Looks good to me. I love bizzard of 2010.
Doesn't like my default browser - Looks like it relies on flash for thumbnails..
I recently redid my site with this same service, Scott, and find it easy to organize the portfolios. I don't see the "enlarge" button on yours, but the pictures got bigger when I clicked on them, and didn't really take over the browser, just opened a new window. Once closed, I was back where I started. And when that window opens the pix are a good size. I think you need to create fewer portfolios that have 10 to 15 pix each rather than a lot of portfolios with only a few pictures. Just seems like a lot of clicking to get through them all. And the first image should always be the strongest of the group, and cohesive with the rest. The first one in the Figure in the Studio is quite anomalous from what follows.
Always a good idea to have a bio, artist statement... something about yourself, too, though I suppose that'll be there when you're ready to "go live."
All in all though, these Visual Server websites are easy to use and to keep up to date. You're certainly off to a great start.
Last edited by SuzanneR; 05-26-2010 at 01:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Bigger thumbnails and fewer sub-categories would be the only I would change.
The first impression on landing is that it is quite a simple and attractive presentation. This is what is vitally important to first-time visitors.
Thumbnails are of a balanced size on 1024x768 displays and no problem visually with that. There is not of course any such thing as designing websites for wide screens: the code will take care of rendering and stretch. At the moment the page content is left-centric; I would be inclined to spread it out (centre it) over the top and add additional links; this will reduce the impact of a lot of blank area.
In the code behind the page, beef it up later toward completion with the suggested codec below:
<title>The Flying Camera - photographs by Scott Davis</title>
<meta name="AUTHOR" content="Scott Davis, The Flying Camera" />
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" />
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-LANGUAGE" content="en-us" />
<meta http-equiv="PRAGMA" content="no-cache" />
<meta http-equiv="EXPIRES" content="text" />
<meta name="REVISIT INTERVAL" content="14 days" /> 14 days can be anything; most webbots index daily or 4, 7, 12 14, 21, 28 or 31 days.
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="index,follow" />
<meta name="KEYWORDS" content="Scott Davis, photography, fine art, landscape, alternative processes, display, tarot, figure studies, still life, active, Hercules, mythology, interpretations" />
<!--as many keywords as you can dream up; you never can have too many--!>
The above code is only very necessary for the home (or index) page. Robots land on that and follow the site hierarchy downward, gathering information (the "meta uptake"). So a netizen then searches in Google for Scott Davis and if your name is there, you're going to be the first search result! How that happens depends a lot on the information you put on the page and behind it (in the code).
All your images should have descriptive names (e.g. definitely not 1234_a.jpg) and alternate text (the text that pops up when the mouse moves over it) that assists not just indexing agents (Google, among) but also viewers. Each page should also have a lot of descriptive text for much the same reason just given. Webbots also index Flash content but that content must also have a descriptive identifier.
All said and done I like what I see and reckon it will be a very attractive 'front door' for you as it progresses.
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 05-26-2010 at 05:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)