lower display frame. Except for the two Fun pages [included because there was a request] - they should open new windows but have a close window option on the page. All external links are set to open another window, so people don't feel they've lost the Looks site.
As you know, I still can't get my IE6/7 working properly - so have only tested it on Firefox and Slimbrowser where it seems to be ok. Are you losing the menu frame when you click a choice?
Don't worry- the menu frame is fine (or as fine as anything being put in a frame can be  )- I was talking in the general sense so I apologise if you got the impression I was on about the menu in particular.
The bottom frame just seems to contain content which shares nothing in common (layout-wise). Sometimes you have an image off to the right, sometimes you don't. Sometimes there's more than one column, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes the font is big, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the heading is green, sometimes it's blue. Sometimes there's a box of content with a blue background, sometimes there isn't.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it just felt a bit too chaotic |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 15:55:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
But now I'm really confused by your comment about where everything is. All the menu stuff should be the same whichever choice you make - all the internal links are set to appear in that larger, lower display frame. Except for the two Fun pages [included because there was a request] - they should open new windows but have a close window option on the page. All external links are set to open another window, so people don't feel they've lost the Looks site.
As you know, I still can't get my IE6/7 working properly - so have only tested it on Firefox and Slimbrowser where it seems to be ok. Are you losing the menu frame when you click a choice?
Don't worry- the menu frame is fine (or as fine as anything being put in a frame can be )- I was talking in the general sense so I apologise if you got the impression I was on about the menu in particular.
The bottom frame just seems to contain content which shares nothing in common (layout-wise). Sometimes you have an image off to the right, sometimes you don't. Sometimes there's more than one column, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes the font is big, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the heading is green, sometimes it's blue. Sometimes there's a box of content with a blue background, sometimes there isn't.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it just felt a bit too chaotic
Oh, OK ... that doesn't sound so bad! I think there's one green heading ... on the links page ... I'll change that to match the other blue-white headers, you're right!
Thanks, again, benj -- I'm really grateful for your input - especially knowing how busy you are.
|
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 21:19:34
|
Benj is a pro - I am an amateur so I don't know what you are using, but from a layman's perspective:
The scroll bars are very confusing - the top fram should be able to fit in the frame so there is no scroll bar (this was remedied when I maxed the window size but its confusing). Also the grey (see I Englished it up for you) bar in the scroll bar looks like it should be the thing you click on, yet that's the available part of the scroll area - as a result when you click on it the screen jumps up and down a little.
The look and feel is a bit jumbled - The fonts in the pictures are different from that in the main text areas. Also the text size on the front page is really big - I might prefer a smaller font and more of an upfront description of what LOOKS is - I know you have the about LOOKS choice in the top menu, but a quick description or tagline might be helpful. If only you knew someone who had a knack for describing something in just a few words.
That said - whilst I am thousands of miles away - I'd certainly stop by if I were closer. How different is this from a Farmer's Market that we'd have here in the States?
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 23:29:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Benj is a pro - I am an amateur so I don't know what you are using, but from a layman's perspective:
The scroll bars are very confusing - the top fram should be able to fit in the frame so there is no scroll bar (this was remedied when I maxed the window size but its confusing). Also the grey (see I Englished it up for you) bar in the scroll bar looks like it should be the thing you click on, yet that's the available part of the scroll area - as a result when you click on it the screen jumps up and down a little.
The look and feel is a bit jumbled - The fonts in the pictures are different from that in the main text areas. Also the text size on the front page is really big - I might prefer a smaller font and more of an upfront description of what LOOKS is - I know you have the about LOOKS choice in the top menu, but a quick description or tagline might be helpful. If only you knew someone who had a knack for describing something in just a few words.
That said - whilst I am thousands of miles away - I'd certainly stop by if I were closer. How different is this from a Farmer's Market that we'd have here in the States?
Thanks, Turrell -- may I ask if you're using IE6 or 7 ... because I can't test those locally and I'm betting the site behaves slightly differently on IE. It's really frustrating because I can only test properly on Firefox and Slimbrowser.
So I just want to get a bit clearer your various comments - if you can bear it.
1. scroll bars -- I,too, HATE extraneous scroll bars with a passion - and delimited the top menu frame to 30% which certainly covers the area on my browser even at 2/3 to 3/4 size without a hint of a scroll bar. I'm confused about grey bars, because they're only grey in Firefox, but I coded them blue for IE and Slimbrowser, and though, as I said, I can't access IE anymore, the blue bars certainly appear in Slimb.
I'm very concerned about grey scroll bars seeming to be the only thing to click on and making the screen jump up and down. I'm not getting that at all. Is it really unclear that you're meant to click on the menu choices? Do you think I need to put a line of text on the welcome page that people should click the menu choices? Won't that seem patronizing?
Since you ask - I hand-code my html and manipulate and design graphics using a variety of professional html and paint programs, a couple of customizable flash applets given to me by the coders, and flash mx with minimal action script. I validate html coding with CSE Validator Pro. Some of these I've been using for over 10 years when I was an exec producer for an international webhouse, and some, like flash, I've been teaching myself over the past few years. For the record, Benj is one of the most amazing coders I've ever seen.
2. By "the font in the pictures" - do you mean the logos? Because I can't change those. The Looks logo uses 3 fonts: one for the Looks letters - except for the double oo which have little eyes on them, and the strapline is a contrasting but complementary font. With the regional map, I tried to tie in the logo strapline font with that of the 3 counties, for precisely the reason you mention.
All the text fonts are simple sans serif, though there is size and some color variation for emphasis. One of the things I had to deliver was that most of the others felt they couldn't read the text on a lot of sites because it's too small. And they were totally against black backgrounds of entire pages - well, so am I!
To take account of the way different browsers display font sizes, I was taught to delimit relatively using plus or minus locally, but codify normal paragraph, body, headers etc within the css stylesheet ... but I can see how that would make the front page font size too big on some browsers. It looks valid to me using both FireFox and Slimb - though it's slightly bigger on the latter.
3. Could you really not tell what the site is for? The logo strapline tells you it's about local organics in kent and sussex. And the red welcome text tells you it's an alternative way to shop.
We didn't want to use the word food, since we're hoping to expand eventually to crafts as well. Though the intro page does refer to produce and market.
Local and organic [and organic style] are the key points; the 3 counties are important to register and the fact that this is a different way to shop.
4. I wish you could stop by, too! because we're hoping Looks is going to take off -- of course none of us has ever done anything like this before.
You ask what's different:
1. Apart from a handful throughout the entire UK, most so-called Farmer's Markets are not started or run by the farmers and growers. Instead they pay a stall fee to an entrepreneurial market owner who wants to make a profit. Most of them could care less about the food itself - quality, how it's grown, etc
2. In the time I've been living here [some 40 years] I've gotten more and more into organic produce and more recently food miles and sustainability. I'd say I've been trying/mostly succeeding to eat organic for about 35 years. I moved to this area about 4 years ago and have made friends with some local farmers and growers. I don't think I've bought anything from a supermarket for at least a decade.
The local men and women who dedicate their lives to their animals and crops are increasingly unhappy with many aspects. Apart from being treated worse and worse by the government, they get exploited by the local farmer's markets, though because of insufficient subsidies, they're forced to use them. Meanwhile giant producers get all kinds of breaks from government and the EU.
I've been on these farms, I've seen the way Jill names her precious lambs and rams and cows and steers. I've bottle-fed one of her orphaned lambs. And I've watched her in tears when she'd raised one of her beef steers from a baby to get him ready for market, and then had to lose him and the bulk of any profit when some shmuck on the organic line in the abattoir put a BSE steer on the line four animals in front of hers, so according to the law, all the animals after the infected steer had to be destroyed and declared unfit for human consumption. We're not talking about big agribusiness - ranchers with hundreds and hundreds of acres and thousands of head of cattle. Jill knows every animal by name; I know, I've met them! Losing out on one is devastating for her, both emotionally and financially.
I've seen local apples from unsprayed orchards rot because no supermarket would take them if they couldn't be guaranteed perfectly round and undercut the price the grower could charge. But the farmer didn't give up and now he's making wonderful apple juice. These are hard-working lovely people and I hate seeing them constantly exploited. And their food is wonderful!
Okay- the main point is that there's a local need here on two counts - to get a fair deal for the small farmers and growers
and to raise local people's awareness of their options. In this locality there are a couple of farmer's markets, all very inconvenient for shoppers and, as I've said, run by people who just don't care about the food. They could be selling mud. The stalls are outside - which is crap for everyone in the cold weather, parking is a problem - and they're just so bloody inconvenient. Some farmers make the weekly trek to markets in London where there's more chance of selling out - but they hate doing it, when they'd prefer to be serving local people.
3. What really makes Looks different is that farmers and growers don't have to pay a stall fee, nor are they obligated to attend a certain number of times [to guarantee the market owner's profit]. They don't have to bring their own tables or generators - if they need refrigeration, for example. They deal directly with their local public. The venue is indoors, heated, with loos and a small kitchen. The tables are already there, and the power is free.
4. It's run as a collective - though we're not using that word because too many people put a political meaning on it. It's our market. I'm involved because I care deeply about this, and have got certain organizational skills. Each farmer is contributing a small fee - less than ten bucks - to help offset my phonebill, domain and hosting fees for the site, building the site after consulting with them to see what they want, and printing of flyers for customers to go with the purchases - all the admin and pr costs.
Anyway -- thanks again for your comments, and if you've got the stamina, I'd be grateful if you could clarify those points. I'm very grateful for your taking the time.
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 23:56:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
Just thought I'd mention that you can get a plug-in for Firefox to emulate IE (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419). I'm not sure which version it's based on, but it's better than testing blind for IE
Thanks, benj -- I do have that, but sometimes it makes FF behave strangely. But I'll try it again.
Meanwhile, I've made a few tiny tweaks based on yours and Turrell's comments -- so thanks, both, again!! 
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 01:07:28
|
I am running IE 6
I knew th ebasics of LOOKS, but I was thinking for someone who might not have gotten th background you gave at the top of this forum. Also the word organics is a little hard to read in the logo.
SOunds really cool - th eFarmers Markets in Santa MOnica where I lived for 12 years until this summer were mostly organic and it was really great to shp there. Now in Little Rock (not the organic crazy place LA is) we go to Fresh Market or Wild Oats Market which are organic chain stores - but not local probably.
So good on you for this endeavor and if I find myself in Sussex or Kent on the right Saturday, I am so buying my groceries there! |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 12:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Also the word organics is a little hard to read in the logo.
Thanks, T -- I changed the font which I think is now easier to read.
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
SOunds really cool - th eFarmers Markets in Santa MOnica where I lived for 12 years until this summer were mostly organic and it was really great to shp there. Now in Little Rock (not the organic crazy place LA is) we go to Fresh Market or Wild Oats Market which are organic chain stores - but not local probably.
So good on you for this endeavor and if I find myself in Sussex or Kent on the right Saturday, I am so buying my groceries there!
And you'll be very welcome, indeed!
Thanks again for taking time to comment 
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 15:58:29
|
| logo is definitely easy to read - best of luck - keep us updated on the progress |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Genuine comments very welcome
