new site ready, let me have it

[Andy]

hi everyone,

so i've spent the last few days with mike lane, re-doing my site. would you mind taking a look, and sharing back your opinions, comments, critiques on the website design?

fwiw, we tried to design for 1024x768. this was not easy for me - i'm not a web developer, but i am someone who's always had huge screens and big resolution.

what can i say about mike? he's great to work with, and he delivers the goods. he's amazingly patient, especially with someone who is not an html or css expert (moi). he's incredibly creative. he came up with the basic designs, and then i began modifications and together we came up with the end result.

i'd appreciate your feedback, thanks in advance.

(click on the pic)

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/38079815-M.jpg (www.moonriverphotography.com)

[wholenewlight]

hi everyone,


Very, very clean and well organized. I love it.

Nice front end page for your galleries. Simple. At first I wasn't sure if I liked the full thumbnail view on your Buy Prints page but it works with your selections - lots of color and interest pulling viewer's into checking out the individual thumbs. "Eye on NYC" . . . you and Shay teaming up? . . . what's the world coming to . . . dogs & cats living together, etc . . .cool.

Yesterday, I left you a guestbook message on the site.

:thumb

[StevenV]

Verra Cool, good job to both of you. nice & clean, I like it.

now just make a favicon.ico of the moon and you'll be set ;-)

[Andy]

Verra Cool, good job to both of you. nice & clean, I like it.

now just make a favicon.ico of the moon and you'll be set ;-)

i tried to make a favicon that was usable - 16x16 ain't much room now, is it? if you have any ideas, i'm all :ear

thanks for the feedback :D

[Andy]

Very, very clean and well organized. I love it.

Nice front end page for your galleries. Simple. At first I wasn't sure if I liked the full thumbnail view on your Buy Prints page but it works with your selections - lots of color and interest pulling viewer's into checking out the individual thumbs. "Eye on NYC" . . . you and Shay teaming up? . . . what's the world coming to . . . dogs & cats living together, etc . . .cool.

Yesterday, I left you a guestbook message on the site.

:thumb

thank you, john :D for the detailed feedback - really appreciate it. yes, and i saw your comment, too :thumb

[StevenV]

16x16 ain't much room now, is it?
nope, it's bloody small that's for sure. I'm trying to figure it out myself (and then how to get one actually loaded for a smugmug site).

[Andy]

nope, it's bloody small that's for sure. I'm trying to figure it out myself (and then how to get one actually loaded for a smugmug site).

how to make a favicon for your smugmug site (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=17147)
i assume you've seen this?

[rainforest1155]

Nice and very compact layout - I really like the fact that there's only a limited or no need for scrolling on most pages.
But somehow I've got a horizontal scrollbar for no visible reason both in IE6 and mozilla. I'm on 1024x768.

Also there's a layer problem with your moon when viewing pictures as a popup, like here (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/popup.mg?ImageID=32379618&Size=Original). That's for sure a nice way of watermarking pictures. :D
Speaking of which - how did you manage to "watermark" some picture without affecting the original?
Example 1 (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/734406/4/32379618/Large) (always appears in bottom right part - the small strange coloured stripe)
Example 2 (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/734406/3/32379594/Large)
The more I think of - that looks like a JPG-error that occured during processingm but what puzzles me about this is that all 3 sizes and even the thumbs are affected. Does this mean the large is the basis for all other sizes or something like that?!

Looks like a case for our favorite support team! *whistling-old-Batman-TV-theme-song* :D

Sebastian

[Andy]

The more I think of - that looks like a JPG-error that occured during processingm but what puzzles me about this is that all 3 sizes and even the thumbs are affected. Does this mean the large is the basis for all other sizes or something like that?!

Looks like a case for our favorite support team! *whistling-old-Batman-TV-theme-song* :D

Sebastian

thanks sebastian - great feedback. i'm sure mike can fix the moon-covering the large single image view thingy.

as to the other error - yikes! thanks for point that out - those aren't watermarks they are something totally different going on there. the same thing is in my original files, too so i'm going to have to take a look at that. those files, i did for smugmug for a gallery to promote the google maps thing - and i used a crummy piece of software for inputting the gps information (this was before the feature went live on smugmug) and so my guess is that some of the files got corrupted in that process.

thanks again for looking so carefully

ps: the reason for the horiz scroll bar in 1024x768 is becuase the moonglow actually goes wider (i think?) anyhow, mike said "there's a reason for that, andy." :lol3

[marlof]

I like the look of the site. It's fresh and clean, and all information is where I'd expect it. Future clients can get a good idea of what they're getting, both in time, expenses and quality of your images. Good job to both you and Mike.

[rainforest1155]

as to the other error - yikes! thanks for point that out - those aren't watermarks they are something totally different going on there. the same thing is in my original files, too so i'm going to have to take a look at that. those files, i did for smugmug for a gallery to promote the google maps thing - and i used a crummy piece of software for inputting the gps information (this was before the feature went live on smugmug) and so my guess is that some of the files got corrupted in that process. If it were so it wouldn't be so mysterious: On SM all sizes except the 1200 x 800 big original have the problem!
Large (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/734406/3/32379594/Large) vs. Original (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/popup.mg?ImageID=32379594&Size=Original)
This is also true for the other example I gave.
Therefore it's somehow SM's fault. :dunno

the reason for the horiz scroll bar in 1024x768 is becuase the moonglow actually goes wider (i think?) anyhow, mike said "there's a reason for that, andy." :lol3So it is supposed to be this way?! :rofl

Sebastian

[Mike Lane]

thanks sebastian - great feedback. i'm sure mike can fix the moon-covering the large single image view thingy.

as to the other error - yikes! thanks for point that out - those aren't watermarks they are something totally different going on there. the same thing is in my original files, too so i'm going to have to take a look at that. those files, i did for smugmug for a gallery to promote the google maps thing - and i used a crummy piece of software for inputting the gps information (this was before the feature went live on smugmug) and so my guess is that some of the files got corrupted in that process.

thanks again for looking so carefully

ps: the reason for the horiz scroll bar in 1024x768 is becuase the moonglow actually goes wider (i think?) anyhow, mike said "there's a reason for that, andy." :lol3
Yeah, that's definitely file corruption. Something along the lines of what happened to some of my pics when I installed bad ram (except it was WAY worse for me). So don't let that happen guys...

[rainforest1155]

If it were so it wouldn't be so mysterious: On SM all sizes except the 1200 x 800 big original have the problem!
Large (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/734406/3/32379594/Large) vs. Original (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/popup.mg?ImageID=32379594&Size=Original)
This is also true for the other example I gave.
Therefore it's somehow SM's fault. :dunno Ok, I looked a littlebit closer. For some reason faulty part of the original isn't shown in my browser, but it is after saving it and viewing it with IrfanView. Therefore I thought the error isn't on the original.

I take the blame from SM and give it to the real cause: It's not smugmug's fault, but all Andy's fault - I'm relieved! :D

Sebastian

P.S.: I hope you haven't overwritten any of your real precious originals with this crappy tool. I tag all my photos with gps-data (written into exif) before uploading with the WWMX Location Stamper (http://wwmx.org/). The only downside with the tool is that you need to have a GPS-logfile to do so.
Does somebody a tool where you can GPS-tag the exif-data of photos without the need for track logs?

[Andy]

Ok, I looked a littlebit closer. For some reason faulty part of the original isn't shown in my browser, but it is after saving it and viewing it with IrfanView. Therefore I thought the error isn't on the original.

I take the blame from SM and give it to the real cause: It's not smugmug's fault, but all Andy's fault - I'm relieved! :D

Sebastian

P.S.: I hope you haven't overwritten any of your real precious originals with this crappy tool. I tag all my photos with gps-data (written into exif) before uploading with the WWMX Location Stamper (http://wwmx.org/). The only downside with the tool is that you need to have a GPS-logfile to do so.
Does somebody a tool where you can GPS-tag the exif-data of photos without the need for track logs?

:lol3 yes, it's all my fault! whip me, beat me hehehe

nah - i never used my orig's on that tool - not to worry :D thanks for the link - but now, it's really easy to edit geography info via smugmug, so i just do it there :deal soon, it'll be automatic as gps receivers will be installed on our cameras :wxwax

[flyingdutchie]

Andy,
Your smugmug site is very nice; simple and stylish!
-- Anton.

[rainforest1155]

:lol3 yes, it's all my fault! whip me, beat me heheheAs you wish - :whip

nah - i never used my orig's on that tool - not to worry :D thanks for the link - but now, it's really easy to edit geography info via smugmug, so i just do it there :deal soon, it'll be automatic as gps receivers will be installed on our cameras :wxwaxYeah, for big cities in the US and UK it definately works, but over in good ole Germany and everywhere else they're no streetmaps availiable via the web google maps, yet. The resolution is also very bad for chosing where to put the pushpin. I hope they'll at least integrate the streetmaps from google earth into the web version, because there is already some useful data in it.

For the tagging itself I prefer to do it once on my originals and then never have to worry about anymore, because SM will read it out of the exif data whenever I reupload the picture.
Yep, did mean the part with the originals. The tool does make backups of the pictures and I checked it by removing all exif+other metadata of the gps-tagged and the original picture - after that the remaining data is just the picture itself being completly identical.
So at least the WWMX Location Stamper (http://wwmx.org/) does not change the picture itself in any way. :thumb

Sebastian

[DavidTO]

Andy,

Site looks great. Like I told you before, I love the moon, the glow and the image below. They all work together nicely.

I looked around, and the one thing that I noticed is that the first thing I read on your order page was:

Stay tuned to this space. Soon I will be announcing a limited edition of signed high quality, fine art prints, in large sizes. I'll also be taking orders for a limited edition boxed set of my photographs.

I think that if I was a first time visitor I might think, dang, guess I'll have to wait for those limited edition thingies--instead of understanding that I could go ahead and order an unlimited edition right then and there. Easy to fix with a slight re-wording. Right now it reads like an "under construction" notice.

[Markjay]

My 2 cents. In Canada, it's not even worth that much!! :):

The top graphic on the page.... is really nice and a great improvement.
The bottom part of the screen, the horizon of tress (?) is not adding anything to the design and feels out of place now. Remove it. Put something else there or..... just leave it a blank area, because right now it's simply competing for attention with your nice moon graphic.

More later..... when time allows.

Best regards,
Markjay



hi everyone,

so i've spent the last few days with mike lane, re-doing my site. would you mind taking a look, and sharing back your opinions, comments, critiques on the website design?

fwiw, we tried to design for 1024x768. this was not easy for me - i'm not a web developer, but i am someone who's always had huge screens and big resolution.

what can i say about mike? he's great to work with, and he delivers the goods. he's amazingly patient, especially with someone who is not an html or css expert (moi). he's incredibly creative. he came up with the basic designs, and then i began modifications and together we came up with the end result.

i'd appreciate your feedback, thanks in advance.

(click on the pic)

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/38079815-M.jpg (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/)

[DavidTO]

Oh, and I think that clicking on your logo at top should take me to the home page.

[Andy]

Oh, and I think that clicking on your logo at top should take me to the home page.

yes, as it used to be - i'll fix that shortly
thanks david

[rutt]

Very attractive site. One thing I noticed is that it not all the shots have distinct titles, making it difficult to leave comments on particular shots (maybe you think this is a good thing?) But even "Santa Cruz #2" or "Santa Cruz 2/23/04" would be useful for this purpose.

One reason for being able to do this is to request that you make a particular shot availble for buying prints...

[Andy]

i was on mike lane's "free" list but honestly, after how much time i saw that he put into this, i paid him for his services, and paid happily.

thanks again, mike.

[Mike Lane]

i was on mike lane's "free" list but honestly, after how much time i saw that he put into this, i paid him for his services, and paid happily.

thanks again, mike.
Wow, Andy, thanks a bunch. I really appreciate that!

[pat.kane]

Nice looking site and I appreciate the fact there isn't any banner bloat.

I believe that if the header graphic were in the CSS (vice the page's html) as the background image, the horizontal scroll bar would go away.

[Mike Lane]

I believe that if the header graphic were in the CSS (vice the page's html) as the background image, the horizontal scroll bar would go away.
Nope. The horizontal scrollbar is a result of the size of the container for the moon image and that container's position within the header element. The images are backgrounds vice being inserted via img tags.

Can't get around the scroll bar in 1024x768 or so and lower without clipping the moonglow unfortunately.

[pat.kane]

Mike, I'm trying to figure out why you did the header graphic the way you did. Consider this a part of your ongoing education of people in these newsgroups as I'm barely CSS aware.

If the "Moon River Photography" text and the moon were one background image sitting inside the CSS you wouldn't need the container in the html and wouldn't get the scroll bar.

What I'm thinking though is that if you did this, it would be more difficult to position the menu text (easy to fix) and/or keep it centered on the page as that is the chosen layout (maybe not as easy), hence the need for the container.

I did notice something else that should be changed if you can. As you reduce the browser's width in Firefox and IE6, the image at the bottom of the page stops moving and leaves a big gap while everything else keeps pushing left.

[Mike Lane]

Mike, I'm trying to figure out why you did the header graphic the way you did. Consider this a part of your ongoing education of people in these newsgroups as I'm barely CSS aware.

If the "Moon River Photography" text and the moon were one background image sitting inside the CSS you wouldn't need the container in the html and wouldn't get the scroll bar.

What I'm thinking though is that if you did this, it would be more difficult to position the menu text (easy to fix) and/or keep it centered on the page as that is the chosen layout (maybe not as easy), hence the need for the container.

I did notice something else that should be changed if you can. As you reduce the browser's width in Firefox and IE6, the image at the bottom of the page stops moving and leaves a big gap while everything else keeps pushing left.
I want the capability of moving, resizing, or removing the moon from a page of my choosing. That is why the moon is in a separate element on it's own. The size of the glow (which Andy likes) is what has made the scroll bar and the perception that the tree / water is off center.

Furthermore, if the header images were all one image, it would be wider than 1024 x 768 (as we can already see) and in pages that are larger than 1024 px wide, the text would appear to be pushed off to the left side. Doing it this way I was able to create a header box and position 3 different (the title, the moon, and the navbar) elements absolutely within that header box.

Hope that helps.

[pat.kane]

Thanks for the explanation as I better understand why you did it the way you did.

The size of the glow (which Andy likes) is what has made the scroll bar and the perception that the tree / water is off center.
What I was trying to point out was the gap at the left margin. When I reduce the width of the page I expect the tree/water image to keep moving all the way to the left margin before getting clipped off the right side.

[Mike Lane]

Thanks for the explanation as I better understand why you did it the way you did.


What I was trying to point out was the gap at the left margin. When I reduce the width of the page I expect the tree/water image to keep moving all the way to the left margin before getting clipped off the right side.
I know exactly what you mean with the tree water graphic. It's all because of the moonglow.

[rainforest1155]

Andy,
just saw in your source the following line:
<DIV id=MRPFooter><A href="<A href="http://www.moonriverphotography.com">ALL">http://www.moonriverphotography.com">ALL IMAGES © ANDY WILLIAMS - MOON RIVER PHOTOGRAPHY</A></DIV>
But it's not visible on the page in IE6. Did you intend this?

Sebastian

[Andy]

Andy,
just saw in your source the following line:
<DIV id=MRPFooter><A href="<A href="http://www.moonriverphotography.com">ALL">http://www.moonriverphotography.com">ALL IMAGES © ANDY WILLIAMS - MOON RIVER PHOTOGRAPHY</A></DIV>
But it's not visible on the page in IE6. Did you intend this?

Sebastian

hi sebastian - it's supposed to be there on every page except the homepage. i see it fine, mac>safari and firefox. are you not seeing it on this page (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/52248) for example? :ear

[rainforest1155]

hi sebastian - it's supposed to be there on every page except the homepage. i see it fine, mac>safari and firefox. are you not seeing it on this page (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/52248) for example? :earMy fault. I only looked at your frontpage source and didn't try any of the other pages. Everything is fine then.

Sebastian

[Andy]

My fault. I only looked at your frontpage source and didn't try any of the other pages. Everything is fine then.

Sebastian

whew :D