Your thoughts - Web design (header only)

[goldy300]

Helloo!

Your thoughts on this http://goldy30.uuuq.com/connorsbuilding/. I will rip it out of the table later but just your thoughts on the design of the header and nav... colors, size, anything. One page only. No content. Just design.

 

[linglingzero]

Hi goldy300. In my opinion, your site has a very straight-to-the-point look. I think it looks pretty professional. The colors go pretty well, it's very simplistic.

I only have one question for you, was there going to be a border on the sides? I think a complete border mightlook cool. Otherwise, it's awesome!

 

[freecrm]

Few things.

In the header image, there appears to be a building footprint faded out, which I would have liked to have seen a lot more prominent.

I don't like the stars and don't think they add anything - IMHO, I think they cheapen the look.

The accredidation symbols look a bit out of place above the header - I would have put them in the main body.

The menu symbols (again above the header - top right) look a bit out of place too - can these be built into the main menu system?

Other than that - like it.

 

[goldy30]

Yes, I do see what you mean with the accreditation logos... they just fit up there nice at the time and everything across the top is also links to something so home, site map and contact icons, and further to the right top corner, a login for the owner was something I've seen on a lot of sites.

Yeah, I'll have to agree with the stars... they're just in his logo but his logo isn't that good so I just used the southern cross out of it. Needs a good logo but I'm not very good at them. I should take it out, re slice and add one in a div later on.

Thanks for the feed back.... any other suggestions?

 

[vol7ron]

accreditation images are too blurry and need sharpened. also the menu highlight is faded on the right and left side, making it not as wide as the bar above it. also the shades of blue are different:

bar - #207FED
highlight - varies around the font, but mostly is #2180EE

my guess is that u made the menu images in photoshop or something and either did not use the same blue, or the glow from the font is wreaking havoc on the background color.

 

[xPlozion]

aww, jpegs... i dislike the use of jpegs for webdesign. they leave unpleasant artifacts instead of clear sharp images. pngs are the way to go nowadays, since gifs don't support the large range of colors as pngs and jpgs leave artifacts.

i don't think he used a glow, but it's the jpeg that did that

i don't like the home, sitemap, contact and login icons on the top. try making them text and have them on the bottom.

try re-exporting all the images for the site as pngs "you'll love the difference, i guarantee it" (ps, my sig is a png, and see how clean that looks?)

 

[goldy30]

wow... didn't see as much wrong there as you guys have. I do see the blurriness of the logos and even the white text on the blue bar in the nav. I never knew about png's that much. I've only experimented once with png to use as a transparent bg. Good to know though. I'll try again.

Thanks!

 

[frankfriend]

Hi Goldy,

Liked the graphic [I assume that is a picture of something that Connors have built, if not I would change it for one they have built.] This shows that I assume they are a building company. If they are noit, then there may be a problem.

The small icons about it are rather thin and hard to see, they just need more definition or colour.

Use a spell checker! 'breif' should be 'brief'.

It does look good, it is clear, striking, and the colours are great. I like the southern cross! It is probably important to the client as I assume he is proud of his country?

I think the trade logos at the top are good - potential customers will just note them as plus points, better there than lower down.

Have you tried putting a contact address / phone no/ email in the header?

I did find it all slightly out of focus.

 

[vol7ron]

wow... didn't see as much wrong there as you guys have. I do see the blurriness of the logos and even the white text on the blue bar in the nav. I never knew about png's that much. I've only experimented once with png to use as a transparent bg. Good to know though. I'll try again.

Thanks!

Not only does PNG have a file size similar to that of a jpeg (if not better), but it is lossless. This means it has the quality of a bitmap with the size of a JPG (plus or minus). As xPlozion pointed out, artifacts will develop in JPEGs because when you compress it, you remove certain colors and replace them with a color similar to one that already exists.

All this means is that you're changing the data of the image, instead, PNGs found a better way to identify patterns in the images and compress it using the better defined pattern. This removes the need to replace data to reduce the size, and instead is more efficient, resulting in better quality and generally faster load speeds because of the efficiency.

PNGs also do things that GIFs can do, which is the ability to produce transparent images. In addition to transparency, which just makes one color invisible, PNGs also thought of alpha transparency (something GIFs didn't), which alows the transparent portion to overlay and brighten/darken the image underneath.

 

[vol7ron]

i don't think he used a glow, but it's the jpeg that did that

You noticed he used jpegs before me. Hat's off to you. You're right the JPG can easily modify image color and clarity.

 

[xPlozion]

shame on you for double posting and ur a mod too :'(

You noticed he used jpegs before me. Hat's off to you. You're right the JPG can easily modify image color and clarity.

yea, jpegs are really easy for me to identify, because it looks very poor. i have a harder time telling if a site's using gifs though because they don't leave artifacts but something saved with a gif was intended to use a large array of colors, then its dead simple

 

[goldy300]

What is better, PNG 8, 24 or 32? Which one will give me a smooth gradient across the sky without looking choppy?