1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Seo Website Design [ Rate It ]

Discussion in 'Design' started by ValentinMuller, Feb 19, 2013.

?

Rate it

  1. 1 star design

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
  2. 2 stars design

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  3. 3 stars design

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
  4. 4 stars design

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. 5 stars design

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. #1
    Hello, I'd like you to give me your opinion on my latest design for a client.



    Thanks :)
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
    ValentinMuller, Feb 19, 2013 IP
    zeba5 likes this.
  2. AngelDevil

    AngelDevil Peon

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #2
    Very nice, sleek and professional, great job :)
     
    AngelDevil, Feb 19, 2013 IP
  3. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #3
    Hard to rate a blurry scaled down image, though it LOOKS like it's the typical "look what i can do in photoshop" garbage that when pressed, the 'designer' would go "WCAG, what's that?". To be brutally frank you do no have a design, you have a goofy picture of a website.

    Most likely it's fixed width (accessibility trash, PARTICULARLY in the age of responsive layout), probably going to end up with fixed metric (px) fonts because of that and the multiple elements in flow that appear to rely on a static height for placement, and of course the stupid space wasting image rotating banner garbage that thanks to the idiotic image sizes and probably needing some garbage fatass library like jquery is going to piss all over the page's functionality, cost of hosting and loading times.

    It's a laundry list of what I've come to call "Not viable for web deployment design" -- type of thing I'd expect from someone with a print background.

    But that's par for the course when you start out with the back-assward practice of drawing a pretty picture of a fixed size layout before you have semantic markup of content or a working CSS layout. The goof-ass images and crap should be added AFTER that way you have an actually ACCESSIBLE layout.

    Too bad most clients are stupid enough to not grasp this an instead want to go "Oooh, pretty". No matter how pretty it is useless is still useless. Useless on netbooks, useless on tablets, useless on large displays, and most likely useless on just about every other accessibility front -- after all that's the hallmark of all "Drawing a picture first" design... and I use the word design in such cases with the greatest of sarcasm and disdain.

    Though until you have an ACTUAL layout built with HTML and CSS, all of this is just a wild guess.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 20, 2013 IP
  4. ValentinMuller

    ValentinMuller Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #4
    You had a bad day? You can be educated at least.
    And It's being coded/programmed at the moment: http://clients.codestag.com/komodoro/index.php
     
    ValentinMuller, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    zeba5 likes this.
  5. Med Gfx

    Med Gfx Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    #5
    I liked it that is nice
     
    Med Gfx, Feb 22, 2013 IP
  6. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #6
    Just tired of seeing the same ignorant mistakes and broken methodologies being sleazed out time and time again -- resulting in broken websites that are less useful than the web was a decade ago.

    Not sure what that even means...

    Which confirms ALL my suspicions, inaccessible fixed width, inaccessible fixed metric fonts, illegible color contrasts, and in general reeking of the "WCAG, what's that" approach to web development. It's why most of the people pissing out drawings in photoshop and then calling themselves 'designers' are generally not qualified to be designing a blasted thing if you actually care about people USING the website.

    You can recognize that the moment you realize the layout is useless on any screen narrower than 1440px, even at 2560x1440 there's endless wasted whitespace, the 'open sans' font that renders like ass on anything other than OSX, and the complete ineptitude at choosing color contrasts.

    You do know the emissive luminance formula, right? (and you want emissive since photoshop uses the reflective formula -- useless crap)

    L = 29.9% Red + 58.7% Green + 11.4% Blue

    if you're plugging in byte-wide (0..255) values to that and the difference between your colors is less than 128 (that's 50%), you are inducing eye strain or quite possibly even making the text invisible for many users. Ever notice that red text on blue is illegible? 29.9% on 11.4% is far, far off from the 50% minimum -- and 50 is the minimum and can still cause issues, an ideal is more like 70%. Again, you can find more about that in the WCAG.

    The gray text on grey background on the blockquote looks like it's #8D8B7F on #F4F4F4 -- that's 138 on top of 244, a difference of only 106 aka 41% of the spectrum -- far short of the minimum... and that's some of the BETTER text on the page.

    All those cyan links? UGH, you might as well not even have them on the page for more than half the population -- you've got #5DB9E9 on top of a white background -- completely useless. Thats a luminance of 163, the difference between it and white being 86 -- only 33% of the spectrum... but that's assuming it actually renders thick enough glyphs to reach that color, and in freetype or cleartype, that's not happening. Most of the stems and loops are barely delivering half that due to the goofy useless "open sans" font.

    ... and of course under the hood it's the same old "let's keep writing HTML like it's 1997" that's the bread and butter of the people who have embraced HTML 5 and it's associated pointless bloat; allegedly embracing semantics then using spans for obvious headings, paragraphs around non-paragraph content, FIGURE around decorational images, incorrect use of heading tags for HTML 5 (though if you were using HTML 4 you'd be golden IF you had a H1 preceeding all the other headings -- under 5 looks like they should all be H1 or H2) presentational classes, grid asshattery, endless code bloat like IE conditionals to either make up for the ineptitude of certain script writers or to try (and fail) to make a document "specification" (and yes, I made those quotes in the air with my fingers) not ready for prime time (and I'm hoping it NEVER will be) deployable. While HTML 5 might be a new sick buzzword for the suits who get their tech advice from the pages of Forbes, or a wondrous new form of nube predation for booksellers and professional lecturers, the simple fact is that for anyone who's bothered practicing minimalist semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, semi-fluid, fluid, elastic or even mcSwitchy design (mcSwitchy is in many ways a precursor to responsive layout) or any of the dozen other improvements we've made the past decade, we see it for what it is -- the new transitional. Undoing ALL the progress of STRICT.

    Everything one comes to expect from drawing a goofy picture first, and building the markup based entirely on that appearance -- instead of the PROPER approach to design of taking content of value, marking it up semantically, and then bending that markup to your will with CSS to make your layouts. Yes, that's PLURAL -- they finally gave use the tools for responsive layout, and the more that catches on the more your fixed-width tards with their idiotic 'grids' are going to be left behind... well, except for that most clients are too stupid to know the difference -- until they start asking "why don't we have any traffic?"
     
    deathshadow, Feb 23, 2013 IP
    seo.xpert likes this.
  7. malky66

    malky66 Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    3,996
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Best Answers:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #7

    lol...i don't think so somehow..as soon as i saw you used tables for the layout i realised you know nothing about website design...
     
    malky66, Feb 23, 2013 IP
  8. bluebenz

    bluebenz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    138
    #8
    Totally agree.. :(
     
    bluebenz, Mar 3, 2013 IP
  9. seo.xpert

    seo.xpert Active Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #9
    @deathshadow, Wow...man!! You are stable and you have the ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding or common sense and insight! Also you did execute a valuable free consultancy on ValentinMuller's stuff. :)
    May be he(VllnM) has a hobby to design a bit but I think designing is a passion which is concisely seen in "deathshadow".
     
    seo.xpert, Mar 5, 2013 IP
  10. Mike.Zack03

    Mike.Zack03 Banned

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #10
    Nice designing dude i like your work good efforts.... :)
     
    Mike.Zack03, Mar 6, 2013 IP
  11. usman8

    usman8 Banned

    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    #11
    Nice design of your site but you may have to work hard its design. I will give you 3 points out of 5 but consciously i will give points 3.5 out of 5. Make it more and more attractive by your hard work and it will be more reliable for your theme.
     
    usman8, Mar 8, 2013 IP