On 1/19/10 8:54 AM, Lakshmi Vyasarajan wrote: > > Old Page: http://ringce.com/slammer <http://ringce.com/slammer> > New Page: http://ringce.com/slammer/index.html > <http://ringce.com/slammer/index.html> > > This is an early attempt at getting feedback so the tabs on the new page > and the outgoing links don't work yet.
I don't think either site is particularly effective for this tool. First, both sites are overdesigned: the design is beautiful, but I feel as if I am looking at the online version of a fine arts journal. The current site is too heavy on graphic effects (ornate display type, images) and the proposed new site is too heavy on text. In both cases the powder-blue-on-dark-gray background is hard to read. Second, while the copy is better in the second site than the first, the copy still tells me nothing about how the tool can help me. As someone who does a great deal of publication design with tools such as InDesign, I might be part of the target market, but I have no clue why this program is useful. All I know it's a "grid overlay tool." The copy should focus on benefits, not features. Why is a grid overlay tool useful to a graphic designer? Perhaps you consider that self-evident, but it's not. The site color would be OK if there were a better balance between text and graphics, and if the text got immediately to the point about the benefits of the product. I understand that this tool is aimed at graphic designers and you are trying to embody beautiful design values in your site--that's good, and a useful way to connect with this audience. But right now the aesthetics are getting in the way. With a bit of work on the design and a lot of work on the copy, this will be more effective. --Kevin -- Kevin Walzer Code by Kevin http://www.codebykevin.com
