Site Review

[Vladdy]

I've ripped apart my share of sites that were posted for review and I feel like I should allow others to return a favor ;)

Here is one I'm working on now.
The original I was given is http://www.tsindos.com (be aware of popups)
The design I came up with can be seen here (no links are working at the moment, as I switched my attention to database backend): http://www.tsindos.com/newsite/home.html

Speak your mind, don't try to be nice :thumbsup:

[bradyj]

Let's go:D

1)The sign in the back looks generic -- I would reccomend doing one of two things:
1) Taking a photo of a highway sign and changing the letters to match what you would like
2) Find a photo online and doing the above.
It looks too fake bud.

2) The Gradient at the top looks fake, grass does not blend into sky -- you may want to create a 'hardline'. I would also reccomend using a less flourescent green, and putting some clouds in the background. I have a photoshop brush that I made that has some clouds if you'd like.

3) I like the lens flare -- good thinking to make a sun.

4) Use more 'layers' when trying to create something in motion. Make alteast 5 to ten duplicates of the car, and slightly 'motion blur' each one a little more than the other. Then start to blend them on top (a mask and painting out the picture would help some). Good idea though.

5) The Navigation is a little low, but that's a personal feeling. I think the bevel you used on that looks a little bland -- Maybe make the road stretch all the way down and have the letters on top of that? Maybe 'graphic' buttons that look as though they were painted to the pavement. It needs to pop more is all.

6) The Title you used for the text looks a little plain.

7) I don't like the green/blue footer. Compliment more 'street' colors maybe by using gray, blue, black, white...

That's my design critique:), I am not trying to be harsh, so I hope I didn't come off so. You've done a great job, and your code is excellent (tableless all the way). Just stop using that photoshop generic bevel and make the images look more realistic -- it'll give it a better 'feel' that makes it pleasant to visit... plus, the green hurts my eyes:D

Great Job Vladdy!!!!!:thumbsup:

[bradyj]

Here's some sign examples I did for ya Vladdy:
http://www.dotfive.com/sign1.jpg
http://www.dotfive.com/sign2.jpg

Does that help a little? I have the Photoshop files if you'd like them as well...

Obviously, I didn't take too much time on them so they look a tad fake as well, but I wanted to visualize what I was talking about.

[Graeme Hackston]

1st, it looks good. A good image leads the viewers eye to the subject and locks it there. It doesn't let the eye wander out the sides. The page as a whole (compared to an image) is an unconventional composition but manages to do just that. My eye goes title > car > menu > content. The menu is a bit of a speed bump but it is an important element. I would try spicing it up a bit as bradyj suggested.

bradyj makes some good suggestions and I agree with making things look a little more real. I think if it were too life-like it would break it. Also, a radical change in the footer colours or making it look like the road will lead the eye out the bottom right of the page.

My main issue is the white background of the content but I'm at a loss for a suggestion other than I think it needs to be a little dulled down.

And unfortunately the W3C image doesn't go with the rest of the page.

[cg9com]

um, the original page is hideous, I hope you were not responsible. :D

I like the new, code is up to par as I expected from you.
(Anything less would be uncivilized) :D

I'm not a graphics guru, so from a less experienced standpoint, I can say that I don't notice anything too bad, it all looks acceptable to me.

The one thing that I think needs work is the navigation, the border doesn't look right to me. And for me anyway, the graphic colors do not match the background either.

Definatly an improvement from the original though, and good work for not using a single img element as far as I looked. :thumbsup:

[ronaldb66]

I'm not good at visual design at all, so I'm certainly not the most qualified person to say something about it, but I'm a bit put off by all the harsh greens and blues; furthermore, I'm more a fan of crisp lines and stepped transitions instead of fades, and any circular edges strike my as "old school". Also, the content section looks rather plain and white in comparison to the vibrant colors in the header and the dark side bar.

Implementation and coding however are beauts, and since you've seperated presentation from content excellently it shouldn't be very difficult to tweak things here and there. :thumbsup:

[Vladdy]

Thanks for all responses so far.

Graeme got the graphical approach right: "it needs to lead" not catch attention.

Sharp lines, details, extra objects all draw visitors attention. Sometimes you get on a graphicallly rich site and it takes awhile to figure out what is where and what is it about - all those elements competing for your attention.
When graphics do not carry any information they are there to guide and set mood - that is my approach - less is more. I felt that any more "spice" and the page will be overloaded.
Also consider that the target audience will be interested in the fastest way to get a cheap ride.

I like suggestions about changing the menu color and considering some background color - I will play with those.

cg: The only thing I did on the original site was the car reservation page (I doubt you got that far). It was mostly scripting job, rather than design.

[bradyj]

Originally posted by Vladdy
Graeme got the graphical approach right: "it needs to lead" not catch attention.

I agree, but you could easily do 'less is more' by using more advanced graphics. My main gripe is just the usage of the bevel you used -- it is very common, and very 'newbie' -- you don't need to overblow the graphics, but you need to improve the 'design' by making it more visually appealing. Graphic Design is the marketing of images and products from a corporate perspective. If you are targeting an audience that is looking for a cheap ride, then what would grab their attention and lead them? Ease of convenience, doing the work for them, small quick bites of information (as large text areas probably won't be read) -- make it FEEL easy by relaxing the colors and lines, then make it look easy by controlling your information architecture. I think the coding is fantastic and looks great:thumbsup: -- you've done a wonderous thing to improve their works. I would focus on improving the feel of the page from now one, as -- even though graphically intense sights as you said:
Originally posted by Vladdy
'...any more "spice" and the page will be overloaded'

When I first look at your layout, I have no real idea what you are doing. I see a title, and nothing else catches my eye. I didn't even read the information because it was difficult. Make the Name pop, make quick information about what the site is for, then lead from then on. But your target should be improving the flow of information from a design perspective, not a graphical one.

[Vladdy]

I would like to thank everyone for the comments. I took the suggestions from you and some other reviewers, combined them with some new ideas that I came up with while working on the content (not available yet) and updated the design: http://www.tsindos.com/newsite/
As always it is best viewed in a CSS2 Compliant browser (Gecko).
Previous design can be seen at http://www.klproductions.com/clientDemos/TsindosCom/home.html
(for those who missed it).

Hopefully when I'm done it will deserve a place on the list of sites with valid XHMTL and CSS layout. :cool:

[pardicity3]

Very well done Vladdy. Much improved over the original and your first redesign.

I only have one real gripe. Your navigation is a little hard for me to like. I am not sure how I feel about the opacity. I especially dislike the dropdown menu where I have text over text. Granted one is more opaque than the other, but I still can't get myself to like it. I almost like the way the menu looks in IE more... almost.

One last thing, and this is a very small girpe (if you can even call it that), I think the shadow on the map is a little dark. IMO lightening it up would do wonders.

Once again, very well done... I am still in shock at how wonderful your code looks.

[redhead]

this is a very small girpe (if you can even call it that),Nope, I sure don't ;) :D

That looks good. A couple of small thing's I'd suggest, but nothing very drastic or negative:

Maybe add a light motion blur to the transparent cars behind the car? It might look quite good, but if it doesnt then scrap that idea, I'm not too sure if it would work...

I'd agree with pardicity3, maybe lighten up or remove the shadow...

But yeah! That site is so much better than the original one - nicely done :thumbsup:

[bradyj]

Nice:thumbsup: I think that looks great!!! You've done an excellent job making it pop more, It grabs my attention a lot more, it's more colorful, it's more inviting. You've done a great job with the new layout, I love it:D

I would only say a couple things:
1) I don't know if the text for the name of the company is done how they want it, but if you added some more design to it, it'd probably look a little spifier (spelling?). I would search online for logo examples and try to design them a cool logo.
2) Yeah, the navigation is a little difficult, but you've done a great improvement, and I like the map idea. Play around with it just a little bit, because you've almost go it perfect:D

P.S. On Mac IE the blue gradient skyline jumps on top of the picture of the cars and city on top. I don't know why, it looks fine on every other browser, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Great Job Vladdy!!!

[Vladdy]

Thanks for additional comments.

I will look into lightening the shadow on the map.
As far as the menu goes: is it difficult to LIKE or difficult to USE and on which browser if it is the latter?
readhead, I had the car image blured option but the client did not chose it.
brady, I suggested a few font/color options for the logo and that is the one the client picked (granted it could be the better one among the bad ones :D :D )