travel photographer - feedback on new site?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by T.Heslenfeld, Feb 9, 2007.

  1. T.Heslenfeld

    T.Heslenfeld Guest

    Hi,

    Just switchted to a newly designed website - both the looks and feels of my
    old website
    have been finetuned. Curious to find out what visitors think, especially
    about:

    A the navigation;
    B the colors of the images;
    C anything special you might notice.

    Tnx in advance

    thijsatthijsheslenfelddotcom
    www.thijsheslenfeld.com





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter
    4136 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
    Download de gratis SPAMfighter vandaag nog!
    T.Heslenfeld, Feb 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <45cc7da5$0$321$4all.nl>, T.Heslenfeld wrote:

    > A the navigation;
    > B the colors of the images;
    > C anything special you might notice.


    The pages load fast, which I consider a principle rule. The navigation
    between galleries is obvious, but the picture selection is just a
    little less obvious. The rectangle is not obviously an indicator, and
    the photo that pops up on the main page of, say, "still" isn't the
    first image in the thumbnails. Clicking on an arrow is fairly obvious,
    but there's no clear indication of where in the line of thumbs I am,
    and although the rectangle tells me, I don't look at it, since I don't
    know what it's for. Hence, I don't know when I've looked at the large
    copies of all the thumbnails.

    Return visitors will figure it out, I'm sure, but it's better to have
    first-time visitors understand how to see all the images so that they
    become return visitors.

    Overall, a good site.

    --
    Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
    http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
    Phil Stripling, Feb 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hi Thijs,
    You have a great site with first rate pictures. I am very envious of
    the locations you have been to.
    You have certainly covered most of the world and had the right weather
    for the location.

    I thought that the main picture displayed was a bit on the small side
    and the gap between the menu bar and the picture was too big.
    Have you kept the picture small to minimise people copying it?

    My monitor is run at 1280 x 1024 which may influence my impression.

    Great site

    Cheers,
    Allan


    >Just switchted to a newly designed website - both the looks and feels of my
    >old website
    >have been finetuned. Curious to find out what visitors think, especially
    >about:
    >
    >A the navigation;
    >B the colors of the images;
    >C anything special you might notice.
    >
    >Tnx in advance
    >
    >thijsatthijsheslenfelddotcom
    >www.thijsheslenfeld.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter
    >4136 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
    >Download de gratis SPAMfighter vandaag nog!
    >
    Allan Sheppard, Feb 9, 2007
    #3
  4. On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:59:49 +0100, "T.Heslenfeld"
    <officeatoostwestthijsbestdotnl> wrote:

    [snip]
    >A the navigation;
    >B the colors of the images;
    >C anything special you might notice.
    >www.thijsheslenfeld.com


    I like it. Used IE7 on WinXP Pro SP2.

    The use of the mouse-wheel to scroll through your vertical thumbnails
    seems to be broken. Some mods with JS, ActiveX or PHP I guess.

    For the horizontal navbar, "Home" starts with a capitalised letter
    but the other items start with a lowercase letter. I think that
    "home" might look better.

    I'm not sure that I like the dashed border on the "selected"
    thumbnail. How about a big think white/yellow/grey border? Not sure
    on the colour. All about experimentation!

    Would it help if your main photos were bigger? Although I can
    understand the concern of fitting them into a small browser window.

    Hope that helps. Great photos BTW!

    PS - I know my own site has issues!

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Feb 9, 2007
    #4
  5. T.Heslenfeld

    ray Guest

    ray, Feb 9, 2007
    #5
  6. T.Heslenfeld

    William4 Guest


    >
    > Tnx in advance
    >
    > thijsatthijsheslenfelddotcom
    > www.thijsheslenfeld.com
    >
    >

    I think you have some really good images in the collection, but what is with
    the 'x-mas'. You've brought out my soap box now, do write it out in full;
    it is not that you are short of space for the caption. 'x' should really be
    a shortened 'trans' anyway and even the Americans don't attempt to hyphenate
    it.
    William4, Feb 10, 2007
    #6
  7. T.Heslenfeld

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, Allan Sheppard exclaimed (10-Feb-07 4:53 AM):

    >
    >> Just switchted to a newly designed website - both the looks and feels of my
    >> old website
    >> have been finetuned. Curious to find out what visitors think, especially
    >> about:
    >>
    >> A the navigation;
    >> B the colors of the images;
    >> C anything special you might notice.
    >>
    >> Tnx in advance
    >>
    >> thijsatthijsheslenfelddotcom
    >> www.thijsheslenfeld.com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter
    >> 4136 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
    >> Download de gratis SPAMfighter vandaag nog!
    >>

    > Hi Thijs,
    > You have a great site with first rate pictures. I am very envious of
    > the locations you have been to.
    > You have certainly covered most of the world and had the right weather
    > for the location.
    >
    > I thought that the main picture displayed was a bit on the small side
    > and the gap between the menu bar and the picture was too big.
    > Have you kept the picture small to minimise people copying it?
    >
    > My monitor is run at 1280 x 1024 which may influence my impression.
    >
    > Great site
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Allan
    >


    Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so small
    I can't make out what many of them are.

    Otherwise, nice site, nice pics.

    jmc
    jmc, Feb 10, 2007
    #7
  8. T.Heslenfeld

    Mardon Guest

    jmc <> wrote:

    > Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so small
    > I can't make out what many of them are.


    I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small. I guess
    that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great photos!
    Mardon, Feb 10, 2007
    #8
  9. [OT] icon size (was: travel photographer - feedback on new site?0

    Mardon wrote:
    > jmc <> wrote:
    >
    >> Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so small
    >> I can't make out what many of them are.

    >
    > I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small. I guess
    > that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great photos!


    Curious- What sizes can you set icons on a PC? On a Mac, it's currently
    limited to 128 x128.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Feb 10, 2007
    #9
  10. On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:39:31 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Mardon
    <> wrote:

    >jmc <> wrote:
    >
    >> Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so small
    >> I can't make out what many of them are.

    >
    >I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small. I guess
    >that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great photos!


    Main image size, yes. Thumbnail size, no.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Re: [OT] icon size (was: travel photographer - feedback on new site?0

    On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:59:20 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Mardon wrote:
    >> jmc <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so small
    >>> I can't make out what many of them are.

    >>
    >> I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small. I guess
    >> that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great photos!

    >
    >Curious- What sizes can you set icons on a PC? On a Mac, it's currently
    >limited to 128 x128.


    What do allowable OS icon sizes have to do with thumbnails presented inside
    of a web browser?

    To answer your question wrt XP:
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997636.aspx
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Re: [OT] icon size

    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:59:20 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Mardon wrote:
    >>> jmc <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so small
    >>>> I can't make out what many of them are.
    >>> I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small. I guess
    >>> that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great photos!

    >> Curious- What sizes can you set icons on a PC? On a Mac, it's currently
    >> limited to 128 x128.

    >
    > What do allowable OS icon sizes have to do with thumbnails presented inside
    > of a web browser?
    >
    > To answer your question wrt XP:
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997636.aspx


    Nothing. Thanks for the link.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Feb 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Re: [OT] icon size

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:59:20 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mardon wrote:
    >>>> jmc <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so
    >>>>> small I can't make out what many of them are.
    >>>> I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small.
    >>>> I guess that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great
    >>>> photos!
    >>> Curious- What sizes can you set icons on a PC? On a Mac, it's
    >>> currently limited to 128 x128.

    >>
    >> What do allowable OS icon sizes have to do with thumbnails presented
    >> inside
    >> of a web browser?
    >>
    >> To answer your question wrt XP:
    >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997636.aspx

    >
    > Nothing. Thanks for the link.


    So, is 48x really the limitation on the most recent Windows systems?

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Feb 10, 2007
    #13
  14. T.Heslenfeld

    Matt Ion Guest

    Phil Stripling wrote:
    > In article <45cc7da5$0$321$4all.nl>, T.Heslenfeld wrote:
    >
    >
    >>A the navigation;
    >>B the colors of the images;
    >>C anything special you might notice.

    >
    >
    > The pages load fast, which I consider a principle rule. The navigation
    > between galleries is obvious,


    I agree, very clean, appears to be fairly fast (although my internet is really
    slow today).

    > but the picture selection is just a
    > little less obvious. The rectangle is not obviously an indicator, and


    Despite the highlight rectangle, clicking the thumbnail of the desired gallery
    IS a pretty obvious idea, and the title underneath is clickable as well. No
    confusion there.

    > the photo that pops up on the main page of, say, "still" isn't the
    > first image in the thumbnails.


    Subjectively, it's a cool idea to have it load a random shot from the gallery,
    rather than just the first one. It's good that the relevant thumbnail is
    highlighted, but...

    > Clicking on an arrow is fairly obvious,
    > but there's no clear indication of where in the line of thumbs I am,
    > and although the rectangle tells me, I don't look at it, since I don't
    > know what it's for.


    There's that. Plus if the selected thumb is off the bottom of the page, it
    leaves you wondering. Also, my first instinct was to click the arrow to scroll
    the thumb column... all it did was go to the next picture; scrolling with the
    browser scrollbar was not immediately obvious. I'd rather see multiple columns
    of thumbs that don't require scrolling at all, and/or more "categorization" of
    the pictures to keep the thumb lists smaller.

    > Return visitors will figure it out, I'm sure, but it's better to have
    > first-time visitors understand how to see all the images so that they
    > become return visitors.
    >
    > Overall, a good site.


    Agreed!

    And some great shots!
    Matt Ion, Feb 10, 2007
    #14
  15. T.Heslenfeld

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: [OT] icon size

    On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:29:57 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:59:20 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Mardon wrote:
    >>>>> jmc <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Agreed. I run my monitor at 1600x1200, and the thumbnails are so
    >>>>>> small I can't make out what many of them are.
    >>>>> I use 1920x1200 and I agree that the thumbs images are very small.
    >>>>> I guess that's the 'price' of protecting images from theft. Great
    >>>>> photos!
    >>>> Curious- What sizes can you set icons on a PC? On a Mac, it's
    >>>> currently limited to 128 x128.
    >>>
    >>> What do allowable OS icon sizes have to do with thumbnails presented
    >>> inside
    >>> of a web browser?
    >>>
    >>> To answer your question wrt XP:
    >>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997636.aspx

    >>
    >> Nothing. Thanks for the link.

    >
    >So, is 48x really the limitation on the most recent Windows systems?


    Through XP. There are third party utilities that allow XP to go as
    high as 128x128. Vista can go 256x256.

    In Vista the displayed icon size seems to be affected by the desktop
    DPI setting as well.

    Note that Internet Explorer 7 has a zoom that lets you enlarge or
    reduce the displayed size of the page your are viewing without
    altering formatting. IE7 is a free download for XP and included in
    Vista.
    J. Clarke, Feb 10, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. thijs

    travel photographer's website: comments welcome

    thijs, Aug 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    258
  2. thijs
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    292
    John McWilliams
    Aug 12, 2005
  3. thijs heslenfeld
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    418
    ½ Confused
    Sep 24, 2005
  4. T.Heslenfeld

    Travel photographer - asking for a favor

    T.Heslenfeld, Dec 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    277
    Gregory Blank
    Dec 16, 2006
  5. Matt Adamson

    Feedback from feedback on MCP questions

    Matt Adamson, Apr 27, 2009, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,601
    Matt Adamson
    Apr 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page