Site Ratings & Reviews - Travel site critique

Author

Travel site critique

Peter

2006-11-19, 7:33 pm

Hi,

We have recently published our travelsite consisting of photo's,
destination information and travel logs. I was wondering if you could
take a look to see what you think of it. Are there things unclear or
would you do different? I'd really like to hear!

http://www.enjoyyourworld.com

best regards,

Peter

Paul Watt

2006-11-19, 7:33 pm

"Peter" <peter@enjoyyourworld.removetheobvious.com> wrote in message
news:egjmjt$ndq$4@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> Hi,
>
> We have recently published our travelsite consisting of photo's,
> destination information and travel logs. I was wondering if you could take
> a look to see what you think of it. Are there things unclear or would you
> do different? I'd really like to hear!
>
> http://www.enjoyyourworld.com
>
> best regards,
>
> Peter
On the whole I liked it, I like the colour scheme in particular.
Things I didn't like:

1) fixed width at 1024X768. If you're going to do a fixed width, it should
be for 800 x 600.
2) The animated map thing in the header gets annoying.
3) You're using javascript for your drop down menu. Personally I dont rely
on anything that can be turned of for something as vital as navigation.
4) Fails validation
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...1&outline=1
and last but not least its the "grafton centre" not "gafton centre :D

--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

Chris F.A. Johnson

2006-11-19, 7:33 pm

On 2006-10-11, Paul Watt wrote:
> "Peter" <peter@enjoyyourworld.removetheobvious.com> wrote in message
> news:egjmjt$ndq$4@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> On the whole I liked it, I like the colour scheme in particular.
> Things I didn't like:
>
> 1) fixed width at 1024X768. If you're going to do a fixed width, it should
> be for 800 x 600.

That's no better, and it's worse for someone with a 1200+px
window. With 4 coluns to the page, it would be pretty much
unreadable at 800px.

A fixed-width page works well *only*at*that*one*width*; don't do
it.

> 2) The animated map thing in the header gets annoying.

It doesn't annoy me, because flash doesn't play unless I click on
it. If there's anything important in it, there's a good chance I
won't see it.

> 3) You're using javascript for your drop down menu. Personally I dont rely
> on anything that can be turned of for something as vital as
> navigation.

Not only that, but part of the menu is inaccessible, because it is
obscured by other elements on the page.

> 4) Fails validation
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...1&outline=1
> and last but not least its the "grafton centre" not "gafton centre :D

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

nanka

2006-11-20, 11:10 am

Nice site looks good, loved the photographs.
I am a surfer and a photographer, so I am always looking for new places to go, got your site bookmarked and I will throw a link to you in my site in the next few days.any chance of linking back to me?
good job

Adam

http://surf-photography.avlindustries.com

davidmcc

2006-12-29, 10:10 am

Mr. First Impression here!

This site looks very professional and "for real" to me with one exception.

You need people to trust your site will be around awhile before they will put photos or other content there. That is such an advantage for bigger players like Yahoo and Google. There is no room for anything lacking a totally polished, consistent look in an indy site. The site logo needs a professional design.