Feeds
Deardorff Communications
Posted on April 3rd, 2006 by Shane
This site is almost unreadable. The font size desperately needs to be bigger.
Whew. Got that out of the way.
Except for the font size, I really like this site. There is a lot that it doesn’t do well, but there is a lot that it really does. The combination of dark color scheme and vibrant images, for instance, is perfect — very high class and professional. Instantly gives the impression that this is an exceptional agency.
Another particularly nice feature is its use of different stylesheets for different mediums. When printing, for example, you end up with a very nice piece that could slip right into a sales folder. Very nice multiple uses of the same content.
Personally I don’t find the font-size a problem - although I do seem to be a fan of small font-sizes (and FF makes the size SLIGHTLY larger than IE). Usually, as long as you are able to re-size the font I don’t find it an issue, however in this instance they do not.
I would have thought using pixels for font-size would be hugely on its way out, but still site after site carries on using this unit which is un-resizeable in IE. When they have made such an effort to create a great print stylesheet it seems strange for them to make such an obvious over-sight.
Barring the font problem, the site looks good - very sharp how the dark base colors contrast with the bright sections along the bottom.
However, it’s not long before I come across another of my big bug-bears!
What about 800×600 users?
Ok, this resolution is in decline (hovering around the 20% mark?), and for some sites it is acceptable to go for 1024×768 depending on it’s audience. With this site I don’t see the point though - ESPECIALLY when a huge chunk of space is wasted along the left. Yes maybe it makes the page look a little funky by having the image jutted out from the gutter of the page, but surely it would have made more sense to line this up with the rest of the content (maybe make a little smaller) and let 800×60users browse without scrollbars?
With a bit of creative CSS it may even be possible to have the image jutted out at +1024 yet slide in fluidly when below this?
Overall a very nice looking site, but too many fundamental problems for my liking. Then again, I am a picky B*****d. :o)
Thanks for the input. Along with some minor copy changes, we’ll be installing some usability tweaks as well. I appreciate the input and well thought out critique. As for the target resolution, we were designing with 1024×768 in mind. That was something we set from the beginning. I lived by 800×600 for years and I think it’s time to move on. I agree that we could’ve made more of an effort towards a fluid layout, and if we get enough feedback in regards to that, it will definitely be brought up and addressed, however looking at our stats and seeing the resolutions coming into the site, we were confident in making this layout at 1024×768. Thanks a bunch
And to add, I don’t consider the space “wasted”. It’s negative space and treated as a design element.
The site is aligned wierd. The flash thing starts from margin-left: 0; and the rest of the site from margin-left: 200; so this distracts the user (especially the flash block), why don`t u put the flash in the midlle?
With the javascript turned off the flash doesn`t show up.
As I go further “in the page” it`s totally hard to navigate and read…
IMO u need to realign the whole page…
The code shold be better!
Rich Media
WTF?! :D
I don’t have a problem with the negative space either, and I agree it is time to move forward from the 800 x 600 environment.
The vibrant images on the site are exceptional, and what’s great is the page background is minimal enough to make them stand out even more.
However, the font size is too small. Not for me, but I think to myself: could my father read this? He may legitimately use their serives, but if he approached this site he’d leave. He would not be able to read it.
That being said, the highlight of this web site to me is the Contact form. Excellent simple design, and I’m a huge fan of the functionality. Nice job!
nice design but every page looks like a “homepage” I think there should be somethnig to distinguish a difference from a hmoepage and a landing page.
John,
I’m sorry if you saw my review as negative - I didn’t mean it to come across as a personal attack. I do also understand the design element of “whitespace” and actually like your use of it in this design (hence my half-compliment of saying it makes it look funky!).
My reference to it as being “wasted” space was meant purely in relation to the detriment of the 800×600 resolution. Like you said - you actively chose to aim at the 1024+ market, therefore this is not (and assume wasn’t during the design stage) a problem.
Regarding dropping 800×600 users - yes I also wish we could stop supporting this real-estate sapping resolution and move over to 1024 so we can stretch our legs a little, but personally I think it is still too soon. I have seen many sites move over to this larger size but mostly these are sites aimed at web professionals who are likely to have this res or higher. I have worked on a couple of large scale websites which receive a varied cross section of users from every coutry in the world - and the 800×600 figures are still way too large to force them to scroll.
Having said that - this isn’t necessarily in relation to the website being reviewed as I have no idea of the audience - just simply my opinion on the resolution state…
Chris,
I wasn’t taking anything personal. Not at all and I apologize if I came off as such. I was just trying to defend the choices we made and illustrate that it didn’t happen by accident. I explained the negative space on creativebits.org, and I’ll do the same here.
The main chunk of the site follows an eight column grid. We chose to align the flash peice outside of the grid very much on purpose. We thought it creatied an interesting dichotomy of the “safe” grid based design with some of the newer experimental layouts without going way overboard. I think it creates visual interest.
I think we’re succeeding by the way other designers are talking about the left margin. It’s not conventional so the first reaction is to say “Hey, that’s not right”. But the non-designers I’ve talked to find it interesting. I’ll expand more, but i have to do some dishes.
The font issues will be fixed, however. It was an oversight that i plan to correct.
redscorpion,
Please explain “hard to navigate”
We’re currently debugging an issue that only happens in Firefox 1.0. The subnav doesn’t float properly and disappears behind the tagline, only in FF 1.0. Shane helped me identify the problem, now I just have to fix it.
As for the javascript not letting flash through, that’s a flash detection sniffer. It checks to see if your flash player is up to snuff. There will be enhancements to the “alternative content” also.
@John Williams
When I click “Solutions” the subnav shows up and “the same” subnav shows beneath the flash which is rather confusing…IMO. Why having two blocks of the same links?
When I read the main text the flash is “pulling” my eyes of the text.
It`s ok to experiment but I would realign the whole thing.
As for the resolution, you can`t decide to make web for 1024+ users based just on the logs… If some client which has 800×600 resolution comes on your site it wont fit into his browser, and he is going somewhere else which is bad for your agency..It`s simple as that.
Font-size is almost laughably small, I’m sure more than half their visitors cannot read a word on it, I know I can’t.
This quibble aside I like the design very much, very clean and minimal, tasteful use of Flash.
And can we please stop whining about 800×600?
We made some revisions to the site.
Added a footer with a small text resize widget for enlarging the text.
Added a script to display a random header image to a printed page for pages that contain flash headers.
Still encountering bugs within FF 1.0 with the clearers. Any help would be appreciated