just wondering if you like this site. My friends not mine, and alot of the time i base my stuff off of what he does, has taught me
I don’t really like it for the following reasons:
>> The black box: The contrast it draws with the background is really harsh and ends up drawing attention away from the content.
>> Navigation: It seems very sloppy with no clear concept visible. For example, from page to page it appears to have a different style or approach that is taken and bears no resemblance to the previous page. It’s also hard to go from one section to another.
>> Identity: For a portfolio it should really scream who’s work I’m looking at. Excluding the first page it isn’t clear. It almost appears to be a book approach to webdesign, where the home is a cover and the rest of the sections are pages, where the title is only visible with the first page. Webdesign allows you to include that on every page to remind the viewer what it is they are seeing. I’m also not a fan of the logo, I can tell by the looks of his site that he’s really good with a camera so it shouldn’t be too hard coming up with something.
Unfortunately I would start from scratch. It doesn’t look like much thought went into the design so it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with something a little more informing and innovative than a set of links. Currently it just looks like an excuse to use some fancy flash apps like the photo slide and what not.
Compared to a lot of the other sites on here it’s pretty good. But, I agree that it could use some type of a concept or a personality.
I would avoid hard gradients as a design element because they can create banding and look tacky.
For that same reason, the bottom nav looks like a mistake. The buttons on the bottom nav look sloppy. The portfolio and about us buttons are centered, then the photography button is flush right, and the last button is flush left!
The shine on the buttons is a cool feature, but it feels out of place. Every single button has a different effect on it. Simplicity is a virtue.
There’s something about this site that has that “Flash Template” kinda look about it. I think it’s the dotted arrow maybe?
Also, I have to scroll down slightly to see the whole page.
Sorry to be so rough!
^ main nav killed my initial interest too man. after the loader left the screen i thought “nice. slick. what’s next?” then the gradient buttons made me think “NOOOOOOOO”.
think maybe a really really discrete drop shadow on the main window might draw attention away from the whole high contrast issue. be worth a try at least, or maybe the introduction of some grunging around the edges, (thinking maybe a kinda burned up celluloid idea). Needs something to introduce the main pane more smoothly to the eye.
Sorta like the image gallery, but thumbs are always useful, and there’s no description to speak of, so I was kinda lost in a few photos really.
Love the loader/main name introduction at the beginning of the site…
In short, no need in my eyes for a total rubbishing of the entire concept. The vector loader introduced the site nicely I though, and maybe continuing that into the actual movie’s nav might be an interesting idea.
:2c:
Well i’m currently not in contact with the guy anymore. He kind of dropped of the face of the earth\doesn’t email me back. When i first saw it i was thinking “woah when can i do this” then i started seeing design flaws as i progressed into flash. Thanks for your critiques this only confirms my suspicions that its not the best site in the world <3 all
[quote=biznuge;2357379**]^ main nav killed my initial interest too man. after the loader left the screen i thought “nice. slick. what’s next?” then the gradient buttons made me think “NOOOOOOOO”.**
think maybe a really really discrete drop shadow on the main window might draw attention away from the whole high contrast issue. be worth a try at least, or maybe the introduction of some grunging around the edges, (thinking maybe a kinda burned up celluloid idea). Needs something to introduce the main pane more smoothly to the eye.
Sorta like the image gallery, but thumbs are always useful, and there’s no description to speak of, so I was kinda lost in a few photos really.
Love the loader/main name introduction at the beginning of the site…
In short, no need in my eyes for a total rubbishing of the entire concept. The vector loader introduced the site nicely I though, and maybe continuing that into the actual movie’s nav might be an interesting idea.
:2c:[/quote]
That was my thoughts exactly 
I don’t think it’s bad - heck I’ve seen a lot worse, but all the mistakes listed above do apply…
one thing that really annoyed me, though i know it’s silly - on the ‘about us’ page, it says ‘we always try to find new ways of surprising people…’ as opposed to what, the ‘old ways of surprising’?? i know what he’s getting at, but it sounds daft. it should just say ’ we look for ways of surprising people’.
hey, i guess that’s what you get for asking a linguist to critique a website… 
sorry guys can’t help myself!
I think some attention typography would do wonders for this site; the font just isn’t meshing. Certainly not the worst thing I’ve seen, but all the above comments are pretty spot on.
