Webpage

[Twit]

Folks,

For one of my classes this summer I have to develop a webpage (my first).
I've completed a first draft on the St John Library Website and have it posted.
I could use some real critical eyes and insight into what I've made (it's my first).
Here's your chance to let me have it with both barrels (don't worry I have fat thick skin).
Most of the picture links should work except the three main ones (need to have the other crew members write these this week).

New Page:
http://filmphotoarchivist.net/Test001.html

Original page:
http://www.multcolib.org/agcy/stj.html

Currently I'd say it's too busy (for the eye) and has too many picture links).
Let me know more.

Thanks,

[Gina]

I like the card catalog drawers...but the font is too small (except for the READERS one) for anyone other than whippersnappers even after Lazik.


Pretty slick for a first draft. You can spell and everything!

[Twit]

Many thanks Gina. I actually have quite a number of earlier drafts, that was just the first I'm showin!

I've done a second (published) draft with bigger type and some light changes in the graphics

http://filmphotoarchivist.net/Test002.html

Let me know if this any better as well as what ya think (Good, Bad and the Ugly).

I like the card catalog drawers...but the font is too small (except for the READERS one) for anyone other than whippersnappers even after Lazik.


Pretty slick for a first draft. You can spell and everything!

[Gina]

That's better, but now I gotta take it back about being able to spell. Wednessday....

I would kill the logo on the FB and Twitter links, too. It's really hard to tell what it is. Maybe just say Find Us. Maybe I need a bigger monitor.

The other thing bugging the anal editor type in me is that sometimes it's St John, others St John's and also St Johns. The original page seems to think it's St Johns.

Can you center the picture? Did you take it? 'Cause I like the picture.

[Twit]

Thanks Gina.

The big picture at the top code-wise is centered, it centers when I do a local upload, but doesn't when I have it all hosted. why it isn't actually centering I don't know?

I'll see about my spellings. Thanks!

That's better, but now I gotta take it back about being able to spell. Wednessday....

I would kill the logo on the FB and Twitter links, too. It's really hard to tell what it is. Maybe just say Find Us. Maybe I need a bigger monitor.

The other thing bugging the anal editor type in me is that sometimes it's St John, others St John's and also St Johns. The original page seems to think it's St Johns.

Can you center the picture? Did you take it? 'Cause I like the picture.

[ryano]

Your <title> tag is open...

<title>ST JOHN LIBRARY: PORTLAND OREGON<title>

I see nothing in IE7 - blank pages...

[Twit]

Your <title> tag is open...

<title>ST JOHN LIBRARY: PORTLAND OREGON<title>

I see nothing in IE7 - blank pages...

Hi Folks,

Version 3 is up with some more changes mostly to layout this time, but some subtitle changes to some of the graphics.
Let me know what you think and please be brutal.

http://filmphotoarchivist.net/Test003.html

Undid the <center> and indented it out while moving the fist graphic to the bottom.
Cleaned up some of the images as well.

Please be brutally honest and thanks,

[ryano]

A few things, if I may...

Personally, the compressed images make everything look fuzzy... Resize the images you're using for the links at the bottom to the actual size you want them to display. (Hint: Use the "Save for web/mobile device" option in Photoshop to maximize compression and get a preview of what the image will look like in a browser. JPG's work, PNG's are cleaner...)
Size is everything, no matter what your girlfriend says... smaller files will look cleaner and load faster.

Also, people are pretty savvy these days. A simple icon for twitter and facebook will have the same effect as the "find us" or "Follow Us" links.

Keep in mind that many people are still (for some strange reason) using low-resolution monitors or not using their display to it's full resolution... Until recently, the rule was 800 wide for the best display across all resolutions. Now 960 (wide) is the norm...

Are you coding in a text editor, or using a platform like dreamweaver?
I only ask because it looks like you're using some HTML5 elements (<nav>), which won't display in IE... (the only browser allowed in my office...)

You may want to go back and scan your code for simple things like unnecessary CAPiTaliZation and open tags...

Otherwise, clean code - Nice Work!

[Twit]

Ryno,

Thanks for the info.

Writing straight code in Textwrangler. I wanted to keep it simple as possible so picture links and horizontal bars seemed the easiest way to go. Ideally I wanted folks from doing too much scrolling, but the text being too small has thrown that out the window. Once I can find optimum shapes at this point, I'll remake all the artwork so things don't look so distorted (alot of the distortion is from stretching images/pixels at the moment). I'm actually working from much larger images then what you see (see my flickr account for source images). Ideally once I know actual pixel sizes to work with, I can go back and really standardize my fonts and font sizes too.

Here's what the official website looks like

http://www.multcolib.org/agcy/stj.html

A few things, if I may...

Personally, the compressed images make everything look fuzzy... Resize the images you're using for the links at the bottom to the actual size you want them to display. (Hint: Use the "Save for web/mobile device" option in Photoshop to maximize compression and get a preview of what the image will look like in a browser. JPG's work, PNG's are cleaner...)
Size is everything, no matter what your girlfriend says... smaller files will look cleaner and load faster.

Also, people are pretty savvy these days. A simple icon for twitter and facebook will have the same effect as the "find us" or "Follow Us" links.

Keep in mind that many people are still (for some strange reason) using low-resolution monitors or not using their display to it's full resolution... Until recently, the rule was 800 wide for the best display across all resolutions. Now 960 (wide) is the norm...

Are you coding in a text editor, or using a platform like dreamweaver?
I only ask because it looks like you're using some HTML5 elements (<nav>), which won't display in IE... (the only browser allowed in my office...)

You may want to go back and scan your code for simple things like unnecessary CAPiTaliZation and open tags...

Otherwise, clean code - Nice Work!

[Twit]

I'm hoping this is nearly done.

http://filmphotoarchivist.net/Test004.html

Let me know.