Site Feedback?
- Started
- Last post
- 22 Responses
- mcfly
Hey All, our studio just released a website for an indie film. We'd love feedback from the community.
Got paid $0.00, but got to do anything we wanted ;) Hope you all like it:
- Bluejam0
Great design!
Really like the look of the site, nice typography, great imagery and good choice of colour.
I'd revisit some of the functionality/animation of the site...
1. scrolling text by mouse seems like a good idea but I found it a 'rough' experience, hard to control, annoying...gimme some old fashioned arrows!
2.overal, the animation seemed to stutter and 'look' jerky , especially the gallery section...maybe simplify, slow it down or try another method?
great site! good work!
- pushme0
I like the jerky transitions but don't like font size / line height for the content text. Sounds picky but the site would be super tight if that worked a bit better w/ the rest of the site.
Other than that nice site.
- shant0
Please never resize the browser window for me. Thanks.
-The Management
- sparker0
i'm sorry, but use the browser space available. do not resize my window and do not use pop-ups. there is *NO* valid reasoning in design or development to do so.
that same site would function correctly in a normal, un-altered browser window.
besides that, the desired effect will not work in countless browsers and will cause problems for alternative devices (pdas, phones, etc).
it is poor design choice. it seems amateurish to me.
- mcfly0
Hey sparker,
Absolutes like "there is *NO* valid reason" are pretty lame. You don't have to agree with it as a function, and I appreciate your point--we considered using a larger, nested table to hold the page, chose not to.
However, there is a valid reason--the idea was to have the images scroll directly off the browser edge to increase the dramatic effect of the images being spliced and vertically displaced.
Placing the window nested in a centered table w/ a flat background works fine, but it isn't the effect we wanted. It may "work" the same, but doesn't have the same visual effect. A poor choice? Perhaps. But it is a valid reason, just one you don't happen to agree with.
It has been tested on MAC/PC in IE, NN, Safari; so I'm not sure what browsers other than the 99% this covers you're mentioning. As for alternative devices, it wasn't in the spec, not something we built for.
I'm not sure what's "amateurish" about it. You may not like resizing scripts, that's cool, but the scripts are tight, operate exactly as designed, and that's across all major platforms.
- sparker0
it doesn't matter what you build for, it is up to the user to access the site via whatever device they choose.
as for "all platforms", what about Linux and Unix? did you bother testing for those?
as for dramatic effect, for one, i didn't even notice it, so do you think users will?
i like the site. don't get me wrong, i'm an asshole because, as a user (especially one who choses not to use windows and ie on a regular basis) it is annoying when any site does this.
it has nothing to do with visual design, it has to do with standard, functional web sites.
some users disable javascripting, so the dramatic effect you sought wouldn't work anyway, some users use netscape 4 still, in which it would likely fail. some users require accessbility not provided by your method.
you argue that targeting a single type of user is the reason, but, the web isn't singled out like that.
you don't build a car for one person, you build it for anyone and everyone - if it happens to excluse some, that is the nature of the beast, but it is *built* as one size fits all.
you wanted feedback, i'm giving it to you as a user.
- mcfly0
I appreciate it.
Linux/Unix, no we didn't test, but we don;t have a setup for that, most studios don't QA this, but sure, it makes sense.
I like having the feedback to think on, and likely implement.
we didn't design just for one user--it's compliant on Mac/PC, AOL/NN/IE/Safari, so pretty broad. It's not everyone, but it's a good sampling. your thoughts on those w/ disabled javascript--good point.
RE: 4.0 browsers, though; yes, I admit it, screw them. time to update. If this were a consumer or mass market site, we'd possibly test 4.0, but we're talking about browsers from 1996-7 for christ's sake, and this is a very specialized site for a fairly narrow demographic. I've been developing interactive since 1996. I do believe in retro-compliant work. But at some point, it goes too far. 7 year old browsers in my opinion are the user's issue to deal with.
That having been said, I think using a nested table in the main browser can get us a good effect all the same, and I'll probably redesign it, so thanks for the staunch user focused sentiment (you an IA? ;)
- instantok0
"you don't build a car for one person, you build it for anyone and everyone - if it happens to excluse some, that is the nature of the beast, but it is *built* as one size fits all."
that is not true...cars, web sites, whatever are designed for a very specific audience which is defined at the outset of the project (this includes defining what browsers / platforms they use)...designing for everyone and anyone is impossible...their studio decided that their audience thought it would be more dramatic in a pop up...i see his point...i dont like that either but if it works for his audience that's cool...site looks pretty tight by the way...i agree with the type / animation comments
- sparker0
actually it is true, sorry. hence the desire for web standards.
and cars, buildings everything engineered is a one size fits all.
i know, i studied architecture and engineering (i just ended up a programmer). there is a 300 dollar book called graphics standards that outlines the one size fits all standard.
like i said, exclusion is the nature of the beast. it happens....not everyone will successfully use something, but the product is designed to accomodate all, not one. period.
standards, standards standards. besides, with admendments to the ADA and other 'accessibility laws', the chances of getting sued for not offering equal access is becoming a reality.
anyway. don't redesign if you don't want to, the point isn't to automatically alter it,i just want to you realize that we don't dictate to users, users dictate to us.
if you want the site used, then don't design for yourself...the things i've mentioned are basic rules of standards in web design.
and, although many of those entrenched in their false facts of the web may argue, the truth is that users don't approve of certain things.
like i said, i like the design. visually, it's great. i just want people to question the use and function of their site.
functionally, as a user, i wouldn't have stuck around.
- mcfly0
hey, hey....
look, instanook/sparker.
We DIDN'T just design for one user, that's silly. the site works on PC/MAC--IE/NN/AOL/Safari. We're talking about 95% of viewers.
Programmers tend to look at things in absolutes in my expereince (as do IAs). In a lot of cases, that's a great thing, and very helpful for designers who don't think that way. I happen to keep compatibility in mind quite a bit. I've been designing since NN 2.0, and remember crunching pages down to 40K max.
However one size fits all for EVERYTHING is not always desirable IMHO, and for an indie-film site that is supposed to be unusual, taking an unusual approach seemed like a good thing. Specializing and catering to broad user groups (not 1 person) seems appropriate at times.
Designing for 100% compliancy is not quite possible, but is 95% a good goal? Sure--for a lot of sites it makes sense. In this case it didn't.
If anyone on a PC/Mac with a reasonably current browser had said the popup doesn't work, script is busted, etc, then THAT'S a very good reason to reconsider the approach and be more inclusive. But .0001% of the surfing public crusies around in a Linux or Unix box. I was willing to exclude those people.
- instantok0
i see what you mean...as far as the way something functions (i am not referring to web navigation methods but rather if something looks / works the same cross browser / platform), yes, design should be one size fits all...visually that is not so...i think the line gets a little blurred with the pop up because it was a visual choice relying on a functional element...
does that make sense?
sorry bout the tangent...im just curious what sparker thinks
- instantok0
mcfly...i agree 100%
- mcfly0
"we don't dictate to users, users dictate to us"
and I totally agree w/ this...again; I think testing on the platforms we did is a pretty good QA for 95% of users, and it works for all of them.
If someone turns off javascript, that's a dscision they make that will likely affect their experience on 50% of websites. In that case, it's hard to design for that person AND everyone else. They can choose to tuen it back on. We're talkiang about less than 1% of users who would do this.
- brundlefly0
I have no problems with the site....I get all I need to know, and that is fine...
I think the music is a little drastic however....I was sure it was a horror, until I read the plot.
- sparker0
i can agree with that,instantok, but remember the web isn't purely a visual medium. it is not print, nor is it art. the web contains both and more.
users want a site that functions. period. the reason a user goes to a site is to get information/content and see pretty pictures.
if they can't do that, then the site fails. pretty is fine, but it must be functional. the site must work.
if you goto a client and tell them that their site *could* be used by x amount of people, but will only be used by y because you decided to target a single, small group of users, more than likely the client would not except.
clients want their product delivered to as many potential clients as possible...it is business to them.
sure, focusing on a specific group that 'you' think are interested in indie films sounds good, but i am interested in indie films and i wouldn't use the site.
without proper usability and testing, you as a designer have no idea what niche market to design for.
i would imagine an independent film company would want to reach as many potential viewers and users as possible - the more interest the more possible offers from producers, etc...
no, visually all cars and things don't look the same. of course not - that would be a boring world. i agree completely, but functionally a car is usable to the *majority* not a specific group.
web design is the same. we don't live in a grey background, blue link text world anymore. sites can contain a marriage of proper usability and functionality along with pretty interfaces.
besides, visually speaking, a pop-up is useless. since the site would 'look' the same in the existing browser space. the only thing a pop-up does is reduces screen space, it changes nothing. no usable reason to do it.
- rson0
little input on my part. I was totally lost on the gallery section.
- mcfly0
Lost how rson? would love to hear details to store for next time.
thanks
- ible0
First of all I've got no problems with the browser resizing.
The design of the site is great and I think it goes really well the soundtrack.
The text is slightly hard to read at times due to the background image e.g. "crew" section. Maybe make the text a little whiter?
The gallery section...yeah I found it a little confusing too, I couldn't understand at first why the images were changing, until I realized that the buttons had now changed from onClick to onRollover. But after that it was fine, sorry I'm just giving you what my first feelings where when using this interface for the first time.
Overall I think you've done a great job.
To create more of an atmosphere I think it would be great idea if you were to hear parts of dialogue from the film as you browse the site, just my thought.
- mcfly0
Hey Ible--thanks.
I LOVE the dialogue idea, and we were planning on inserting this in the bio pages--but as an event sound in the sectioanal pages would be great.
The text is a bit on the transparant side, but we figured a little challenge there was OK--seemed more readable than not. Hope that's the case.
regarding the gallery--there were some glitches my programmer had problems with, but I agree, I'd prefer the thumbails to be onClick--it's a good suggestion. She was having difficulties w/ a few things and this was a work around.
Thanks for pretty on point feedback, and that goes to everyone.
- atomica0
Sites great mcfly, as for sparker, he's saying clients would go with your idea if you're leaving out the majority. Thing is you've stated a fact, you're hitting 95% of the market. And that by all means is a majority, almost unanimous. I think what you did was right, I like the closed in tall narrow feeling you gave the viewer by doing what you did. Makes perfect sense, especially in contrast to a horizontal - short resolution that we're stuck at day in and day out. Most of the site just makes sense, which is good, especially for a probono piece. I half agree with the type animation comments earlier... you could leave it or add arrows, it'll still get across to the viewer fine I think, and sometimes - it's good to be annoyed. :)