WOW! great critique. exactly what anyone who is a designer wants to hear.
good intelligent critiqueing! thank you kevin. more iterations coming tonight :) ill send up another version this evening. not that anyone will be holding their breath, but in case you can look, thanks! tw On 8/10/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well the description of "Flash site" was less to describe the tech > than to describe the light on useful presentation and high on abstract > aesthetic. It just doesn't feel like the site is trying to sell me on > apartments. Sorry. > > If you do keep the design concept, there are some things that could > use help. The size of the content block (under the tree area) doesn't > match the contents. Whitespace is good, but all the space under the > text and buttons and none on top makes them feel crammed to the > top.The large margin between the text and buttons makes the margins of > the text and left edge and buttons and right edge feel cramped. And > then the space between the two buttons is yet another unmatched, > arbitrary space. They don't all need to be pixel perfect matches, they > just need to complement each other and they don't right now. > > I think the rounded corner box around the descriptive text is too > much. It becomes effect for the veneer of design instead of something > that enhances the design. I think you would be better served dropping > the extra box around the description, filling the area with more text > to fill the space and give the text more leading to make it breathe. > If you do that, I would bring the left side in more giving it more > margin there instead of extending the right side to fill that gap. > > I'd also like to see a bit more distinction between the header/accent > text and the body text. The "Welcome to..." text doesn't pop. I really > like the handling of the button text though. The large text with tight > kerning of the name with the all lowercase, tracked out "apartments" > in the green is really nice. The bottom bar of contact info is pretty > good too. I like the "contact davis realty" being a focal point but > the inconsistent handling of the other text just makes me a little > squirmy. I think the wide tracked url and the really tight "for > information" provide too much contrast. And since numbers always go to > the cap height and most of your text is x-height, the numbers feel > heavier than the rest even though they look like they're technically > the same size. I'd also consider making the "click below for more > information" a light color, weight, smaller or something. It's not > content text but it attracts the eye too much right now, distracting > from the important parts. > > Those are all fine-tweaking details though. They aren't major issues, > just finesse. What I get hung up on is the overall floaty-ness of it. > The clouds are beautiful and I really like the way they blend into the > white background with the blue trapped in the middle creating an > interesting figure-ground relationship and setting the body to have a > margin/padding of 0 to lose the top white margin enhances that. But > the content bar at the bottom feels just...incomplete. It's floating > there in space. Here, the white background is working against the > design and on larger monitors that problem is more pronounced. I know > this is an isolated jpg though, so there may be something you intend > that isn't coming across here. If you ARE trying to have it actually > have the feel of land floating in mid-air then I would have the design > of the content box reflect that instead of being a simple rectangle. > > I also notice that on an 800x600 display, there is no content other > than the clouds, tree and a sliver of "ground". The rest is "below the > fold". I know there aren't many 8x6 displays out there anymore, but > the way the content fits makes it seem almost intentional. It's > actually a really neat effect if this was a portfolio site. But for > what appears to be a brochure site, not having the name above the fold > is probably not a good idea. > > Don't take these comments as a blistering critique or anything. You're > taking some risks with the design and that's cool to see (it's > certainly been a while since I've done so.) I'm just not sure the > approach sells apartments. I'm by no means saying you need to go back > to the drawing board. I think you could iterate the design a bit more > and see if it comes together. > > Cheers and good luck! > > -Kevin > > On 8/9/05, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > interesting... and i concur. (wasnt my aim... maybe looking > > at all those flash 8 sites has me in a flash state of mind) > > > > is that a negative thing? i dont know? > > > > remember 99% of the clients are not tech heads so im not sure that > > correlation would be present? > > > > thank you :) > > tony > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:168769 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
