Website review sought - comments invited

I have recently updated a website I've set up for my wife's handmade
jewellery and for ease of access it is now available through
http://www.scotlandsilver.com and
http://www.jewelryscotland.com

Also, to save on bandwidth I'm using Flickr to host the new images of
sterling silver jewellery
http://www.flickr.com/groups/joscelin/ although the link is at the page
above.

Any suggestions on how to improve the appearance, functionality of the
site welcome.

thanks

Craig

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). M.Sc., CITP, CEng
Owner, http://www.siliconglen.com/
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish blog, FAQ, weddings, website design, stop spam and more!

Craig Cockburn wrote:
I have recently updated a website I've set up for my wife's handmade
jewellery and for ease of access it is now available through
http://www.scotlandsilver.com and
http://www.jewelryscotland.com

Also, to save on bandwidth I'm using Flickr to host the new images of
sterling silver jewellery
http://www.flickr.com/groups/joscelin/ although the link is at the page
above.

Any suggestions on how to improve the appearance, functionality of the
site welcome.

thanks

Craig


I'll stick with the technical and leave aesthetic considerations
to others this time.

The thumbnails are not really thumbnails -- they are small displays of
full sized images (up to over 80 K) -- which defeats one of the main
purposes of thumbnails, which is a quick download time. You won't need
the flickr hack you are using after correcting this. For thumbnails,
make an actually small version of the large image with a graphics editor
(Gimp, Photoshop, or the like.)

With markup of all images you should give not only the actual width,
but also the height. Another main idea of a thumbnail is to be a
link that clicks through to a full sized image which these don't do.

This link may help:
http://www.mbstevens.com/howtothumb/index.html

After correcting the images I suggest you run each page through
http://validator.w3.org
and make the corrections that it suggests for
each page in the site. It may bring up a page with dozens of errors, but
they are easy to correct if you click on each error for an explanation.
--
Cheers, mbstevens

Craig Cockburn wrote:
I have recently updated a website I've set up for my wife's handmade
jewellery and for ease of access it is now available through
http://www.scotlandsilver.com and
http://www.jewelryscotland.com

Also, to save on bandwidth I'm using Flickr to host the new images of
sterling silver jewellery
http://www.flickr.com/groups/joscelin/ although the link is at the page
above.

Any suggestions on how to improve the appearance, functionality of the
site welcome.

thanks

Craig


1 Why do you have thumbnails on the same page as the larger versions? It
is redundant and quite frankly just plain wrong and bad design.

You don't understand the concept. Thumbnails are meant to be on one
page together. They are small, so the page loads very quickly. A
person can then click on a thumbnail and be taken to a different page
(or frame) that will have the enlarged image on it.

2 Even though you say that the web site is http://www.scotlandsilver.com
and http://www.jewelryscotland.com, when one clicks on these URLs, one
is taken to: http://www.siliconglen.com/joscelin/jewelry.html

You obviously already own the virtual domains, now find an ISP that will
create aliases for you to host them that way.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Here are a few suggestions from a potential shopper:

1. I'd organize the body text into areas such as: a) introduction b)
about the artist c) gallery d) how to purchase e) contact information,
etc. You don't have to label these sections as such, just organize the
area into easy to find areas. I'd even suggest having a page for each
with a menu on the index page.
2. I'd link images to larger images in a gallery.
3. I'd provide a price and link to PayPal. I don't like having to
contact a supplier for pricing and payment info. unless I'm buying in
bulk and think I might get a discount.

Here is an example from a designer who lives near me:
http://www.englishhilldesigns.com/

Best wishes.

--
Jeannette Marie Daum
http://carrborovisitorcenter.com

In message , Abrasha
writes
Craig Cockburn wrote:
I have recently updated a website I've set up for my wife's handmade
jewellery and for ease of access it is now available through
http://www.scotlandsilver.com and
http://www.jewelryscotland.com

Also, to save on bandwidth I'm using Flickr to host the new images of
sterling silver jewellery
http://www.flickr.com/groups/joscelin/ although the link is at the page
above.

Any suggestions on how to improve the appearance, functionality of the
site welcome.

thanks

Craig


1 Why do you have thumbnails on the same page as the larger versions? It
is redundant and quite frankly just plain wrong and bad design.

1. The thumbnails load first and you get to see them.
2. You also get to see the larger versions without having to click
around.
3. While you are looking at the thumbnails, the bigger images are
loading beneath the fold.


You don't understand the concept. Thumbnails are meant to be on one
page together. They are small, so the page loads very quickly.

the entire page yes, however waiting until the entire page has loaded is
often not necessary. Having them at the bottom of the page means that
the user is not waiting to see the relevant text at the top. Having the
entire page load very quickly is presumably only relevant if there is
text below the main images that doesn't make sense until the image has
loaded.

A
person can then click on a thumbnail and be taken to a different page
(or frame) that will have the enlarged image on it.

This is of course extra effort for the user and the other page then
doesn't begin to load until the user does something whereas with the
design I've used then the larger images are already available. One has
to balance the total load time in one page versus the total time for one
page + click + secondary page to load.

The way you are mentioning was entirely relevant in the 90s when most
people had modems but it is still relevant now?


2 Even though you say that the web site is http://www.scotlandsilver.com
and http://www.jewelryscotland.com, when one clicks on these URLs, one
is taken to: http://www.siliconglen.com/joscelin/jewelry.html

You obviously already own the virtual domains, now find an ISP that will
create aliases for you to host them that way.

I can host them that way, however google assigns a greater weight to the
redirected site as it's been around for 8 years.


--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). M.Sc., CITP, CEng
Owner, http://www.siliconglen.com/
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish blog, FAQ, weddings, website design, stop spam and more!

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:44:37 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry Craig Cockburn
wrote:


1. The thumbnails load first and you get to see them.

OK. they'd do that if done the right way too.

2. You also get to see the larger versions without having to click
around.

What if i don't want to see all of them, but only want to see one of the last
ones. Then I wear out my poor tired scroll wheel finger to get to it instead of
just a nice easy mouse click. Frankly, scrolling up and down the page is, at
least to me, a good deal more annoying than the usual routine of clicking a
thumbnail and having a window pop up with the larger version. That allows me to
bother with only the images I want to see, and in the order I wish to see them.

3. While you are looking at the thumbnails, the bigger images are
loading beneath the fold.


You don't understand the concept. Thumbnails are meant to be on one
page together. They are small, so the page loads very quickly.

the entire page yes, however waiting until the entire page has loaded is
often not necessary. Having them at the bottom of the page means that
the user is not waiting to see the relevant text at the top. Having the
entire page load very quickly is presumably only relevant if there is
text below the main images that doesn't make sense until the image has
loaded.

Or if you want to see only that one large image. Also, you're assuming a large
page size will always load fully and correctly. It's not uncommon for a server
to hang up and not display all the images on a very large page, if that server
is getting overworked or something. Using proper click though thumbnails avoids
that.

This is of course extra effort for the user and the other page then
doesn't begin to load until the user does something whereas with the
design I've used then the larger images are already available. One has
to balance the total load time in one page versus the total time for one
page + click + secondary page to load.

Your way is simply more cumbersome. It amounts to having to flip back and forth
through multiple pages (scrolling up and down) to see what's desired. I prefer
the traditional method others have already described. Now, I'm no web designer.
Just a web user (and your moderator, though that's irrelevant beyond the note
that I've seen a lot of peoples pages, and have some opinions about what I find
a pleasing design or not). I'd much prefer the usual click through thumbnails.
it's not slower, nor more work. A more pleasing design, and a more professional
way to do the page. It's the way most professionally done pages are
constructed. They do it that way not just from following some conventions, but
because it works better for most people, and most people prefer it. If that
were not the case, webmasters wouldn't bother with the extra code.


The way you are mentioning was entirely relevant in the 90s when most
people had modems but it is still relevant now?

sure. Among other things, with todays' fast web speeds, there's little delay to
see an image after clicking a thumbnail. And that mouse click is simply easier
than scrolling up and down long distances...

Peter

Craig Cockburn wrote:
In message , Abrasha
writes
Craig Cockburn wrote:
I have recently updated a website I've set up for my wife's handmade
jewellery and for ease of access it is now available through
http://www.scotlandsilver.com and
http://www.jewelryscotland.com

Also, to save on bandwidth I'm using Flickr to host the new images of
sterling silver jewellery
http://www.flickr.com/groups/joscelin/ although the link is at the page
above.

Any suggestions on how to improve the appearance, functionality of the
site welcome.

thanks

Craig

1 Why do you have thumbnails on the same page as the larger versions? It
is redundant and quite frankly just plain wrong and bad design.

1. The thumbnails load first and you get to see them.
2. You also get to see the larger versions without having to click
around.
3. While you are looking at the thumbnails, the bigger images are
loading beneath the fold.


You don't understand the concept. Thumbnails are meant to be on one
page together. They are small, so the page loads very quickly.

the entire page yes, however waiting until the entire page has loaded is
often not necessary. Having them at the bottom of the page means that
the user is not waiting to see the relevant text at the top. Having the
entire page load very quickly is presumably only relevant if there is
text below the main images that doesn't make sense until the image has
loaded.

A
person can then click on a thumbnail and be taken to a different page
(or frame) that will have the enlarged image on it.

This is of course extra effort for the user and the other page then
doesn't begin to load until the user does something whereas with the
design I've used then the larger images are already available. One has
to balance the total load time in one page versus the total time for one
page + click + secondary page to load.

The way you are mentioning was entirely relevant in the 90s when most
people had modems but it is still relevant now?

2 Even though you say that the web site is http://www.scotlandsilver.com
and http://www.jewelryscotland.com, when one clicks on these URLs, one
is taken to: http://www.siliconglen.com/joscelin/jewelry.html

You obviously already own the virtual domains, now find an ISP that will
create aliases for you to host them that way.

I can host them that way, however google assigns a greater weight to the
redirected site as it's been around for 8 years.



Your reply reminds me of a friend and colleague who comes to my shop to
ask my advice from time to time. He will come into my shop, shows me a
project he is working on and asks me, "Abrasha, how would you do this?"
I then tell him how I would do it. Invariably he then starts to argue
with me, and tells me that my method is wrong, negating the fact that he
had asked me, how I would do it.

So why the hell do you come here to ask for "suggestions on how to
improve the appearance, functionality of the site", when you then argue
that your method is right? You already know the answers. After I had
posted my response, I noted that several other people had given you
pretty much the same response. And mbstevens directed you to a site
with a thorough explanation of how to properly implement thumbnails.

So let me be a little bit more blunt.

Your site is butt ugly, you do not begin to have a clue how thumbnails
are used, or how to design a good looking web site. And what's worse,
when a number of people give you good advice, you more or less tell them
to buzz off. You may think that "my way" is so 90's, and that your way
is the correct way. That's fine, just don't come here for advice.


--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

In message , Abrasha
writes

I think your replies are quite funny, let me explain why.

First off when I wrote a web page in 1996 on a dialup 2.4k modem the
arguments you put forward would be perfectly valid. Here's an example of
a page from then illustrating that I take the point:
http://www.siliconglen.com/craig/

The small images link to big ones, and I even went as far as indicating
the type and size because in those days people often paid per K to
download stuff as well as it being slow.

So yes, you have a point. However I don't understand why the same design
principles still apply 12 years later when my connection is now 1000
times faster and obviously the internet has moved on.

Having popups at all now is generally a bad thing, not only can they be
blocked by browsers, but they cause problems for people who run
full-screen (especially when using a phone). They are not good for
certain disabled people either, even if you do markup the link
correctly.


1 Why do you have thumbnails on the same page as the larger versions? It
is redundant and quite frankly just plain wrong and bad design.

Coming at someone with such strong language without adequate explanation
is one reason for why you get a similarly robust reply. If you don't
want an argument, try to be positive and explain yourself.

1. The thumbnails load first and you get to see them.
2. You also get to see the larger versions without having to click
around.
3. While you are looking at the thumbnails, the bigger images are
loading beneath the fold.


You don't understand the concept. Thumbnails are meant to be on one
page together. They are small, so the page loads very quickly.

But my point is whether this is still valid given today's download
speeds. Surely convenience for the user is now more important.


Your reply reminds me of a friend and colleague who comes to my shop to
ask my advice from time to time. He will come into my shop, shows me a
project he is working on and asks me, "Abrasha, how would you do this?"
I then tell him how I would do it. Invariably he then starts to argue
with me, and tells me that my method is wrong, negating the fact that he
had asked me, how I would do it.

the common thread here seems to be you. Perhaps you should make your
points less forcefully and be prepared to listen.

So why the hell do you come here to ask for "suggestions on how to
improve the appearance, functionality of the site", when you then argue
that your method is right? You already know the answers. After I had
posted my response, I noted that several other people had given you
pretty much the same response. And mbstevens directed you to a site
with a thorough explanation of how to properly implement thumbnails.

So let me be a little bit more blunt.

Your site is butt ugly, you do not begin to have a clue how thumbnails
are used, or how to design a good looking web site. And what's worse,
when a number of people give you good advice, you more or less tell them
to buzz off. You may think that "my way" is so 90's, and that your way
is the correct way. That's fine, just don't come here for advice.


Oh, lovely. Dummy out of the pram? My site validates, yours doesn't. And
you are saying I don't know about good design. You do know that
compliance with w3c standards is a WAI requirement for AA stantards?

By the way, for someone pretending to know good manners I see from my
bounced mail log that as well as posting here you also mailed me a copy
of the same article twice. Fortunately my mail system looks at the
article id, detects the duplicate and protects me from such velveeta.

Craig

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). M.Sc., CITP, CEng
Owner, http://www.siliconglen.com/
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish blog, FAQ, weddings, website design, stop spam and more!

Craig Cockburn wrote:

snip

You don't understand the concept. Thumbnails are meant to be on one
page together. They are small, so the page loads very quickly.

the entire page yes, however waiting until the entire page has loaded is
often not necessary. Having them at the bottom of the page means that
the user is not waiting to see the relevant text at the top. Having the
entire page load very quickly is presumably only relevant if there is
text below the main images that doesn't make sense until the image has
loaded.

A large proportion of users are still on dialup, but even for those on
high speed, huge pages are a problem. I like to work with many different
pages of different websites on my browser. Automatically loading large
images on one page undermines the bandwidth that I might prefer to use on
other pages. Browser mileage varies. Don't dictate to your viewers how
they should use their bandwidth.


A
person can then click on a thumbnail and be taken to a different page
(or frame) that will have the enlarged image on it.

This is of course extra effort for the user and the other page then
doesn't begin to load until the user does something whereas with the
design I've used then the larger images are already available. One has
to balance the total load time in one page versus the total time for one
page + click + secondary page to load.

No, no. You use _actually_ tiny images (1K - 5k) for thumbnails.
These should click through to large images
(on your site as large as 80+ k)
that the visitor actually _wants_ to see. Read the page I showed
you in my previous post. Proper thumbnails would be a full order of
magnitude smaller than the big images, and only take a moment's download.

Beginning web designers always want to avoid a rewrite, but rewriting
your thumbnail markup is the only way to improve this site significantly.
Bite the bullet and learn how to use Gimp or photoshop or other imaging
software.

Also try posting to alt.html.critique or alt.html.

The way you are mentioning was entirely relevant in the 90s when most
people had modems but it is still relevant now?

Many people are still on dialup. I am still on dialup, even though
I care for many websites. I go to the public library with my laptop
when I need to do a huge uploads and downloads, and do it on wireless.
When a site I am casually visiting is a bandwidth hog,
I just move to another site. Waiting for more than a megabite of
faux-thumbnails to download is definitely the coffin nail.

snip

Craig Cockburn schrieb:
In message , Abrasha
writes
....

when a number of people give you good advice, you more or less tell them
to buzz off. You may think that "my way" is so 90's, and that your way
is the correct way. That's fine, just don't come here for advice.


Oh, lovely. Dummy out of the pram? My site validates, yours doesn't. And
you are saying I don't know about good design. You do know that
compliance with w3c standards is a WAI requirement for AA stantards?

Forget it, in this case Abrasha is not far from the truth. He didn´t ask You
to evaluate his site.

My first impression with Your site was:
thumbnails don´t work - simple design - the neck of the girl is very nice,
clear skin.

Then I closed the window.

Only for this discussion started to get longer I tried it once more.

The problem is, I didn´t recognize that there are some pictures "downstairs".
pre loading could be solved also as real thumbnail.
Sex as an attraction factor is working at the beginning. If You want to sell
jewels there should not appear any background.


Mit freundlichem Gruß,
Heinrich Butschal
--
Schmuck Gutachter und Schmuckverkauf http://www.butschal.de
Schmuck nach Maß anfertigen http://www.meister-atelier.de
Firmengeschenke und Ehrennadeln http://www.schmuckfabrik.de
Schmuck gut verkaufen und günstig kaufen http://www.schmuck-boerse.com