Please review the following site: http://www.echofarm.f2s.com/
It is a website that I am developing for the place where I am currently working (volunteering to be exact). It's a community for developmentaly disabled adults.
What I would like you to comment on is the design, there isn't too much content to see so far. What do you think about the colors, loading time, site structure etc. What could I add?
Nice color scheme and good layout. It loaded fast. I am glad to see more sites getting away from the adage of white backgrounds with blues for text and graphics. The load time was good. Structure seems sound. You can add content about what you do, why you do it and how you do it.
Internet Media Provider
As wluke said excellent loading time it came up almost instantly and I'm only on a 56k modem. I got a lot of 404(page not found) errors or under construction pages. I can't really find anything really bad to say about it. Very good site.
Colors are fine, professional looking. Site loads very fast and the layout is good. I'd think about reducing the heading text size, especially on the secondary pages. They've already seen it on the first page.
Only problem I saw was that the picture page (realizing it is not done) text and graphics are over-running each other.
I think I agree...the tet is rather large...I would also consider using an image rather than large colored text for your header...this allows you to at least add a drop shadow...which (in my opinion), makes a big difference.
Overall it's quick loading and simple...stick with the overall concept...you've done a fine job!
Move the credit for the Guestbook-script to the Guestbook-page - without the graphic.
Be consistant with the font and presentation used for the main name; in the logo it is 2-words and in the title it is 1-word. My vote would be to always use "EchoFarm" (1-word with the capital-F in the middle.
The logo seems slightly-tilted to the left.
I especially like the use of thumbnail-photos instead of large/slow ones. Also, the navigational-bar opening up to show the lower levels is clean.
A seperate concern is not related to design. I do websites for fostercare-groups and we do not include the faces/names of clients. Are you going to be under the same restrictions?
Thanks for the comments/suggestions. I made some changes to the site:
+ Added a graphic title for the homepage. What do you think of it? Does it fit in with the rest of the site?
+ Reduced the size of the headings on the subpages
+ Fixed the problem on the picture page.
+ Cleaned up the CSS code so that it works in all browsers (I hope!)
+ To ANETEK: I am not 100% about the legal side, the boss is not back from vacation yet. But we have another website that also has photos on it, so I figure it's okay.
How do you like the changes I made, are they improvements? Any other ideas, especially about an extra color in the design? Sniper sugested I should use an extra, brighter color, but I tried many and couldn't find anything.
* Very fast loading site. Definite thumbs up there.
* Very clean and professional.
* Photo's dont line up right on photo page. Need to move over to the right more. Maybe you could make them smaller as the monitor as res I viewed them at I had to sroll down a bit to read caption and see entire pic.
* Logo is ok. Maybe you could try making the text transparent, say 70% or so makes it feel more relaxed and easy going. Not so much like say an institution and the connotations they invoke.
* you could also try using a mix of a sans serif and serif font in the logo to differntiate the two words.
Yep, this site worked for me. Very simple without looking like it has no foundation. Extremely professional. Not much to comment on, although I also think the headings on subsequent pages should be smaller.