I like them and am pretty happy but feel like something is slightly off. The coloring here and there could be improved, and it feels like something is out of focus. I tried analyzing it part by part, but each part in isolation I like a lot.
posted
I kinda mentally picture those kind of sites as the "wrong address heres a random search engine" kind of site you may wanna change the layout a bit. Maybe have an intro page with language select to make it seem less like the above.
IP: Logged |
posted
. . . why would he have an intro page with a language select for a blog? Also, research is quite clear that such pages drive readership way down. They should be avoided as much as possible.
I do agree that it feels like a wrong address here page, and not just because of the placeholder content.
A few things: this is a blog. Blogs are about your posts, not about your bio. Your post content needs to be front and center.
Either "Reader Comments" or "Readers' Comments", never "Readers Comments".
Putting Join a Clinical Study and Guest Post around an ad block makes them feel like ads (and not in the sense that they are ). Unless you are much more likely to attract guest posts than I think, you don't need such fixation on the possibility. Just a small link in the sidebar on the blog section.
The heavy use of gradients looks very amateurish (and contributes to the search-farm page appearance).
The dichotomy between "Doctors" and "Readers" is a bit odd.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Off the top of my head, I'm afraid I agree with Blayne. This may be partly due to the clip art used in the mockup... it might look better with more personalized photos.
You definitely want a more fully developed top banner; what you have right now couldn't be more bland and generic, and that sets the tone for the entire page. The explanatory paragraph beneath isn't much better, either...
Finally, the page is too wide. Even when viewed in a maximized window on a 1280x1024 monitor, it's still wider than the browser. Many users will have smaller display modes, and will be running their browsers in windows that don't use the full screen.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure if it is just something with mine but I have to scroll to the right to center the page.
Otherwise I would suggest(in my humble unprofessional blog reading opinion.)That the small bio be moved, and the latest blog be first and foremost. Also that it pops a little more to try to grab my attention. The first thing I look at are the ads and the clinical trail thing, which isn't great.
All the colors seem kinda bland too. Nothing to contain my eye from wandering if you know what I mean.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly I'ma have to agree with everyone here. My first thought was "wait did I go to the right site? Or is this one of those generic search engine-ish things?"
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, "Health and Life" is extremely generic and hard to Google for. That will hurt your rate of spread via word of mouth.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to admit this, but I have absolutely nothing positive to say about either layout. The colors are washed out, the page is way too wide with an excess of dead space on both sides of the content. There's no reason to have two bio blocks, and the bio should be either on the sidebar (preferably not at the top) or maybe as a page footer. I agree with the comments about the buttons that surround the ad field. And given the apparent subject, I think I would avoid the word "blog" and use something like "articles" instead.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: width, the only width that would matter is of the central block. This is just a mockup image; presumably the background colors would span the entire page, and the central content area is all that would be of fixed size.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to find a nicer way to say "fire your designer" and failing.
Just Say No to gradients.
Also, there's so much whitespace at the top that someone browsing with a netbook or other small-screen device is barely going to be able to see the headline for your feature article.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one question that occurs to me: how much are you paying them? I've heard of some designers that are pretty good (checking out the rest of Designgeneral's portfolio they don't look too bad) but when offered the minimum payment, churn out very minimal results.
I do feel really bad that Phanto is gonna come back and see all this intense criticism.
[ October 07, 2009, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe point him to some examples that you like. I am not a blog guy, so don't have much experience...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
I was mostly running with a bolder version of the original color scheme, although the original scheme feels a little weird for the content you were going for. How is your website supposed to "feel?" It is supposed to feel crisp and clinically professional, or are you trying to get away from that somewhat with a more down to earth friendly feel? (The "Weird Facts about Caffeine, Viagra and Coke" article front and center kinda throws off whatever mood I initially got from the site and I'm really not sure what you were trying for)
You might look at Hospital or other medical websites to get a sense of the aesthetics out there.
Other websites you may want to be thinking about the existance of (both in considering about colors/mood/theme as well as choosing a name for the site that's not too similar to something else. I don't know how the legality of it works)
posted
Thanks for the input guys. A lot of good ideas, and I just don't have the time at the moment to properly respond.
I really, really appreciate it, and it's just kinda sad that I didn't catch all those issues you noticed.
Wow - Raymond, that actually looks decent, and presumably didn't take you that much time. The feel should be somewhere in between professional and accessible. The mission is to make complicated medical issues easy to understand and I guess it all flows from there...
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I spent about 2 hours yesterday doing a version I ended up not liking, and then another hour and a half today doing the version you see now.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked your design, too, the one you linked to.
Among all the issues that others have mentioned, the font just wasn't doing it for me on the original designs. It's part of what gave it that mistaken website feel in my opinion. One of things that stood out in a good way about Raymond's is the title. SUCH a big difference!
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - thanks for taking the time, Raymond. That you did that means a lot. That so many people are providing input and help here is reminding me how wonderful hatrack can be, and it's great to know that people here actually have some idea who I am. (I am not that involved with community but try to add something now and then).
The designer sent an updated version which you can see here:
I don't think the latest version (while better) is as good as any of the themes R.Bhavesh has created. Could your designer perhaps work off of the framework of a free wordpress theme to customize? WooThemes has a bunch of good ones (as well as some nifty premium themes).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). Unless you are much more likely to attract guest posts than I think, you don't need such fixation on the possibility. Just a small link in the sidebar on the blog section.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
