i played with that last night... and bringing a REAL world object into
the design kinda took away from the "light airy feel"

maybe a pencil sketch of one?

tw

On 8/10/05, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to see an attractive apartment building in the area to the right of
> the tree. The building should be only partially visible.
> 
> Matthew Small
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: interface critique
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Flash for programmers - Flash MX Pro
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=56

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:168772
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=89.70.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to