www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk - site review please Options

[send2paul]

Evening all

Yes, it's about time I showed my face around here with an effort of mine own. Let me explain a little bit of what you are about to see before you go there. The website is to show off the art work of a guy called John Clark. it's final resting place will be his homepage/username type site on his internet provider. You will see two links at the foot of the page - one was his original site, the other is my improved site.

I don't actually know John Clark. I've never met him, never talked to him, and only knew he existed from about two weeks ago, when I was downloading a movie off him through Winmx, and we got talking with their chat box facility. It went something like this - he had a website, and I was learning web design....do you mind if I have a look at it?

Now, I've spent the last several months hanging around here (!), and also dilligently working my way through tutorials in attempting to learn Macromedia's Dreamweaver MX2004 software. And it was amazing how much of that learning, (along with my HTML coding experience), helped me to put the thing together.

So, in terms of what the site is & isn't. It ISN'T:
1. An ecommerce site in order to hard sell his art work
2. Thoroughly optimised, or registered anywhere for searching purposes.
3. Using the best banner/top to the site in the world - I'm just not very good at that kind of thing yet.

The site IS:
1. A place to show his art work, and maybe get a few interesting emails.
2. Partially optimised for the front page - I think (!)
3. A thoroughly good exercise for me in site development.

What did I learn? Lots of things which I think would be useful for other beginners to read about:

1. Make sure you understand what your client wants. As this was an unusual situation - I threw myself in at the deep end in order to test my abilities - I was less concerned about what John wanted, (and he was quite pleased and only asked for a few modifications to what I did), but there was that feeling of: "He doesn't know about web design - so he doesn't really know what he wants anyway, and therefore can't really express himself properly" That did leave me a bit lost on some occasions.

2. There will be quite strict work patterns and channels for me in the future. It was evident that after learning lots of technical things about design, and then applying them, but also having to think a little bit about SEO, what John wanted, what I think it should look like etc - it was easy to sidetracked. There were occasions when I spent too much time doing one thing, and I should have concentrated more on the job at hand.

3. Understand your limitations. I know the top of the site is not great. I know that the font used for the title and the side links is only adequate, (but it also keeps in with the "feel" of the rest of the site as well). I did start to search through internet forums to help me with the "banner creation", but decided to leave it as it was in the end. I shall over come some of my limitations the next time I create a site

4. Don't rush. Another learning experience was that although there may be a logical approach to technical site construction - some things just naturally take longer than others. For example, I've not really "tidied up" the coding in the web album pages, as they look okay, and there's no need for it. I did smarten up the front page coding. At one point I did have a little icon from our friends at W3C - but then I put in a "hit counter", and that screwed it up, and I wasn't sure how to fix it

What has been the overall experience? A good one, (so far - but I haven't seen your comments yet! ). It became a bit of a fixation actually! I was thinking about it whilst drving around the motorway, then getting to work and writing something on a scrap of paper to try later on!

Anyway, the original site was here: http://www.artist33.freeserve.co.uk/

and the one I did is currently sitting in my freespace here: http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/index2.html

Be as open as you like with the comments - as I know you will be
--------------------------------------------------------------

Edited 04/10/04 - the finished website is now sitting snuggly at :

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.clark63/index2.html and not in my BT freespace link as mentioned above

[paranoidandroid]

Hello Paul,

As a first project I think you have done a pretty decent job, I have spent many weeks developing a portfolio site for my own artwork, and I can relate to some of the problems a site like this throws up. For a start how do you create a site that is sympathetic to the artwork on show, then you have all sorts of problems with how to present the works, thumbnails how big, how many on each page, how to line them up - when they are all different shapes. (these are things I have had to cope with anyway)

You have in my opinion improved a lot on the original site in the following areas-

The original site suffered from horizontal scrolling, yours has none.

The original site didn't really have a color scheme, I think the yellow works pretty well with the brown text.

The original site had annoying scrolling text.

The images on the original were too big.

I like the fact that your homepage has good examples of the type of work on show on it.

Things to consider with your site

I am not too keen on the way the side links get bigger and change fonts, when you mouse over them, also it pushes the rest of the site to the side which I don't think looks good.

I also think the side links are a little too big in the first place.

I don't think the frame color around the thumbnails works against the yellow, maybe either lose the frame completely or try different colors.
(as I said earlier it's not easy aranging thumbnails, is it)

The End

The end for me anyway, I hope I have offered constructive criticism, I think you have made a great start

ps. some of the artwork :shock: -interesting

[kensplace]

What has been the overall experience? A good one, (so far - but I haven't seen your comments yet!  )

Thats whats its all about really, having fun doing it!

Listen to comments, act if need be, but dont take them to heart.

Your in a good place here, as comments will almost always be constructive, and useful!

Dive in, do it, enjoy it

[send2paul]

Marvin, sorry Mr Paranoidandroid, and Ken - thanks for your comments.

Yes, it is fun isn't it?

The whole web album part of the site, i.e. everything other than the front page, was an original creation of an extension in DWMX2004, which, by setting a few preferences, allows you to construct a web album. (It works in conjunction with Fireworks). However, I spent many happy hours reconstructing it for positioning of text etc - when I didn't realise that I could have actually altered the coding in the original templates, as well as just selecting basic preferences - ho hum, a good lesson learnt.

The art work images have been supplied by John. I don't know what the original dimensions of the works are, (something I was going to ask him, if he really wanted to sell his work off this site), so I just took what he had, and the others that he emailed me. One presumes that they are the originals, and not enhanced by other means.

(Side issue: All my explanations & reasons for design etc may seem centred around this piece of Macromedia software - Dream Weaver MX 2004. That's because they are . Presently, I'm learning the trade, and this is one of the best tools to use. I shall, with experience be able to master such things as Fireworks, Flash, Cold Fusion, Paint Shop Pro (!) & other associated bits of wizardry to enhance my creativity. At the moment these tools are in the driving seat, but I'll get the better of them some day! )

Yes, side links. I'll be honest, I started off with some very nice flash buttons on there originally. I thought they looked okay. But when I previewed this site on the Macromedia forums last week, the flash buttons had to go! They conflict with W3C compliance for a web site, (which, in this case, was no big deal, but as I'd worked hard to try to get it to be compliant, I was kind of naffed off when they screwed things up). I was also informed about flash buttons that ...

1. Many people do not have the Flash plugin installed, (how true is this anyone?). If your site's navigation is in Flash, then these people are outta luck.
2. Search Engine spiders *may* not be able to read the links within a compiled SWF file.
3. (This may be just Macromedia specific...) DW cannot read the links within a Flash button, so if you link one to a page named foo.html, and later decide to change that page's name to bar.html, your button's link will be broken.

So, bearing all in mind, the flash buttons went. And I went onto creating CSS rollover links. At this point my creativity and technical ability seemed to go down different roads . I've used CSS briefly in the past, so I knew a little bit about what I was doing, but I couldn't quite get to where I wanted to go. (I think I may scrap the side links and re-do them anyway). I may be suffering from one of the rules I noted in my original posting Don't Rush. Outside of just creating this website, I've a few real life personal & "real paid" work (!) deadlines to meet, so I may be guilty of rushing those side links through...oops!

Frames around the thumbnails? Yeah, I did look at that myself. I couldn't make my mind up. I felt that "no frame" left them suspended in the air, whereas "some frame" gave them, (at least a little bit), a more structured, art gallery type feel to the page.

I was quite pleased with the little "cubes" of art at the top of the page . It seemed the best way to show examples of John's work without ruining the simplicity of the page below it.

Anyway, thanks again chaps for your comments. I shan't change anything on the site until a few more peeps have, (hopefully), come here and commented on it. Thanks again

[Respree]

Hi Paul:

A respectable first effort, Paul.

I have a few constructive comments for you.

Title Tags. On your homepage, the lack of spaces separating your words makes your title appear visually awkward.

John Clark's Art World illustrator,artist,graphic designer,Essex, England

should be perceived by the search engines the same as

John Clark's Art World illustrator, artist, graphic designer, Essex, England

As I think about terms that potential visitors may be searching for, "world" does not come to mind. It seems to me you'd get a higher percentage of visitors on:

John Clark illustrator
John Clark artist
John Clark graphic designer

If it were me, I'd use the title:

John Clark : artist, illustrator, artist and graphic designer

On your category page titles, I'd use:

John Clark : Classical Art
John Clark : Fantasy Art
John Clark : Portrait Art
John Clark : [other category type] Art

Abbreviations. Unless a term is commonly understood, I would refrain from using abbreviations. PHD, MBA, CPA would be acceptable, but BBW would not be a term commonly searched for. I suspect if you changed the linkname from BBW to 'big breasted women', its going to attract a lot of traffic that you don't want. Perhaps coming up with another linkname would be more appropriate for this category.

Broken links. You could check all your links to make sure they work properly. Often times, broken links are a sign of an unattended to site and may cause visitors to leave prematurely.

Broken image here.
http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/p...aits/index.html

The home link on this page, does not take you back to the homepage
http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/p...ssical/001.html

Pageload times. I would suggest trying to optimize your images for faster load times. For example, the image on this page, is 80K. As a general rule, you should try to aim for a 'total' pagesize of 50K or less than 10 seconds.

Image optimizer here.
http://www.netmechanic.com/GIFBot/optimize-graphic.htm

Be careful not to optimize 'too much', as you will eventually reach the point of unacceptable image degradation.

You can also get smaller file sizes by reducing the height and width of the image (in pixels).

Consistency in Navigation. Whichever method of navigation you choose, it's important that it be consistent throughout the site. Personally, I will continue with the method you've chosen for your homepage, with the art categories appearing on your left navigation bar.

Consistency in Link Designation. Similarly, you should use a consistent method to designate links. Your left navigation on your homepage is brown and not underlined, while your footers are blue and underlined. Whichever method you choose, you will offer your visitors the most friendliness by being "consistent," a principle which may be applied to many things.

"Alt" tag in images. I would suggest you use the 'alt' tag for your images, which will aid the spiders in understanding what your site is about.

Additional Content. Of course, I realize this site was designed based upon what is on the artist's official website. However, I would encourage you to add additional information if you can get it. I know if I was the artist and you were promoting me, I'd be happy to give you all the information you wanted. The first thing that comes to mind is the artist's biography. Running an art site, I know my visitors are extremely interested in the background of the artist, where they went to school, what inspires them, etc. Other information you could include would be to have the artist do a little write-up on each piece, which would help to engage the audience. Dimensions and media would also be appropriate.

How do I buy?. I'm sure the artist would love to sell some of his art and possibly there are people interested in buying. Are we talking $50 or $5,000? How about posting some prices and information on how they can acquire one of these paintings?

Technical Problem with Display. As I mouse-over your left navigation on your homepage, it is pushing your content over to the right. You might want to take a look at that (browser=IE6).

Hope these comments have been helpful, Paul.

[send2paul]

Garrick,

Yes - thanks for that. I'll get back to you properly - it's 10pm here -and time for a cup of tea

I do appreciate your comments, and I'll read it properly tomorrow.

Thanks to you and t'others who have commented so far.

[Respree]

Go to sleep. It'll make more sense with a fresh pair of eyes. :wink:

[send2paul]

Okay....let's have a look at what you said Garrick.......

Title Tags - agreed. I've possibly been "software" driven on some of these points, i.e. filling in boxes and clicking buttons to "magically" produce pages,and not paid attention - or even realised (!) the potential incorrect detail on some things.

Abbreviations - well, now there's a bit of a debate here. I do agree with you - John didn't - and I have to bow to his expertise on this, because the term BBW in the art world is a recognised category of art by that terminology, as this Google search will show:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bbw+art&hl=...8&start=10&sa=N
so, I think I'll stick with the BBW. (I initially did have "Big Breasted Women" - because that's what they are...lol....but I was corrected)

Broken Links - slightly annoyed with myself about that, as I thought I'd checked them all.

Page Load Times/Image Optimisation - new ground for me. I knew slow loading pages are an issue, but I never really considered this a problem here - but then I never checked because it never occured to me do so - and I didn't know how to anyway (!) - but I do now - thank you

Navigation & Links - I didn't want to detract away from the pictures by having the left hand link buttons on each of those pages. This is why I put the simple navigation "bar" at the bottom, and the "internal" navigation links just below each picture. I agree about the different colour in the links etc. The navigation bar links traditonally are underlined, so I wanted to keep them that way so as to not to confuse the average punter. I thought that "that type" of navigation would look odd if the links weren't underlined to show that they were links - and not just a group of words separated by a vertical stick.

Alt Tags - agreed. Should the alt tags just be the name of the picture? Or, what kind of info goes in an alt tag? And - is this the way images are found from image search engines? (Such as the image selction in Google?)

Additional Content - yup, already on the case . I met John, (for the first time!), at an ice hockey game over the weekend, where we discussed things - stopping, of coure, to watch the fights! . He is preparing an autobiography, of sorts, and I suggested we lose the BBW pic off the front page and put his own there - and put his bio there. I talked about dimensions of art work and other details - as he has given me some - but not all.
I also discussed the possibility of a links page, or even links on the front page. But as there are no specific organisations that John belongs to, or other artists he knows he can link to, so we gave that idea a miss.

How To Buy? - yup discussed that one as well, briefly. As it's not a strictly an ecommerce site as such, we were going to leave it by email to John. An inquiry first, and then he can sort the details out. I may ask about prices being exhibited - but I don't want to put people off either. Primarily this is an art gallery for John's work. Should there be enough interest generated from emails - then I may upgrade the site - time allowing etc.

Tecchie Display Problem - will be sorted

Other Things Discussed - I'd also talked about registering his own domain etc - but this seemed to be going further away from just designing a website for a bloke's art work, and getting into full-time - webmastery!

Thanks for all the input Garrick - it really is good of you to help & comment If anyone else has anything to add, or comment on - do it soon - as I could be making some changes to it shortly!

[bragadocchio]

Alt Tags - agreed. Should the alt tags just be the name of the picture? Or, what kind of info goes in an alt tag? And - is this the way images are found from image search engines? (Such as the image selction in Google?)

The "alt" is for alternate. In that if someone doesn't have images showing when surfing a page, how would you describe the image they don't see.

Imagine that you are telling someone about the site over the telephone. You get to a picture. Do you tell them about it? If so, what do you say?

If it's an image that is purely decorative, you might just use alt=""

If it's an image for navigation, you might want to do something like alt="link to illustrations"

If it's an image of a mermaid lounging around a tidal basin, you might want alt="Mermaid resting in shallow waters, looking mysterious"

[send2paul]

Thanks Bill.

Or, if the Crea8asite page hadn't loaded properly and I was telling them about your remark, I'd be saying to someone:

"Yeah, you know Bill "Alt=Bloke in a small picture from Delaware"..." LOL

[Respree]

On second thought, I've looked at a keyword suggestion tool, and BBW does seem to get a fair amount of queries. You'll also catch similar searches for those who mean "big busted women" or "big beautiful women," as it appears these are common abbreviations for those terms as well.

One thing you might consider on your left navigation is to make it more obvious this is navigation. If you can do this, then there is no need for underlining. Commonly, the left navigational area is a different color than the main body of the page or uses different colors. Alternatively, you might put the word "Browse:" directly above the category selections. Tiny bullets might make it appear more like a list.

You can take a peek at my site to see how I've applied the ideas above.
http://www.respree.com/posters/posters.html

I think posting the artist's image, next to a short welcoming paragraph with a link to a full biography page would help to establish that all-important emotional connection with the audience. I'd also showcase (on the homepage) perhaps two of his favorite pieces, have him talk about it a bit to solicit interest.

[send2paul]

I doubt there'll be enough blurb to fill an intro on the first page - and then an "About Me" page as well

I think I'll probably stay with the front page as is, (after changing the links). I didn't want people to be distracted from clicking on the links to view the art by having individual pieces already on the front page. It may give the impression that this is all, or the main thing, which John does. The little bar across the top, I think, is sufficient just to show that this is the kind of thing which John does.

I'll give some thought about the navigation bar at the foot of the page. I will still probably leave it in, but may change it a little.

Thanks again for your input Garrick. I'll be slowly making changes over the next few days, so we should see some difference by/during the weekend

[send2paul]

Image Optimisation - a slight confusion

Garrick/Tim, (or anyone else that should be passing by who can throw some light on my confusion!)...Garrick you said:

...
http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/p...ssical/001.html

Pageload times. I would suggest trying to optimize your images for faster load times. For example, the image on this page, is 80K. As a general rule, you should try to aim for a 'total' pagesize of 50K or less than 10 seconds.

So, I did something about it. Using the original Baywatch image as an example at :
http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/p...gBreas/010.html
I optimised the image firstly to a medium quality, here:
http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/OPT2/010.html
And then to a smaller quality, here:
http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/OPT1/010.html

And the results were, (from the optimising tool at http://www.netmechanic.com/GIFBot/optimize-graphic.htm ):

1. Original: Image size = 41K Download Time = 13s (with 28.8 modem)
2. Medium: Image size = 27.4K Download Time = 8s
3. Smaller: Image size = 16.8K Download Time = 5s

So, I could conclude that seeing that the Medium image looks better than the Smaller one, and still downloads in less than 10 seconds, then I would probably go for that size image, right?

But two things confuse me:

Why are the overall page sizes for the pages containing the optimised jpegs larger on my hard drive than when I load them onto the server?
1. Medium image page on hard drive = 925K, server = 908K
2. Smaller image page on hard drive = 923K, server = 906K

and,

What you said Garrick: "As a general rule, you should try to aim for a 'total' pagesize of 50K or less than 10 seconds..." - did you mean image size and not page size - because I'd be having a very hard time getting pages down to 50K !

Signed: "Bewildered of Essex"

[Respree]

Dear Bewildered of Essex (I feel like Dear Abby).

I meant pagesize. That includes HTML and images.

I know the difficulty you're experiencing. Sometimes that means compromise. Instead of having a 400 x 400 pixel .jpg, reducing it down to 300 x 300 also saves space. Ever see the movie "Apollo 13" where they had to land the lunar landing module with under 25 watts of power? Each component must be looked at to see where you can squeeze out unnecessary space. Images are typically the biggest offender, but CSS (removing font tags) will help as well.

To answer your question, your pagesize will not be the same on the server as they will be on your harddrive. The .html file references an image.jpg file. They are two separate files on your harddrive, but counted 'as if' they're one when you talk about 'total pagesize'.

The 908K seems 'way' too big. I suspect you're looking at a photoshop file, which is significantly different in size to a .jpg file, which uses a compression scheme.

[send2paul]

Dear Abby...sorry Garrick (!),

Please allow my stupidity to run amok here.......but......if I mouseover the HTML file in the folder on my PC for the Medium optimised Baywatch image, it says the file size is 925K, (okay it's 908K on the server), but if the image has been optimised down to an acceptable level before it begins to look awful.......how do I reduce an alledged 900K size HTML page if I've already attacked it's worst component - the image?

Or.......

Am I going to get a more radically reduced size of image if I shrink it by "pixel reduction", as opposed to optimisation?
And - will that drastically reduce a 900K size page?

And/or....?....am I looking at the wrong thing when it comes to measuring what the actual "page size" is?

Nearly-Time-For Dinner-Bloke-In England

[Respree]

Dear Nearly-Time-For Dinner-Bloke-In England:

The image I'm seeing (on your server) cannot be nearly one megabyte. It would take nearly a minute download on my broadband, but yours loads in seconds. I'd be willing to bet apples to doughnuts you are 'not' looking at the same image on your harddrive as on your server. The page I am looking at shows:

Total Page Size: 44546 bytes
Total Graphics: 41097 bytes - 1 image

Connection Speed Download Time
14.4Kbps 26.75 seconds
28.8Kbps 14.37 seconds
56Kbps 8.30 seconds
ISDN (128Kbps) 4.78 seconds


Size Object Type URL
41097 IMG http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/pics/BBW/ JohnClarksArtWorldBigBreas/images/010.jpg
3449 HTML http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/pics/BBW/ JohnClarksArtWorldBigBreas/010.html

As you can see, the image is only 41K. Please do me a favor and look on your harddrive again and tell me what you see as the 'file type'. Does it say .jpg? Is this the exact same file you are accessing on the server?

Signed, Abby

[send2paul]

("WOOF!" - the sound of my dinner being demolished......! )

It's amazing what a bit of food does for ones attention, and - in my defence - I have been off work the last few days with a virus thingy, and taking lots of drugs - medicinal ones!

Anyway, I believe the "game is up" - It was Colonel Mustard who murdered Dr Black in the library with the candlestick! ......No? Okay - I'll admit it:

I can't tell my Kilobytes from my bytes...lol...! It was like this when we went decimal back in 1971/72 - I was quite happy in feet and inches as well!

Yes, when I said before:

if I mouseover the HTML file in the folder on my PC for the Medium optimised Baywatch image, it says the file size is 925K,

....what I really meant was - the page, (that's the HTML page as loaded on the server) was 9.25K and, of course the image was 27.4K , giving a total "page size" of 36.65K.

As the same with your example:
Total "page size" = 44546 bytes which breaks down into:
Image size = 41097 bytes
HTML file size = 3449 bytes

Well, so I'm on the right track.......aren't I? LOL...Garrick you should be a moderator in the best web design forum on the net......oh you are

Apart from that carry on - how does the improvements on the CSS links on the main page look, and the title tags as well ?

(Sound of an Englishman rushing to the kitchen to make a desperately needed cup of tea! )

[Respree]

Ah, decimal in the wrong place. That's makes a slight difference. I guess I'm sort of like software, I just understand what you say, not what you mean. :wink:

Anyway, I'm glad we got that all straightened out. You're on the right track.

I'm no CSS expert, so you'll have to ask someone else on that. The titles look good.

Incidentally, the contrast on your left nav look much better today. Good idea. :wink:

<added>
Incidentally, getting back to our BBW discussion, it occured to me that you also might catch some searches on people looking for 'big bellied women' or 'big bootied women'. 8)

[send2paul]

Garrick,

Is this some kind of personal preference here....lol..

'big bellied women' or 'big bootied women'.

Isn't if funny how that was an addition to your last posting? And there I was just about to tell my mother to go on-line and see how clever you all are here..... I couldn't possibly do that now (!) ....lol.....

Yes, I'll get back to the keyword/seo structure once I make it look purdy & presentable

[send2paul]

Dear All,

In addition to the Website Hospital review of this art website project, there also came a hugely useful & popular thread on Page Size & Loading Time which is currently underway here: http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/inde...showtopic=15358 please feel free to contribute there.

And FYI here: I have "finished" the art website I have been building. It is still at this address: http://www.send2paul.btinternet.co.uk/JC/index2.html until it moves to it's, final resting place later this week.

Although optimisation of some of the images to reduce page loading time was an option to be done....I decided not to. I did...

1. Introduce alt tags to the pictures, (which, incidently only seem to work in IE - or at least Netscape 7.2 doesn't seem to register them?),
2. Changed some of the page titles,
3. Reworked the front page with a brief bio of the artist and his piccie .
4. Altered some of the text on the art descriptions.

So, final comments and suggestions please