View Full Version : Review: itpicks

11-12-2008, 12:45 AM

I've been working on the design for this new site concept. The design should reflect the "Web 2.0" style seen at Vimeo.com (http://vimeo.com), Facebook (http://facebook.com), and Digg (http://digg.com).

My aim was to create an abundance of mouseover-y effects and live "onclick" effects while maintaining workability.

Comments, suggestions, and criticisms are welcome!

I'm hosting it off of one of my other websites for now. That will be changed soon.

11-12-2008, 08:39 AM
First and foremost : tables for layout is stupid (http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/)!

11-12-2008, 11:19 PM
Well, table (and web 2.0) aside, your current design isn't very functional. Is it correct to assume that this is still being "roughed out?"

Anyway, this is all going to come across more harshly than I mean it, but here goes:

Mouseover effects for the last four items in your banner give the stats for the first item in your banner. The name changes properly but the number is not consistent with what is there before the mouseover. Also, the up/down arrows are not functional, though this may be because I am not a registered user. If that's the case then the arrows probably shouldn't show up at all until after I log in.

Additionally, your numeric ratings plopped into the banner images are too large to clearly see what it is that is being rated. Without mousing over any partiuclar item to get the text for that item you'd need to rely on context clues in the outer edges of the image to tell what is being presented. I'd have guessed Chevy Chase rather than George W. Bush if it weren't for the American flag in the background. This feels more like a 3-2-1 Contact! challenge than anything (if you're old and sad enough to understand this reference).

You might want to add something to help the user parse your "recent picks" a little more easily. What I see is "London Olympics" but what is actually listed is "London" and "Olympics." You could use spacing, punctuation, or the good old "|" vertical bar to separate selections without (again) HAVING to mouseover to get clarification.

Then again, you ARE trying to create web 2.0... :D I have some personal distaste for that fashion so I'm probably biased from the start!

11-12-2008, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the replies.

As for the false statistics on the four rollovers... the site is not live so I've just typed random stuff in. That's also why the up/down clicks don't work.

Mainly I wanted people to look at the look and feel of the website.

And... good ideas on the mouseover text size and recent picks bar.

11-13-2008, 04:48 PM
I think the most important thing is that once I first glance at your site, I have no idea where to go. I've been rereading an old classic lately ("Dont Make Me Think!" by Steve Krug) and there are a lot of things screaming for attention, and the ones that grabbed my attention the most (the images with huge numbers covering them so I have no idea what they are) gave me no relevent information about what I could do with the site or how to proceed.

I challenge you to step away from the design for a little while, and try to forget everything about it. The best thing you can do is break away and try to grasp again what the focus of the site should be, is it to have people sign up, is it to voice your opinion, is it to display information, is it to educate first before they are members, etc.

Overall I like the colors, its just needing something that makes it so dang obvious what the site is upon entering. I think the best thing you can do is reduce the obvious noise of those front/center images with numbers, putting the numbers below or in the corner instead.

11-13-2008, 05:05 PM
I think it is missing a footer. Maybe a green strip that's at the bottom with the Copyright, terms of use etc?

11-13-2008, 09:19 PM
I think it is missing a footer. Maybe a green strip that's at the bottom with the Copyright, terms of use etc?
Footers are generally a required practice. Google did not need a footer: it's entirely pointless. But they included it after lots of testing (and Google does thorough testing) because it looks incomplete otherwise. There have been stories of people waiting for it to finish loading for ages, and I found myself doing that.

(That means I concur.)

11-14-2008, 12:06 AM
All helpful hints... thanks!

I'll be working on it some more and I'll post a re-done version soon enough.

11-16-2008, 04:42 AM
...Google did not need a footer: it's entirely pointless. But they included it after lots of testing...

Hmm... You know I never really noticed that until you mentioned it. In fact I had to check to make sure you were right! :D

Anyway, I also notice that the additional categories (which I overlooked on the first read-through) pop out below the recent picks. This may be more logically placed just beneath the header where you have the category drop down control placed.