www.matthewthomasphoto.com

[Junomech]

I could use some fresh set eyes to check out my web site. After looking at this for 3 weeks and 3 graphical changes I'm not sure of this layout anymore.

Can I get an opinion and some C&C please?

- Matthew

[HotHolly]

Nice - the only thing that might be nicer is to tweak the background to offset the text on the site. You dont have to do white, but maybe something lighter?

[Outlaw]

Hey Matthew, while I like the uniqueness of your design, I think I may be getting the same feeling from it as you; a little bland or unimpressive. You want to grab eyeballs, point them toward every reason they should hire you (good portfolio, experience, awards, service policies, prices), and then make it easy and -desirable- to contact you to set something up.

I'd consider at least spending a few hours doing a mock-up design of a possible replacement site, and then see if you feel like you're on a better track than what you have.

I like your use of Simpleviewer on your main page, but then in your portfolio, you switch to static thumbnails. I would consider putting Simpleviewer there as well, and then working on more copy for your site. Talk about your work, services you provide, why you provide them, what makes you unique, why someone should hire you, etc. In doing that, you get to sell yourself and, as well, build some good material for search engines to spider and improve your search engine rankings.

Best of luck!

[mattchow]

not directed at you at all matthew, but does anyone hate flash as much as i do?

also what are you using to design the site? by hand or some application?

[Outlaw]

I used to hate flash with a passion, and still do despite flash for the sake of flash, but when flash can be integrated into a site to offer a viewer a more intuitive or visually interesting experience that simply does not have an HTML/CSS equivalent, then I fully support it. I think Simpleviewer is an example of this - a 17k program that offers benefits in usability, interactivity and visual interest.

[d2frette]

Matt - Yes, I hate flash, too.

Outlaw - Don't you think HTML/CSS with JavaScript could reproduce almost an identical look as Simpleviewer? I haven't tried and given that I'm doing a bunch of side work I don't have the time to write one, but I think it could be done - at least it could get pretty close.

- Dave

[d2frette]

Matthew -

I agree with Outlaw. The site doesn't draw me in. I don't know how to put it in words - but Outlaw did a good job of it I think. There are a few things I'd point out, but I think you're gonna redeisgn the site anyway.

- Dave

[JohnT]

I see you used Lightbox for your portfolio page. It works well, and I've been planning to update my site with it.

[Arnor]

Hi Matthew,

I run my XP system using large fonts, and the first thing I noticed was that the top menu ("Main | About" etc.) was wider than the "background" button for it, so that the last link, "Contact MTP" only the "Con" was inside the button border. If your style for the menu uses pixel size instead of point size I think you can fix that - or maybe the other way around.

Another suggestion is that I might switch the "About MTP" and "Portfolio" - I think my order would be Main, Portfolio, Pricing, About MTP and Contact MTP. That looks most logical to me.

Others have commented on the flash and the difference in the main/portfolio, and I agree, I don't like flash and I would keep the same format for both lists. I handcode all my html/php/sql/css so I'm a bit spoiled<g>

HTH:)

[Modsquad]

One thing I personally don't like when looking thru any portfolio/gallery is when the 'next' button isn't always in the same place. It may seem trivial, but I think having to search for the location of the button to go to the next photo will detract & distract from actually viewing the image itself.

I'm on the fence about flash, but if I were to use it, I would use it uniformly keeping the same layout & not going to a thumbnail view. Another thing, on the front, I could only view the 1st 2 pics and no others...i'm sure this is because it's just work in progress. You are on the right track, you just need to refine it some...the tips above about the order of your links is also sound advice.

[Outlaw]

Dave, I'm not a very knowledgeable programmer (a little HTML and CSS, that's about it), but I'd bet you are right; it could be done. However, has it been done, and could it be done as simply or as effectively by "standard Joes" as Simpleviewer (or any other flash drop-in) does it? If such an option exists and is as easy to use, why do so many photogs choose to use flash instead?

Mostly rhetorical questions, of course. I agree with you completely that if you can offer your content as easily and effectively without flash, and therefore without the need of a plug-in that your viewer might not have (flash is very common, but not 100%), then sans flash is the way to go.

I personally think Simpleviewer, to be specific, offers enough benefits in presentation and usability to make it a positive for most sites instead of a negative. As with any optional site feature, it's all in how you use it.

[Junomech]

WOW! Thank you for the input. I did not realize I had recieved so many comments. I am grateful and thankful.

Outlaw - You're right. When I initially designed this I had another idea in mind. The current site kind of evolved into what it is now. I designed this myself from the ground up. I can say that I am proud of the the way it came together on the back end (XHTML & CSS), but I am not proud of how it looks cosmetically.

Mattchow - I kinda hate flash to! But, everyone is moving toward it's beauty and functionality. I would have rather it been all CSS, but I have to compete with other great sites.

Arnor - Thank you for the Q&A. I had not realized that was happening. I thought I caught all the bugs.

Everyone - I'm going to drop Lightbox and use Slideshow Pro for my portfolio. I have an idea on how I am structure my photos.

[Arnor]

Hi Matthew,

Originally Posted by Junomech

Mattchow - I kinda hate flash to! But, everyone is moving toward it's beauty and functionality. I would have rather it been all CSS, but I have to compete with other great sites.

Here is one additional thing that I'm going to throw at ya: What are search engines going to find on your index page? I'll tell you:

Matthew Thomas Photography
Main
About MTP
Portfolio
Pricing
Contact MTP
Welcome!

This is _all_ the text on your most important page. I know you are not done with this and if you do not plan on using this to get business or sales off of the web and just use it as a reference that you can personally direct people to, then that's fine. But if you are looking for traffic from the web, nobody is going to find it unless they know your name and use it to search for.

This is a problem that I see with about 90% of photographers websites that I visit. There is no text. What are search engines going to use to index your site? The _most important_ thing you have on your webpage is the caption, the title. You have your name there and I think that is very good. But if you want to attract web traffic you need search engine optimization. There is a lot of companies out there that promise you that they will get you number one on a google search. I've yet to see that happen<g> Do a search on google for baby sunrose. You will find my site as number 5. It showed up as number 5 the day after I placed that photo on my website. Why? Because the title of the page is "Baby Sunrose photo @ I Take Photos" I've had similar results over and over again, when the page title has pushed the page up to the top of google search results. Search for "good photography links" (without the double quotes) and you will find my site number 7 and National Geographic number 5, two months ago my site was also number 7 but NG was number 8<g> Having the title reflected in the text on the page also helps, particularly if it shows up more than once in different context.

Search engine optimisation is a sort of science all for it self and may self proclaimed experts there, some very good, some not so good and the problem is figuring out who's good and who's not. My wife and I have read a lot of books on SEO and have been able to figure out kind of the trends, rather than the exact rules. With search engines like google, nobody outside of google really knows the rules and they change those rules from time to time to little pleasure of those who make a living from selling on the web.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out the dangers of flash and image websites if the goal is to get favourable search engine placements. I've seen professional photographers suggest using nothing but images for websites, i.e. make the websites from jpeg files only and then add maps to add links. That makes the site pretty much completely useless for attracting web traffic. So does it pay off to create a website that may be a little bit duller, but works well with search engines? It entirely depends on if you are creating the website for search engines or for direct reference.

Sorry for the very lengthy message, I just wanted to get this off my chest<g> Please don't take offense and this is not in particular directed at you, but photographers in general. I see some of those sites that look beautiful, contain several megabytes of data on every page and you need a superfast DSL or cable connection for the site to load while you go out for dinner and a movie;) Oh, well... Then again I think that these guys could be my competition some day and I wonder why I should complain!<bg>

Best regards,

[Outlaw]

Many good points, Arnor. Perhaps our IT folks here at TPF should consider putting on a web site design workshop to go along with all the others around here. :-)

[d2frette]

Don't forget that meta tags help, as well as using the ALT attribute of the IMG tag. For Google, it's really important to have a lot of links pointing to your site (from what I've heard). But nothing beats text for content.