timjpriebe — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:26:57 +0000

Actually, the color photo is not stretched. It doesn't look stretched to me, but I've been staring at it for awhile.

The 'Among the top six...' originally was an image file. I changed it to save bandwidth, but now that you mentioned it, I may change it back. If only I weren't such a perfectionist...

Unfortunately, the logo is a very recent purchase. That, and I'm still getting to know this client, so I probably do too much urging on that front yet.

Glad you like it, DaveyBoy.

DaveyBoy — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:55:07 +0000

Nice site all in all, although a few things still that i don't like on it - obviously you have an idea of how you want it to look but here's my 2 cents' worth :

That colour photo you have in the bottom right, it does look good there but it looks stretched to fill that gap, you'd have been better cropping to fit it rather than stretching.

The tag-line you have 'AMONG THE TOP SIX GLOBAL HUBS FOR AEROSPACE/AIRCRAFT MRO' that could easily be an image file, all in a row, nice anti-aliased font, probably would be about 2-3kb in size and would look infinitely better imo. The way it's laid out now doesn't look neat to me.

Obviously, the overflowing DIVs have been commented on before and you seem happy with them so no point in adding anything else about them here.

I would definitely try to convince them to get that logo re-done, not only is it ugly but it's pretty limiting and because of the size you're a little 'top heavy'.

Overall it's nice though mate!

demonhale — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:32:32 +0000

It is possible to do a fixed width at about 750px-760px, and float it and center it, so that at either resolutions itll automatically center (like my site)...

Design wise I like your use of subtle shadows, the banner where the logos are are really that big and imposing, can it be reduced?, the text on that banner on the blue strip looks jagged, and the logo looks a little b-rated... Anyways the implementation of iframes here are really quite appropriate, some minor adjustments will do the trick, also the gray you used can be much lighter as well as the blues...

timjpriebe — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:29:20 +0000

Thanks everyone, for your suggestions. I implemented the ones I wanted to, as is always the case. Let's face it, a critique is generally someone else's opinion of your site. I say, take what you want from critiques and feel free to ignore the rest. After all, you should have your own opinion too.

Seriously, you guys pointed out several things that I realized the client would probably point out too. So I appreciate it greatly.

Feel free to check it out again and ask me why I did anything the way I did, including (possibly) ignoring a specific criticism you gave it.

http://tinyurl.com/cqd6l

timjpriebe — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:15:45 +0000

mscreashuns wrote: As far as the screen resolution/page width size, I prefer to use a fixed width and set it so it would fill up a 800x600 screen.

Did you mean variable width?

jcprov21 — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:39:26 +0000

I like the design, really i cant find anything bad to say...........

HaRRo — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:23:40 +0000

The design is nice good colour usage, blue and white always goes together.

Well done add more content on the front page i think.

mscreashuns — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:18:52 +0000

As far as the screen resolution/page width size, I prefer to use a fixed width and set it so it would fill up a 800x600 screen. Then it will fit in any resolution higher than that. And since there will be some negative space at high res. try adding some sort of background image that doesn't take away from the site but hides the empty areas.

Just some ideas...

Greg K — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:03:37 +0000

Last few times I did an install of Windows 98 or XP, they defaulted to 800x600. I had to manually change them to be higher.

Plus, out of that 75%, how many browse at full screen? It drives me nuts to be helping someone on their computer and they have a browser window only open to like 50%-75% of their screen and scroll all around!!!

-Greg

Megan — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:53:14 +0000

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/September/res.php

You'd have to check your own stats but 23% is a lot. Especially when you're cutting off important parts of the design (such as content and logo). If this layout was reversed with the news on the right side it might be better.

Also, just because the resolution says one thing doesn't mean that people are actually using 100% of the screen width. I've got my windows taskbar on the right and opera panels on the left so my browser width is only about 800px. Most of the time I like it this way too, although I've been fiddling with different configurations that might work and give me a wider browser width. I know a lot of people at really high resolutions don't maximize windows. Most web pages don't work at widths above 1200 px or so.

Eeew, that's a bad logo situation. They paid for that ?!?!?!? Yikes! You could try to get a source file from the originating firm which might help, or try to convince them to re-do it! A logo like that is a big problem because you wouldn't be able to use it in other publications or resize it or anything. Something like that would never work in print.