alphanumetrix Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Here it is: http://akatsukidesigns.com Please see the flash version and the regular version. *Also, please note this site is still incomplete. Also note, that is definitely not my portfolio. My team and I have tons of really cool graphics and stuff we made. That was just thrown together in about 30 mins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Only took a quick glance, but... I noticed on your flash version that it's hover sensitive (except gallery), which is kind of annoying. Also the pages fall behind each other. So to get to the desired page you have to exit out of the ones in front of it, which is also annoying. You should also try to condense your pages a little better because for some of them I have to scroll to see the full page (I am on a 15" monitor right now :-\ ). The heading on the gallery page is really big. I like the design, except for the elf lady (makes it look childish), but it covers the whole screen. The footer is boring, just black text... The HTML version looks simplistic and clean but it's a little too flashy. Why does the gallery load up a whole new page with a totally different color scheme. Makes me feel like I'm going to a completely different site. Overall it's pretty good, but could use some more work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphanumetrix Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 yeah. the big thing I thought was wrong with the HTML-ver. was it was too flashy. i was also weary of the hover-sensitive flash... about the design site... it was supposed to give a change in scenery is all. as i said though, it's still a WIP. Could you put a rating on the overall design though? I'm still contemplating changing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Can't really say I'm a fan of either, nor can I see the purpose in having 2 versions. To top that off, I think most users won't go past the splash screen requiring me to chose. Let's start with the HTML page. It is very hard to read anything. You chose these dark flowery patterns with dark text on a grey background that just doesn't sit well. When I say text, nothing really is text, you are using images for everything. There are many reasons that this is bad which I will not get into. To say you have great work but put 30 minutes into this doesn't say a lot about you or your team. On to the flash, pretty terrible. The slow choppy animations leave much to be desired. What's with the repeating red glowy ball thing going on? First, you can clearly see the animation stop and then start over again, it should be seamless. I don't like that you assume I want to click by automatically opening the pages on the sides, and the gallery goes to something different altogether. You have some serious usability and design issues all around. I think you can spend more than 30 minutes trying to come up with a new plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphanumetrix Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 lol... *someone's not a fan. We're redesigning the gallery; that's why I emphasized it only took about 30 mins. I'll agree with you that there are too many images, and that's one of the reasons I came on here - to see if others agree. About the flash being terrible, you don't put up a good argument for that. All you really did was bash it. This goes a little past constructive criticism, I'd say... Anyone else have anything to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I thought that I did criticize it? Did I not? I didn't just bash it without justification. I thought that I mentioned the usability of opening pages without clicking, the annoying animation that shows a clear start/stop, the choppy animations. Let us continue on then, why are you using a firefox logo on your splash page? Your shadow under the main section of your flash page does not actually reflect any correct lighting or shape. The color is bland and the navigation is scattered. Flash should be used for media rich content which you do not have any of. Your services and info pages use different size fonts. I guess this is how you figured you could cram more info onto a page. You should least have a consistent workflow. The pages just stack and as I try to close one they all close. While this may sound like bashing, it is my opinion on a bad web design and bad usability overall. Also, if this is not your portfolio, then what is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 No intentions on being insulting or disrespectful, but I would strongly consider a complete redesign. I would scrp the flash version (only have (x)html). I would ensure your site validates, as currently it doesn't. Nor does your CSS. I would presonally recommend having a look at some templates (not suggesting that you use them), but rather for some design ideas. Currently, I feel the site doesn't seem 'professional' looking. Have a look around at what web dev companies are doing with their sites.. examine the copy (text) they use, the colours they use, etc.. examine your competition, and see what works. While there is nothing wrong with coming up with interesting designs, if those designs fall short of what could be more impressive, you may lose that much more cedibility. I also noticed the firefox logos at the selection screen.. Does this imply that things work best in Firefox? If so, I would consider making your site run properly across all major up to date browsers. What you currently have is a valiant effort (I only checked the html version, as flash is a turn off for me), yet I feel it falls short with my reasons above (as well as what others have said). Again, no offense intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphanumetrix Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 I thought that I did criticize it? Did I not? I didn't just bash it without justification. I thought that I mentioned the usability of opening pages without clicking, the annoying animation that shows a clear start/stop, the choppy animations. Let us continue on then, why are you using a firefox logo on your splash page? Your shadow under the main section of your flash page does not actually reflect any correct lighting or shape. The color is bland and the navigation is scattered. Flash should be used for media rich content which you do not have any of. Your services and info pages use different size fonts. I guess this is how you figured you could cram more info onto a page. You should least have a consistent workflow. The pages just stack and as I try to close one they all close. While this may sound like bashing, it is my opinion on a bad web design and bad usability overall. Also, if this is not your portfolio, then what is it? I actually build my sites around Safari, then bridge them for FF and IE. That way, it works the same in all browsers. The animation is on motion tween. There shouldn't be any choppiness at all. I like the different size fonts, and did that diliberately. If I wanted consistency, I would have added a scroll function. My computer crashed; that portfolio is all I had left (it was some of my oldest work). About the bashing part. I read your post real quickly while I was out; I did it all from my phone in about five seconds. I didn't really take the time to look at your justifications. Time is an object for me. I have almost none, and it's definitely one of my biggest issues (especially with designing). edit: oh, and what's wrong with the shadow? i admittedly suck at shadowing, especially in drawing. No intentions on being insulting or disrespectful, but I would strongly consider a complete redesign. I would scrp the flash version (only have (x)html). I would ensure your site validates, as currently it doesn't. Nor does your CSS. I would presonally recommend having a look at some templates (not suggesting that you use them), but rather for some design ideas. Currently, I feel the site doesn't seem 'professional' looking. Have a look around at what web dev companies are doing with their sites.. examine the copy (text) they use, the colours they use, etc.. examine your competition, and see what works. While there is nothing wrong with coming up with interesting designs, if those designs fall short of what could be more impressive, you may lose that much more cedibility. I also noticed the firefox logos at the selection screen.. Does this imply that things work best in Firefox? If so, I would consider making your site run properly across all major up to date browsers. What you currently have is a valiant effort (I only checked the html version, as flash is a turn off for me), yet I feel it falls short with my reasons above (as well as what others have said). Again, no offense intended. I never tried validating my CSS or HTML. I didn't realize there were so many errors. However, from what I can see, there's nothing major. It's primarily xhtml, just some errors. I'm not missing brackets or anything. I do use a debugger to check my sites for major javascript and html errors, and according to that, there is none. I did what you suggested; I looked at some templates. You're right about a redesign; however, unless I decide otherwise while making it, I'm going to keep the flash version. I am just not fond of the HTML version. About the FF logos, please see what I wrote above. I actually was just searching for a quick internet-representing, popular logo when I did that. I literally spent no longer than 10 minutes on that splash page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I don't see the point in bothering if you can't find more than 10 minutes to work on your own portfolio (or whatever you want to call it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I never tried validating my CSS or HTML. I didn't realize there were so many errors. However, from what I can see, there's nothing major. It's primarily xhtml, just some errors. I'm not missing brackets or anything. I do use a debugger to check my sites for major javascript and html errors, and according to that, there is none. You should perhaps get into the habit of passing your site through the W3C validators to see what problems it reports. Things to consider regarding validation. In truth, you don't have as many errors as it says.. typically, one error can cause a chain reaction. So perhaps instead of 75, you might only have 5 or 10 (just pulling numbers out of my rear here..point being, don't be terribly discouraged by the actual amount reported, but rather where the errors are in your code). Errors don't necessarily translate into broken page components. However, broken code leaves the browser to interpret. Who's to say that in a future browser release, internal algorithms won't start 'interpreting' things different from how it does now, thus potentially breaking something in your page? If you are going to be servicing people with building sites, as a matter of principal and good coding practices, it would be of benefit to conform to W3C compliances. I did what you suggested; I looked at some templates. You're right about a redesign; however, unless I decide otherwise while making it, I'm going to keep the flash version. I am just not fond of the HTML version. It's your call of course. Do what you want. But Flash should be carefully weighed. While the 'lure' of Flash may be strong, understand that once the novelty wears off, it may annoy people more than impress them. IMO, flash is over rated. Used in small, non intrusive doses can work perfectly fine.. but if a site starts to rely on it too heavily, it becomes a crutch of sorts. Again, from my personal standpoint, I prefer clean (x)html with perhaps some subtle javascript (for non critical components). About the FF logos, please see what I wrote above. I actually was just searching for a quick internet-representing, popular logo when I did that. I literally spent no longer than 10 minutes on that splash page. Hmm.. if you are going to present yourself with your best foot forward, perhaps spending more than 10 minutes on splash page would be in your (and your prospective clients) interest. I would personally axe the splash page in its entirety, and just go to the meat and potatoes homepage that descibes what you do (given your target audience is potential clients). Impress them with a strong mission statement? Perhaps find ways to include additional credibility to your home page. Since your goal is to entice people to go with you for web design, something more appealing than an HTML / Flash version would be more appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphanumetrix Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 I never tried validating my CSS or HTML. I didn't realize there were so many errors. However, from what I can see, there's nothing major. It's primarily xhtml, just some errors. I'm not missing brackets or anything. I do use a debugger to check my sites for major javascript and html errors, and according to that, there is none. You should perhaps get into the habit of passing your site through the W3C validators to see what problems it reports. Things to consider regarding validation. In truth, you don't have as many errors as it says.. typically, one error can cause a chain reaction. So perhaps instead of 75, you might only have 5 or 10 (just pulling numbers out of my rear here..point being, don't be terribly discouraged by the actual amount reported, but rather where the errors are in your code). Errors don't necessarily translate into broken page components. However, broken code leaves the browser to interpret. Who's to say that in a future browser release, internal algorithms won't start 'interpreting' things different from how it does now, thus potentially breaking something in your page? If you are going to be servicing people with building sites, as a matter of principal and good coding practices, it would be of benefit to conform to W3C compliances. I did what you suggested; I looked at some templates. You're right about a redesign; however, unless I decide otherwise while making it, I'm going to keep the flash version. I am just not fond of the HTML version. It's your call of course. Do what you want. But Flash should be carefully weighed. While the 'lure' of Flash may be strong, understand that once the novelty wears off, it may annoy people more than impress them. IMO, flash is over rated. Used in small, non intrusive doses can work perfectly fine.. but if a site starts to rely on it too heavily, it becomes a crutch of sorts. Again, from my personal standpoint, I prefer clean (x)html with perhaps some subtle javascript (for non critical components). About the FF logos, please see what I wrote above. I actually was just searching for a quick internet-representing, popular logo when I did that. I literally spent no longer than 10 minutes on that splash page. Hmm.. if you are going to present yourself with your best foot forward, perhaps spending more than 10 minutes on splash page would be in your (and your prospective clients) interest. I would personally axe the splash page in its entirety, and just go to the meat and potatoes homepage that descibes what you do (given your target audience is potential clients). Impress them with a strong mission statement? Perhaps find ways to include additional credibility to your home page. Since your goal is to entice people to go with you for web design, something more appealing than an HTML / Flash version would be more appropriate. I started on my design for the new HTML version. Now that I see it, I think I'm going to trash the flash version as you suggested. It's much better than both of them, so there's no point anymore. When I finish the layout, I'll be sure to post it here, asking for critiques again. I always seem to work better when people keep nagging me about my work (not that you're nagging - just a figure of speach). I don't see the point in bothering if you can't find more than 10 minutes to work on your own portfolio (or whatever you want to call it). Just a hobby. I enjoy those ten minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphanumetrix Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 I added my new design. Here's a link to the topic: http://www.phpfreaks.com/forums/index.php/topic,238936.0.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.