(Semi-)OT: Website check, please. And street paranoia.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Hi folks.

In my time wandering around shooting, and in my naturally paranoid personality, I was looking for a way to make walkabout (I won't say 'street', as I'm crap at it) shooting a little tiny bit more... transparent is the best word I can come up with.

So, if I am asked, I have cards with my name, email, a phone number and the following website. The theory being that by providing such information I demonstrate at least some level of openness and trustworthiness.

Any thoguhts on the website would be appreciated - http://www.markgoody.com

And I know the 'about' page sounds hopelessly pretentious. I was in that kind of mood. I may rewrite it

Currently this is the only real purpose for th website, althoguh I will keep the portfolio page up to date. And you never know, more content may be forthcoming.

I'm especially interested on how it looks on monitors smaller than my 1280x1024 - how does the anti-aliasing on the graphic text look?

Cheers, all.

bmattock · 12-05-2005

Mark,

I think it looks pretty darned good. No problems with the text here. I find that I am carrying my photo club membership card in my bag when I go out, as well as business cards - 'cause well, I'll be happy to take some money if someone wants to pay me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

john neal · 12-05-2005

Mark - OK for me on my T41 laptop. I would like to do something similar, but time does not permit - what with work, rugby and family, I dodn't get time to maintain a convincing website anymore

Hmmm, the "about" bit is "awfully morningside"

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo Gozales

Personally, I would prefer the "about" page to be in the first person.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo Gozales

Also, in the gallery, the picture of the "make poverty history" demo appears on both pages 1 and 2.

I think I was banishing that particular bug as you were posting

ClaremontPhoto · 12-05-2005

I would have had the bottom nav links highlight on mouseover (like the mailto link already is) and would have made the page title a link back to index.html.

You may have discarded these choices for very good reasons.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by john neal

Hmmm, the "about" bit is "awfully morningside"

Funny thing is, I'm not.

Definitely a rewrite coming up, though.

Nick R. · 12-05-2005

The site looks fine. Now you just need to add some more photos

I also agree with Manolo about putting the "about" page into the first person.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Claremont

You may have discarded these choices for very good reasons.

Personal preference on the first one, oversight on the second

RML · 12-05-2005

Looks pretty good, Mark! And the "About" text sounds fine, though perhaps a bit like an intro to a book.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

About text changed.

I prefer the new version.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Cheers all for the comments.

In case you're wondering, I was a bit wary of putting my home number (or even mobile) on the web, so VoIP comes to the rescue! It's a regular geographic call to that number, and if the handset isn't plugged in to the PC then voicemail will pick up. Is very cool.

Skinny McGee · 12-05-2005

I like it! I have gone to wesite that have a thing that once you click on the first photo you can just click next and it will allow you to go thru all the photos in gallery..
Great shots and can't wait to see more.
Skinny

Pherdinand · 12-05-2005

Hi Goodyear.
A few remarks:
The page looks good as it is. In the first page it is somewhat strange to find a shot of a lady knowing you are not the person and not knowing anything about her. Is she your love? Is she just a random unknown model?
I maybe would put a shot with a bit more abstract content on the front page. The shot is great, just it is not self-explanatory.

"About" text: You put too much stress on the equipment you use (3rd paragraph) and to explain yourself why you prefer to use film, etc, which i find a bit unnecessary. You can mention what equipment you use but why not keep it objective, simply saying you use this and that and that's all. I know we like this type of threads here on RFF, to explain why RF are the best and film will never be dead, but i would just skip it in a personal webpage that is supposed to present your work first of all (i think)

Portfolio: Looks good, only thing is, i would prefer the thumbs not being crops from the shot but the full shot - matted to square if you want them all to have the same shape as thumbs.

I would suggest you to use some kind of e-mail address hiding trick so that spam bots cannot just get it from the site. Simplest would be to make it an image.

Photo projects: You jump to third person on this page, why? Was it all third person in the beginning? The bio is now first person, the projects is not, looks weird.

The above are just my humble oppinion, blah, blah.
Cheers!

Pherdinand · 12-05-2005

Oh, the first image is randomized...didn't notice that

until i've read ManGo's comments. Sorry.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pherdinand

Hi Goodyear.
A few remarks:
The page looks good as it is. In the first page it is somewhat strange to find a shot of a lady knowing you are not the person and not knowing anything about her. Is she your love? Is she just a random unknown model?
I maybe would put a shot with a bit more abstract content on the front page. The shot is great, just it is not self-explanatory.

"About" text: You put too much stress on the equipment you use (3rd paragraph) and to explain yourself why you prefer to use film, etc, which i find a bit unnecessary. You can mention what equipment you use but why not keep it objective, simply saying you use this and that and that's all. I know we like this type of threads here on RFF, to explain why RF are the best and film will never be dead, but i would just skip it in a personal webpage that is supposed to present your work first of all (i think)

Portfolio: Looks good, only thing is, i would prefer the thumbs not being crops from the shot but the full shot - matted to square if you want them all to have the same shape as thumbs.

I would suggest you to use some kind of e-mail address hiding trick so that spam bots cannot just get it from the site. Simplest would be to make it an image.

Photo projects: You jump to third person on this page, why? Was it all third person in the beginning? The bio is now first person, the projects is not, looks weird.

The above are just my humble oppinion, blah, blah.
Cheers!

Aha. A little third-person slips through. This is why it's good to get people to look a site over

The slightly cropped thumbs are pinched from Flickr - t's something I particularly like. Differing tastes, I guess.

Regarding email, and spambots, this is an issue I am well aware of. It's a deliberate decision to use a regular mailto: link.

RE the about gear stuff. I have found that these days when people are curious about the photography I do, one of the first things they want to know is film or digital? Film?! Why?! And film gear is something of a distinctive by now.

ClaremontPhoto · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodyear

Personal preference on the first one, oversight on the second

No.

If something clicky lights up on mouseover, and something else clicky nearby doesn't light up that is poor interface design.

It happens on this site too.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pherdinand

Oh, the first image is randomized...didn't notice that

until i've read ManGo's comments. Sorry.

Your thoughts are good, though.

I may restrict the selection to more abstract shots.

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Claremont

No.

If something clicky lights up on mouseover, and something else clicky nearby doesn't light up that is poor interface design.

It happens on this site too.

Well, yes, in that it is my personal preference.

I personally find rollover images quite objectionable, and anything else (mucking with borders, etc) to be just plain ugly. The current style is a deliberate compromise between visual style, file weight and usability.

I agree it is fairly poor interface design, but it is deliberately poor. It's okay to break the rules, as long as you know why and do it deliberately. On the other hand, in a web browser I have always found the changing pointer to be sufficient visual cue of a link.

For example, the current design should degrade well in older browsers and without CSS, and (althoguh I haven't tested this yet - as demonstrated by the rough edges I only started work on this at the weekend) it should also perform well with a screen-reader (despite being a site focussed on the visual).

Goodyear · 12-05-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Claremont

No.

If something clicky lights up on mouseover, and something else clicky nearby doesn't light up that is poor interface design.

It happens on this site too.

Heh. I think I misunderstood you, though.

The juxtapostion of the mail link and the graphical links.

I would regard them as quite distinct and different. Graphics-based vs text-based, hence with very different styles anyway.

What is definitely questionable is the use of text-links to return to the homepage from others. That's just inconsistent nav, but I didn't want to add another big button, so for the time being I'm living with it

ClaremontPhoto · 12-05-2005

This is what I do. Get some user-testing in.

A few mates after lunch and keep quiet and watch while they click. Keep quiet. Do not 'help' them.

Just watch what mistakes they make clicking around a site.

Of course they are not making mistakes at all, but they are finding our mistakes.

ClaremontPhoto · 12-05-2005

And

<h1>Mark Goody: Photographer</h1>

at the top of page could be a link to index.html. No need for a button or anything.

laudrup · 12-05-2005

As for the paranoia, the best way to get more comfortable is to shoot shoot shoot and shoot some more. I felt pretty self conscious when i tried shooting at first with an slr in the street but then i got my rangefinder and found www.pinkheadedbug.com. It's a pretty useful site, the explanation of how John approaches street photography is pretty rational and to a degree challenges your pre-conceived ideas.

If you act as though you shouldn't be out taking photo's then you are more likely to give people the impression you are up to no good, whether you have a nice website and business card or not. I suppose you could say your body language and how you carry yourself generally will shape how people perceive you when shooting.

Get out and shoot like crazy then you should feel more comfortable, it's probably worth joining a local photography club or meeting some members from here and going out as a group.

Cheers

Ad

RayPA · 12-05-2005

Looks great, Mark. I like the 'About' section I think it serves the purpose quite well. I've thought about the card/website idea, too. Nice of you to post this. I can see now that something like this could actually work.

photodog · 12-05-2005

Viewing your site on an old iMac, here are my thoughts:
1) I need to scroll down on most of the pages to get to the navigation controls. Perhaps move the navigation to the left of the page or integrate with the banner at the top.
2) Clean design but space is wasted on the left and right on most of the pages.
3) Maybe use a different gray shade instead of white for the text links.

Overall the site is pretty good for a photo site. Some photo sites are too graphic and busy with detract from the photography.