Loman
Member
Hi everybody.
I finally finished my website:
http://www.madshartmann.com
I'm looking for critique, positive or negative. Whether it's concerning layout, content, spelling errors the works.
I must admit that most of the photographs was done with 35mm slrs, a rolleflex and a few large format cameras. There's a few photographs taken through a leica though so I hope that justifies posting it here.
Kind Regards
Mads
I finally finished my website:
http://www.madshartmann.com
I'm looking for critique, positive or negative. Whether it's concerning layout, content, spelling errors the works.
I must admit that most of the photographs was done with 35mm slrs, a rolleflex and a few large format cameras. There's a few photographs taken through a leica though so I hope that justifies posting it here.
Kind Regards
Mads
Last edited:
Phantomas
Well-known
Your photographs are very good. So when I saw them I didn't care what your site looked like.
edit: on the second thought, since your site deserves existence and viewing here's constructive "criticism":
- when I click "Photographs" I see only a lot of text. Would be nice to have photos straight away before going deeper into menu.
- I was checking it on my 13" mac and couldn't see photos entirely, had to scroll up/down. I think it'd still be OK with slightly smaller photos.
- otherwise the site is clean and easy on eyes.
edit: on the second thought, since your site deserves existence and viewing here's constructive "criticism":
- when I click "Photographs" I see only a lot of text. Would be nice to have photos straight away before going deeper into menu.
- I was checking it on my 13" mac and couldn't see photos entirely, had to scroll up/down. I think it'd still be OK with slightly smaller photos.
- otherwise the site is clean and easy on eyes.
Last edited:
Loman
Member
Thanks for taking the time to answer...
Maybe I should make the photographs a little smaller.
although I always hate myself going to people's websites only to look at tiny photos.
Of course I'm writing this from a 24" Imac, maybe that has got something to do with it too. The website has a fluid interface so it should follow different resolutions, I guess it doesn't include the photographs (they have a 1024x768 resolution).
Kind Regards
Mads
Maybe I should make the photographs a little smaller.
although I always hate myself going to people's websites only to look at tiny photos.
Of course I'm writing this from a 24" Imac, maybe that has got something to do with it too. The website has a fluid interface so it should follow different resolutions, I guess it doesn't include the photographs (they have a 1024x768 resolution).
Kind Regards
Mads
Last edited:
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Somehow your images are not coming up.
Also i'd have to agree with Phanthomas, would much prefer to see a bunch of photographs when i click your gallery rather than decsriptions.
I like the over all color and simplicity of your website. Lets the images take. The one with the baby looking through the tear in a paper is great!
Also i'd have to agree with Phanthomas, would much prefer to see a bunch of photographs when i click your gallery rather than decsriptions.
I like the over all color and simplicity of your website. Lets the images take. The one with the baby looking through the tear in a paper is great!
tlitody
Well-known
what you should know is that approx 20% of people still use a 1024x768 monitor. Thats 1 in 5. But then just as importantly 30% plus use laptops which have 1280x800 screen resolution. And then there are more obscure screen resolutions which have height less than 800 pixels. In total you are looking 60% of people who have between 768 and 800 pixel screen height. That doesn't matter where sites are essentially text based because scrolling for text is fairly natural. BUT is does matter if you can't see the whole of an image in without scrolling which is what you want for image based sites.
I'd change your default size in the monoslideshow.xml file to 660x495 and then just about everyone will be able to view complete images.
And they won't get those awful sideways scroll bars which consume more screen height.
And thumbnails are too small. Now there's irony for you.
I'd change your default size in the monoslideshow.xml file to 660x495 and then just about everyone will be able to view complete images.
And they won't get those awful sideways scroll bars which consume more screen height.
And thumbnails are too small. Now there's irony for you.
Last edited:
israel_alanis
The Laugher
Hello Loman, I like the style you are using for your page, but the composition could be restricting the way you are showing your photos, about the size of gallery and when you go to photography go to a text I agree with Phantomas.
About size 1024x768 is most popular size yet, if you want a full screen is recommended you make a function to do that. I like very much flash, some years a work with, but now days with html 5 you can do many same effects with better performance. A gallery could be better with html 5 than flash, you can study JQuery, is free and easy to use, the gallery will be faster.
With all respect Loman I post three possibles application of the style you made. With all respect.
I insist, I like very much the style, I think the size and Menu could be a issue.
Anything you can contact.
Regards.
About size 1024x768 is most popular size yet, if you want a full screen is recommended you make a function to do that. I like very much flash, some years a work with, but now days with html 5 you can do many same effects with better performance. A gallery could be better with html 5 than flash, you can study JQuery, is free and easy to use, the gallery will be faster.
With all respect Loman I post three possibles application of the style you made. With all respect.
I insist, I like very much the style, I think the size and Menu could be a issue.
Anything you can contact.
Regards.
Loman
Member
Hi
Thanks everybody for taking the time to review the site.
I made the website using rapidweaver, and since I'm no html expert it's a somewhat limiting.
Tlitody: Thanks for the indepth description I'll change the resolution to 660x495.
My wife has a small 12" ibook, and silly me forgot to test the website on it. It's true scrolling is horribly annoying.
Israel:
Thank you very much for your insight. I would be very interested how you managed to change the look of the website.
I'll take a look at Jquery as well.
Kind Regards
Mads
Thanks everybody for taking the time to review the site.
I made the website using rapidweaver, and since I'm no html expert it's a somewhat limiting.
Tlitody: Thanks for the indepth description I'll change the resolution to 660x495.
My wife has a small 12" ibook, and silly me forgot to test the website on it. It's true scrolling is horribly annoying.
Israel:
Thank you very much for your insight. I would be very interested how you managed to change the look of the website.
I'll take a look at Jquery as well.
Kind Regards
Mads
israel_alanis
The Laugher
Hey Mads, is a pleasure you like it. I send you the master file to your mail.
Regards.
Regards.
fotomeow
name under my name
thanks for sharing your website and great photos. Since I' eventually will be building my own site, I want to see how others are doing it.
I have a 21" mac and the photos come up quite nicely. I might warn against making the photos too small just to please the 13" computer crowd.
Many folks, especially your potential target audience (publishers? buyers? you put out a book, so I am assuming you want to go further) will have screens larger than 13".
I wonder if rapidwinder will allow you to present smaller fotos for smaller screens, and the option to enlarge the photos for larger screens, eg, "click on the photo for larger size".
good luck,
I have a 21" mac and the photos come up quite nicely. I might warn against making the photos too small just to please the 13" computer crowd.
Many folks, especially your potential target audience (publishers? buyers? you put out a book, so I am assuming you want to go further) will have screens larger than 13".
I wonder if rapidwinder will allow you to present smaller fotos for smaller screens, and the option to enlarge the photos for larger screens, eg, "click on the photo for larger size".
good luck,
Loman
Member
To everybody:
I've made quite a few changes now. Photos have 660x495 resolution. There are now more photographs too. Also they are quicker to get to. I made the background a little lighter and the text a little whiter so it should be easier to read.
Israel: I've send you a pm.
Gary: I'm glad you like it. Yes you're right there's a danger that the photographs get too small. I think they are at their limit now, but they are still ok. There is a option in rapidweaver to "click on photo for larger size". I might just make use of that.
Kind Regards
Mads
I've made quite a few changes now. Photos have 660x495 resolution. There are now more photographs too. Also they are quicker to get to. I made the background a little lighter and the text a little whiter so it should be easier to read.
Israel: I've send you a pm.
Gary: I'm glad you like it. Yes you're right there's a danger that the photographs get too small. I think they are at their limit now, but they are still ok. There is a option in rapidweaver to "click on photo for larger size". I might just make use of that.
Kind Regards
Mads