Re: critique please

> I am a web designer trying to stay afloat since Sept 11, 01 and not
getting enough business to survive and was wondering if some of you folks
could critique my site and let me know if you see anything wrong with what I
offer on my site.

Wow, Lorrie --

I thought you wanted to know why your business wasn't as good as it could
be... You've kind of "looked a gift horse in the mouth," haven't you? Part
of growing is being able to look objectively at our faults. I for one, am
stuck in a certain style with my sites, and I want to break free of it. I
can't do this if I defend my current design practices too fiercely. I must
look at how others perceive my layout and message, and make
adjustments --totally breaking free of old patterns if need be.

I live in the country. In fact, I live beyond the grid in the middle of a
National Forest with the bears and mountain lions. Yep --no commercial
nothin'. My window to the world is through super-high-speed Internet access
via satellite. How in the heck do I pull that off? --with solar and other
on-site generated power. Some of us "country folks" can be pretty
technologically savvy, so please don't put us in a box --save those to snazz
up your Web site!

People are mostly visual beings. Your hand coding may be flawless (I hand
code exclusively too), but people don't understand it, they don't see it,
and they DON'T CARE about it! ~So~ Finely coded usable and *accessible*
interesting design is one thing, but finely coded bland design is another. I
know --I've been there. Bland does not sell. Impact does. You may have
finely coded, usable, accessible design with ~IMPACT~. For some it comes
easy, and for others (like me), it takes a little more creative energy. It
sounds like you are playing to the search engines instead of people. Who is
your ideal client? The one stumbling along with an old computer and no cash,
the one with current technology and the money and desire to keep step with
the modern world, or the search engines? Who is most likely to want a Web
site? Who will most likely be able to afford it? To me, the answer is clear.

The replies you have received to your inquiry are priceless gems. I am
considering them as suggestions for the improvements of my own sites and
style, so I thank you for asking the questions, however, I am sorry you seem
to be fighting the answers, or should I say that I'll be happy to take the
clients you may have had... ?

Lauren





----- Original Message -----
From: "Lorrie Eldridge" <lorrie652(at)icehouse.net>
To: "Craig T. Harding" <info(at)guidenet.net>; <hwg-critique(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: critique please


>
> Hi Craig,
>
> >Normally, I wouldn't mention this, but after looking around a bit, I came
> >away with the impression that you were pushing less technology, less
graphic
> >impact, old browsers, and Macintosh equipment.
>
> Less technology, yes. I have reduced the technology of my web design
site---I took out rollovers on my menu which was Javascript based, and other
fancy wingdings and hits quadrupled overnight. I found the same results with
my  clients.
>
> Basicly, most of the reasons for my push towards less technology is that I
keep up on all the major search engine newsletters and try to design my
sites according to what will be accepted by them and I have concluded that
what is needed is less technology--too many search engines won't even list
sites with Dynamic HTML. I had a client with a DHTML site recently and I
tried for months to get him listed to no avail.
>
> Even though my web design site is not drawing many customers at present I
do get top billing on the search engines for my top keywords, i.e., I am in
the #2 spot on Google for "Spokane Web Designers. And the same happens with
other keywords for myself and my clients. That part I have down pat.
However, getting customers from those high ratings is why I asked for this
critique.
>
> And re less graphic impact, I do not recommend Flash/shockwave graphics
because it interferes with some search engines--and most folks with older
browsers and slow modems cannot access those pages.
>
> I live out in the country and I know that you cannot use a 58K or faster
modem out here as it still only operates at 28K or slower. So everyone who
lives in the country cannot access such sites or it takes interminably long
to download such pages. How many people in the USA live in the country or
can't afford a fast modem? I try to design my sites so they are accessible
to everyone, so all such high tech features I do not recommend.
>
> >That's all well and good....
> >and possibly you might have a point in some cases, but as a person
looking
> >for a Web designer, I might shy away, thinking that you didn't know how
to
> >use modern technology (CSS, DHTML, etc.) or that you were one of those
silly
> >"Mac against PC" people. In fact that's one nice thing about the Web..
it's
> >fairly platform transparent.
> >Now, I'm not saying that you are these things, but that your copy leaves
me
> >thinking that a prospective client might come away with that thought.
>
> Thanks for your input. I can see that I need to change my wording
somewhat. I believe CSS is being more accepted by browsers now, however
DHTML makes it impossible for some search engines to list sites, so I only
use it on a limited basis but I do know how to use them both. And I'm not
anit-PC either. I just prefer the Mac myself and get real irritated when PC
users use technology that prohibits the Mac user from surfing the site--so I
believe the bias is on the other side.
>
> >Secondly, in this day of IMPACT advertising I think your design, which I
> >understand is an attempt to appeal to all the politically correct ideals
of
> >accessibility and whatnot, is somewhat bland and uninspiring compared to
> >many sites these days.
>
> I get a lot of compliments from folks praising their ability to surf my
site because it's not loaded down with a lot of fancy windgings too, so it
all balances out. But you're right, it is kind of bland. I need to find a
way to spruce it up without using Flash/etc.
>
> >Finally, one thing many Mac designers just don't understand is that most
PC
> >Web surfers surf with their browsers max screened.
>
> Are you saying you surf with 1280 resolution?
>
> It is my understanding that most surfers are still using 800x600 and I
have designed my sites for that resolution. I do a lot of surfing myself
because I am a researcher on a lot of topics and when you get up to 1280
resolution the print gets too small on lots of sites so I don't use it when
surfing myself.
>
> >I think that the concept
> >running apps in less than full screen windows, as most mac users do,
>
> Why do you believe this is just a Mac problem?
>
> > is more
> >sophisticated, but that's not the way most do it. Therefore, the % width
> >tables stretch all over the place at over 1280 res and better on large
> >monitors at full screen, leaving Web elements not placed where they were
> >designed..
>
> I have all resolutions available on my monitor and check my sites at all
resolutions before posting them, but I probably don't do it enough.
>
> >for example, supposedly centered bottom menus and such as well as
> >huge width side bars and such. 17": to 19" monitors are now the standard
> >instead of the exception and 21 and over inch monitors are common.
>
> They are only the standard in computer stores and for those who can afford
them--those with higher incomes. Anyone who bought their computer more than
4-5 years ago probably has a smaller screen and possibly can't afford a
bigger one--and often buying a bigger monitor means you have to also buy a
bigger HD--and it goes on from there--new printer--update all your programs,
etc. Who can afford that except those who are well off? I can't for one. And
most teachers and students in school can't either. Do you know how many
teachers and students there are in this country? And most of those are on
the Mac, btw.
>
> BASICALLY, most of my focus is on those who are not high income. I try to
make my sites accessible for all those folks who cannot utilize todays
higher technology--which most search engines won't accept anyway. That is
probably hurting my chances at clients who want those fancy wingdings but I
just need to be creative and find other ways to get around this--and thus my
asking for help on this list.
>
> >Full
> >screen surfing makes some sites look awfully screwy. Guess who might be
an
> >unsophisticated surfer with a high end monitor??.. You guessed it, a
> >business owner with money to spend on a Website.
>
> How about the person who is buying the product? Do we design sites for the
business owner or the prospective clients????  Do all surfers have a high
end machine and monitor? How much of a percentage of prospective clients can
we afford to loose? I say none. And thus I try to design sites that everyone
can utilize.
>
> It's been my own personal experience with ALL my clients that they have
low end equipment and know very little about the web--one of them is even on
Web TV. I can't design a site they can't utilize themselves, and if they can
use it I know everyone can use it. My sites do need some pizzaz, I'll admit,
but I don't see how going for technology and ignoring some low end surfers
needs is going to profit my clients.
>
> I do appreciate your comments however, and those of everyone else who has
tried to help.
>
> take care
> Lori Eldridge
> www.loriswebs.com
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA