Site Ratings & Reviews - New Graphic Designer, please critique my site

Author

New Graphic Designer, please critique my site

Jacquie

2004-09-09, 11:15 pm

Hello all, I am hoping someone can critique my site www.jqdesign.com.
I'm a new graphic Designer B.Des and need a job, any advice on my
online portfolio is appreciated! Thanku kindly, Jacquie
www.jqdesign.com jpotvin77@hotmail.com

2004-09-09, 11:15 pm

Jacquie wrote:

> Hello all, I am hoping someone can critique my site www.jqdesign.com.
> I'm a new graphic Designer B.Des and need a job, any advice on my
> online portfolio is appreciated! Thanku kindly, Jacquie
> www.jqdesign.com jpotvin77@hotmail.com

<sigh/> I am getting tired of all this "graphic design" rubbish.

Why does graphic design always imply *stupidly* small font sizes, specified
in pixels (10 of them in this case) and so unresizable for the vast majority
of viewers?

Why does graphic design also imply that the stupidly small text be in
stupidly unreadable colours like light grey on white.? Don't you want me to
read that text? If you don't then you are doing a very good job.

Why does graphic design further imply that the layout must be so pixel
perfect that if I ignore[1] your stupidly small font size and make my text
larger, so I can read it, it flows all over the other "graphic design"
elements on the page?

As to the portfolio: I have no bloody idea. I can't read it.

[1] There are two ways of ignoring font size. Use the accessibility options
of IE. Use another browsers, like Mozilla. I will wager a bottle of
Chardonnay that this site was never tested with Mozilla. I know my
Chardonnay is safe because the big blue image is broken with Mozilla. A
"graphic designer" would never allow that :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

The Doormouse

2004-09-09, 11:15 pm

jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote:

> www.jqdesign.com

* It does not validate.
* the small text is REALLY small on my screen
* lacks contrast (the light grey is a litle too light)

Beyond that, I have a soft spot for traditional art skills.

:)

Good luck.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Ben Measures

2004-09-09, 11:15 pm

rf wrote:
>
> <sigh/> I am getting tired of all this "graphic design" rubbish.
>
> Why does graphic design always imply *stupidly* small font sizes, specified
> in pixels (10 of them in this case) and so unresizable for the vast majority
> of viewers?
>
> Why does graphic design also imply that the stupidly small text be in
> stupidly unreadable colours like light grey on white.? Don't you want me to
> read that text? If you don't then you are doing a very good job.
>
> Why does graphic design further imply that the layout must be so pixel
> perfect that if I ignore[1] your stupidly small font size and make my text
> larger, so I can read it, it flows all over the other "graphic design"
> elements on the page?

My sentiments exactly. It's as if some graphic designers cannot escape
the mindset of printed design, trying their hardest to ignore the
dynamic nature of the internet.

--
Ben M.

mbstevens

2004-09-09, 11:15 pm

Chris Beall

2004-09-10, 4:16 am

Jacquie wrote:
> Hello all, I am hoping someone can critique my site www.jqdesign.com.
> I'm a new graphic Designer B.Des and need a job, any advice on my
> online portfolio is appreciated! Thanku kindly, Jacquie
> www.jqdesign.com jpotvin77@hotmail.com
Jacquie,

I like the look of your portfolio. Refreshingly clean and uncluttered. I
like the use of color, especially on the Home page.

BUT, as you have already heard from others, there is a vast difference
between designing for the web and designing for print media. In the Web
environment, you have much less control of the communication and the
recipient has (sometimes unknowingly) much more.

Have you ever been in an old train station? The track announcer speaks
as clearly as possible; his voice is transmitted throughout the room by
numerous loudspeakers. Yet when you stand in some parts of the room, you
can hear the voice clearly, while in others it is rendered
unintelligible by reflections and echoes.

On a web page, you can control the content of the most of the
information and can SUGGEST how it is to be presented, but the user has
a significant ability to modify your suggestion:
- The user can alter the text font face and font size.
- The user can alter link colors and decoration, i.e. the underscore
normally used.
- The user controls the size of the viewing window.
- The user controls the number of colors available.
- The user controls whether add-ons like JavaScript, cookies, and even
CSS are processed or ignored.
- The user, by selecting a browser, controls whether the content is
presented visually (and whether that includes images or not) or aurally.
And, alas, thus also selects which 'standard' functions won't work quite
right, due to defects in the selected browser.

In addition to all of the challenges faced by traditional graphic media,
the web designer is expected to come up with HTML 'suggestions' for
presentation which work in most permutations of the variables that the
user has control over. That's a very large number. That's why standards
become important; IF browsers follow the standard AND if designers code
to the standard, then MOST web sites should work in MOST browsers.

Of course the standards will let you do things that don't adapt to the
user. I viewed your site in a full-screen browser window on a 600 X 800
pixel screen. Had I used 640 X 480, 1024 X 768, or some other window
size, I would have had a very different perception of it....and that's Bad.

I like the print samples you show. I think you have two choices:
- Stay away from web design. Hire somebody to create a portfolio site
for you that emphasizes your considerable strengths. Enjoy life.
- Become a web designer. Resolve to study what is involved from the
ground up, knowing that it will take considerable time to become
proficient and also knowing that the target is rapidly moving, so that
your learning will be continuous. Practice. Read (look at other posts in
this newsgroup and others with names that include 'HTML' 'stylesheets',
etc.) Accept that whatever you create will never be 'perfect', but will
break in some browser, annoy or confuse some users, and result in lots
of sleepless nights, yet will provide a challenge to your brain unlike
any other.

Best of luck. If you decide to take the second path, you might learn
from the earlier post "How to get a good critique" in this newsgroup.

Regards,
Chris Beall

Dave Patton

2004-09-10, 4:16 am

jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote in
news:64d10947.0409091445.18ea10a8@posting.google.com:

> Hello all, I am hoping someone can critique my site www.jqdesign.com.

You shouldn't be multiposting - you asked the same question
in alt.design.graphics today, twice.
What is the accepted way to share a message across multiple newsgroups?
http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html

> I'm a new graphic Designer B.Des and need a job, any advice on my
> online portfolio is appreciated! Thanku kindly, Jacquie
> www.jqdesign.com jpotvin77@hotmail.com

There is nothing wrong with learning, and asking for help,
but when you asked a question about your website in c.i.w.a.html
on July 26th:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?thr....1364ac8e%40pos
ting.google.com>
you were given advice that you haven't followed, such as producing
valid HTML.

In my response on July 26th, I said "Once you have dealt with those
sorts of issues, you could ask in alt.html.critique for a review of
your site". Don't be surprised to hear the same sort of feedback
as you got in July - just because you did a "redesign" doesn't
mean you know(yet) how to author pages for the world wide web.

Amongst other things, in July I criticised your "Web design" link:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...oddirectcaold%4
024.71.223.159>
Now it leads to a page with a bunch of broken links.

I'd suggest that, as hard as it may be, put aside all your graphic
design skills for now, and produce a website that says everything
you want to convey, but use only plain text and valid HTML.
Then ask for a critique.
Then add some CSS.
Then ask for a critique.
Then add some graphics.
Then ask for a critique.
Then "go wild" with your design skils.
Then ask for a critique.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Neal

2004-09-10, 4:16 am

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:37:47 GMT, Ben Measures
<saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote:

> rf wrote:
> My sentiments exactly. It's as if some graphic designers cannot escape
> the mindset of printed design, trying their hardest to ignore the
> dynamic nature of the internet.

.... which ends up ruining their hard work in the end because they haven't
accounted for that.

My goodness, graphic folks, I love a smart look as much as anyone. But
nobody wants it at the cost of not being usable or breaking in an
environment substantially different than the one on your computer.

kchayka

2004-09-10, 4:16 am

Jacquie wrote:
> I'm a new graphic Designer B.Des and need a job, any advice on my
> online portfolio is appreciated! Thanku kindly, Jacquie
> www.jqdesign.com

This is what your home page looks like when I increase the text size
enough (200%) to read what's in those 3 boxes:
<URL:http://accessat.c-net.us/screenshots/nscadesign.png>

On the portfolio page, the list of links is completely hidden at this
text size. The list isn't shown in its entirety unless I reduce the text
size to 75%, but then it's too small to read, especially with such low
contrasting colors.

Maybe you have some understanding of graphic design, but you have a ways
to go before you understand web design and the differences between them.
The first thing you should learn is how to stop Dreamweaver from making
layout decisions for you and absolutely positioning everything on a
page. It is a big part of the problem.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

2004-09-10, 4:16 am

Dave Patton wrote:

> I'd suggest that, as hard as it may be, put aside all your graphic
> design skills for now, and produce a website that says everything
> you want to convey, but use only plain text and valid HTML.
> Then ask for a critique.

Then fix the things people have found wrong.

> Then add some CSS.
> Then ask for a critique.

Then fix the things people have found wrong.

> Then add some graphics.
> Then ask for a critique.

Then fix the things people have found wrong.

> Then "go wild" with your design skils.
> Then ask for a critique.

Then fix the things people have found wrong.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Nik Coughin

2004-09-10, 4:16 am

Jacquie

2004-09-11, 7:16 pm

Neal <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opsd3dhjgy6v6656@news.individual.net>...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:37:47 GMT, Ben Measures
> <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ... which ends up ruining their hard work in the end because they haven't
> accounted for that.
>
> My goodness, graphic folks, I love a smart look as much as anyone. But
> nobody wants it at the cost of not being usable or breaking in an
> environment substantially different than the one on your computer.

Hello - thank u all so much for your time and comments!! I am still
learning and I have to give credit to computer programmers, this is
hard stuff. Yes I do have a B.des and I really want to learn more
about the coding side of things. I made a few changes to my text and
images so hopefully nothing will overlap or break apart any more. I
have yet to redo the flash. But have taken advice and also softened my
logo. I chose size 2 font, it looks fine on my computer but is there
something someone could recommend to change? Any advice is good
advice, hard or not. I'm well aware I am a print designer but really
want to learn and am open to comments and suggestions. Would I be
better off entirely to do my website using flash?? so it doesn't break
apart?? Thank u again, Jacquie

Jacquie

2004-09-11, 7:17 pm

kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message news:<2qcodpFqgibgU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Jacquie wrote:
>
> This is what your home page looks like when I increase the text size
> enough (200%) to read what's in those 3 boxes:
> <URL:http://accessat.c-net.us/screenshots/nscadesign.png>
>
> On the portfolio page, the list of links is completely hidden at this
> text size. The list isn't shown in its entirety unless I reduce the text
> size to 75%, but then it's too small to read, especially with such low
> contrasting colors.
>
> Maybe you have some understanding of graphic design, but you have a ways
> to go before you understand web design and the differences between them.
> The first thing you should learn is how to stop Dreamweaver from making
> layout decisions for you and absolutely positioning everything on a
> page. It is a big part of the problem.

Thank u, I made the changes to the text so hopefully that will help,
can u check your side please - I'm still trying so hard to learn, it's
frustrating when it appears good on my screen and the once onto the
internet it's so different everywhere. Would you recommend I don't use
dreamweaver at all? which program works best? should i just stick to
flash? Thanku Jacquie

Neal

2004-09-11, 7:17 pm

On 11 Sep 2004 12:18:57 -0700, Jacquie <jpotvin77@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thank u, I made the changes to the text so hopefully that will help,
> can u check your side please - I'm still trying so hard to learn, it's
> frustrating when it appears good on my screen and the once onto the
> internet it's so different everywhere.

Sure is. It's a big adjustment to accept that the best web design is going
to flex. Think of a design that might be used on a business card, a
letterhead, a postcard, a magazine ad. They all should look consistent,
but the dimensions and appropriate font size will be different. Web
design's a little like that, except you don't get to control how the
browser flexes your design. However, you can design it in such a way that
the browser will make good choices.

It does take practice.

> Would you recommend I don't use
> dreamweaver at all?

My old quote that Dreamweaver produces code of the quality the user could
have made without Dreamweaver stands. Think of it as a time saver, not as
a knowledge sparer.

> which program works best?

DW can work. Doing it out longhand in a good text editor does too. Most
HTML authoring software works under the "pixel-perfect" thinking, and
that's sad.

> should i just stick to
> flash?

Only if you want to further limit your audience. Flash removes a lot of
the benefits of the web in exchange for author control. It requires a
plugin, which isn't always already there. Either it's all in one URL so
bookmarking is impossible, or you have a series of interlinked Flash bits
which make the site slow on less-than-speedy connections (dialup,
congested networks - in other words, most users).

I mean, Flash is great, but I don't see it as a viable web authoring
technology at this time. Games, cartoons, ads, unessential but
supplementary content, all good uses for Flash. The whole website, not
really.

Neal

2004-09-11, 7:17 pm

On 11 Sep 2004 12:16:26 -0700, Jacquie <jpotvin77@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ... I really want to learn more
> about the coding side of things.

I'd advise looking at w3schools.com, take the HTML and CSS tutorials.
Begin practicing without an authoring tool, just you and the keyboard and
a good text editor (like Crimson Editor www.crimsoneditor.com) and your
developing knowledge of web authoring.

Your first pages should not be graphically pleasing, don't let it bother
you. In time, once you learn more HTML and CSS, you'll find ways to do
these things.

Read alt.html, and ng's in the comp.infosystems.www.authoring hierarchy.
Lots of tips in the archives.

> I chose size 2 font, it looks fine on my computer but is there
> something someone could recommend to change?

I see pixel-sized fonts in your styles. Problem is they are different
sizes on different screens, and IE can't easily resize them. So, some to
many users won't be able to read the text.

The only foolproof way to present text that is absolutely guaranteed to be
legible is font-size: 100%; but this makes it hard to do a lot of typical
webdesign things like fixed layouts and such. So it's my opinion that the
default sizing of text - being the primary reason anyone can use a site -
must be the central reality all web design must accomodate.

Just as in print, the available colors for this particular print job
determine so much of what you can andcan't do, the font size 100% is what
guides every other web design decision.

> Would I be
> better off entirely to do my website using flash?? so it doesn't break
> apart??

See my other reply re: Flash. In summary - don't rely on it for a whole
site.

Frogleg

2004-09-11, 7:17 pm

On 9 Sep 2004 15:45:44 -0700, jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote:

>Hello all, I am hoping someone can critique my site www.jqdesign.com.

The text is not resizable and is very low-contrast.

The site takes *forever* to load with dial-up, partly because of that
blue 75k graphic, and partly for the Flash movie which contributes
zero content to the page.

"collaborating together" is redundant. You can't collaborate alone. I
don't think many would be attracted by the prospect of commissioning
"unimaginable" graphics, but I could be wrong.

kchayka

2004-09-11, 7:17 pm

Jacquie wrote:
> kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message news:<2qcodpFqgibgU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> Thank u, I made the changes to the text so hopefully that will help,
> can u check your side please

On the home page, you turned the three boxes at the bottom from plain
text to images of text. The text size in the graphics is far too small
for me, and the contrast is still too low so I can't tell what it says.
I would normally turn off image loading in a situation like this, but
you have not defined any alt text so that doesn't help.

So what was messy from a layout perspective has become inaccessible
altogether. You took a step backwards, I'm afraid. :(

> - I'm still trying so hard to learn,

And I am grateful whenever a graphics person shows genuine interest in
doing The Right Thing. It is not something you can learn overnight,
though. It does take some patience and practice. Just don't give up.
You can learn a lot by lurking in some other newsgroups, too:
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
alt.html

> it's
> frustrating when it appears good on my screen and the once onto the
> internet it's so different everywhere.

That is the nature of the web. Accept it and you will have a lot less
frustration. At least, you will after you learn how to deal with it. ;)

One thing you can do now is test your pages in different browsers
(minimum IE, mozilla, Opera), different window sizes (600px wide and
up), and different text sizes (very small to very large). You will see
things for yourself right away.

Ideally, the page will gracefully adjust to different window and text
sizes, and look acceptable in a variety of browsers. Just don't expect
it to look the same. Not every pixel has to be in a certain place. :)

Test the page with image-loading disabled. Test it with JavaScript
disabled. Test it with stylesheets disabled. In each case, the page
should still be usable. Opera is excellent for these kinds of tests.

> Would you recommend I don't use
> dreamweaver at all? which program works best?

Whatever tool you use, learn at least the basics of HTML and CSS first.
Neal already suggested w3schools.com, you should go there and take the
tutorials.

BTW, are my eyes deceiving me, or are you now letting something else
generate the code for you, maybe Photoshop or Fireworks? This looks even
worse than what you had before. :( A graphics editor has no business
creating HTML. Any so-called WYSIWYG editor, like Dreamweaver in
design-mode or FrontPage, is generally lousy at creating HTML, too. You
should not use these features unless you are skilled enough to correct
the coding mistakes these tools make.

> should i just stick to flash?

Please, no. Flash is (ab)used by too many graphics people already.
Contrary to what Macromedia claims, Flash promotes creating
inaccessible, unusable sites by giving the author all the control and
the user none. I have never seen a Flash site that was usable for me -
the text size is invariably the size of fly droppings and Flash's zoom
control sucks. It is far easier to find a more user-friendly site than
try to make a Flash site usable.

HTH

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

2004-09-11, 11:16 pm

Jacquie wrote:

> Thank u, I made the changes to the text so hopefully that will help,

Unfortunately the changes have made it worse. :-(

Download a copy of Lynx. It is a free text only browser. Lynx gives you a
very good idea of how your site is read by a text to speach browser or how
it is viewed by a search engine spider.

These are screenshots from your site:

http://www.jqdesign.com/

<quote>
FRAME: top
</quote>

Google does not like frames. Lets drill down to the actual content page:

http://www.nscadesign.ca/potvin/

<quote>
[EMBED]

Home . .I.....Design Portfolio... I.....Fine Art I ....About
Me.....I.... .Contact

All content ? JQDesign I....JacQuie Potvin, B.Des. ....I ...All
Rights Reserved
</quote>

Since you have put all your content into images and specified alt="" for
those images, your content is invisible to a search engine. Given that and
the fact that it is in frames you have very little chance of being indexed.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Dave Patton

2004-09-12, 4:16 am

jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote in
news:64d10947.0409111116.427709b1@posting.google.com:

> Hello - thank u all so much for your time and comments!! I am still
> learning

Yes - aren't we all?

> Yes I do have a B.des and I really want to learn more
> about the coding side of things.

Maybe that's one of your problems - HTML is a MARKUP language,
not a programming language. Create some text that says what you
want to convey. Then use HTML to mark it up(e.g. into paragraphs).

> I made a few changes to my text and images

What is really needed is for you to change your thinking from
"designer" to "web author with design skills".

> I have yet to redo the flash.

Get rid of the Flash stuff altogether, at least for now.

> I chose size 2 font

The only thing you should be doing with fonts at this
point is NOT specifying any font sizes.

> I'm well aware I am a print designer but really
> want to learn and am open to comments and suggestions.

Good for you! More people should take that approach :-)

> Would I be better off entirely to do my website using flash??

Absolutely not!!!! Forget you ever had such a thought!

Please reread my postings from July and earlier in this
thread, and of course those of everyone else.

Create a valid webpage using nothing but HTML - no images,
no Flash, no CSS. Ask for a critique of that page. Once
it is "OK", I'm sure people will help you use CSS to change
that page's presentation, and at that point images can come
back into the picture.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Neal

2004-09-12, 4:16 am

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:50:43 GMT, Dave Patton <spam@trap.invalid> wrote:

> jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote in
> news:64d10947.0409111116.427709b1@posting.google.com:
>
> Maybe that's one of your problems - HTML is a MARKUP language,
> not a programming language. Create some text that says what you
> want to convey. Then use HTML to mark it up(e.g. into paragraphs).

This spurred me to post this:

Graphic design is a means to an end. What end? To attract the eye, to
capture attention. But for what purpose? To read the content.

I'll say it again. To read the content.

That's the #1 purpose of a website - deliver content. Graphic design is
but a peripheral technique to help that occur. It is not an end to itself.

To produce a good web page, you must not think like a graphic designer,
but like a web designer. And that means content comes first.

Develop good content. Mark it up semantically with HTML. Add images where
appropriate. Build that into a CSS-driven graphic design which is
appealing to the eye. In that order.

Don't remove anything, only add. Markup serves the expression of the
content. Images serve the decoration of the content (except in those cases
where they ARE the content). CSS serves the design of the content. But at
the end of the day, the content is what is read and sought by the web user.

Deryck

2004-09-12, 7:15 am

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:xSM0d.27294$D7.23270@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Jacquie wrote:

>
>
> Unfortunately the changes have made it worse. :-(

Yes, but dont let that discourage you :)

>
> Download a copy of Lynx. It is a free text only browser. Lynx gives you a
> very good idea of how your site is read by a text to speach browser or how
> it is viewed by a search engine spider.
>
Richard is absolutely right.

You can download lynx here:
http://lynx.browser.org/

Or you can access a lynx emulator/viewer here:
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

You can even see what your site sounds like by downloading the free trial
version of IBM's HPR (text to speech) program here:
http://www-306.ibm.com/able/solutio.../hprtrial3.html

although it's about 41Mb in size.

Hope that's useful,

Deryck

Frogleg

2004-09-12, 12:17 pm

On 11 Sep 2004 12:18:57 -0700, jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote:

>Thank u, I made the changes to the text so hopefully that will help,
>can u check your side please - I'm still trying so hard to learn, it's
>frustrating when it appears good on my screen and the once onto the
>internet it's so different everywhere.

For one thing, you can change the display mode on your computer and
see how it looks at different screen resolutions. I'm guessing you're
designing for an 800x600 screen *only*. When you switch to 1024x768,
everything is bunched up to the upper left.

You can dial text sizes up and down and see what happens.

You can download and use other browsers to check how it looks to
someone using Netscape or Mozilla.

You can assume small text rendered as graphics will be invisible to
anyone with less than perfect eyesight. Similarly light gray text on
white background.

The Flash movie takes a long time to load and doesn't add much to the
site. The words "View samples of my work" *look* like it ought to
refer to a clickable link. What it actually means is "sit there and
watch this display-through-fog-animation instead of going to portfolio
pages which show my work clearly and with detail." Or "quick -- get
out a piece of paper and a pencil to write down an e-mail address that
appears for just under 1 second!" If you want to have a slide show
on your home page, just present the images, not meaningless
commentary.

As others have pointed out, the web is not a print medium. You can't
say "this is exactly how I want everything to appear to everyone"
because it won't.

Andrew D

2004-09-12, 12:17 pm

In article <64d10947.0409091445.18ea10a8@posting.google.com>,
jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote:

> Hello all, I am hoping someone can critique my site www.jqdesign.com.
> I'm a new graphic Designer B.Des and need a job, any advice on my
> online portfolio is appreciated! Thanku kindly, Jacquie
> www.jqdesign.com jpotvin77@hotmail.com

Not exactly a critique of the html (I'll leave that to those who know a
lot about it) but "riveting" has an "e" in it.

On another note (pedantics) you ask the question (left panel) "What will I
do for you?" but answer it with "We will collaborate...etc". Is the viewer
expecting to deal with one person or a group of designers?

As someone from a print design background, I sympathise with others who
try to control web pages by making them behave like page layouts in Quark
or InDesign (I spend time in this newsgroup so as to pick up tips on how
to break with old habits and embrace the flexibility of web design).
Having said that, I didn't even notice your navigation links at the top of
the page until I tried resizing the text to see what happened.

--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Andrew D

2004-09-12, 12:17 pm

In article <umo6k0ldj7dvl6vcd0r0qivbt2ccmvcb3q@4ax.com>, Frogleg
<frogleg@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 9 Sep 2004 15:45:44 -0700, jpotvin77@hotmail.com (Jacquie) wrote:
>
>
> The text is not resizable and is very low-contrast.
>
> The site takes *forever* to load with dial-up, partly because of that
> blue 75k graphic, and partly for the Flash movie which contributes
> zero content to the page.

Perhaps print-based designers need to understand that just because Flash
is available doesn't mean you *have to* use it. It would be like
die-cutting, gold-foiling and embossing your letterhead, just because you
can, not because it serves a useful purpose.

--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

2004-09-12, 7:16 pm

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-13, 12:17 pm

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:16:26 -0700, Jacquie wrote:

> Hello - thank u all so much for your time and comments!! I am still
> learning and I have to give credit to computer programmers, this is
> hard stuff. Yes I do have a B.des and I really want to learn more
> about the coding side of things. I made a few changes to my text and
> images so hopefully nothing will overlap or break apart any more. I
> have yet to redo the flash. But have taken advice and also softened my
> logo. I chose size 2 font, it looks fine on my computer but is there
> something someone could recommend to change? Any advice is good
> advice, hard or not. I'm well aware I am a print designer but really
> want to learn and am open to comments and suggestions. Would I be
> better off entirely to do my website using flash?? so it doesn't break
> apart?? Thank u again, Jacquie

Why are you even using Flash? Other than to show, "wow, Jacquie knows how
to make a Flash movie"?

Get rid of it. It does nothing useful to your site. Put Flash movies
that you have done in a Flash section of your portfolio.

Also, I don't know if anyone else has noticed this or mentioned, but
the photo of you when you click on "Who is Jacquie?" is resized in the
browser using width and height tags. This is both a personal pet peeve
and something you Really Shouldn't Do(TM). Use image editing software
(e.g. Photoshop) to bring the image down to the size you need. DO NOT
resize images in your browser using width and height tags!!! That is NOT
what width and height tags are for.

(Image width and height are to tell the browser what the size of an image
is so the browser can lay out the page before it downloads the entire
image).

I notice you also do this with several images in your Design Portfolio.

Also, and I should have mentioned this earlier -- why are you embedding
your site in a full-page frame that points back to your NSCAD web page?
Why not just move all the stuff to your jqdesigns.com web space? Frames
used in this manner break the flow of the web (actually, frames do that
anyways). Unless you have some real technical reason, id say move all that
stuff to your jqdesigns.com web server.

A side note...
A few interesting parallels between you and me: My mother is from Nova
Scotia; my cousin lives there now. My baby is named "JQ". Well, that's
about all, I guess.

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-13, 12:17 pm

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:28:47 +0100, Deryck wrote:

> Richard is absolutely right.
>
> You can download lynx here:
> http://lynx.browser.org/
>
> Or you can access a lynx emulator/viewer here:
> http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

Actually, you can kill two stones with one bird by downloading Opera.
Opera has some nice personalization features such as turning off CSS,
text-browser emulation, and more.

http://www.opera.com

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Frogleg

2004-09-14, 4:15 am

kchayka

2004-09-14, 4:15 am