Updating my web site (slowly)

[Argentum]

Have just been doing some updates to my website and I'm in quandry about using the fashionable (for photographers) dark background or a light background. I'm wondering what peoples preferences are so I thought I'd do a little poll.

[Peter Hogan]

Light. Dark looks too morbid...

[Trevor Crone]

The background is a little too dark for me, would much prefer to see a paler grey.

[André.E.C.]

I like it darker, just look at my own!:D


Cheers


André

[Richard Gould]

i prefer a light backjground Richard

[B&W Neil]

I am not keen on grey for mono prints. Black or white I think, our site is black.

Neil.

PS. I did enjoy that print you had featured :-)

[Bill]

I too would prefer a lighter background.

Bill

[Argentum]

It's gone light.

[Trevor Crone]

Personally I think that looks better. The black framed prints stand out better and looks to me more like exhibition space.

[B&W Neil]

Most gallery walls are pure white though and I would have gone for that on our site but with 'mono-inthedark' it had to be black ;-)

Neil.

[Peter Hogan]

Much better. Good print, too.

[Dave miller]

Unfortunately the frame doesn't fit my screen, either the top or bottom is lost, so is the effect.

[Barry]

Looks very good here.

[Trevor Crone]

Looking at the way the poll is going; you ask 100 people and 1/2 will say light, the 1/2 of course dark:)

[Argentum]

Unfortunately the frame doesn't fit my screen, either the top or bottom is lost, so is the effect.

You need a bigger screen:D

The old version had images without frames and you could click on them to get the framed version. But most people now have higher resolution screens so I have opted to go straight into the framed version for better initial presentation. That will mean some people are seeing what you are. Sorry bout that. I figure most people who are interested in images and potentially buying them will have bigger / higher resolution screens.

And infact even at 1024 X 768 resolution I can see the whole frame. Only if I had several browser control bars taking up screen space would I not be able to see whole frame.

[Argentum]

Looking at the way the poll is going; you ask 100 people and 1/2 will say light, the 1/2 of course dark:)

I had a peak at all the members websites in the links section and their seems to be a fairly even distribution across light, medium and dark.

Personally I find the initial impact of dark backgrounds is greater but I very quickly tire of it and find that if spending time at a site, then a light background is better. That's why I'm in a quandry about it. Maybe I should make it random so sometimes its white, sometimes medium and sometimes black:D

[Dave miller]

You need a bigger screen:D

The old version had images without frames and you could click on them to get the framed version. But most people now have higher resolution screens so I have opted to go straight into the framed version for better initial presentation. That will mean some people are seeing what you are. Sorry bout that. I figure most people who are interested in images and potentially buying them will have bigger / higher resolution screens.

And infact even at 1024 X 768 resolution I can see the whole frame. Only if I had several browser control bars taking up screen space would I not be able to see whole frame.

Don't think I do. I'm viewing on dual monitors, a 21" CT monitor at 1280x800 pixel and a 19" flat screen thingy, and I have to scroll on both of them, which I don't think is a good thing to have to do on an opening page.

[Argentum]

Uggh. I can see full frame (just) at 1024x768 but you can't on an 800 pixel high screen. Methinks you have more browser bars open than I do. My normal res is 1280x1024.

Interested to hear if other people are having problems. I'll probably switch on some screen res monitoring and see what most people have.

[Argentum]

Dave have another look at the http://www.visualperception.net/ with a refresh just to make sure

[Barry]

Rob,

I'm viewing at 1280x1024 on a 19" flat screen. Your opening image sits just above the centre line. I have to scroll to get to your bottom links. However, the image looks superb at this size and I see the whole image on opening your index page. I'm viewing with Firefox 3 with the default toolbars (2).

[Argentum]

yes the links are not designed to be always visible, thereby leaving more room for bigger images.

Daves default setup is only providing a window size (not screen size) with 656 pixels height which is significantly smaller than a lot of peoples.
Yours is 893 pixels and mine is 869 pixels and more on opera and firefox.

I'll monitor it and see how it goes. i.e. whether many people still have such a small pixel height for their primary browser window.

[Peter Hogan]

Actually, I have to scroll as well, but I thought that was just normal!

[Trevor Crone]

I scroll too, but I am using a 'cheap-o' laptop.....plus I haven't got a clue how to change it:confused:

[Argentum]

I scroll too, but I am using a 'cheap-o' laptop.....plus I haven't got a clue how to change it:confused:
Changing it will make everything look smaller. Best use native screen resolution.
But if you want to try then:

control panel
display
settings

and pick the resolution you want, assuming your using windows.

[Trevor Crone]

Thank you, but it would seem I'm already at max res. 1280x800

[Argentum]

The other thing you can do if you are on lower screen resolution is to use your F11 key. Just toggle it on or off. Gives you much more screen to play with.

[Argentum]

I put a little help about F11 at the bottom of screen so everyone has the means to see whole frame now, including image navigation buttons without scrolling.

[Bob]

I think it looks very good as it stands now: simple and elegant.

The use of same-height and centred images in the galleries means I don't have to keep hunting for the "Next" button as it does not move about the screen. Generations yet unborn will thank you for that alone...

[Argentum]

I think it looks very good as it stands now: simple and elegant.

The use of same-height and centred images in the galleries means I don't have to keep hunting for the "Next" button as it does not move about the screen. Generations yet unborn will thank you for that alone...
There's method in my madness even if a few senior moments are thrown in for good measure. Quite a lot of code cleaning up to do.

[Dave miller]

Dave have another look at the http://www.visualperception.net/ with a refresh just to make sure

Thank you, but I still have to scroll; and also sit 2 feet nearer the screen at that resolution so that I can read the writing.

Frankly Rob, if I had wanted to mess with the inner rumblings of these infernal machines I wouldn't have built a darkroom.

[Roy_H]

Rob, just like to compliment you on a very clean and attractive site.

For me the tonality of the background is just right, and the neutral grey brings much more awareness of the subtle colour changes in print tone than a dark background would.
If you wanted to, you could always include a style-switcher to let people choose what tone of background they want.

A couple of comments if I may: clicking on 'galleries' does not take me where I thought it would, it's actually more of a welcome/about page. Also, it's not clear that the actual galleries are the links beneath the one that says 'galleries'

Finally, the images are a tight fit in a 1024x768 window (although I'm working on a Mac at 1920x1200 so can get around that!). You may want to consider putting the image navigation arrows at the top of the main image rather than the bottom. People with smaller screens will then be able to see them without scrolling.

All in all though it's a very pleasing site; even better for not using Flash (and I'm not talking light sources...)!

[Sandeha Lynch]

All in all though it's a very pleasing site; even better for not using Flash (and I'm not talking light sources...)!

It does look good. I'm dithering myself about a new design for my site - partly because I started out doing everything manually and inevitably that gets to be a pain and a bit unwieldy.

But ... a question !! Why should (opinions, please) Active-x be better than Flash, or vice versa. I know some people are dead against each of them, but I don't know why.

And does CS4 have more to offer compared with the web galleries of CS2 ??

[Argentum]

It does look good. I'm dithering myself about a new design for my site - partly because I started out doing everything manually and inevitably that gets to be a pain and a bit unwieldy.

But ... a question !! Why should (opinions, please) Active-x be better than Flash, or vice versa. I know some people are dead against each of them, but I don't know why.

And does CS4 have more to offer compared with the web galleries of CS2 ??

There is nothing inherently wrong with flash. It is how it is implemented that is the problem. And that is the fault of designers. It's actually very fast but people put fades and gizmos into it just because they can and not because it adds anything to the site. Also flash is not good for search engines because its too complex for them to follow all logic paths and make sense of the content so you only get basic search engine results for flash sites.
Just to confound you, on windows using IE, the flash player is an active-x module and actually that works far better than the plugins that some OS and browsers use. Problem with allowing active-x downloads is that they often contain spyware and adware so they should be blocked on your browser. That doesn't mean you can't have flash though, as the flash files are not active-x modules. It is the player which is active-x and providing you install a genuine version, then it is safe. You just need to block on the fly download of active-x modules and not the playing of valid installed ones.
So active-x is not inherently bad either. Its what people do with it which is the problem but you can stop them by blocking them.

But I digress and we are getting somewhat off topic here and I feel a reprimand approaching.

[Argentum]

Thank you, but I still have to scroll; and also sit 2 feet nearer the screen at that resolution so that I can read the writing.

Frankly Rob, if I had wanted to mess with the inner rumblings of these infernal machines I wouldn't have built a darkroom.

The F11 key should ease your pain Dave.

[Roy_H]

I completely agree that the problem with Flash is usually related to the way many people use it.
There are some photo sites out there that make good use of Flash, but they are the exception rather than the rule in my experience.

From the point of view of accessibility and web standards, both well-defined in web usability guidelines, Flash needs to be used with care and awareness of it's impact on both. (Keeping this brief because it's kind of off-topic I know).

As for Active-X, well I'm a Mac user primarily so any site that relies on it to display correctly is bad in my book.

Same goes for the F11 trick - fine if you're a Windows user, but forget it if you are on a Mac.

[Argentum]

And does CS4 have more to offer compared with the web galleries of CS2 ??

Don't know as I don't have either of those products. However, the following is quite a nice hosted solution and is reasonably priced. Will save you a lot of messing about if you don't know html and css and especially if you have no server side scripting knowledge.

Clikpic (http://www.clikpic.com/)

[Barry]

Many of us have web pages and need to discuss the pro's and con's of software packages, but I think we are getting too far off topic for this forum?
I'm sure there are forums dedicated to this discussion.
;)