Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

New Website!


kjs 16 7
6 Jun 2005 2:14PM
I would be most grateful if you could spend a couple of minutes checking out my new website www.CapturedOnCamera.co.uk - which contains photographs taken by myself and Duncan Robins ( Duncs ).
There is a guestbook on there - please feel free to leave any comments.

I have only just made the site live, and would really appreciate your opinions.

Many thanks for your help.

Kris
StrayCat 17 19.1k 3 Canada
6 Jun 2005 2:25PM
I had a look and left a comment.
u08mcb 17 5.8k
6 Jun 2005 2:26PM
Very clear, attractive website.

A few things:

Exif data lists Canon lens as "18-15mm" maybe not worth including this info altogether? All you're doing is letting people to whom this information means anything know you do not use professional kit.

I'd like some info about both of you. Maybe also include postal address/phone number? (Assuming you are wanting this website to be a business)

No price info on the website, enough to make me look elsewhere were I looking for prints. In fact it is not really clear whether this is simply a gallery or is indeed a business selling prints.

Your "What's New" section just has your galleries in it. I'd suggest perhaps leaving that empty until you have something genuinely new beyond your starting portfolio to show.

Don't see the point of the validation links at the bottom of the page. I don't understand what they mean and they look out of place.

"Abstract" Gallery has:

Clearly recognisable oar hole on a boat
Clearly recognisable sand ripples
2 clearly recognisable flowers
Clearly recognisable shells
LAF 18 1.7k
6 Jun 2005 2:43PM
Brave choice of font (I wonder how many people will have it!) but otherwise very visually striking, quick to access and simple to navigate. Good work.

Lee.
duncs 16 28
6 Jun 2005 2:44PM
Thank you very much for your feedback.

Shall be adding purchase details in due course. At the moment the prints are not available for purchase as we wanted to ensure that the website was up and running correctly first.

Thanks again.

Kris
kjs 16 7
6 Jun 2005 2:48PM
Thanks Lee (LAF). I have embedded the font within a file on the web server, so the font should display correctly even if you do not have it installed on your own pc.

Cheers

Kris
u08mcb 17 5.8k
6 Jun 2005 2:52PM
Just looks like Times NR to me.

When i paste some into word it tells me its Papyrus but is totally blank on the page, I must not have the font.
LAF 18 1.7k
6 Jun 2005 2:54PM
Oooh, fancy! :o) Not sure what the compatability of embeded fonts is with different browsers, security products, SP2 etc but it works fine for me.

Lee.
u08mcb 17 5.8k
6 Jun 2005 2:58PM
Just tried in IE and it works, not in Firefox. Luckily to my eye at least the site works equally well in either browser.
kjs 16 7
6 Jun 2005 3:07PM
Thanks Lee (LAF) and Malcolm (u08mcb). That's good to know. I will try to find a way around it so that all browsers see the intended font.

Cheers

Kris
LAF 18 1.7k
6 Jun 2005 4:26PM
I used Firefox and it worked fine... I already hadthe font though.
kjs 16 7
7 Jun 2005 3:52AM
Thanks for taking the time to have a look and for commenting. Much appreciated.

Kris
nickp 16 491 Scotland
7 Jun 2005 4:19AM
Hi Kris,
Nice site, great pics. Loads nice and quick.

A couple of quick comments - you may find some of your visitors will have difficulty with the size of the font, and the faintness of the grey you're using for some of the text. I have good eyesight and gave up on trying to read the first page! I think you need to make it clearer - either brighter larger text, or a clearer font. Using a black background is hard work as well.

Why have you got a visitor counter? You just can't win with it! Either it shows a depressingly low number and the visitor thinks therefore there's something wrong with the site, or a ridiculously high number, and you lose the cachet of the rarely visited gem of a site .... You should have other ways of finding out how many people visit. And I agree about the validation stuff: only geeks like me are really interested. All the information on each page should be focussed on providing something specifically for your target visitor. (Actually if I'm picky, I'm not clear how the site conforms to accessibility standards - alternative text for all the images for example?)

Oh, and a tiny one: the All Gallery Categories link should be in blue.

Hope that helps - great start though.
Nick
philwig 16 817 1
7 Jun 2005 5:02AM
Well for once I didn't bother validating it, but I did found the w3c badges intrusive... graphically they break what is otherwise a pleasing layout, IMHO. Perhaps they're not interesting to most people [even if one thinks they should be]?

The copyright date is last year; I'd leave the date out of there as it's not necessary in uk.

Font: how do you put it on the server, and do you have a source of fonts you can legally distruibute? Looks clever, and I like the font, although it's a fraction hard to read on my large screen. Perhaps it's white on black. Doesn't work on Opera (standard serif font I think) - specify some alternatives?

The site's a bit slow.

I'd lose the page counters - your web server will tell you who, what, where, when, but these tell me (the punter) nothing other than you've not many hits yet.

Technical details. Hmm... raises the question: "who's the site for". If it's for photographers, then these are essential. If you're selling pictures.... I'm not sure that the customers care. If they do care, they'll be less impressed with the gear you're using than your pictures I think. I'd skip it.

It took me about half a second to steal an image, although I like the transparent gif idea in principle.
JohnHorne 16 1.0k
7 Jun 2005 5:30AM
An attractive site and people have offered some very valid observations here. The only additional point I would make is to think again about the way you signpost links. You have links in blue (as well as grey and orange) text; yet not all blue text represents a link. Separating these visually can aid navigation.

I agree with those who suggest removing the W3C links at the bottom. These are visually distracting, and are of no use to the visitor. It may be important for you to know that your code conforms to the XHTML 1.0 standard - but all that matters to me is that the site works correctly in MY browser !

Hit counters are a pet hate of mine. This is probably my problem more than yours, but it does amuse me that people put so much faith in them. At best it tells the visitor how many hits the hit-counter has received; if you're lucky, that gives a reasonable approximation of the number of times the page has been visited. You need to look at the log files to find out how many visits or how many visitors your site has received.

General layout is attractive, and I think the comments that have been made can all be addressed very easily. Good luck !

John

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.