I redid my portfolio a couple of weeks ago and re-styled my blog to match just a couple of days ago. Check it out please. Tell me what you think.
I really like it Mike, it's clean, very easy on the eye and the information is well presented but what I like most about it is your use of language, the sites communicates one on one to each individual; I'm not crazy and I DO know that websites can't talk (well ok sometimes they do) but I felt as though the site was addressing me and me alone, now that's how you captivate users and you have it down to a T on this site.
Clean, simple, great use of white space. Not once did I have to go seraching for information. It was clearly presented to me and it just flowed. No heavy graphics, fast loading, I honestly do not have any critisizm. What you have done "in my opinion" is fantastic.
Definately a plus redesigning the blog to match.
I like the design. It is very clean and simple.
I did find one problem though. I am using IE 6 and when i move my mouse over the logo on the top of the page, it flickers (says that it is downloading the picture in the task bar).
Thanks for the compliments and feedback everyone. I really appreciate it.
IE is annoying sometimes. Originally on the site I had a "hover" banner in addition to the image replacement technique. I had gotten feedback, though, regarding the flicker. (I know what you're describing.) It was bad enough to force a change. I removed the hover effect on the banner. This solved the problem. I decided, though, that it was the hover that was the issue -- not even pre-loading the image and adding an empty script element helped. Nothing fixed it so I was left without a choice. But, I had a moment of (what I thought was) clarity and decided I could still have the effect on focus. So that's what I did.Originally Posted by geeksview
It doesn't work in IE though. All the rest are okay, but not IE. Moreover, the image is pre-loaded for people with slower connections. If you turn off page styles, you'll be presented with the (normally hidden) focus-state banner at the top of the page. I wanted it to load into the cache with the rest of the page. But of course IE sucks at caching (or sucks at returning objects from the cache rather).
I am very confused at this point, though, because you shouldn't be seeing this problem at all when hovering over the banner. Nothing should be loading at all, and absolutely not in that state. It shouldn't do a thing really until the banner is actually clicked on or keypressed on by tabbing.
If it is possible, geeksview, can I have more information regarding your OS, IE version, and connection speed, please? Also, any cache-related settings outside of default would be good to know. I want to determine if this is going to be a wide-spread issue for IE users (meaning I will have to remove the focus state as well if it is) or whether it is more isolated.
To anyone who may have insights as to why this would occur in the hover state, please share them.
Damn IE. Grrr
Thanks again for the feedback, guys.
Excellent site ... like the way the background sits in one place, this is the best use of this techique I've seen in a long time.
Text spacing and font are excellent.
Can I suggest that when you are on a current page, say home, once you move over the link in the right hand column that the current "button" does not turn grey - it looks better when its green. I also think that for some people clicking this and not seing the content change might confuse them.
Finally, I'm always one for familiarity. On your blog page you have a title beast-blog.com ... once clicked this takes you to your blog page.
On all other pages on your site you have green-beat.com ...
Its annoying that when I click on your blog and want to get to your home page and see you have changed the flow of the site; what I was expecting was to go back to the home page once I clicked this heading but nothing happens.
Maybe it might be an idea to remove the link from these and just leave them as headers?
I like the site. Here are the highs:
1) CSS Buttons! I love the use of CSS buttons rather than images. Light-weight is good.
2) Colors. The greens as varied greys look great.
3) The footer. It may not be ground-breaking, but the use of a centered background, and a right-justified text looks great.
4) It validates! XHTML & CSS.
1) This is something that I complain about a lot. **Most people probably don't care.** I keep my resolution at 1280x1024. You page is 750px wide, which leaves me with 530px of dead space that is not being used. Liquid layouts are a BIG plus for me.
Ok, so I should have said "low" rather than "lows"...I could only find one.
The items mentioned are right on target, and I appreciate them. However, I'm not quite sure what to do or if to act on them. I agree about the liquid layout. My only issue with them is line length. For that reason I actually have a preference for elastic and fixed-width sites. Although, I can put contraints like I did on the GBHXonline.com site -- it's elastic but starts almost as narrow as Web Standards Awards site and expands only so far -- I tend not to make them. I bet if I had a monitor larger than 1024x768 I might change my mind. I mean 530px is a lot of white space.
As far as the Blog banner. I agree, it's the result of hodge-podge to tell the truth. The blog began as a site onto itself, then I incorporated it, but in a way I'm treating it as a separate site still. It has it's own domain name: http://www.beast-blog.com for one thing. It's own admin for another, etc. etc. I battled over this one myself and how to deal with it. I hate to take the link away as it's so natural to use the banner to head home, but here I guess I sort of have two homes. Decisions, decisions. This is/was a really tough call for me.
@geeksview: I really could use that info. If you see this, please reply.
This is always food for though for the next project. I tend to do that a lot. Take the comments people say and apply them to the next big thing. Slowly incorporating it all. Trying to attain an the unattainable perfect website
Thank you for the feedback so far. I really appreciate the time taken, and the items all of you listed are really solid. Good stuff and right on target with the shortcomings I see and I concerns I have. And of course the compliments are great, thanks for them as well.
I think it is a really nice looking site. There is really nothing for you to fix in my opinion. Good job.
I think it looks great.
A few niggles that i found were that the content on the different pages would benefit from being more standardised as the images and paragraph spacing in particular seems to be different between pages.
On the contact form the boxes are grey which to me sends a subconcious feeling that you can't type in them.
I like the perspective on the images on the fist few pages, but i think it's a little extreme and ends up distracting, half the perspective that you have now would make it look like it was realistically slanted back rather than shot with an extreme wide-angle lens.
Also, I browse at 1600x1200 and at this resolution the page scales perfectly apart from the bottom green circle being incomplete. This would probably best be fixed with a bottom aligned backgrounded div rather than making a large background image for obvious reasons.
Other than that, as I said, I think it looks great. Very fresh and clean.
Wow! It's clean and looks professional! You're also using CSS and that's really great. I'll be a bias for a while. I really like the block navigation! Hehe... It's really on of my favorites in CSS. *bias mode stop*
The site is very organize.
But, I have noticed that on your project's page there are only two project/works? I thought this was a porfolio site? I was expecting to see more of your works.
Anyway, I would rate your site 9/10.
Keep it up!
By the way, I downloaded a copy of your GB CMS. I'll give it a try.
Keanetix // Web and Graphic Design BlogFolio
Was the archive unavailable? I wonder if it was missing for you at the time. Very early this morning I completely re-did the archiving system, the scripting, ordering, etc., (it was bass akwards), all so I would have hidden but self-usable perma-links to older projects. It's flat file archving and not done via a database. I did just about all of this Live through the CMS (some via FTP). Right now everything seems to be fine. There are two other pages of projects available: Archive 2005-2005 and Archive 2004-2005.
Sorry about that. I worked just before sun-up, trying to avoid traffic, yet I kept seeing a bunch of people on the site throughout the night.
Thanks for the nice feedback
PS. If you have any CMS questions, just ask. We try to support it well.
I like this site, its simple but effective, its just meant to look like that! I would not change a thing....
Best wishes for your site
Very clean and simple, nice soft colours really look good. It has a good recognisable identity which is of course very important.