New website feedback

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Howdy chaps,

I'm just having a redesign of my site, and just want some feedback to see if it works, and by 'works', I mean is it easy to navigate/use?

The biggest difference, due to limitations of the theme, is that each gallery is comprised of sub galleries.

Also, it should look pretty slick on mobile devices. It adjusts for iPads/phones etc.

So any who.......http://www.danfreemanphotography.com/test/

Cheers

 

[Rubicon_]

Works great on iPad. Looks good as well!

 

[Nickson]

Looks awesome Dan.

Easy to navigate and use, for some reason it is a little laggy when scrolling between images though.

Also looks/works brilliantly on my Nexus 7.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Thanks.

Also, feedback on the loading times would be good.

The images are 1000 pixels wide, so when viewed on a big monitor they are enlarged, which does decrease the image quality a bit, but I don't really want to use higher res images due to loading times.

 

[Niall]

Very Easy to navigate, and aesthetically pleasing. Very nice

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Thanks, still sticking firmly to clean and simple design philosophy.

My only thing I'm not sure of is...instead of a gallery of all my landscape shots, there are lots of separate little galleries.

Does this work?

 

[Chris_ZS]

Fantastic photography!!

Having no issues browsing, it's good

 

[SharkyUK]

No problems here, Dan. I've tried it on a few devices and it scales nicely. Great photos as always, too.

 

[Habitual]

That's really nice. IMO it's a tad slow, but it's still looks and works really well.

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

Only thing I don't like is the small image size. Even on my Dell screened work PC (1600x1200px), it looks a tad naff at half screen size TBH.

Something like that screams out for full res. I didn't realise that the pic gets enlarged/zoomed but did notice the lack of quality as it was heading towards full screen here. Full screen on a 27" iMac would be dreadful for instance.

Unsure how it would work but a one time 'speed' option at the start might be nice ?

If you're on dial up (link them to an ISP from the 21st century) but only do 800px, mid-speed 1200px and super-fast/fibre = 2000px perhaps ?

Other than that, it looks cracking.

 

[JLister]

I like it, not too messy, everything where you need it and not hard to use at all. Well done!

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

^Thanks for that. (and everyone else!)

I will look into having larger images (resolution), but I'm a bit worried the file sizes will make the site pretty sluggish on crappy connections (which is their fault )

I've seen a lot of other photography portfolios that use very high res pics, so it might be the way to go.

I'll create a gallery later with higher res pics to ask what the loading times are like.

Thanks

 

[Rob]

How many really crappy connections do we have now though?

Really nice site though mate, very professional and clean looking. I'd go with larger images, poor connections are in the minority, which in web design, you never have as a primary audience consideration..

 

[mark_182_54]

decent fella !

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Very true. Although on a mobile, it would still try to load the larger images, which is a concern.

This chap is a great photographer, and uses large images http://dejansokolovski.com/

I assume they load fine for everyone? If so, large images will be the way to go.

 

[Martin.]

Pcs in my office are 23" and there is no sluggishness at all. They instantly load. Great looking site and very easy to navigate. Some fantastic photos in there too!

 

[Rob]

Why not write varibale CSS for the mobile version Dan?

You can get sites to use different CSS templates depending upon the size of the browser window, surely this could be incorporated for what sized images are displayed. i.e in non tenchical terms

if browser size X = <800px then load.....

 

[Habitual]

Although most people have fast internet connections, the use of 3G and phone networks is on the rise (significantly), so having a fast website is imperative.

Rob has a good idea, but you would need JavaScript to support such a method and there's still a fair few handheld devices that can't handle JS...

Also, being client side it would only add to slowing the website down.

I would resort to a server side browser check over a client side resolution check.

Also, to improve the speed, compress your CSS, JS and HTML and save your images for the web, with compression and a progressive buffer.

I also forgot to look at your SEO - but it appears there isn't any/much.

What's the website for? Are you hoping to pick up new clients with it?

 

[Scrooge]

I really like how simple and clean that is

 

[Rob]

Why would JS be required???

You can build adaptable sites using CSS? You just have the site use a different stylesheet based upon the browser size, you can check this works by "restoring" the window and then dragging it in and out in size, it'll adapt.

 

[Daniel]

Why would JS be required???

You can build adaptable sites using CSS? You just have the site use a different stylesheet based upon the browser size, you can check this works by "restoring" the window and then dragging it in and out in size, it'll adapt.

Talking of websites.....

 

[Rob]

Soon sugar. I've been busier than elf at Christmas.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Although most people have fast internet connections, the use of 3G and phone networks is on the rise (significantly), so having a fast website is imperative.

Rob has a good idea, but you would need JavaScript to support such a method and there's still a fair few handheld devices that can't handle JS...

Also, being client side it would only add to slowing the website down.

I would resort to a server side browser check over a client side resolution check.

Also, to improve the speed, compress your CSS, JS and HTML and save your images for the web, with compression and a progressive buffer.

I also forgot to look at your SEO - but it appears there isn't any/much.

What's the website for? Are you hoping to pick up new clients with it?

Thanks for the feedback.

I haven't bothered with the SEO bit yet, just the front end (aesthetics basically).

And also, I have almost no idea about web design anyway, I know what JS and CSS is (just about), but not a clue about writing it. It's just a modified word press theme.
It might be crude, but for simpletons like me, it's easy to edit and manage.

I know about saving images for the web etc, but not a clue about compressing CSS, HTML files etc.

 

[Habitual]

Compressing HTML, JS, CSS, etc is easy. It's basically a case of "minifying" it - as they say.

You take your old code (back it up), minify it, save it, run it.

It will reduce your loading time significantly.

Additionally, if you want to save more time you can host your images and scripts on a separate server, also and commonly known as a content distribution network/content delivery network.

Basically, create a sub-domain like cnd.danfreeman.... and host your images, CSS and JS there. This will allow your heavy content to parallel load and improve your loading times even more.

As for browser size recognition without JS, Rob. Not something I am familiar with, personally.

But if you're serious about reducing loading time, I would do any processing like that on the server side, not the client, if possible.

As for your SEO - if you want new clients with this website, SEO should be at the forefront of your development process. I would be happy to advise if required.