Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest twisted

My Newest Site

Recommended Posts

Guest twisted

Check it out.

v2.0.7

http://panoz.websitewelcome.com/~lfadmin/index.php

Something a little different.

How?

Refresh the page a few times, and wander around and see what happens in the right side column

Plus a lot of "behind the scenes" changes.

Its a testing site, hence the URL, and some cart functions are currently disabled.

Comments welcomed.....

**Edit:

Warning: This is an adult lingerie site. While there is no depictions of nudity, the images are a little risque. So if viewing such images might be offensive to you, or embarrassing, please be cautious of where and if you view the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest

Very nice twisted

only thing i can say is ... takes a long time on dial up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The menu list on the left is sometimes hard to see on the background images... Or maybe I'm just concentrating to hard on the background images... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The menu list on the left is sometimes hard to see on the background images... Or maybe I'm just concentrating to hard on the background images... :w00t:

OMFG.... I totally agree with booker...... ;)

Or is it just me :w00t: ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twisted

only thing i can say is ... takes a long time on dial up

And i'm always on at others about how long it takes a page to load......however, I have optimised the iamges as much as I can without losing the quality.

It is graphically, a fairly intense site, I'll admit, but once the images have been cached by the browser for the first time, they don't take nearly as long to load. :w00t:

Booker....i'm aware of that issue, but wasn't sure if it was that severe enough of a problem to warrant "fixing"?

And if I can ever figure out how to solve the transparent background over a background image issue that i posted about in another thread........i'll "fix" that one too.

:w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twisted

:w00t: @ mobie

Well, it IS a lingerie site....the images are MEANT to be provocative!!!!

;) :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it works. :w00t:

But, even with a satellite connection, the randoms under your category links take way too long to load until they are cached.

Maybe you could put a javascript in the <head> to preload those images automatically into the browser's cache? Something like . . .

<script language="JavaScript">

<!--

if (document.images)

{

  pic1= new Image(100,25); 

  pic1.src="http://someplace.com/image1.gif"; 



  pic2= new Image(240,55); 

  pic2.src="http://someplace.com/image2.gif"; 



  pic3= new Image(88,31); 

  pic3.src="http://someplace.com/image3.gif"; 

}

//-->

</SCRIPT>

Your customer's slogan sounds a little seasonal - like it would make a good blurb for Christmas lingerie. An improvement might be, "Lingerie-Fashions.com promotes safe sex . . . and lots of it!"

Plenty more ideas and suggestions where those came from :w00t:

BTW, I tried optimizing my own images a little after you pointed out they were loading slowly. Was wondering if you'd noticed any improvement. Check out the thread titled, HEY TWISTED in case you . . . missed it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twisted

"Lingerie-Fashions.com promotes safe sex . . . and lots of it!"

An improvement? .................. makes it sound like a sex site.

Its meant to be a sexy site..........not a sex site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To each his own, I suppose. To me it injects a little risque humor - not out of line with the product or the pics. But my opinion could be way out of whack, and that's all it is, my opinion. What about the suggestion to pre-load the images? Do you think something like that may help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two issues I see, one of which is rarely discussed without generating more heat than light.

First the less controversial issue - "reverse" is a term from the days of print advertising. It refers to light text against a dark background. Every research study I've ever seen of print legibility says, unequivocally, that reverse is a bad idea if you want your text to be read. All the experts strongly suggest that reverse be used only for headlines and similar limited situations.

I've been involved in building web iste since January 1994 and have not seen anything different as regards the monitor. If anything, the legibility is even worse on screen than it is in print.

Yet, the use of reverse persists, especially among young web page designers. There's something about reverse that appeals to the drama of the young soul.

Everytime I seea web page design in reverse, I wonder if the designer is aware of the issue of legibility. Since you've invited discussion, this is a good chance to ask. Twisted, what are your thoughts on this issue? Do you accept the research on this issue? Or is there other research I haven't seen?

Second issue is the one that seems to generate more heat than light - that is, designing for the lowest common resolution. It is possible to design web pages that looks good in both high and low res. Again, many young designers take an openly arrogant attitude that high-res is the only one they will design for and I've seen too many remarks that reveal contempt for users who prefer lower res.

Since your new site involves both of these issues, I'd be curious to hear - and maybe all of us would benefit from - discussion of wether your choices were carefully considered in terms of broader useability for this specific site or are those your default design standards - and what influences your position?

I'd be curious to hear what other think as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twisted

markscarts,

it might make a good slogan for use, say, at the bottom of a page, but for a tagline, i'm looking for something a little more...understated.

yes, the pre-loading suggestion is worth considering.

joe,

I was not aware of the study on reverse print.

It was not something I "chose" to do based on some personal preference for the practice, or even, as you say, something that appeals to the drama of a young soul [i'm 44.....i don't HAVE a young soul, lol]....but rather something that was need due to the fact that I DO have a darker background. Black text simply does not show up well at all. I use the reverse text, simply because it is easier to read than a darker text.

All the experts strongly suggest that reverse be used only for headlines and similar limited situations.

I'm good then.......cos i'm only using it in limited situations where I feel its need to improve readability. :rolleyes:

I always try to design to the lowest common denominator.

Persoanlly, i feel you should design for the majority, but thats one of those "controversial" opinions you were probably referrign to.

99 times out of 100, I will try to design for 800 x 600...but with this design, I could not get ti to display to myt satisfaction in anything smaller than 850 pixels wide. Thats only 50 pixels over the 800, and if you are viewing it in that resolution, I believe you can still see enough of the right side panel to read and click on any links. On the view product page, you MAY miss about what? 20 pixels of the right edge?

No, it is not optimised for an 800 x 600 resolution, but for the reason mentioned above, and is so minimally over that, that i can live with it, and I feel anyone using 800 x 600 should be able to too.

I know "old school" designers go epepleptic if they have to go over 800 wide, but honestly, how many modern sites are designed it that resolution?

1 in a hundred? 1 in 200? 1 in 500? 1 in a thousand?

If we stopeed designing in 800 wide, people would be forced to stop viewing in 800 wide and drag themselves out of the dinosaur age. [Oh boy...now THATS gonna open a few cans of whoopass on me, I know it].

Fianlly, in my defense...IF this was a client site, I would do whatever it took to get it to fit in 800 x 600.

But this is MY site......I've already had to compromise the design to get it down to 850 wide, I don't wish to compromise it further.

If it was a customers site, and they wanted it designed in 1028 x 764 res, I'd design it in that res, because thats what the customer wants. As i have done this time, except this time...i'm the customer. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

:rolleyes: @ mobie

Well, it IS a lingerie site....the images are MEANT to be provocative!!!!

:P:D

LOL, I know twisted :P

Anyway about your images... is this something you are after:

screen.jpg

but then in full blend instead of half...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest zman

Booker....i'm aware of that issue, but wasn't sure if it was that severe enough of a problem to warrant "fixing"?

To me it is more an issue of font CHOICE and not color. I'm not sure if you are using a font that I don't have on my computer or ? but the font itself is a "bad" font IMO. The color of white is just fine but the font itself is difficult to read... would be better IMO as the font you have for your product descriptions but not bolded :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Rather than going for a transparent layer overtop your images (or under your text), why not simply change the background images to be faded? Save them with a transparent layer overtop of either black or white or some other colour of your choice, so that the image can still be seen, but the text stands out against it. Something like what mobie showed in the image above.

PS - mobie... aren't you too young to be playing with images like that :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fianlly, in my defense...IF this was a client site, I would do whatever it took to get it to fit in 800 x 600.

But this is MY site......I've already had to compromise the design to get it down to 850 wide, I don't wish to compromise it further.

If it was a customers site, and they wanted it designed in 1028 x 764 res, I'd design it in that res, because thats what the customer wants. As i have done this time, except this time...i'm the customer. :rolleyes:

A very respecatable defense I might add. I believe in giving the customer what he/she wants, and, if YOU ARE the customer, by all means "indulge."

Alot of money as well as personal satisfaction has been had by following one's own design instincts.

The perfect design is elusive always; sacrifices have to be made for one consideration or another. While I favor sites that are friendly to the 800 pix width, My CubeCart site referenced above is an example of an all reverse-text site - done that way because I believe the product itself is presented best against a large black canvas.

I would think that reverse text would be the least of criticisms on the site Twisted submitted here . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twisted said:

QUOTE

how many modern sites are designed it that resolution?

1 in a hundred? 1 in 200? 1 in 500? 1 in a thousand?

END QUOTE

Is that the right question? To me it sounds like the logic of "if Johnny jumped off the bridge, do you have to?"

And what is a "modern" site? If it's a hires site in reverse then that's nothing more than a self-referential definition. Is the purpose of a shopping cart to be "modern" or usable? Is a shopping cart nothing more than an exercise in self-expression - or is it a commercial tool whose primary justification is the eyeballs it retains and the sales it generates?

I sugest a question that will yield more useful infpomation is,

"How are the most popular web sites designed in terms of resolution and the use of reverse?"

Let's consider the web sites of Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, MSN and so on through the top 100 in terms of what people are using repeatedly. Is there a lesson there? Are ANY of them in reverse and hires that forces a lkeft right scroll on the 800 by 600 user? Isn't it reasonable to ask what they think they know?

Is hires and reverse an attempt to be different - an attempt made at the expense of useability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twisted

A "modern" site, by my own self-refrential defintion, is one designed to appeal to todays user, not to some relic surfing with a dinosaur...i.e. what? 10 - 15% of the populace?

Everywhere else. majority rules......why not here?

"To me it sounds like the logic of "if Johnny jumped off the bridge, do you have to?" "

Thats one way of looking at it.

You could also say that if 9 out of 10 people are doing it, are those 9 people wrong and the only one doing it right is the tenth person??

"Let's consider the web sites of Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, MSN and so on through the top 100 in terms of what people are using repeatedly."

Okay...and if I wanted to be like Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or MSN, its probablty something worth considering.

But my little site is just a small "Mom & Pop" site that has no desire, inclination, or intention to be a contender for the top 100 of all internet web sites.

"Is hires and reverse an attempt to be different"

Ummm.......yes! Obviously.

"an attempt made at the expense of useability? "

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? You make it sound like a site can't be hi-res/reverse, and still be useable? Which I would have to disagree with.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't disagree with you, but on a local level, I know what I want.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree with twisted on this im afraid

from a web designer point of view we always have to do what the customer wants even if its daft and we know it wont work we can advise but they have the last word.

So if its what you want twisted go with it.

Yes i try to design all my sites 800x600 but then if you cant get it down oh well!

If the sites appealing enough and all ready got the surfers attention from the others im sure they wont mind scrolling a little, and like you say its only 50 pixels they cant see.

mtc :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point - and it is not really at odds with mine - as it applies to the kinds of sites you describe. If you are building a web site for your own enjoyment, you are the only one who needs to be satisfied.

That doesn't clash with my position that a professional web site designer who is building sites that are intended to sell things, sites that are required to be commercially succcessful, cannot use that same personal-interest standard. He (or she) owes it to the client to provide the most useable site, not the kewelest.

As for dinosaurs, I'd rather be doing business with old dinasauers who have the accumulated wealth that comes from a lifetime of earning, and not some kid who can't even afford a copyright license for CC. Reverse and hires is not going to attract the plastic.

Hell, I wouldn't mind at all owning Google. I'll not pretend otherwise. If a clean simple interface is what makes it such a success, then that's what I'll design for. Then I could afford to design all the self-indulgent web pages I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

PS - mobie... aren't you too young to be playing with images like that  :D

LOL.... send her over and I'll be playing alright ROFLMFAO! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest estelle

When you open a category that contains subcategories, the text is black on dark blue (eg. Leather, Stockings, Fuller Figure)

And theres a couple of PHP errors (eg. click on the site pages), but you probably know about it anyway.

I know "old school" designers go epepleptic if they have to go over 800 wide, but honestly, how many modern sites are designed it that resolution?

1 in a hundred? 1 in 200? 1 in 500? 1 in a thousand?

Are you kidding??

Even I got my site to work 800 wide (only just!) and in the content area I have two columns - product picture on the left and description on the right (similar to v2).

But it does sound like your site works fine as is. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rjmead

Check it out.

v2.0.7

http://panoz.websitewelcome.com/~lfadmin/index.php

Something a little different.

How?

Refresh the page a few times, and wander around and see what happens in the right side column

Plus a lot of "behind the scenes" changes.

Its a testing site, hence the URL, and some cart functions are currently disabled.

Comments welcomed.....

I wish I knew what type of site this was before looking at it at work !!!

Please can people mention what type of site they are promoting before people look at it where it might not be appropriate !!

lol - oh well we shall see if someone says anything to me.

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twisted

Yes, Rich...you're right and I do apologize for that. I will admit that it never really occurred to me.

But it is only a lingerie site...theres not even any nudity. :(

When you open a category that contains subcategories, the text is black on dark blue

I was aware of that estelle...I am working on some small grpahics to replace both text and image...just not done them yet.

And stockings???

There should BE any subcats in stockings!

I suspect I may have misassigned a cat_id somewhere in my upload file.

And theres a couple of PHP errors (eg. click on the site pages), but you probably know about it anyway.

Yes, I had added a small piece of code to the top of each page, but forgot the ; at the end. Thats causing the error.

I had meant to fix that....thank you for reminding me. :)

Are you kidding??

Even I got my site to work 800 wide (only just!)

Truith be told, i could tweak it a little bit further and probably shave that 50 pixels off........but it took me a LONG time to do all the graphics, most of which are hard coded into position, and it would take a LOT more work just to shave that 50 pixels off.

As I am busy trying ot get all the products uploaded, and working opn a bunch of custom mods for it, I don;t have a lot of inclination to put the time required, into it.

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest estelle

I wasn't trying to imply that you should change it. I was just very surprised that you said hardly any new sites are still designed for 800 wide, because I'm not sure if I have ever seen a professional site that is wider than 800...

But anyway, well done with the site :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

just a few points

a) always do what the customer says

= bad attitude. you need to explain to the customer that designing to 1024 will loose sales. you need to make them aware that it may also be law in their country to comply to certain accessibility standards. by all means furnish the client with their requests but never be negligent.

;) dinosaurs with large resolutions

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

as of July 2005 25% of internet users are 800 x 600.

*** as an aside twisted you have slated people for having graphic intensive sites as you only have dialup. there will be some people on here who do not even know what dialup is.

c) reverse is good/bad?

in my opinion (as i know these discussions can get heated as everyone takes things personally rather than keeping it in the arena) your site rips my eyeballs out. non matched colours, crazy fonts, illegible text. image optimisation that makes the poor girl look 30 years older.

d) 50px to much?

well as you said you hardcoded it. try viewing your site after switching the font size up a few notches, or browsing your site with a speech reader.

i have no constructive comments - as the most elequently put comments were met with hostility and disrespect (it was plainly obvious from jerseyjoes turn of phrase that he has a basic knowledge of web standards, marketing practices and more importantly design for the web).

1 in 4 switching off because the horizontal scrollbar appeared. 1 in 4 switching off because they cannot read it. 1 in 4 switching off because it does look like a porn site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...