All NEW...what do you think?

<p><a href="http://www.OwenImages.com">http://www.OwenImages.com</a><br>

After "LAUNCHING" to the Home Page so that the website loads full screen, a random image out of 15 is loaded.</p>

<p>Within the galleries: Sports, Scenic, Celebs, Misc, Nature ....once you click on a photo you can just use the RIGHT and LEFT arrow keys on your keyboard to go through the images. To close an image you can click off the photo, hit ESC on your keyboard or click the little X.</p>

<p>I have not captioned the Sports, Celebs or Nature photos yet...hopefully this weekend.</p>

<p>For iPhone and iPad compatibility I need to do a browser detection and load an alternative navigation since those devices do not support FLASH.</p>

<p>Let me know what you think. Thanks for your time,</p>

<p>Greg</p>

<p>It just hijacked my browser and went full screen on a 30 inch LCD, despite having my browser set to keep that from happening.</p>

<p><strong>I'd give it a good solid F, for egotism and arrogance run wild, for excessive rudeness, and for essentially assaulting your users.<br /></strong></p>

<p>Now, bear in mind that I don't look at nasty, screen hijacking sites, so I haven't actually seen what you've done with the flash, but nothing you describe can't be done with plain old HTML, and if you want things like smooth, sliding transitions, a little Javascript or some HTML 5. You can have pretty universal browser compatibility without flash trash. Even Adobe is providing migration tools away from Flash to HTML 5. You're building to obsolete standards, and doing it rudely.</p>

<p>What I'm curious about is why would someone who would design a site that way would actually be interested in people's opinions about their site?</p>

<p>Here, you might find this interesting. Someone else posted today, looking for site criticisms:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/website-creation-forum/00YPpJ</p>

<p>I think his site is very classy looking, and easy to navigate. You'll probably hate it, way too understated, but putting myself in the customer point of view, I think it's great. Going back to an artist point of view, I still think it's great. And switching to a website designer point of view, yup, still great.</p>

<p>http://www.photography001.com</p>

<p>Wow, thank you for the positive and constructive criticism. You must have a lot of friends here. I realize not everyone is a fan of that view....so press F11 on the keyboard to get out of that mode if you do not like it. You act as though I loaded a virus on your computer and spyware and stole all of your personal information and signed you up for spam lists. Yikes!</p>

<p>Most people do not have 30" screens like you and I wanted to display images that are a little larger so by forcing the browser full screen it allows for that....especially someone that is more financially challenged than yourself using a smaller screen and maybe only a 1024x768 screen resolution.</p>

I agree with Joseph (though without so much vehemence) that having my browser forced to fill the screen is annoying. Why should I need to press control keys in order to restore control of my browser to me?

 

Site design issues aside, your site has a fundamental flaw: lack of editing. No one wants to wade through hundreds of mediocre images. If the purpose of your site is simply to show people your work, you can post whatever you want. However, if you're trying to elicit work or make sales, inundating people with lots of unprofessional images won't help.

<p>It didn't change my browser (Safari 5.0.4). Interesting. I found the galleries very busy with all the thumbnails sorting out which you want to enlarge where displaying a dozen or so be easier to view and then scroll for more thumbnails.</p>

I disabled the source of so much grumpiness last night.

<p>Greg, despite your utterly defensive answers, some more feedback. You will probably not like it again, but here it goes all the same.</p>

<ul>

<li>The spacing between the square thumbnails in the galleries is much too little, makes it look to crowded. </li>

<li>The animation in the buttons is fairly useless, and not worth using Flash for if that means loosing the iCrowd.</li>

<li>I dislike sounds being played when they have zero added value. Even worse: it cannot be turned off. Sounds on websites should be optional.</li>

<li>The home link seems to be in a completely random place. It would be much more logical on the top left as another button.</li>

<li>Fonts in the buttons not in line with the font used for the other texts. Makes for a more messy and less streamlined look.</li>

<li>Less photos per page; I'm on a slow connection and loading this many thumbnails does not help much. Either paging, or less images.</li>

</ul>

<p>Not that I'm a great designer, but to me, your site shows nothing special as a site design. I think the free JAlbum can easily do better, in fact.</p>

<p>My utterly defensive answers only came after receiving personal attacks, which were uncalled for, while asking for a review of a simple website. I only explained the reasoning behind the full screen launch...I want to show larger images and not everyone is rich like Joseph and his 30" screen. I really do not think my defense was over the top, heck I even agreed that it may not be the best practice and removed that feature....I did not think it would piss so many people off.</p>

<p>Then to read a moderator post about my "HUNDREDS" of mediocre images...when he was supposed to be reviewing the website build, in my opinion, I think that is uncalled for especially coming from a mod. A more tactful statement might be to say Less is More, you might want to think about only posting your strongest images....rather than insinuating I have nothing good to look at. Has he looked at his portfolio lately? Geez, this certainly teaches me to consider the source of the criticism. My simple response to Mike Dixon is this....in celebration of the Full Super Moon Today, here is an 18+ Mediocre Photo directed to you to for your viewing pleasure: <a href="http://www.owenimages.com/_DSC0076.jpg">http://www.owenimages.com/_DSC0076.jpg</a></p>

<p>Even good will come from that attack, I will likely thin the herd of photos in the different categories so that the best and personal favorites are left. This should help. Even though the MOD has ZERO tact and poor communication skills I think he has a point...somewhere, burried in his statement. <br>

Wouter, I thank you for your "Constructive Critisism" however and believe you bring up many valid points that I will address in my spare time.</p>

<p>Greg</p>

<p>I liked your sight, and my first reaction was wow, I want to go shooting with this guy. Your pics are clean, sharp and didnt affect my browser. The thumbnails a bit too crowded, and it took a few pics to realize I could use the teeny-tiny numbers underneath the image to navigate to the next pic. But once you sort this out, you'll have a rockin website</p>

<p>Greg,<br>

Here is mine<br>

1. Too many little images on one page, consider selection only 20 best per page.<br>

2. I am on Chrome, its super fast for most websites, I personally think its the fastest of all the browsers, your site loads ok initially, but them I clicked on say image 22 on a particular page and there was about a minute wait before the image showed up. The site was loading all the large images ahead of the one I wanted to see so all I saw was a black box with the words "loading...." for about a minute. Most people would have already left your site thinking that the browser has hung up.<br>

3. No comment on the photography itself--thats your business.<br>

4. You should not have to explain to people how to navigate your site, this should be self-evident on load. <br>

5. Consider lowering the menu about 20 px. Consider less graphics but increase the font size. My eyes are great but some folks will squint. Perhaps a darker gray as background. <br>

6. Best of luck.</p>

 

<p>Thanks everyone. Some good feedback.</p>

<p>I rarely, if ever, get into these discussions, but I had to here. </p>

<p>That first response, in my opinion, was WAY over the top, rude and unnecessary. Hey, if a site doesn't work well for you on your computer, simply say so. The hyperbolic attacks were ridiculous. Unfortunately, this site has its share of folks who respond that way. Most (all?) sites do.</p>

<p>Wouter had some good, solid, constructive comments. Criticism can be done that way.</p>

<p>As far as your site, Greg, I agree with those who say there's a little too much. You've got some great work, but that's countered by too many similar, yet inferior, shots. The fact that it took up my whole screen was not bothersome at all. After I looked around for a bit, I simply closed it, and returned to where I was.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Martin.</p>

<p>After a quick glance, I can probably thin the herd pretty easily...rough numbers here:<br>

Remove 36 from Sports<br>

Remove 14 from Scenic<br>

Remove 30 from Celebs<br>

Remove 4 from Misc<br>

Remove 26 from Nature<br>

Total I could quickly and easily remove = 110 = 22% of all of the photos on the site.</p>

<p>I imagine that will be a quick first go of it...I will likely find more to toss....maybe I could push it to 30% with some careful study.</p>

<p>Well, I removed 106 photos (21%). This should help the quality of the galleries a little. I think I got rid of most of the average stuff while still keeping my favorites. There is balance in there somewhere.</p>

<p>As I get better photos, I will be able to eliminate more. All in due time. Now I should turn my attention to some of the other suggestions....</p>

<p>Hello All,<br>

I am going to introduce my new website <a href="http://www.acaiberry-australia.com.au">http://www.acaiberry-australia.com.au</a>. <br>

Please am going to launch it soon, please visit it and give me feedback about this.<br>

I will appreciate all feedbacks.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>