PDA

View Full Version : Finally, it's up!



Spider
11-05-2010, 11:36 AM
.
.
www.frederickpearce.com

What do you think?

billbenson
11-05-2010, 01:16 PM
I have a big monitor. I don't recall my resolutions settings (14?? x 16?? or the likes) and your white text over the images is half over the images and half over white space between the images.

KristineS
11-05-2010, 01:51 PM
That was the first thing I saw as well. Half of the white text over the picture of the buildings was almost impossible to read. I'm using Firefox 3.6.12.

Patrysha
11-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Same as the others...but I do like the general layout :-)

Spider
11-05-2010, 05:20 PM
My stats tell me that 34 percent of my visitors are viewing in 1280 x 1024 resolution, 27 percent are 1024 x 768, only 2.5 percent are using 1600 x 1200, 1.5 percent are 1152 x 864 and less than 1 percent are 800 x 600, plus 35 percent unknown. My own resolution of 1366 x 786 shows the lettering over the picture to be all within the frame of the picture, although a little off-center. The current possitioning serves 64 percent of my visitors for certain plus a portion of the unknowns, I would think. Assuming that no more than half the unkowns are using a resolution over 1366 wide, for 80 percent of my visitors the current positioning keeps the text over the picture. Sorry that all y'all are in the minority of 20 percent using a superwide screen and using it at full width, too. (Although I have 1366 wide, I rarely view the WWW at full screen. If that is taken into account, the current positioning of the text probably caters to 90 percent of my visitors.) I feel it is important to serve the majority of visitors, don't you agree?

We have this situation because I don't want to limit the width of my page and like it to float to suit each individual visitor, no matter what their screen width is and no matter in what size they like to view it. I would like to accomodate the superwide screens, too, but I haven't found a way without running the text off the left side of the picture on narrow screens.

As for the white text (actually, off-white) not being readable - this is the best I have been able to come up with. Believe me, I have spent many hours experimenting with positioning and color. If you view the index page in IE you will see a dark surround to the lettering, barely noticeable in iteslf but sufficient to pick out the letters and make them very readable. Unfortunately, neither Firefox nor Safari read the filter style and I have yet to find a way to replicate this in standard style coding. (See previous conversation in another thread.) Again, catering for the majority of my visitors - 70 percent MSIE, 15 percent Firefox, 6.5 percent Chrome, 4 percent Safari and 2.5 percent Opera.

Perhaps if you all and your friends were to spend more time on my site, the stats would work more in your favor and I'd have to cater to Firefox and Safari users a bit more.

Question: The main title text aside, were you tempted to delve deeper? Did you click one of the links to go into the site and see what it had to offer? Did the opening page do it's job?

AmyAllen
11-05-2010, 08:25 PM
I viewed your page in IE, Firefox and Chrome. The letters were definitely legible in IE, but I'm linking to a screen shot for you so you can see how they show in 2 other browsers. Picasa Web Albums - everydayamy (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/V6ad1lpYd5mEQC8_snvrJw?feat=directlink)

Good things:
I think this is definitely an improvement on the original home page you had in that I can scan it and quickly tell what service it is you are providing. So in that sense - the content is better organized for internet readers who tend to skim and look at headlines first, and then read the print if they are interested. Also, I like that you used some standard fonts. Also I like that the main links 'About', 'Services' and 'Contact' are right there on the front page, easy to access.

Things to consider:
When/ if you resize the browser in any direction you start to have issues with that main image and text. When the browser is expanded, the alignment of text/image is off; when the browser is narrowed, the image starts repeating vertically down the page (you can see that in the screenshot I linked to). There is also the issue of the text not being legible in any browser except IE. To fix all these issues, consider combining the text and the background image into one image (fixes alignment) and consider putting the text in a transparent box over the image. I'm linking to an example (http://fullgospelchoir.com/Portfolio/ptfmtipcard.pdf) of this I used on a print project. The box there is only slightly transparent - you could make it much more so.

Some other quick fixes: Consider removing the gray background from behind the three red titles at the bottom. Also see if you can use some higher resolution pictures (the ones at the bottom are showing really pixelated right now).

Hope that is helpful - Overall a great improvement organization-wise from the last page! Good luck.

Spider
11-06-2010, 09:23 AM
Thanks, Amy. Very thorough review - just what I was hoping for - I appreciate it.

The screen shots were very helpful. It seems one was about 650 pixels wide and the other about 950 wide. The picture starts to repeat vertically when the window is about 700 wide and horizontally when the window is about 1800 pixels wide. Both of these resolutions are way outside anything I expect my visitors to see. Mind you, I really like the way your site maintains its composure all the way down to virtually nothing, making it viewable on even cellphone screens.

Regarding your suggestions:

Making the headline text part of the image - I had considered that, to make it readable on all browsers as well as fixing the positioning. The reason I chose not to do that was because I believe H1 text carries considerably more weight in the search engines than image alt tags. (The text itself would be SE-unreadable if it was part of the image.) Serps positioning is far more important, I think, than slightly misaligned text. As for readability by users of non-IE browsers, I viewed the text in Firefox and Safari and found it mostly readable, if not perfect - certainly readable enough to get the message across. The numbers swayed me - a vast majority of my visitors use IE.

Putting the text in a transparant or semi-transparent box over the picture - That was something I hadn't thought of - clever idea. On reflection, though, to make it work for me, I would have had to obliterate or subdue too much of the picture, if I continued to use large H1 text, which I wanted to do for the search engines. Or, I would have had to make the text small, as you have done, which I don't think would work for me as it did for you - your picture tells your story, my picture is more subliminal and needs the large text, I feel.

All-in-all, it was a compromise. Considering the above explanation, do you think I made the wriong decision? It's not too late for me to change.

AmyAllen
11-06-2010, 11:53 AM
What about something like this (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/vG2cwlzKFXs0hz8BEiHCvg?feat=directlink)? Though I'm linking it as an image, it could be created so that the text is searchable. Something like that would make your heading legible to all browsers, keep your image in tact, fix the alignment issues, and still should work with your fluid layout.


All-in-all, it was a compromise. Considering the above explanation, do you think I made the wriong decision? It's not too late for me to change.

I don't think they were wrong decisions - I think your site is just heavy on function and needs a little design work behind all that function. Now that we have CSS, we don't have to compromise as much between function/design. You can have a super-functional site that looks great and leaves your visitors with a strong impression.

billbenson
11-06-2010, 04:41 PM
I'm not that great at css but you should be able to put each image and text in its own div tag and position the whole division. That would keep the text over the image.

Spider
11-06-2010, 05:29 PM
That's what I thought, Bill, but when I tried it, I couldn't get it to do that. I'll try it again - maybe I can do it differently this time.

But I continue to note that this is all for a small minority of visitors. Probably 90 percent of my visitors are not finding the text positioning a problem.

Spider
11-06-2010, 05:40 PM
What about something like this (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/vG2cwlzKFXs0hz8BEiHCvg?feat=directlink)? Though I'm linking it as an image, it could be created so that the text is searchable. Something like that would make your heading legible to all browsers, keep your image in tact, fix the alignment issues, and still should work with your fluid layout....That is an interesting solution, Amy - thank you for taking the trouble to do that. It doesn't quite do what I want, but it does solve the positioning and the readability for the 10 percent of visitors that are troubled by those difficulties. I will think about whether I should try to satisfy such a small minority and what effect that might have on the 90 precent majority.

Your help is much appreciated.

billbenson
11-06-2010, 11:01 PM
The thing you want to think about is not having to redo it if the mix of people using different size monitors (or anything else) changes. Thats the same reason you want your css to validate. Otherwise you may find traffic has died off and you didn't know it. Do it right the first time.

Spider
11-08-2010, 07:52 AM
So far, all the comments have been about the title text. Is there nothing else worthy of comment? The main title text aside, were you tempted to delve deeper into the site? Did you click one of the links to go into the site and see what it had to offer?

Did the opening page do it's job?

Is the organization better? How can it be improved further?

TIA

Spider
11-09-2010, 10:39 AM
This is how I reorganized the site --

I had something like 40 or 50 pages in the original site. Comments in this forum suggested this was too much. Some of these pages were attracting more traffic than was warranted - coaching styles, joint ventures and prospecting. They were burying the coaching pages stats, so I spun these three sections off to separate domains. That has reduced the coaching site to about 30 pages.

Previously, I had virtually all the pages in the menu, so a visitor could go to any page from anywhere. Comments here suggested this gave a visitor too much choice leading to confusion. So I have sectionalized them. There are certain prime pages linked off the index page - Million-dollar company, Playing a bigger game, Revitalizing your business and Building wealth. These are the first pages in several streams of 3, 4, or 5 pages that end at the Mentoring Options (or services) page.

Other pages that I think are likely to pick up longtailed searches also form the start of other 3- or 4-page streams, or are alternative starts to previously mentioned streams. IOW, no matter where you land on my coaching/mentoring site, you are led by no more than 5 pages, to the Mentoring Options page, from where a visitor will decide to hire me or leave. Also, on every page, the visitor can short-circuit the stream and go directly to the Mentoring Options page.

This is better explained in practical form as the Site Map (http://frederickpearce.com/sitemap.html).

That seems to me like a good design. We shall see how well it works.

vangogh
11-09-2010, 12:38 PM
Sorry it took me so long to get to this thread and check out the new page. My first initial reaction was I like how it looks. I like the layout. The type looks good. A generally good first impression.

With the text on the image it can always be a problem. The only line that's really hard to read is the last one. Moving it up a little would help. You could also make that one line a different color. It would help attract attention to the question.

Behind the image the color is white, which doesn't match the general background of the page. I change the image background to match the page.

I don't like the background behind the red headings below. They make the headings harder to read. I don't think the headings need it at all, but if you want to keep them I'd give the heading a little padding and have them run the length of the block of text. I'd also make them (and the images to their left) links that go to the same place as the "more" link. My instinct was to click the big heading before noticing the little more text.

One other thing you might add is a header at the top. Not like the rest of your pages, but something smaller with the same background color you use along with the red line below. I think it would help unify this page with the rest of the site.

Again though it's a good job overall.

Spider
11-09-2010, 11:41 PM
Thanks, VG... Really? You can see the color difference between the picture background and the page background? I can't see it at all on my monitor. The page is on #fffff5 whereas the picture is on #ffffff, I presume. Maybe I can lighten the page - that would be easier than darkening the picture so very slightly. And for coloring the title text - even that one line - believe me, I have tried every color I could create, and still cannot find a color that is readable over the darkness of the buildinggs and the lightness of the columns, other than the off-white you see. I'm open for suggestions.

Grey strip behind the lower sub-headings: I added the grey background because I found the page dull without it. The only color on the page was the picture and that didn't tie with the red sub-titles. Making the sub-titles blue or grey (to complement the picture) only increased the blandness of it all. My idea was that the red sub-titles added color, and the grey background tied the page and the subtitles to the picture. The slim grey bar at the top of the righthand text was to bring that section into the colorscheme, too. Didn't work, huh? Amy also didn't like the grey. What if I lighten the grey somewhat?

I should make the lower pictures clickable. Don't want to do that with the sub-titles, though.

vangogh
11-10-2010, 02:26 AM
I can see the difference. Maybe it's my monitor or because I'm sensitive to these kind of changes being a designer, but I noticed it right away. I tried different colors and I see it's hard to get that line of text right. You won't get it perfect, but I think there are some better options than the white. #00ff00 was visible, though not a color that fits. It's a bright green. I tried the same color you're using for the sub-titles and then went a little bit lighter and it worked ok. Not ideal, but better than the white.

I just noticed that the size of the text on the image changes size and position between Safari and Firefox. The text is bigger in Safari.

I don't think you have to tie the sub-titles to the image. The red should make them stand out and I assume that's what you most want people to see. You can certainly keep them, but at the moment they're making it harder to read the sub-titles. I would definitely make them links. It's the first thing I wanted to click and I would think that would be the same for most people. I didn't even notice the read more links at first. I was trying to click the sub-titles.

Spider
11-10-2010, 05:54 PM
New index page just uploaded.

1. Until I can figure out how to darken the picture by a small increment, I have lightened the page background just a little. That should make the two backgrounds more similar. Does it?

2. Color of the title text: I basically did what you did, VG - start at the deep red of the subtitles and get lighter and lighter until I found something that was as readable as possible. I reached almost white before I felt it was as clear as it was going to get, so I backed up a bit (going darker) and set the title text color as you see now. Is that better? It makes no difference to me what the text color is because the majority of my visitors will see any color we give them as a result of the glow filter. This is only for FF and Safari users. Is this okay or should it be darker still?

3. I have removed the background to the sub-title text, and I have made them and the associated pictures clickable. I also made the sub-titles a tad darker. This left the grey bar at the top and the sundry grey HRs the wrong color. I fashioned variations of the deep red for these. That served to unite the text areas (I think) and brought out the pinky-brown of the buildings, thus unifying the whole page. At least, that's how it looks to me.

Does that look better to you?

GoingLocal
11-11-2010, 12:49 AM
I'm not sure what you had on there before, but it looks rather good. There certainly is some good content on the site to help brand you. The hardest part is getting the first step forward, then the next hardest part is the second step... :)
I feel there are some design tweaks to go through still, and with Google Instant Preview they may be more important then ever before.
(pass the salt please)

1. The image quality does need to improve I think. Million dollar business and can't afford a HD camera? Conflicting message there. New customers are fickle and look for reasons to say no. Give them as few opportunities as possible.

2. I feel there is no obvious direction. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but when I get to the page I'm not sure what to do next. Users are lazy, the more they have to think, the more they think about other search results. User don't read much, they scan... close your eyes, look at the screen, open them for 2 seconds and close them again.
What do you remember seeing?
Have you considered using a video on the front page rather then the image?

3. I strongly suggest your lead capture form (newsletter) needs to brought to the front page somehow. I nearly thought you didn't have one at first. More then anything, I think you need to sell the opt-in on the first page. Once you get their email you can direct them to other pages. Without that, when their gone, their gone.

4. About that front image... the issue isn't always what resolution the user screen is capable of, but how they use it.

I have a couple computers with different monitors on them. When I use the widescreen, or when working 'hard' on a 1280 x 1024 I rarely use any window "maximized", instead I have several windows cascading so no matter what window I'm using somewhere is a few pixels of every other open window. The point is just because the stats say they have a 1280 x 1024 monitor, doesn't meet that's how they're viewing it, and as I resize my browser, everything moves...

a free tool to help sort out appearance is Check Browser Compatibility, Cross Platform Browser Test - Browsershots (http://browsershots.org/) (free is full use for a limited number of queries a day)

something a little different, but kinda the same... This is a site I worked on a while ago... Clean Zone (http://CleanZone.ca)
getting the text, image, and widget code on the top right to look the same on all browsers (err, on IE) made me lose some hair, but with some CSS I got it to work finally.

Each piece has a div, with another to wrap the entire thing.
This site also uses the yui grid framework (YUI Library (http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/)) and this makes cross-browser compatibility soooo much easier. I know IE is more popular, but it's also the only browser that doesn't follow standards. YUI helps adjust things to fix that.

the first is a wrapper, the other 3 are in order as on site. Wrapper will float for different sizes, the rest will stay fixed.


#call-to-action{
position: relative;
top: 0px;
float: right;
align: right;
}

#tele-header{
float: right;
font-weight:bold;
color: blue;
font-size: 116%;
padding: 0 0 .6em 0;
}
#quote-header{
position: absolute;
right: 0px;
top: 1.5em;
float: right;
}

#sharing{
position: absolute;
float: right;
right: 0px;
top: 1.5em;
padding: 48px 0 0 0;
}

...if you need to get fancy you could maybe try dynamic font sizing??

Maybe add the text to the image, and STILL use the H1 title, but use z-index to put the picture in front of it?

does this help?

vangogh
11-11-2010, 01:26 AM
Frederick the text seems easier to read to me now. I think the addition of color is helping. It's not my favorite color, but it is easier to read. Do you use an image editing program and if so which one? It shouldn't be that hard to change the background color on the image. I like the sub-titles better now and I think the background works better when you rollover the titles as links. I think the yellow is a better color too.

It all looks better to me.

Also I think GoingLocal makes some really good points about the site. The quality of the image could be improved and not having that be a high quality image does send a mixed message.

Spider
11-11-2010, 01:19 PM
Let me get your follow-up thoughts on image quality. (Anyone. Everyone) Sure, I notice some sites have really clear pictures - HD certainly is making a difference. (Even my old non-HD television seems to have a better pictures on all channels without me having done anything in that regard.) However, I find this super-clarity distracting. When I go to a site like mine, I am interested in the content, what the site has to say, what I can learn. It's about information.

Every time I stop to remark to myself how wonderfully clear and crisp the pictures look, I have taken my attention away from the information the site is offering, and for which I visited it. I would be much more delighted if the text was crisper and clearer than being able to see the lines around the eyes of the site's owner or being able to read the totally irrelevant sign on the door of the building in the picture.

In fact, before this, I had been wondering how I might REDUCE the clarity of the main picture on my index page. Could I soften it, somewhat, like they do with glamor photography for people? Because the pictures on my site - and I believe on other sites in which my target visitors might be interested - are there for interest only, not to provide information. They are there to add some clolor and variation to the vertica/horizontal, black and white world of text.

I feel that what you are suggesting about better quality pictures would be counter-productive in this case. Can you offer some facts, statistical or logical support for your suggestions that I might better judge the concept? Thanks.

AmyAllen
11-11-2010, 02:41 PM
The problem with the low-res images and some of the other design issues on your site is more about the overall first impression it offers. Maybe my eyes are drawn to the text but I certainly notice the poor images - and that undermines the credibility of the source before I ever read the text. Your site right now, while definitely an overall improvement on your previous landing page, still leaves a strange impression that doesn't build trust in your content.

When people open a new website, they scan first then read. Before they even scan headlines, a person will scan the site at an even higher level to determine if the source is credible. Their eyes roam over the pictures, the fonts, the design of the site. Does it look professional? Does it look up-to-date? Does it show attention to detail?

That initial impression occurs in the first few seconds of opening a page and is critical.

(Warning: Next two paragraphs may be brutal.) I think the first impression your site gives is that it was either a) made by a non-professional b) auto generated by some kind of advertising bot c) a 5-8 year old website.

All three scenarios undermine the trust a visitor will have in your content and determines whether they will go on to read your copy. I think that impression is coming mostly from the pixelated images, the alignment issues, the lack of a cohesive design, and the lack of modern web design elements.

Additionally (as Local mentioned), the contradiction between the main headline about being a million dollar company and the low quality of the site design - create the possible impression that this is some kind of scam. On other pages of your site, the use of strange fonts in your headlines adds to the home-made/out-dated impression.

If you want your website to be of value to your business, I would highly recommend getting some professional help with the design aspect. It seems like you have done all the gritty work of SEO, you've written some good copy, your services are valuable and your business is successful - Good design will highlight all of these good things, tie it all together, and give your company a strong, professional face online.

GoingLocal
11-11-2010, 03:43 PM
Amy is hitting this nail square on the head.

I think we, in this forum, believe you to be trust worthy and successful. But they point of your site has nothing to do with us, or even you Spider.

The point of the site (or any site really) is for your prospects. Build trust by providing value before they choose to walk away. It's the first time they see you. If they can't answer "what's in it for me?" and "why should I care?", they wont. Nothing personal, this is a little of the cold side of business building.

When you pass someone on the street that looks disheveled, are you more or less likely to engage in a conversation with them?
When you order a coffee and the cashier looks you square in the eyes with a smile and says "many people are loving our new muffins, would you like to try one?", are you more likely to buy one, vs the cashier looking a the counter and asking "wanna muffin with that?"
If you look average in a group of knock-outs....

Here's a quote from your website "PLAY A BIGGER GAME". We know you have it in you. :)

We're not trying beat on the new site, we're trying to work with you to engage your audience so you get more people on the phone and in person. People are bombarded with media, you need to stand out.

I see no problem with softening an image as you suggest, but only in a way that looks professional and quite intentional. But doing that on a face is much like wearing a mask, and leads the prospect to ask "what you trying to hide?"

Most surfers will choose to stay and read only after they made the choice to stay, and that often happens before a single word is read. The reason so many sites use HD images and other 'distractions' is because the work to keep the visitor there. they want to work with things/people that look appealing. This is another reason I suggested placing a video on the front page. People love video, so right away they are more likely to pause for at least a couple seconds giving some time for their eyes to notice other parts of the site. maybe even stop to think a while.

I heard some stat a while ago.. something like 12% of Americans have read a single novel since they left school. (doesn't include comics, newspapers, etc) but they spend loads of time watching youtube.com (and TV). A recent Implix report stated using video in email marketing increased click-through rates 96% (!!!). my own split testing shows this works tremendously well for landing pages as well.

Here is an example of someone who make several millions online (passive now), and has coached several thousand people build there business with an online presents. Magnetic Sponsoring (http://JCS.magneticsponsoringonline.com) ...or this one that has expanded into 194 countries in 3 years: Teaching The Next Generation Of Enlightened Entrepreneurs - Wanted. (http://entrepreneurialresource.com/) (those are both affiliate links so you know)
It's nothing like the site you have, but it does attract customers, and also answers the 2 questions above nearly instantly. Why is it laid out the way it is..? It works. and I know those sites are always testing changes to it keeping the opt-in rate as high as they can. crisp design, the message is obvious, immediately offers value, contains little risk to move forward.

The personal content starts to display after the sign up. First tell them you can answer their most burning question and how you plan to do that.

Here is another example, but this is not designed to immediately sell something, but to gain trust and repeat visitors. Online Copywriting and Content Marketing Strategies | Copyblogger (http://www.copyblogger.com/)

5 and 10 years ago anything online made you stand out. But today the game has changed and your website is the door to your business. Make people want to open it.

Spider, I believe you have great value to offer the world. I've seen it in this forum. now lets make the rest of the world believe it too! :)

addon: for a load of data about this check this out: https://www.marketingsherpa.com/web-site-landing-page-design-category.html

Business Attorney
11-11-2010, 08:54 PM
Every time I stop to remark to myself how wonderfully clear and crisp the pictures look, I have taken my attention away from the information the site is offering, and for which I visited it. I would be much more delighted if the text was crisper and clearer than being able to see the lines around the eyes of the site's owner or being able to read the totally irrelevant sign on the door of the building in the picture.

Frederick, I think both the design and accompanying text are improving quite nicely. I'll give you my two cents on the low-res pixelated photos though. You may find clear pictures distracting, but to me stock thumbnail head shots of people like you are using would pass largely unnoticed if they weren't of such poor quality. The fact that they are bad almost FORCES me to notice them. They looked bad to me on your page before but less strikingly so than on the updated design where they seem even more out of sync with your message.

Just my opinion.

vangogh
11-12-2010, 01:31 AM
I find this super-clarity distracting. When I go to a site like mine, I am interested in the content, what the site has to say, what I can learn. It's about information.

I think that's you justifying not having to improve the image. If your site is about the content and an image might distract then don't add the image at all. People will also be distracted by a poor image.

Amy has it exactly right. Using a low quality image sends a message to anyone visiting your site.The message you're sending is one of low quality. If you can't be bother to fix the quality of an image that's the first thing someone sees on your site, why should anyone think you're going to offer quality services.

Amy and GoingLocal have really said it all, though I'll add a few more things. You have to stop thinking about how you look at your website. You're not your potential clients. Your site is for them and not you. I can assure you that most people who look at a low quality image do not think "Oh great. I'm glad that image is so poor. Now I can focus on the content" They think instead that you aren't the professional you claim to be and they think maybe they shouldn't trust you. In actuality they don't consciously think this (though some likely do). However it's what happens in their subconscious and it's something that leads them not to contact you.

By your same logic all restaurants should be dives with holes in the walls so you aren't distracted by the ambiance and focus on the food. All business should be conducted in ripped jeans and t-shirts so you aren't distracted by the clothes and can focus on the business at hand.

Presentation is important. Design matters. Most people don't realize it because so much of the effect of the presentation doesn't happen in your conscious mind, but that initial split second when all you have time to take in is a quick visual impression impacts your subsequent impressions.

Spider
11-12-2010, 10:41 AM
First, let me thank you all for your frankness. We learn more from critisism than we do from praise, as long as we listen, so I am happy for the criitisism.

I can change the smaller pictures - have been thinking of changing them anyway, though not because of the quality. So, now I realize I must be be more careful of the quality. Or - if your remark was on point, VG - not have any pictures there at all. That would suit me, but as you all say, it's not about me.

So, who is it about? It is about people I want to attract. Not general surfers, not someone who has been dreaming of starting his own business for the past 10 years and done nothing about it, not the type of person who has only read one book since leaving school, not people who spend their evenings and weekends watching reality shows on their super-HD tv sets. I want to appeal to people who don't have time for television, who have a successful business but want to take it from "Good" to "Great," who are too busy enjoying their business to waste time "surfing the net," and people whose "downtime" is spent reading a good book.

While I am truly grateful for the time you all are taking over my site, so far your arguments have not convinced me. I am not trying to resist your suggestions - indeed, I am trying very hard to believe them, but it seems to me you are trying to guide me to appeal to an audience I do not want. I hope I'm wrong, and I keep looking for proof that I have misunderstood. That's why I have asked for facts, statistical and logical support for your suggestions.

I am grateful for your opinions - I am listening - but I am not yet sold. It shouldn't be difficult - I've even told you how to sell me - facts, statistics, logic.


One other specific question - I saved the main picture in png format. PNG is, I believe, a higher definition format. Of course, the picture was no different - it was now a high definition copy of a low-definition picture. But I did it to estimate the file size an HD picture would require. What is now a 78k file would become a 360k file with attendant delays is downloading time. I'm already borderline about the time it takes for the current picture to appear - a better quality picture would take that much longer. Does this figure into your calculations at all?

vangogh
11-12-2010, 11:54 AM
but it seems to me you are trying to guide me to appeal to an audience I do not want. I hope I'm wrong, and I keep looking for proof that I have misunderstood. That's why I have asked for facts, statistical and logical support for your suggestions.

You're asking us for facts, but do you have any to support your decisions? I'm guessing no. If you have any I'd love to see some facts to support that idea that using a poor quality image is a good way to focus people on other parts of you design. I have no idea if there have been studies or if statistics have been compiled to show that a quality image is better. I'm 100 percent sure you're better off using the higher quality image, but I've never felt the need to find data to back that up and quite honestly I'm not interested in spending an hour or two to look for that data now.

In the end you're still making a decision based on opinion without facts or statistics. You're choosing your own opinion over the opinion of 3 people who work designing websites. (I think 3. I'm not sure what GoingLocal does for a living. I know both Amy and myself design websites and I think GoingLocal does too). I would think we have a bit more authority status on the subject and our opinions would count for a little more on this question in the absence of statistics the same way we might defer to huggy on a question about plumbing or SteveB when the question is related to pets.

As far as the image is concerned could you send me the original. Either attach it here or in a PM or if you'd rather email it send me a PM and I'll send you my email address. I need to see the original to see what the problem might be. If you send me the original I can send it back to you optimized or let you know why it's causing issues. Also what image editing program did you use to optimize the image and reduce its file size. The issue could be how your optimizing. When I use images on the web I always want to start with the highest quality original I can find. Then I'll use Photoshop to optimize it for the web.

vangogh
11-12-2010, 12:08 PM
One quick thing to add. If you want to focus someone's attention on one part of your site (the content) and take away the focus on another part (an image) the way to do that is through emphasizing the content visually. For example make the main page heading very large so it's the dominant element on the page. You can deemphasize the image as well, maybe by reducing its transparency to it blends more into the background or by overlaying some semi-transparent block of color on top of it. You could remove color from the image, etc. Reducing the quality of the image though is not a good way to deemphasize it in order to focus attention on your content.

AmyAllen
11-12-2010, 04:05 PM
It's hard to find statistics for these things, because they are standard practices that are universally understood in the web design community. Like Vangogh said, I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me. You asked for opinions/feedback on a forum, and got design opinions from three professional designers. If what you really want is statistics instead - then that research is for you to do.

Here are some more links that say pretty much what has been said here:

Bad website worse than no website. (http://blogloudly.com/a-bad-website-can-hurt-your-business-more-than-no-website-at-all)

Does my website suck? Checklist. (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/does-my-web-site-suck/does-my-web-site-suck-checklist-part-one.html)

I'll just end my feedback here with two thoughts:

1. Design and presentation are important. It's why we wear suits to business meetings.

2. I think it's important as business owners to focus on our strengths and not try and do everything ourselves. I'm sure your time is very valuable. If you can estimate how much you make coaching, you can calculate whether the hours spent trying to do web design are a good investment using this equation:

(Estimated hourly value of your time) x (Hours spent working outside of your expertise) should be LESS than (the cost of hiring a professional).

Otherwise, you are getting an inferior product at a higher cost.

billbenson
11-13-2010, 12:19 AM
Amy, I have a website that I wrote. It sucks!! However it ranks 2 in G for the best keyword I could have and makes me a good living. I didn't read the link "Bad website worse than no website" but I beg to differ. I have a bad website and make a lot more than if I had no website which would be $0.00

While I think a better web site by a good developer would improve my sales and the professionalism of the site, it's not necessary in all cases for a successful site. There are a lot of factors at play. Industry, site objectives, marketing strategy etc. There are many cases where a web designer has no knowledge of the clients products. How can the possible do a decent job of SEO and on site marketing without extensive research. That can cost a lot of money.

I'm not saying yours or any other comments are wrong. I am saying that a "professional website" won't necessarily make you more money. Having someone write you a website is something that should be done with an extreme amount of caution.

Harold Mansfield
11-13-2010, 09:09 AM
I'm really late to this thread so I'll try not to repeat.
I like the idea of the new home page design, but I have to agree that the text across the image is off and goes into the white area.
I also don't believe that nonsense about great images distract from the content. Great images attract viewers and show style, professionalism and add to the over all appearance of the website. bad images are immediately noticeable and look unprofessional. People don't notice good images, but they do notice bad ones. I frequently spend more on images than anything else on the site. Images are everything.
Images can make a mediocre design and layout into a masterpiece. Bad images can make a $2k design look like a $20 blog built by school kids.

A lot of people want to build their website as if visitors are actually reading it. People are not reading your website. They are skimming it to see if you have what they are looking for, and making quick general opinions of you and the professionalism of your company by the way it looks. Just like we (consciously or unconsciously) judge people by how they dress, what car they drive. It only takes one second online for someone to form an opinion about you based on what they see and press the back button.

I've been saying for years that if you are committed to design, build and run your website yourself that you need to learn a publishing platform that will allow you to use today's HTML and Design standards, streamline your construction and functions and make the management of your content easier.

That;s why they created them. For people and businesses to self publish.

It's 2010, you don't need to do everything by hand anymore. It's taking you longer and limiting what you can do based on skills that you learned a while ago.
I have interacted with you on the forum for a while now and I know that you are committed to doing things the same way that you have always done them but at some time you have to realize your limitations and either..

1. Learn more about HTML, and Design.
2. Learn a plug and play CMS that is already coded well, and compliant.
3. Or hire a professional.

By holding on to your old way of doing things, while not learning anything new, you aren't helping your cause.

I don't think your sites are coming out the way that you intend them because you have some limitations of what you know how to code, and what you know and understand about basic design principles. And I hear you making excuses based on those limitations.
I honestly think that you have gone as far as you can go with the skills that you have and now it's time to move up and on to get the look and affect that you want for your website.

I think that you would council a client to do the same thing,

Spider
11-13-2010, 09:49 AM
Thank you for turning up to the party, Harold. I was beginning to think that you had given up on me, or something! ;-)

Harold Mansfield
11-13-2010, 09:59 AM
Of course not. Just been busy and then the thread had gotten so big that I had fallen behind on what was happening.

dojo
11-13-2010, 12:46 PM
1. the layout spans badly. I am on a 1600 pixels wide monitor. The left background repeats, the text overlaps weirdly. Have your designer use a set width or see how it looks for bigger monitors. It's weird.
2. the colours are not too inviting. I like the red, it's a good hue, but the links look "dirty" with that weird brownish colour. I'd use something more pleasant.
3. the images are of a VERY low quality. It's not the 90's anymore, we have good connections, go wild with the images. Your site does load super-fast (will with bigger size images too), but the images are so pixelated it's ruining the design.
4. the code is a bit messy; have the font styles and all the layout attributes in an external css file and not in the main page. It ruins your SEO efforts.
5. You should have an unitary design for all the pages. Not to mention the black header is pretty scary :)

You should consider a redesign and get a good designer this time. The site doesn't look professional and modern as I'd guess it based on the good content.
I do hope you're not gonna be too mad because of this review I do intend being helpful, not hurt your feelings. The main idea is that, even if simple and elegant, your site doesn't "comply" to the new standards in web design and it could hurt your business in the end.

GoingLocal
11-13-2010, 02:27 PM
"First, let me thank you all for your frankness. We learn more from criticism than we do from praise, as long as we listen, so I am happy for the criticism."
- Thanks Spider, I fully agree. I was even a little worried you might take the advice poorly as I was pressing send. :) I was pretty hard on you because this is exactly the space my primary focus is and I know what it takes to make it online here.

VG makes I really good point if you don't want to hire a designer... remove the images.
Better yet, install a wordpress bold with a simple theme you like. It's standard or has a low distraction attribute as people already know how to use them. You already have a free one, just use fantastico to install it on your site (takes about 30 seconds).. install the theme you like (takes about 10 seconds to install, more to locate --- Google "Free wordpress themes", or use the search function in wp-admin).
They are well SEO'd "out of the box" and have 1000's of plugins for fast customizations and tracking.

If you don't want to do that, then to get your point across a pro is probably the best bet.

Draw their eyes to what's important
does that prove red works? perhaps there's a reason it's used??
You don't need to use red, but you do need to make the important points stand out.

A note on color ... dojo is right --- brown is bad for sales. I have read the statistics on that but am not sure where they are right now. There is a reason why so many websites use red headlines, white or black backgrounds, and the such...

For some 'real' design and layout idea's that sell, check out the sites of people you respect and know had good online sales. study them. Then do the same for other success sites. then try to find a company making poor sales (harder to find)... see what they are doing differently.

I did provide you a link to a site called MarketingSherpa Home (http://www.marketingsherpa.com/) ... this is one of the resources big players use.
loads of statistics, charts, executive options, user trends, blah, blah, blah.

Supporting logic was requested. I provided 2 website examples (aside from above) with supporting evidence of "has coached several thousand people build there business", though I forgot to mention that every one of them was attracted online, and the other was sited as "expanded into 194 countries in 3 years". I think that's some sort a proof of performance.

Finally, your site is there to attract people first, then educate them. There is no other-way-around.
Yes, you should maintain your unique personality on it, but make sure it's in a way people are compelled to sit there.
tips on that: Every page should have one (and only one) purpose. content pages educate, landing pages gain interested leads, etc. make the purpose of the page 'loud' and clear. remember, we scan first, then read (if we don't press the back button)

...Sounds like VG is telling me it time to formally say "hi" in the intro thread too.. :p
sometime this weekend...

Spider
11-14-2010, 01:53 PM
I have learned a lot from these exchanges, and I thank you all again. You may not like all that I have learned, but let me tell what some of those things are--

1. I have learned that I should be more careful when asking for facts and statistics. I didn't mean for anyone to do my research for me - that is for me to do. I was hoping for, "I did this and this is what happened." Some of you did offer facts and I didn't mean to dismiss what you sent. All facts are valid in themselves but I have to weigh those facts - for example, selling cornflakes is not the same as winning patients for an orthopedic surgeon. I cannot imagine that a prospect in need of orthopedic surgery would be won over with a site along the lines of Magnetic Sponsoring (http://magneticsponsoringonline.com/) yet that same person might happily buy into that sales strategy if he was a distributor in some MLM program.

2. I learned that understanding one's audience is even more important than I had thought. The longer this conversation went on, the more I realised that in many instances we were discussing what "people" did or thought, how "people" would view my website, etc. I kept doing that, too, then I remembered I am not trying to attract all people - I only want the attention of a very small and specific group of people. The fact that some huge percentage never read a book after leaving school is irrelevant in this case because the people I want to deal with do read books - some of them read a lot. The fact that "people" don't read the content of a website but scan instead, is not important, because I believe the people who can use my services don't waste time scanning - they come for a purpose and read what they came for.

In fact, the idea that my website is not about me, misses the point, too - the people I will attract are more like me than they are like "most people." They do not scan, they read, they are detailed-oriented and they want facts. They are not interested in "eye-candy."

Which leads me to the third thing I learned...

3. I learned that, for this site, pictures are not as important as I thought. I had been working on the principle that, Well, You have to have some pictures - to add color, to add interest! Perhaps that's why I seemed to resist the idea of spending the time to make better quality pictures. I realised that if something does not contribute to the message, it doesn't belong on the website - and certainly poor quality images do not contribute to the message. If something (pictures, for example) is needed to add interest, there is something wrong with the message!

After looking at them in more detail, I realised that my pictures - whatever their quality - did not add anything to my message. In fact, in one glaring instance, they most certainly detracted - One of you suggested adding a headline to the top of the RH column. But I already had a huge headline covering one-third of the page, but it sat on top of a picture and was difficult to read for many. Clearly, the pictures had to go.

In doing that, the headline popped. Now, there is no question over what this site is about!


What do you think of this approach?

billbenson
11-14-2010, 03:12 PM
You are in Texas. At least put a couple of Texas blonds on the site :)

I think you got answers to questions you didn't ask, because you didn't state your objectives and background in your post. Many of the respondents to this thread are new to the forum and don't know your background as well as others. You probably didn't anticipate this thread turning into what it is though.

I assume you are coaching because you enjoy it and not for money. After all you are retired. I would further guess you want to do the web site yourself. You have learned to code in html and probably enjoy the challenge. As such, farming out the design isn't an option but not everyone knows that.

AmyAllen
11-14-2010, 04:16 PM
Clearly, the pictures had to go.

Well... That's certainly an interesting take-away. I don't think I would have ever thought to just remove the pictures all together - but I will say I think this latest version looks 10x better than the one with the poor images. And the one with the poor images looked 10x better than what you started with. So you're definitely moving in the right direction! :)

If what Bill said is true and this is more about the challenge of doing it yourself, then keep at it. As a fellow Texan, I wish you best of luck. :)

Harold Mansfield
11-15-2010, 09:48 AM
I have to disagree with you about the purpose of images on a website. I think that images are just as important not only to the design but also to help style the message and break up the monotony of rows and rows of text. It's one thing if you are writing a wiki, but quite another if you are showing your professionalism as a service provider and want to attract interest in your services. And I don't mean just pictures...buttons, and color coordination too.

I sort of agree that you shouldn't use anything on your site that detracts from the message, but, that doesn't mean that images will do that just because you don't have any that are appropriate. There are plenty of images that you can use that will help to create and project the information that you are trying to get across. Most text based mediums would be extremely boring without images because people are attracted to them as a visual presentation of the message.

Yes, you are looking to attract a small and specific segment of people, but that is no different than what all of us are doing with our websites. We are all targeting a certain segment of people, and our method is no different...you have to attract them to stay and want to read the details of what you offer. That won't happen if they are not attracted to the page. Yes, maybe if you are merely providing information, then it won't matter what the presentation is, people may read anyway because they want to know something, but , in your case, you are looking to attract clients and your presentation is extremely important in helping to form an opinion about you personally and professionally.

Websites, particularly business websites are not all of one, or all of another. Content is just as important as design and presentation. You don't skimp on one and hope that the other will compensate.
A good design with bad content is just as damaging as a bad design with good content. The difference is that people will stick around longer to discover that the content is bad on a well designed website, but it won't work the other way around.


The fact that "people" don't read the content of a website but scan instead, is not important, because I believe the people who can use my services don't waste time scanning - they come for a purpose and read what they came for.

I don't think behavior on the web changes just based on what industry a website is for. I don't see any reason to believe that people surf any differently whether they are looking for a Business Coach, Web Designer, or Dance Teacher. None of the information that I have read about how people use the web makes any such distinction.

As much as I'd like to believe that my website is different and that people will behave differently just because it's me and what I have to offer, I know that it is not true and I have to work to keep them on the site and entice them to go on to the next page and read more. After all I am far from the only game in town and if my site is not up to par with my competitors, all the great content in the world won't help me attract contacts over other more visually stimulating service providers..even if they are not as good as I am. It's the perception that entices people to find out more, not just the words on the page.


In fact, the idea that my website is not about me, misses the point, too - the people I will attract are more like me than they are like "most people." They do not scan, they read, they are detailed-oriented and they want facts. They are not interested in "eye-candy."

I think that if you let yourself believe this, that you will miss out on a lot of potential clients. This may be true of people that you know and that know you professionally and personally but it is not true of the average person that is shopping for services. "Eye Candy" as you call it is extremely important in showing your attention to detail and professionalism. Your website is a visual representation of the type of work that you do and what kind of business you run.

If you dismiss how powerful that impression is to potential clients, you are going to miss the boat.
By that logic, people will pay attention to a person in rags just because they may have something to say. But that is not the way we behave. It's more likely that the smartest person on the street will go unnoticed if he doesn't present himself well.
You and I may be the exception, but I can't ignore the way the rest of the world behaves and I have to cater my presentation to the most likely scenario, not what I hope or think personally.

So I have to say that the people that you are looking to attract are nothing like you. And they shouldn't have to be for you to provide services to them. If you are only looking to attract people that are just like you, then you are further narrowing who you can and will do business with.

You seem to be saying that if people don't get it, then they aren't the kind of people that you want to do business with anyway. That is pretty short sighted considering that you want to attract all kinds of businesses..many of which will probably be using a service such as yours for the first time.
It's been a long time since newspaper and magazine ads were just text. People have been using images, color and other pretty things to shape the message and set the mood for a long time.
Your website is your online ad.

You can call it"eye candy" and unnecessary all that you want but a great presentation goes a long way in making people believe that they need your services and you specifically.

vangogh
11-15-2010, 11:02 AM
I have a bad website and make a lot more than if I had no website which would be $0.00

But how much less are you making than if you had a good website? That's the comparison that needs to be made. It makes sense that having any website is better than not having one, but that doesn't say anything about good design vs poor design. Sure the site ranks in a search engine, but how many people click and leave right away.


I have learned that I should be more careful when asking for facts and statistics. I didn't mean for anyone to do my research for me - that is for me to do. I was hoping for, "I did this and this is what happened."

Frederick the thing is I can't necessarily give you what I think you want here. For example a client pays me to design or redesign a site, but don't pay me to then track the effects of of changes. How do I complete the this is what happened part? What I can tell you is nearly all of my clients come back to me again. That would hopefully prove my clients were happy with my work.

I've observed that several clients who had me redesign sites were much busier after the redesign than before. However I can't state as a fact that all the extra business was my design.

I can say that a couple of years ago I redesigned my own sites and almost immediately I started receiving more contacts and requests for work. I can't tell you how much any one specific part of the new design played a part though, because I didn't attempt to track it.

But again I don't think you've done any of these things either. So you're looking for a certain proof from one side without also looking for it from the other. The proof you're looking for is in the doing. Create one high quality image and rotate it and the low quality one so half of the people who visit your site see one and the other half see the other. When you've collected enough visitors compare what the two groups did.

You can use Google's Website Optimizer (https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=websiteoptimizer), which is free to to help you run the test. You could continue by comparing the better performing image vs having no image at all.

Harold Mansfield
11-15-2010, 11:11 AM
I think you have all of the stats that you need.
Are you getting business through your website?
If not, then it's not good enough. It's pretty simple.

I changed my website at least 3 times. Seems the latest incarnation works since I get regular inquiries through the website's contact form that turn into clients, where as before, I wasn't getting any.
So I have to conclude that I learned from the mistakes of the previous 2 incarnations and got something right the 3rd time.

Of course that doesn't mean that it's done, or perfect. Just that it's working for now. I may very well change it again the first of the year and fine tune a few things that I know could be better.

billbenson
11-15-2010, 03:31 PM
But how much less are you making than if you had a good website? That's the comparison that needs to be made. It makes sense that having any website is better than not having one, but that doesn't say anything about good design vs poor design. Sure the site ranks in a search engine, but how many people click and leave right away.


Actually, my customers usually get pissed off and call me. Mine is an unusual example though.

I'm sure you are aware I agree with your statement quoted above. I am actually having the site redone because of the reasons you stated :)

What I disagree with is the knee jerk reaction of many site reviews like this of "your site sucks, have it done by a professional". There are quite a number of reasons to do the site yourself. I think the most important reason is business people should know what a site needs to do, what fancy stuff can be done, marketing and SEO to properly hire a professional. The fact that I studied (and continue to do so) web design and marketing allowed me to select a designer that is competent and meets my needs. Furthermore, it has kept me from falling into the scams and traps that there are on the web.

@ Spider - I think you go kicking and screaming to much at adapting what are generally accepted recommendations. I think you should accept some things as fact when basically everyone says the same thing, whether you adapt to them or not. There are plenty of things you should question, but things like using css don't really fall into that category, for example. If you don't want to pay for better images or learn photoshop to improve them thats fine. You can always improve them later - or never. I don't really like the no image approach and think its over reaction. Plus, by removing the image completely, it will be difficult to add them in later as you will need to reformat every page. If the image is there, you just need to replace it with a better image later if you so desire. CSS. You are now using inline css when not to long ago you didn't want to use it at all. You are only one step away from putting it in an external style sheet. You don't have to make that jump, but over time I think you will be glad you did.

BTW, in case some of you didn't read between the lines Vangogh is redoing my site and I recommend him.

Harold Mansfield
11-15-2010, 03:52 PM
@Spider,
I really like the content selection for images from Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/). You can get royalty free images as low as $5-$25 depending on the size that you need.

AmyAllen
11-15-2010, 04:05 PM
What I disagree with is the knee jerk reaction of many site reviews like this of "your site sucks, have it done by a professional".

My bad for posting the "Does your website suck?" link without a little more context. I wasn't trying to suggest that Spiders website sucked per se. He was asking for support documentation for some of the basic web design principals people were offering on this thread. That link has a long list of things that are widely considered bad design practices, and includes things like using poor quality images, poor alignment, websites that don't work across different browsers, etc. I was just linking to that as general support for the concepts people were bringing to the thread.

I agree that business owners should learn as much as they can about how their websites work, just like they should understand how their taxes work even if they aren't accountants. But I also think that successful business owners will focus on the things they are great at, recognize their limitations - and know when to seek help from an expert.

billbenson
11-15-2010, 04:22 PM
I wasn't pointing that at you Amy. Its just a pet peve of mine and I've seen it repeatedly over the years. One of the things I suspect must be very difficult for designers and developers are customers who don't know enough to tell you what they want, objectives, proper market information etc. They are probably the ones that keep changing their mind, wanting revisions etc for free I suspect.

Spider
11-15-2010, 06:58 PM
Three or four designers in a single forum remarked about the same shortcoming. Accept that these people know what they are talking about especially as 100% of them said the same thing. I do accept that they know what they are talking about, and I'm not even going to suggest that 3 or 4 is too small a sample, that maybe some other designers would have found the pictures okay - I doubt that. But if I had asked this question of a forum of business coaches, I bet a dollar to a donut they wouldn't have mentioned the pictures, and that all the comments and suggestions for improvement would have been about the text.

If you are sick and go to a physician, he will likely prescribe some drugs - "Take two of these and call me in the morning!" However, if you take your illness to a physical therapist, she will likely prescribe some physical therapy as the cure. A chiropractor would recommend chiropractic, an accupuncturist would recommend accupuncture, a nutritionist would suggest a change of diet and a surgeon would no doubt recommend surgery. Not that any of these would be wrong. These people are all highly qualified and recommend what they know. The recommendations would just be alternative methods to achieve a similar end. I am sure had I visited 3 or 4 of the same medical practitioners, I would have received pretty well the same advice from each.

Understand, too, that Bill was right - creating a performing website is a challenge and I enjoy that challenge. I still have much to do on the seo and some of the copy. I could hire professionals to do all that, but I won't. It has nothing to do with cost or efficient use of my time. You may like to know that I have, during these exchanges, been honing my coaching skills.

You see, every time I challenged you and you responded, you were honing your designer skills, too. You had the opportunity to practice your powers of persuasion and polish your arguments, so that the next time an obstinate client tests you to see if they should hire you, you are now just a little more capable of winning that contract.

Sorry. I'm a coach. That's what we do. No, I didn't set out to do that - that wasn't the objective, but think of it as a positive side-effect.

Spider
11-15-2010, 07:17 PM
I think you have all of the stats that you need.
Are you getting business through your website?
If not, then it's not good enough. It's pretty simple...Of course, it's not good enough. Otherwise this discussion would never have taken place.


... I changed my website at least 3 times. Seems the latest incarnation works since I get regular inquiries through the website's contact form that turn into clients, where as before, I wasn't getting any. So I have to conclude that I learned from the mistakes of the previous 2 incarnations and got something right the 3rd time...Honestly, now, Harold - think a moment before you reply (and this is a genuine inquiry, not a challenge) -- Which changes do you think had the most effect? Pictures? other images? general coloring? ambience? text? something else?

Harold Mansfield
11-15-2010, 07:53 PM
Honestly, now, Harold - think a moment before you reply (and this is a genuine inquiry, not a challenge) -- Which changes do you think had the most effect? Pictures? other images? general coloring? ambience? text? something else?

All of the above. At first I really didn't have a direction and it showed. It had no flow, and didn't get down to the nitty gritty. I changed everything from how it was written, to the images, to the contact form...I even changed the name that I go by and used a completely different domain...but more than anything, I just kept it simple and to the point, and the domain was part of that. At first I was using a company name, and switched to just use my name. Keep it simple.

I also narrowed in on a less competitive search term. It all had an effect. There isn't one thing that bears more responsibility than another. A website is a whole package. It all matters. It all makes an impression.
Start with the basic principles of what people expect to see when looking for a service provider, get that part right, and then move on to additions.

The biggest change was my frame of mind. Instead of looking at it personally and doing what I liked, I looked at it from outside and asked "What do I need to do to get a reaction?" I don't have a personal attachment to my website(s). They are a tool to attract new clients and are put together with that in mind. So what ever I need to do to accomplish that, I do. They shouldn't have to guess at what my frame of mind is, it's my job to predict theirs and follow through to make it easy for them.

To be honest, I'm not even crazy about the design of it, but, it has been the one that most people respond to and apparently read because they repeat things from it back to me.

You ever go fishing? I hate worms. Don't like them. But the fish do. So I'm not going to ignore the fact that fish respond to worms just because I personally like something else.
To me a website is the same thing. It's not personal. It's business.

vangogh
11-15-2010, 11:10 PM
if I had asked this question of a forum of business coaches, I bet a dollar to a donut they wouldn't have mentioned the pictures, and that all the comments and suggestions for improvement would have been about the text.

True, but they probably would have been affected by them the same as anyone else. I understand what you're saying about each responding in a way based on what they do for a living. However I would say that here in this thread the questions were specifically asked about design so I don't think those of us who are designers are biasing our answers by seeing design issues. If you had asked for opinions about your copy and posted in the Copywriting section of the forum I would have ignored the image and gave my opinion about the copy.


I am actually having the site redone because of the reasons you stated

You are? :)

As for the "your website sucks" stuff and see a professional I agree that some people say that and nothing more and in that case it's pointless advice. However sometimes there is more specific advice and the person's being told to hire a professional because it's pretty clear they aren't going to be able to improve things themselves. I think it's good to suggest that people should learn more about their websites and how to build them, but I don't necessarily think that means most of those people should be building them.

I want to learn what I can about my physical health. Sometimes that means realizing an aspirin is all I need. Most of the time it's just to know. I could learn a lot about medicine, but I'm not going to diagnose myself or treat myself in most cases. The information might be more to better understand the doctor and be able to question what he tells me if I think it necessary.

I think that same mindset should exist with websites. Sure everyone who owns one should understand something about how they're designed and built. Mainly though that's to better be able to communicate with the person who does the actual design and development. There will be some people who do possess the skills, desire, and time to take the DIY approach. Most people from what I can tell do it to save money. The irony is had most put the time into research and finding a good web designer/developer they would likely have made much more money back in return.

billbenson
11-15-2010, 11:35 PM
Which is why my recommendation is generally do a hobby website and get it ranking on G as a learning exercise; not do your own primary income site. Sometimes, though, the only option is the on the on the job training route.

Spider
11-16-2010, 12:06 AM
... I understand what you're saying about each responding in a way based on what they do for a living. However I would say that here in this thread the questions were specifically asked about design so I don't think those of us who are designers are biasing our answers by seeing design issues...Actually, they weren't. In my opening post, I was especially vague about what I was asking ---


Finally, it's up!

www.frederickpearce.com (http://www.frederickpearce.com)

What do you think?
I was vague because I didn't want to influence the direction of the response. The first reply was about the main title and picture and all replies followed that one. Subsequently, I expressly asked about other matters -

Question: The main title text aside, were you tempted to delve deeper? Did you click one of the links to go into the site and see what it had to offer? Did the opening page do it's job? and, later--
Did the opening page do it's job?
Is the organization better? How can it be improved further?
These questions were not addressed and the focus remained on the pictures. No problem, people will respond as they think best and I do not expect to dictate how others respond. Perhaps the pictures were SO bad that, at that point, nothing else mattered!!!!

vangogh
11-16-2010, 12:36 AM
My bad. I think it was that by the time I came into the thread the conversation had already started talking about the images and other design elements. See what I get for not going back and checking what you asked. :)

With your specific questions it's hard for me to answer because I've been to your site often enough. I don't really look at it with fresh eyes anymore. I've delved deeper in the past so a new look doesn't necessarily make me delve deeper because I've been there already. Similarly for the opening page doing its job question.

Spider
11-16-2010, 09:45 PM
There is one question I asked that you might answer, VG - I saved the main picture in png format. PNG is, I believe, a higher definition format. Of course, the picture was no different - it was now a high definition copy of a low-definition picture. But I did it to estimate the file size an HD picture would require. What was a 78k file would become a 360k file with attendant delays is downloading time. I was already borderline about the time it took for the picture to appear before I deleted it - a better quality picture would take that much longer. Does this figure into your calculations at all when determining the definition/quality?

Antoher is - if pictures are so important, why don't you have any on your home page?

Harold Mansfield
11-16-2010, 10:59 PM
I hate to chime in when it wasn't directed at me, but I couldn't resist.
It's easier to compress a high quality image without loosing too much from the visual appearance, than to start with a low quality image altogether.
There are free image compression tools online that will do the basics, but it doesn't take much to download GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) (for free) and learn some basic image editing. There are GIMP tutorials everywhere for what ever image effect and trick you need to do.

You don't have to sacrifice load times to have images on your site. If compressed properly it shouldn't be noticeable at all.

How do you think everyone else does it? I'm sure you have seen plenty of websites with lots of images that don't take all day to load. It's all proper coding, proper image compression and when you can get it, a fast dedicated server.

If one image, no matter how much area it takes up on the page..is slowing down your site load time, it's not compressed well enough. The website in my sig is all images. Even the menu is images. There are 14 images on the home page, plus that flash CU3 thingy that rotates with more images in it... And it doesn't take all day to load

Of VG's website. What he lacks in actual photos, he makes up for in design, colors, layout, navigation, content, and ease of use. He may not use any pictures, but he does use images...The buttons, the torn paper effect, the logo, menu, email and RSS icons are all images.

Spider
11-16-2010, 11:07 PM
Happy to receive your comments, as always. The question about image size and downloading time had previously been asked of everyone.

And, I can see that VG uses graphic devices - I just wondered why he chose not to use any pictures.

vangogh
11-17-2010, 12:21 PM
As far as the quality of an image it comes from the quality of the original image. A poor quality jpg isn't going to improve by turning it into a png or the other way around. It's also going to be better starting with a larger image and reducing it's size than trying to take a smaller image and make it larger. When optimizing a file the different filetypes are better at compressing different kinds of images. jpgs are better if there aren't clear and quick transitions between colors, which is why you typically use them for photos. pngs and gifs are better at compressing images where there is more of a clear line between colors. Images that have large blocks of solid color will usually be better ad png or gif.

Also within each type there are a variety of settings when you optimize that increase or reduce file size. Often it's a balance where you look at the image and have to decide how much optimization you can do before compressing away too much quality.


if pictures are so important, why don't you have any on your home page?

I don't recall saying a picture was so important. I think I said that if you are going to use one then it's important to have that picture be high quality as opposed to low quality. You can have a beautiful design with or without pictures. Whether you use one depends on the particular design and the goals of the design on that page.

I didn't use one on my current home page, because it didn't seem necessary. I'm not sure what an image would do that the page isn't already doing and I don't see any reason to add one just for the sake of adding an image. In the boilerplate part of the design (the stuff that's on every page) I didn't think using a photo or similar appropriate since it's main function would be to add file weight to the page. On the part of the home page that's specific to the home page (the content area) the only thing I wanted the page to do was point out 3 main parts of my site, the two types of services and the blog. I think the different backgrounds behind each section was more than enough to do that.

That's not to say that if I were to redesign my site I wouldn't use an image in the new design. I don't start with the idea that you need or don't need an image. I start with the idea that every page (and site as a whole) has some specific goals it wants to achieve and the design is an attempt to solve the problem of how to achieve those goals. There's also usually more than one solution to a design problem. Ideally a designer will find the best solution or find a solution from among several best solutions since most of the time I didn't think there's a single best solution to design problems.

Patrysha
11-17-2010, 01:16 PM
Van Gogh is one of the few designers in the world who really seems to get that design is about purpose...so many that come from the graphic design route are putting in pretties just to show off that they know how to do them and don't have a clue what to do (and what not to do) when it comes to marketing.

Harold Mansfield
11-17-2010, 01:33 PM
Van Gogh is one of the few designers in the world who really seems to get that design is about purpose...so many that come from the graphic design route are putting in pretties just to show off that they know how to do them and don't have a clue what to do (and what not to do) when it comes to marketing.

I have to respectfully disagree that there are all kinds of people, and non tech savvy people aren't drawn to purpose, they are drawn to pretty. If purpose was what most people responded to, car commercials would just be an image of the car and a bunch of specs, instead of stunt drivers sliding sideways through warehouses over kick drums..things that no driver will ever do with their car. I have no clue what the specs are of that car, but that is one bad assed commercial and it makes me want to find out more about it.
The "pretty" is the marketing in most cases.

In the case of web designers, "showing off" what you know how to do is part of the marketing because regular people have no idea what the specs are or what any of the terminology means. IF you are selling nuclear fusion to novices, you have to dumb it down and make it attractive. People understand and are drawn to pretty. The ones that understand the purpose and specs are a smaller group, so you have to cater to both.

Business Attorney
11-17-2010, 03:50 PM
Harold, I think that when Patrysha said


... so many that come from the graphic design route are putting in pretties just to show off that they know how to do them and don't have a clue what to do (and what not to do) when it comes to marketing.

she wasn't saying that "pretty" was always wrong, just that it should be there because it is appropriate from a marketing perspective, not to show off the talents of the website designer.

The example you gave of car commercials is a good example of where "pretty" does work from a marketing perspective. But if you were a car dealer and you hired an ad agency that put a up a full page newspaper ad in the Sunday auto section consisting of a beautiful full color picture of a car on a mountain road, you would probably be sitting in your empty dealership while the car buyers went to the dealers with the ugly ads that scream "0 percent interest or $4,000 rebate" and "all 2010 models MUST GO."

I do get the sense from some websites that the designer was showcasing his or her talents rather than focusing on the client's marketing, but honestly I find that to be pretty rare these days. I suspect that it may happen more often with local businesses dealing with local designers. For example, I have come across several restaurant websites where I scratch my head wondering who felt that an over-the-top web design was appropriate when all I wanted was an easy way to find the menu, address or phone number.

Spider
11-17-2010, 04:48 PM
...Whether you use one [a picture] depends on the particular design and the goals of the design on that page...
I didn't use one on my current home page, because it didn't seem necessary. ...Thanks. Pretty much the same reason I decided to remove my pictures. They weren't good quality, to correct that was going to take some work, and, on reflection, they didn't seem necessary.

We'll see what the stats tell us in due course.

Patrysha
11-17-2010, 05:08 PM
Harold...yeah what I meant was along the lines of what David said.

I didn't mean that things shouldn't be pretty. Just that they should be there for a reason that goes beyond "I felt like it"
And no, specs on a car wouldn't work because people don't respond to features...they respond to benefits...it doesn't matter that a vehicle has 4 wheel drive...you have to convey what part of 4 wheel drive is important to the target which could be safety or fun in the mud...

and yeah, I suppose it is a comment directed at the mostly local business dealing with the local designer...

Spider
11-17-2010, 05:51 PM
Further proof that there is more than one market out there. The last few occasions I visited the website of a car manufacturer I skipped the movie and clicked straight on Specifications. I can tell all that I need to know about a car from that one page alone. If I want to know what the car looks like from all angles, I'll go to Ebay Motors. The skidding around an empty warehouse and zooming along that stretch of the Pacific Highway (or whatever road on the West Coast they all use for their ads) are about as informative as which toilet paper roll leaves the most bits on a brown bear's bum! (Charmin ad, in case you didn't get it!!!)

When these ads come up on TV, I consider that a great time to put the kettle on for a cup of tea!

Harold Mansfield
11-17-2010, 08:18 PM
That brings up and interesting point David. Just how much do you expect your web designer to know about marketing your business?
True that a website is an aspect of marketing, but I doubt that most webmasters are concerned with the overall marketing program, unless the client already has one laid out and in that case will let a designer know what they need to compliment that.

For instance, I am going to set up a website with what I think is best to show off the business, following some basic principles and then I will also give my clients tips and instruction on how to take what I have done and work to position their site in the search engines and attract customers.

That's pretty much the extent to any kind of marketing that they can expect from most web designers.
I can honestly say that I am only focused on the performance of the website as it pertains to users and placement in the search engines, not any indepth work on the company's overall marketing.

But on the other matter, I don't see anything wrong with a little entertainment. People respond to it. Maybe 16 years in Vegas ( and the hospitality industry as a whole) has made me more of a stickler on good presentation rather than just an adequate one that does that job. Of course that doesn't mean that I'll just throw out some firecrackers just to hear the sound. I think that you can do both. Have purpose and entertainment in one.

If there is an opportunity to get the job done and offer a little "wow" factor, I am likely to take it. But as a service provider, I'm going to do what the client wants. Every site and every business is different.
I certainly wouldn't put twisty, flashy things on a nursing home site, but I would do it for a photographer or a nightclub.

That being said, I also have 3 different sites for the same business that are all completely different approaches..one of which I'll be dropping and redesigning one of the others.

Business Attorney
11-18-2010, 12:17 AM
That brings up and interesting point David. Just how much do you expect your web designer to know about marketing your business?

That's a very good question and it probably has many different answers. I don't know much about other businesses, so I talk about law firm websites.

The first time I hired a someone to design a law firm website was about 1994. We had about 60 attorneys in that firm. There wasn't much a choice of design firms back then and we ended up hiring a one-man shop. He had no experience designing law firm sites but neither did anyone else to speak of. It was pretty much what you would have expected in those early days. Fortunately, hardly anyone used the internet, so it didn't matter much.

Fast forward to 2001. Some others and I had just started a new firm with about 20 attorneys and we needed a website. We interviewed a number of firms and narrowed it down to three. All had designed multiple law firm sites and held themselves out as understanding the needs of law firms. I don't remember the exact numbers, but after showing us a few samples, the three firms quoted prices of $3,000, $8,000 and $15,000. The low end firm had mostly done websites for sole practitioners or very small firms. Their design work looked like it was circa 1994 (or at least not 2001). The high end firm had a proprietary CMS (though we didn't call it that back then) and really looked like overkill. The middle firm was a law firm technology firm that had set up our network. They had also designed several websites and were going to set up the website in ColdFusion which would enable me, through the admin panel, to add, edit and delete attorneys; add, edit and delete practice areas; and add resources (like memos and articles).

We went with the middle group. It turns out that they had ONE designer, who was a pretty green kid and was not the same person who had designed the other sites in their portfolio. He clearly knew nothing about law firm marketing, precious little about efficient coding and had no clue about SEO. Even in 2001, I knew that you didn't give your practice area pages names like "cfm?c=13" or title the page of every attorney bio simply "Attorneys".

If that firm had not represented themselves as specializing in law firm sites, it would have been different, but what does it mean to specialize in the niche as a website developer if it doesn't mean that you have talents and knowledge about the purpose of the website beyond what any designer and coder would know?

In 2007, we decided to redesign the site and develop a more cohesive marketing plan. By this time, we had a marketing committee and I was one of about three members. We talked to a couple of marketing firms that worked with law firms. In some cases, they did no website development but would design the overall marketing plan, including the look and feel of the website, and then would subcontract out the actual website development. The committee ended up choosing a design firm that I felt was really a website development and technology company that clothed themselves in the guise of a marketing firm (a hint was that they were also pushing a custom CMS designed for law firms, which turned out to be an affiliate of theirs). In the end, though, I do think they delivered what they promised. Whether it was a good marketing plan or not, only time will tell. I left that law firm in 2008 before the project was fully implemented. I know some of my former partners like it and some think it says nothing about the practice of law or the firm.

So, back to your question: "Just how much do you expect your web designer to know about marketing your business?"

If someone holds themselves as having expertise in a niche, I expect that means more than simply they have designed a few websites in that niche. It means that they have at least a basic understanding of the roles that a website plays in that industry.

For example, the website of a personal bankruptcy lawyer might have a toll-free number and urge the visitor to "CALL NOW". A law firm that deals in complex corporate transactions, on the other hand, would probably try to display the breadth and depth of the firm's experience. If a website designer doesn't understand the different ways that professionals market their services, then he may be a fine designer but he shouldn't imply that he is a specialist in law firm websites. What DOES he mean? That he knows where to find images of gavels, stone columns and scales of justice? What is so special about that?

Today, I think I know what I want from my website and I would probably tell the designer exactly what I wanted to accomplish, and let the designer concentrate on the design. But that is me.

In cases where the designer does not claim to be a specialist in a niche, I think the problem comes primarily with local businesses that go to developers and really don't understand how internet marketing works. I think a developer working with businesses who are unfamiliar with the web has a greater obligation to make sure that he delivers a product that is appropriate to the business. If the type of business dictates that a website should contain a call to action and the website developer creates a nice image-enhancing website that might be fine for building a brand but is clearly inappropriate under the circumstances, then I say the website developer has failed. In fact, I would go further and say that if small business asked for a style of website that seemed inconsistent with what the designer would expect in that business, a good designer would at least question the choice. Obviously, the client may have a brilliant insight and knows just what he is doing, but should the developer assume that the client knows what he is doing if the direction seems contrary to what the developer knows about internet marketing in general?

I don't think that a website designer needs to double as the client's marketing consultant. That is clearly a different job, and one that most designers, by background, training and experience, are not equipped to handle. I just think that a developer should know whether something he is doing seems inappropriate for the situation.

Business Attorney
11-18-2010, 12:26 AM
I certainly wouldn't put twisty, flashy things on a nursing home site, but I would do it for a photographer or a nightclub.

That's exactly why you are NOT the type of designer I am commenting on. The ones that bother me are the ones who would put twisty, flashy things on a nursing home site and a bunch of other sites where it would be equally inappropriate.

Harold Mansfield
11-18-2010, 12:37 AM
I always work with my clients with the understanding that they know more about their business than I do, and already have an idea of how they want present themselves. Even when they don't have a clear marketing plan, it doesn't take too much to figure out that certain industries need certain functions on their site.
I've been doing a lot of new Concierge businesses lately and they mainly are concerned with presentation, and custom contact options that are easy to use.

I don't consider myself any more versed in building a real estate site, than any other, but I understand that they need to be able to add listings quickly with multiple images, a uniformed layout of price, amenities, and features. Google maps. A mortgage calculator, Individual listings and contact info for agents, it needs to be easily integrated with their MLS listings, and the presentation needs to be professional.
Anything else that they need that is specific to their industry or their company, I figure they can tell me what it is and I'll integrate it.
You can take that same principle and probably layout and build a site for an auto dealership.

I still wouldn't ever portray myself as a Real Estate web specialist, but, it pretty much boils down to tell me what you need and how it has to be, and that's what I'll do.

You really have 2 fail safes. Either it's done a certain way across the industry, therefore you have examples to reference...or in the case of Networks, Community sites, and Multi user stuff..it's never been done before and you break new ground based on the client's specifications.

Pretty much anything can be done, but the client has to have an idea. I don't believe that you should leave everything up to the web person.

Spider
11-18-2010, 09:52 AM
What an interesting discussion! We certainly are at the cutting edge of how the web will develop in the future.

A law practice, a real estate firm, even a business coach, wants their site to be central to the functioning of their client acquisition but not necessarily part of advertising campaigns. None of these type firms will use "Buy one get one free" nor "Wait! There's more!" so the selling part must be very subtle. I wonder how much the website of such firms can really contribute to the sales-advertising process, as opposed to an understated client acquisition process.

Spider
12-06-2010, 07:17 PM
You all might like to know that I am having my pictures worked on. I will have some high quality, high definition pictures (or at least higher definition than I had before - guaranteed no pixelations.) We are working on the internal page pictures. We, as in I am answering questions and fingering my checkbook, and Steve (of CBS Creative) is doing the work.

I have added some graphic elements to the Home page - a few asterisk/stars and a "Business Coach for Hire" thingy. Credit to Harold for the idea (no money, but my eternal gratitude) and thanks to Steve for the "For Hire" thingy (I guess it's a PostIt note.)

Now, tell me you don't know what you are supposed to do when you come to the site?!!

Oh! And I have been learning some CSS - inline stuff for now, and still inside the general framework of tables, but we are making progress.

New Years Resolutions started early!

Harold Mansfield
12-06-2010, 07:24 PM
Way to go! Glad to see that Steve is helping you. Can't wait to see how things progress.

AmyAllen
12-06-2010, 10:42 PM
Looking better and better! And that's great you're learning CSS. :D

jamesray50
12-07-2010, 04:56 AM
This has been an interesting thread. I love reading reviews. I don't give reviews, but I will give my opinion. I liked you redesigned website except for one thing. I still think the home page needs a header. It just seems strange not to have a header. And I don't understand the comments about the text on top of the buildings. It is not like that on my computer. I am using IE, on a 15 inch wide screen. Most of the text in the heading is in the white space with just a few letters at the end in the blue space of the sky. I think it looks good. I think this banner should be on the home page, but then it wouldn't look good with the big red box. And I did go through and check out all your other pages too. I like your website. I think you have done a good job. If I was looking for a mentoring/coach I would read what you had to offer. BTW, nice newspaper article.

Spider
12-07-2010, 09:19 AM
Thank you, everyone, for your comments and suggestions.

Jo Ellen, the text-over-the-buildings problem no longer exists. Initially, where you now see a large red panel, I had a large picture of the buildings from my innerpages header, with the white text you see in another color riding on top of that large photograph. Some could read it, some couldn't. Some had location differences, some didn't. It looked good (I think) in one figuration, one browser, and one screen size only. Everything else was a mess. Other small pictures on the home page were dsiliked, too. I solved the problem in one fell swoop by eliminating the pictures (from the home page only.)

That's the history of this thread. Now we are about to improve the inner page pictures but I think I will leave the home page as a purely functional "Entry" page.

billbenson
12-07-2010, 03:20 PM
Jo Ellen, just to clarify: Web site visitors have computers configured in many different ways. The screen size, resolution, default fonts or other fonts added into their browsers. If you buy a Dell or HP or anybody else this could be different. On top of that people use different browsers such as Internet Explorer, FireFox, Safari and more. Some people rarely upgrade to the latest software update for their browsers, some people do. Windows generally does this automatically, but that can be turned off. There are standards for some of this, but not every company is compliant. Internet Explorer has been famous for not complying, although in recent revisions they have gotten better. Even then, the different software may have bugs.

All of this presents problems in displaying web sites to all users. They aren't going to look the same. This can be a big headache for web designers. The general logic among designers is to develop for standards and then make make things work for those outside the standards. Firefox, for example, tries to be compliant which is why most web designers try to design for Firefox first. Internet Explorer is the most commonly used web browser so some designers opt to design for IE and ignore the others. Since IE appears to be moving to be standards compliant and also changes things whenever they feel like it, most people opt to design to standards and then make IE work rather than the other way around. IE is also loosing market share each year, so designing around them may not be a good idea going into the future. This doesn't address the bugs and customizations etc mentioned in the above paragraph.

This is why you should test your site on various browsers, screen sizes, stay away from weird fonts that most people won't have on their computers. It is also a reason to use statistics programs to see who your typical site visitors are. You can get informations as to browsers, resolution size etc.

Hopefully that will clear a few things up (or confuse the heck out of you :))

jamesray50
12-07-2010, 04:52 PM
Yeah, you just confused me. My laptop is widescreen. I don't have any problems with any websites I look at for the most part. I have IE. That's all I've ever used. I tried Firefox once but didn't like it. I don't remember why, it was too long ago. I'm just use to IE and too old to change. Some of the websites don't fill up my screen, they are a square in the middle, like when I first got widescreen TV and not all shows were in HD and you would have the black bars on the side of the picture. Sometimes a website will require scrolling the width, but very few have that. So for the most part, everything looks good on my computer. I never really thought about how websites would look on different browsers. Seems like they would all be the same. It sure would be easier for everyone, wouldn't it?

Harold Mansfield
12-07-2010, 05:10 PM
. I never really thought about how websites would look on different browsers. Seems like they would all be the same. It sure would be easier for everyone, wouldn't it?

Yeah, we would all love that. Unfortunately Microsoft has to reinvent every wheel. Sites definitely look different in IE. Sometimes subtle differences like rounded edges will be squared, but it does operate differently.

Spider
01-09-2011, 03:32 PM
With the professional help of Steve of CBS Creative, my pictures should now please everyone - no more grain, no more pixelation. To use what I teach others - I raised my standards and have a much improved website. Thank you, Steve.

Paper Shredder Clay
01-10-2011, 02:11 PM
One of my biggest complaints is when I go to the homepage it all looks like ads vs. real content. It doesn't speak of a high quality website. I am sorry to say that. I hate being that honest, but I want to help. The inside pages are better though.

Spider
01-10-2011, 06:26 PM
I don't understand - there's not a single ad. on the homepage. Please explain.

vangogh
01-10-2011, 11:59 PM
I shouldn't speak for Clay, but I think he's saying it looks like ads, not that there necessarily are ads. I hadn't really thought about it, but the three read more sections at the bottom do look like a giant AdSense ad. The format is very similar. And then if you glance at the bottom right you see AddMe Submission. If you only glance quickly you might just catch the word Ad. I can see where someone might mistake the bottom of the page for AdSense.

AmyAllen
01-11-2011, 08:55 AM
The inner pages look much much much better. The pictures are great, and I like that you changed the fonts so that they are consistent on all the headlines. A great improvement!

Spider
01-11-2011, 04:47 PM
Thank you, Amy. But I can almost hear you saying, "...except for the front page!" What would you suggest for the homepage?

954SEO
01-11-2011, 05:33 PM
I know it's been a while since this thread started, but very nice website! ;)

One thing that irked me was the lack of a menu on the homepage. That's the first thing I wanted to get to but nothing jumped out at me. Once I was into the site, navigation was enjoyable, minus a few pages that had no menu (that's my safety net!). Homepage is everything. A first impression. A potential customer. A reason to keep navigating the site (which is why I usually, not always, look for a menu).

The homepage "...for hire" box does not have the text centered on the red area, and there is a lot of empty space below the copyright before the testimonials link, which may work better as a giant "Testimonials" anchor. That's really all I caught with a quick glance :)

BTW, If that picture and profile snippet were on the homepage, I'd click on it :)

AmyAllen
01-11-2011, 10:27 PM
But I can almost hear you saying, "...except for the front page!" What would you suggest for the homepage?

Oops. I was trying to offer a nice complement to make up for being overly critical earlier in this thread, but somehow I managed to imply another criticism!

But since you asked... ;)

I think the front page is definitely better than what you started out with, but your inner pages are stronger than your home page. Your inside pages look a little more crisp and organized, and also have clearer navigation. Just the top part of this page (http://frederickpearce.com/buildbusiness.html), for example - the header and navigation bar immediately give me a clear sense of who you are, what you offer, and what all I can find on your website.

If it were me, I would use the same format you are currently using on your inner pages for your home page as well. :)

Spider
01-11-2011, 11:01 PM
Oops. I was trying to offer a nice complement to make up for being overly critical earlier in this thread, but somehow I managed to imply another criticism! ... Don't worry about it, Amy - and thanks for trying to compensate. Criticism, for me, is feedback, and feedback is the start of learning. Sure, I'll argue back much of the time, but that is to elicite more information.

The redesign of the navigation was something Harold pushed for. You see, if I hadn't fought back, I wouldn't have understood so well what he was getting at. Now I have the same number of pages as before but many are outside the main navigation flow. If you come in by the index page, you don't get to see them and cannot be confused by them. But they capture long-tailed searches and pull visitors into the main navigation and all end up on the final 'Mentor Plans' Order page.

In fact, the teaser text on the homepage is the main navigation. That is to say, each link from each paragraph on the home page are the same as the links from the nav.bar on inner pages. The front page is all menu, plain and simple. I quite like this structure, although I think the front page needs some improvement.