PDA

View Full Version : My site, last stage of beta.



taproot2
02-04-2007, 02:14 PM
Hey!, I'm just about done with beta version of my new website. Not 100% LightWave, but alittle of everything. If you have the time go hit it and let me know what you think. Theres digital 2d/3d and even some pencil drawings( whoa, pencil! whats a pencil?). Again for those that spend a few min over there let me know what you think.
heres the link,
http://web.mac.com/puzzle3d
Chris Provine

JamesCurtis
02-04-2007, 05:08 PM
Some nice stuff on your site.

Only problem I had was menu strip at top took a long time to load and in the meantime I could not click on anything on the page to view it. Using IE 6.xxx here.

oDDity
02-05-2007, 03:38 AM
What exactly is the purpose of this site? That's the most important point.
Are you trying to attract clients, or is it just 'here is some neat stuff I did and here are some of my favourite WoW screenshots?'
You'll have to make a decision, because they're not mutually compatible.

starbase1
02-05-2007, 06:45 AM
Have to agree with the others... It is painfully slow to load, and lacks focus.

I think you need to strip it down a bit, and put more focus on your graphics, and less on the interface. There are some very good free web gallery tools out there which will show your work off a lot better - personally I love the free JAlbum. Lots of skins to customise your look and feel - and it's java based so will riun on pretty much anything.

kilvano
02-05-2007, 06:48 AM
I use Firefox with the bookmarks side bar open and it means that the site doesnt fit on the screen.

One of the BIG rules of web design....NEVER MAKE THE VIEWER HAVE TO SIDE SCROLL!

Glendalough
02-05-2007, 07:12 AM
Hey wait a minute!

I don't think its ALL that bad!

It's just WAY too big.

You must be using a huge monitor resolution. Everything should (ideally) work on a 800x600 tho' not always possible....

Redo page at smaller size and get background images down in (kilobyte) size or whatever it is slowing it loading.....better fonts maybe too....

Bog
02-05-2007, 07:49 AM
I think it's safe to assume that anyone who's having a serious look at a graphics website is going to be running a higher res than 800x600.

kilvano
02-05-2007, 08:04 AM
I always make sure that the sites can be viewed in firefox and IE with the bookmark sidebar and a screen resolution of 1280 x 1024.

Im not ripping on the site. Just didnt have the time earlier for a full reply.
I like the design and the logo looks great.

Just need some image speeding up (PS can change the quality on export) and smaller layout.

Lightwolf
02-05-2007, 08:07 AM
Ouch... you should share assets between pages. The backdrop as well as the logo are in a different directory for every page... no browser will cache them and will download the (identical) image again for every new page.
Move shared assets to a common directory and update your HTML files to use them, that should speed things up.

This site is painfully slow. If it wasn't for that it'd be allright.

I think your HTML needs a re-work as well... oops, I just noticed, iWeb... allright, I'll shut up already...

Cheers,
Mike - who codes HTML by hand.

taproot2
02-05-2007, 05:24 PM
Ok, thanks for the info and remarks...This is how it gets better, put the stuff on the wall and see what people think. I'm glad you people took the time to give your thoughts and suggestions. Ill start sifting through the suggestions and start getting to work. Problem! Im not too good at the website building/coding. Iweb is what i used for the puzzle3d site, someone else stitched together the provinestudios site. I'm still not quite used to this 30" cinema display i picked up....everything still looks small on it. And, I thought I had the Wow screenshots page tuned off.
I 've got alot of details to work out still as you guys can see, thanks for the help and feel free to keep it coming,
Any web programers who might want to help me get this site coded cleanly, and want to make some extra money( I wouldnt ask to have it done for free), send me an email with the basic info,
Thanks everyone and Ill see ya later
Chris Provine

taproot2
02-05-2007, 10:37 PM
Here's the latest change ups....I'm not even going to tell you how many meg of info I was able to trim off this site(was alot). Remember, Im stuck with Iweb till further notice.
http://web.mac.com/puzzle3d/iWeb/ProvineStudios/Home.html
Let me know if any speed increase takes place.:help:
And as always, Thanks for All who took the time to help.
Chris Provine

DogBoy
02-06-2007, 02:25 AM
Let me know if any speed increase takes place.:help:
And as always, Thanks for All who took the time to help.
Chris Provine

OK, there will be little (or no) speed increase. In my cache I have, for instance, 8 files called "navbar_separator_9.png". This is because it is replicating files instead of making them commonly shared. So when I go to Utopia from Home I have to load a whole bunch of files (the top menu) I actually already have all over again.

I have no idea how iWeb works, but if this is how it generates sites I'd burn the CD and get a priest to exorcise the application from your Mac. It is obviously EVIL!

In the mean time I'd do this:

Make a folder called "navbar" at the root of your site.
Copy the navbar images from one folder, say "Pepper_Files", into "navbar".
open one of the HTML files in textedit and do a search and replace:

(CityScapes_files/navbar_separator_8.png) with (navbar/navbar_separator_8.png)
repeat with all navbar elements.
repeat on all the other HTML files.
Then expunge all the replicated files except in "navbar".
Test

This will make each page look to a common folder for the images in the top navbar. As your browser already has these files it will reuse them saving time and harddrive space. If you wanna go further you do the same for all common images (the gradient, the little logo etc).

This should work. But I claim no responsibility for any issues as I'm hungover and lacking caffeine.

Good Luck

Glendalough
02-06-2007, 07:16 AM
Still looks a bit too big to me.

You certainly got one nice size monitor!


I think it's safe to assume that anyone who's having a serious look at a graphics website is going to be running a higher res than 800x600.

Is this really the default size (1024x768) now? Would most machines sold in the last year or so have monitors a least this size? (live out in the sticks)

My monitors are only 17 and 18 inches and to go any higher than this (1024x768) looks like OS7 (circa 1995), which maybe isn't all that bad, but say in Lightwave, the interface really seems rather minute.

Surely you have to have at least a 19 or 20 inch monitor to go up to a 1280 x1024 size?

Or am I just going blind?

Lightwolf
02-06-2007, 07:28 AM
Surely you have to have at least a 19 or 20 inch monitor to go up to a 1280 x1024 size?

Or am I just going blind?
You are ;)

Seriously though, if you look at the native resolution of LCDs (and one thing you should not do: Run an LCD at anything but the native resoltion).

15" (are any of these actually left?) : 1024x768
17"-19" : 1280x1024
19"-21"(some, rare) : 1400x1050
20"+ : 1600x1200

These are for 4:3 aspect ratios, the numbers are obviously different for wide screens (1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1200). But I'd say 1024x768 is the minimum nowadays, but you should still account for the space taken up by the browser.
Firefox has a few downloadeable goodies to hel you with authoring, such as a tool to resize the current window to a certain pixel size.

Cheers,
Mike

Glendalough
02-06-2007, 08:27 AM
Whoa!

Thanks Lightwolf!

Things are looking better, and found out how to use the mouse as well....

Yeah, I can sort of see what you're talking about....the 17 inch LCD looks better at a higher resolution (less mushy around the edges of the icons or something). But how do I tell what it's native resolution is?

4:3 aspect ratio would be 1280x960 though -this seems to work.

1280x1024 is 5:4....this for different ratio video? Very square like?

The 18 inch CRT is more problematic.

1024 x 768 is 85HZ which (85HZ) seems to be the only choice that runs without a flicker, 60 very bad, and 75 a sort of micro flicker. Any idea what all this is about?

Lightwolf
02-06-2007, 08:35 AM
Whoa!
...
Things are looking better, and found out how to use the mouse as well....

:ohmy:


Yeah, I can sort of see what you're talking about....the 17 inch LCD looks better at a higher resolution (less mushy around the edges of the icons or something). But how do I tell what it's native resolution is?

Check the manual? Look it up on the web?


4:3 aspect ratio would be 1280x960 though -this seems to work.

1280x1024 is 5:4....this for different ratio video? Very square like?

Yeah, 4:3 LCDs are more like 5:4 - so 1280x1024 is the native resolution.
Just like the wide screen ones aren't 9:6 but 16:10.


The 18 inch CRT is more problematic.

1024 x 768 is 85HZ which (85HZ) seems to be the only choice that runs without a flicker, 60 very bad, and 75 a sort of micro flicker. Any idea what all this is about?
Quite normal for a CRT. Here the refresh rate actually matters for a licker free image. I assume your CRT can't handle more than [email protected], hard to tell without knowing the specs.

Cheers,
Mike - and sorry for the :hijack:

starbase1
02-06-2007, 10:11 AM
Again I don't understand your web system, but I really think you should take a lok at JAlbum, it's pretty idiot proof. (Even for a non web designer)

Basically you choose a look and feel (skin), and point it at a local folder structure with your images in - this will mirror the live one. Then you just dump the images into the relevant source folder, (adding comments if you wish). When you ask it to update, it will chug through your source images, resizing as necessary, and generating gallery pages with thumbnails for you. It can even upload the results to the web site for you, has options to do on the fly slideshows...

It's 100% free. See http://www.jalbum.net

Here#'s what I did with it - the only extra bit I did was to customise the link bar at the bottom of each page.

http://www.starbase1.co.uk/galleries/

Nick

taproot2
02-07-2007, 10:25 PM
Ok guys, thanks for the help.
Three things I've learned so far about web programing for my site:
1. Dont use Iweb
2. Dont use Iweb
3. Dont use Iweb
Im sure I've left something out, not sure what it is, but im working on it.
Cya, Me

T-Light
02-08-2007, 05:13 AM
Lightwolf -

Yeah, 4:3 LCDs are more like 5:4 - so 1280x1024 is the native resolution.
Too true, non square pixels are the norm on a 1280*1024 lcd, bet there's graphic artists across the globe getting wrong for producing oval spere's:devil:
Lightwolf -

Just like the wide screen ones aren't 9:6 but 16:10.
9:6? 16:9 surely :D
On the plus side, at least 1680*1050 and 1280*800 laptops are 1:1 pixel ratio.

They really ought to mention this sort of stuff at PC World etc. Bought a 17" monitor the other year (1280*1024), PC World Techs were trying to tell me that it was inferior to the 15" 1024*768 because it couldn't produce the clarity??? Why? because the fools were trying to run it at 800*600 :D

Anyway, really nice images there taproot2 :thumbsup: It's images like those that make me realise why so many are desperate for LW's own instancing system.

Lightwolf
02-08-2007, 05:18 AM
Too true, non square pixels are the norm on a 1280*1024 lcd, bet there's graphic artists across the globe getting wrong for producing oval spere's:devil:

Actually, they are square, thus the 5:4 screen aspect. If they were 4:3 like the CRTs, then 1280x1024 would be off (1280x960 should be used then).

Last year I did some training - and was stumped to see a bunch of nice 19" running at 1024x768 - looking very soft with uneven vertical lines (easy to spot on on-screen type). I switched to 1280x1024 and boy did it make a difference...

Cheers,
Mike

T-Light
02-08-2007, 12:05 PM
You're right Mike, 1280*1024's should be 1:1 pixels at 5:4. I'm thinking 4:3 monitors displaying 1280*1024. (Why's that useless nugget been lodged in my head for so many years???)

My boo boo :o