My website - Critique wanted

DSkjaeve · 03-26-2012

A few months back I created my website.

www.danskjaeveland.com

Looking for comments in regards to design (simplicity), number of categories chosen and total number of pictures. Im afraid I perhaps posted too many (causing me to have "fillers"). Also comment if you feel somethings off/missing.

EDIT: 14.03.13 - I have changed a lot of the images. I have written text about myself and added a facebook like button. The gallery/design still have limits when it comes to image size. I am sitting on a old laptop where it seems to be just OK. Is it really a problem? If anyone have other themes (wordpress) to recommend I would be very open. Do you find the total number of images to be ok?

htimsdj · 03-26-2012

Nice and simple. Not too many photos. Either tell "about" yourself and the photos, or don't have the section. Overall, nicely done!

Thardy · 03-26-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by htimsdj

Nice and simple. Not too many photos. Either tell "about" yourself and the photos, or don't have the section. Overall, nicely done!

I agree with your advice on the "about" section. It's a little bit snarky which is OK for me, but some people might not dig it.

daveleo · 03-26-2012

I found your site very nice to wander about to view your images. Simple, uncluttered and elegant.

I did not read the "about" page, so won't comment on that text. . . . well I did read it and maybe you can work on the wording a bit (depends on where you are going with this).

kevin_v · 03-26-2012

Very clean. Very nice. A few notes:

There seems to be faint artifacts behind your name: consider using a png with just your name and a transparent back instead of a jpg.
Also, your loading spinner background is white – it should be either transparent or the same color as the page background so as to not stick out.

Just a few little things. Otherwise beautiful.

BobYIL · 03-26-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSkjaeve

A few months back I created my website.

www.danskjaeveland.com

Looking for comments in regards to design (simplicity), number of categories chosen and total number of pictures. Im afraid I perhaps posted too many (causing me to have "fillers"). Also comment if you feel somethings off/missing.

I remember your photos on flickr; some fantastic shots indeed.. On this new site, frankly, I did not get the same impression; they're rather small. Some of your pictures are best viewed at Large 1024 size for the impact you intended for. Try to "slide show" the flickr ones at full screen, you'll note what I mean.

Pablito · 03-26-2012

In my opinion, not simple enough graphically, too many categories and not enough substance in each category. I would just eliminate the categories as they only fragment your point of view which does have consistency, wit and humor. Also the "about" section -- why do that? Just be straight with it. The wit is in the pictures.

Jubb Jubb · 03-26-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablito

In my opinion, not simple enough graphically, too many categories and not enough substance in each category. I would just eliminate the categories as they only fragment your point of view which does have consistency, wit and humor. Also the "about" section -- why do that? Just be straight with it. The wit is in the pictures.

Agreed. Your site could be a lot simpler. The vertical menu takes up way too much space. Let your pictures be the hero, they could be much bigger. Maybe the menu could be hidden whilst you browse through the images.

About the "about" page. I am unsure why you have certain words linking to some kind of iPhone giveaway thing, it doesn't do anything good for you, and makes your website feel like spam. As for the copy, if that is all you are going to write, then there is really no need for the page. Get rid of it.

Pictures look good of course.

swoop · 03-26-2012

Simple and it works. I would try to narrow down the categories. And maybe no one does care but a little about yourself is always nice. If no one cared they wouldn't click to find out more about you.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 03-26-2012

I like your photography, but your website sucks. That sounds harsh, but its true. Here's why: The use of Java to present the images is a virtual guarantee that no one who might buy a photo will ever find them. The site needs to be set up for search engines to locate and index the images (like Google image search). I sell virtually all of the photos I sell or license to people who found them that way. Java navigation makes it harder for the search engines to index the images, and the fact that the images have no alt tags makes it impossible for the search engines to know what the images depict, so they're ignored.

These kind of fancy slideshows are trendy, but absolutely useless to a photographer who wants to get his work out there to people who will BUY photos. If the website does not do that, what's the point?

I agree on the about me page. It makes you look intellectually shallow and immature. Rewrite it and tell us who you really are and why you photograph. Your photographs are great, and deserve recognition that they will not get because of your website's programming and the way you've described yourself.

shiro_kuro · 03-26-2012

"Copyright © 2012 Dan Skjaeveland. Reproduction, use or disclosure without express authority is strictly forbidden." first thing my eyes went to when viewing your site and was constantly aware as i looked at each image . Like a title under each photograph,maybe so minor not to mention it ,but I did not care for it . Reminds of those stores that have signs posted everywhere ... do not touch ,you break you bought it ; )

The white background for the categories is about the same size as the images being viewed is also distracting ........ my unprofessional website design critique .....

Steve M. · 03-26-2012

I love the font, the look, the layout, and the photos. Good job!

I would like to see a little background info on you, and it would be nice to read what gear/film, etc took which photos. And I wish the photos got much bigger when I clicked on them. That's it! Looks great. Less is more.

Chris Bail · 03-26-2012

I like the site overall. It's leaps and bounds better than anything I've done. I do agree with the sentiment that there may be too many categories. You might be better served with more content in fewer main categories.

I also think that it would be nice if the pictures were larger (I struggle to get a good look at the detail even on my 28" LCD screen, and reverted to viewing them on your flickr stream, viewed large, on black), and had the actual title of the file/photo appear when you hover over it, rather than the generic "Photo1, etc"

DSkjaeve · 03-27-2012

Thank you all very much for the feedback! It has been of great value.

I'm overseas till late April but here are the things I'll chance when I get back:

-fewer categories. This seems to be commented on quite a lot. Perhaps I'll narrow it down to two-three.

-about me. I'll actually write some information here. As some noted, people who click the link are interested, those who are not won't click it. Simple.

-size of photos. The gallery used won't allow larges ones so will have to find another way to show them. I will make them larger.

-remove copyright info or make it smaller/more hidden.

-look into the java/non java possibillities. I might send you a pm Chris if that's okay.

-update logo in png

-regarding the google thing, it must have happened while I was away. I wouldn't have done that. Will look into it.

I'll post the link here again when it's done for those who want to see the changes. Really appreciate the help (and the compliments) guys.

daveleo · 03-27-2012

You should also test your website on an Android device (not a PC). I had complaints from people trying to view my original website because their Android devices don't support certain html attributes. Specifically, they could not scroll through thumbnails I had to the left of the main image box.

I then changed to a very simple format of images in series on a page. That worked for me . . . maybe not your solution.

If you want Andoid-readability, don't over look this.

flip · 03-27-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_v

Very clean. Very nice. A few notes:

There seems to be faint artifacts behind your name: consider using a png with just your name and a transparent back instead of a jpg.

Better yet, use a gif and ensure some backwards compatibility.

kevin_v · 03-27-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I like your photography, but your website sucks. That sounds harsh, but its true. Here's why: The use of Java to present the images is a virtual guarantee that no one who might buy a photo will ever find them. The site needs to be set up for search engines to locate and index the images (like Google image search). I sell virtually all of the photos I sell or license to people who found them that way. Java navigation makes it harder for the search engines to index the images, and the fact that the images have no alt tags makes it impossible for the search engines to know what the images depict, so they're ignored.

These kind of fancy slideshows are trendy, but absolutely useless to a photographer who wants to get his work out there to people who will BUY photos. If the website does not do that, what's the point?

I agree on the about me page. It makes you look intellectually shallow and immature. Rewrite it and tell us who you really are and why you photograph. Your photographs are great, and deserve recognition that they will not get because of your website's programming and the way you've described yourself.

First, I might be wrong, but I checked the source, and there is no Java. However, there is Javascript (which is NOT the same as Java). While Javascript can sometimes affect SEO, and it may be the case here, it is worth saying that if Javascript can be used effectively w/o hiding info from the crawlers. By loading/linking-to all the images, hiding them from the start, and using javascript to toggle visibility, the crawler will pick them all up as it only sees the source.

DSkjaeve · 04-25-2012

So, I have been able to do some of the work suggested.

-There are now fewer categories. In July I will have developed the rolls from the past three months which could lead to a small change in categories section.

-Posted some info in the about section.

-The images are slightly larger (limitations in script prevents me from making the bigger)

-Made copyright info less protruding.

-Updated logo in png

-Removed a google ad that popped up for some reason.

Hopefully it made for a better presentation. Thank you all for the feedback.

shadowfox · 04-26-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSkjaeve

-about me. I'll actually write some information here. As some noted, people who click the link are interested, those who are not won't click it. Simple.

Well, do you want people to be interested in you and your photos, or not?

The About page is the only place where people can get the first impression on you. It is the very best place to show that you respect yourself (and your work) enough to spend some time writing it.

That link to job advertisement may seem cute when you thought about it. My advice is to think again.

DSkjaeve · 04-26-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Well, do you want people to be interested in you and your photos, or not?

The About page is the only place where people can get the first impression on you. It is the very best place to show that you respect yourself (and your work) enough to spend some time writing it.

That link to job advertisement may seem cute when you thought about it. My advice is to think again.

Thank for the critique.

However I am a little unsure what you are referring to. I did just edit it again. Are you referring to the sentence regarding where I get my film developed?

135format · 04-26-2012

I just checked stats for one site I look after. This month approx 45% of people viewing it (out of around 1000) were using screens with 800 pixel height or less. These days a lot of people are using laptops which don't have high screen res.

Ask in a photo forum where everyone does image editing and mostly they have high res monitors and you get a highly biased opinion on whether your image sizes and layout is any good.

So if your target audience is joe public then you may want to consider how 45% of your visitors are going to experience viewing your site. On the other hand, if your target audience are other photographers then maybe not.
Still today the lowest common denominator for design should be for 768x1024 res monitors.
If you are only using small images in your site with a fair amount of text it doesn't matter but when you are trying to show images as big as possible and they push your thumbnails and navigation out of sight on every image which means users have to scroll to see it on every page instead of just clicking, then it does matter.

And one caveat is that in your region it may be different (but I doubt it).

And remember joe public usually have an array of toolbars setup in their browsers which all take up screen space so the actual useable screen height can be quite a bit less than the screen res height.

DSkjaeve · 04-26-2012

Thank you 135format and Mr. Fizzlesticks.

The truth is I do not know much about pixles and/or webdesign. This theme apparantly only supports images of maximum 620 pixles * 465 or somewhere along those lines.

I appreciate the tips. However I am a bad designer and this is a Wordpress theme I paid for. It doesn't seem like it's possible to move the bar all the way left or have larger pictures using this theme. I agree that it would look better that way. I don't know what the best alternative would be.

So as much as I would want to change the site I hate the idea of spending even more hours trying to figure stuff out. Even the word HTML seems greek to me.

And seems I got some text-enhance bug which places ad in my about section. Feeling a bit fed up with everything right now.

I do have a friend who is a graphic designer so perhaps I will see if he has any tips/suggestions.

135format · 04-26-2012

I wouldn't be feeling fed up cos basically it works fine. What is being suggested is fine tuning. All I'm suggesting is that you test it on a laptop or two which don't have high res screens and see if its acceptable to you. It may be fine.

radical7 · 07-10-2012

Hey man, on a design standpoint, its absoletely great. It says "Photographer" very well (Graphic designer speaking)

whitecat · 07-10-2012

A lot of the real estate on the screen is wasted.