# Some feedback about my new website



## Dikkie (Jan 18, 2013)

Hi all,

Lately, I totally changed my website: layout, navigation, design... 

I ended up by a very basic thing. But I don't know how it is for the visitors as for usability/readability etc... 

Before I had a blog... but I deleted it, and now use Flickr to blog on... 

bulevardi

Any feedback will be welcome.

Thanks!
-D-


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 18, 2013)

I like it; it's simple, clean, informative and straight-forward. Well done.

I noticed that on your "photography essentials" page there are a few spots where random ?s have shown up, such as the first sentence under Aperature you have:  "....lens opening is shown as ? A ?..." .


----------



## Dikkie (Jan 28, 2013)

BlackSheep said:


> I noticed that on your "photography essentials" page there are a few spots where random ?s have shown up, such as the first sentence under Aperature you have: "....lens opening is shown as ? A ?..." .



Hmm Ok I see. 
Didn't notice that. It's the change of the font... The font does not show up that " character.
I'm going to replace the character correctly later on when I have the time.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 28, 2013)

I have some issues with your site that kind of directly contradict what BlackSheep has said. 

When I first visited your site, I had no idea what to click. I thought it was literally a one page website with nothing to "do" on it. I tried clicking the picture in the middle to enter the actual website that utilized more of my screen real estate... Nope, didn't work. I scrolled down as far as I could to look for an "Enter" button... Nope, couldn't find one. I then realized by hovering over your header that the "title" of the page is actually a series of links. 

The text is very difficult to read, not only for the size, but the font that you used. I'm unsure why you chose such a small font, and small content area to display your page with. 

You have a bunch of blue links on a light blue background in a small, serif font face... Which I find to be murderous on the eyes to read for any length of time. I got to your "connect" page and couldn't take it. 

Also, your copyright at the bottom reads 2010. 

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, as you probably coded this yourself... But there's quite a few simple things that you could to do increase the usability of your site.


----------



## .SimO. (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm not a big fan of the scripting section.  I get what you offer but if your main audience is going to be based on photography, then you should keep it that way.  The simple approach doesn't do it for me this time.  It is way too dull and nothing is attracting me to even want to click the "photography" section.  After viewing all three main categories, I still don't know what i'm supposed to get out of your site other than location and picture. I'm not getting the vibe of actual trips taken and taking in the essence from any of them.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 2, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I have some issues with your site that kind of directly contradict what BlackSheep has said.
> 
> When I first visited your site, I had no idea what to click. I thought it was literally a one page website with nothing to "do" on it. I tried clicking the picture in the middle to enter the actual website that utilized more of my screen real estate... Nope, didn't work. I scrolled down as far as I could to look for an "Enter" button... Nope, couldn't find one. I then realized by hovering over your header that the "title" of the page is actually a series of links.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the review!

I can take it as a compliment, because I meant to make the website that way. I like people get annoyed this way 

I hate first pages where you have to click 'enter' to enter... pointless. I omited the enter button.
It is not a do-website.
In the past 15 years that I've been making website, I've gone through lots of stuff: the web 1.0 > web 2.0. Bad table designs and correct <div> layouts. Blogs, websites for companies, interactive websites with feedback possibilities/comments/mail functionality... php driven mysql databases etc. Websites for a wide range of visitors that needed to be readable/usable.... 

...and now this last project: a website that has minimum readability/usability, non-interactive. Sober layout, functionality with javascript/jquery and without database.
I don't like web 2.0 websites at all. At the end, they're all the same.
I don't like obvious navigation menu's. I have been made websites with the menu in an unreadable other language than the content of the site. It was nice 
I wanted it smaller... but there was a minimum of readability needed. I can read it with my glasses, and it's tested on 60+ people who still can read it well. And since there is a CTRL + option in the browser, everyone can get any site readable.
The font I chose is a Sans Serif one ... not Serif.

I previously had a blog inside a larger website. I quit it after I got more interactivity on Flickr and have less time to update since I became a father, and still have tons of other hobbies to have fun with.
I wanted a more static website this time.
Probably this is my last project ever, just to store some of my pictures and scripts... I could have deleted it too... for new pictures I now use Flickr community.
I just wanted a more alternative website. 

Possibly, the layout will change in the next 2 years once more... I mostly change website/design each year, and mostly quite radically the opposite style 


.SimO. said:


> I'm not a big fan of the scripting section.  I get what you offer but if your main audience is going to be based on photography, then you should keep it that way.  The simple approach doesn't do it for me this time.  It is way too dull and nothing is attracting me to even want to click the "photography" section.  After viewing all three main categories, I still don't know what i'm supposed to get out of your site other than location and picture. I'm not getting the vibe of actual trips taken and taking in the essence from any of them.



Believe it or not. People mostly are passing by for the scripting section. 
The most of the visitors in my stats come by to download some VBA demo's for excel, like the calendar without the active X controls. 
As said above, I could have deleted the site aswel... but I only put these things online because lots of people all over the world seem to have the need to download some demo's and mail me because they're happy that their problem is solved by the things they found on the site. It gave me the motivation to not delete it and keep it available.
The photography section is just complementary...  as the scripting section is complementary to the visitors that come for the photos.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 2, 2013)

So you wanted feedback, and you respond with "I wanted to make the least intuitive, readable, and usable website I possibly could by defying simple, and adaptable design ideas. So basically I want my website to only appeal to myself." 

Lets face it, you didn't want feedback, because this website was "exactly the way you wanted it." If you wanted feedback, you'd actually listen to what people were saying in regards to the pile of code you promote as a website. This is the most frustrating thing for me, as someone who tried to give your website honest feedback, and spent time on it trying to use it. 

I've seen a LOT of websites, and there are things that just "work" and every website should have. Like a nav bar, like maximized screen real estate, like fonts that are readable up close and for extended periods. It's all up to how you style those elements. If you want your site to be used by people other than yourself, these are things you NEED to consider. You have less than 5 seconds to grab the attention of a viewer, your five seconds was technically up before I figured out what to do to see your work. If it were a website I was browsing on a whim, it would have been closed immediately and shunned into oblivion. You are essentially setting your website up to fail. 

Why don't you just host an apache server with your work on it? People might actually be able to figure it out before it makes their eyes bleed or they quit with frustration.


----------



## IByte (Feb 2, 2013)

First thing OP, if you built this site yourself, kudos and really respect people starting from scratch.  But a few things I have to ask if you don't mind?  Is this a general website for graphic design or do you want this to be your photography website?  If so you need to separate the two.  The whole feel I am getting from the site is more IT forum than a photography gallery. 

First off,  the site is way too blue(I'm still seeing blue spots).  The flow of this website IMO is way to rigid, i's not flowing. It feels cold and harsh, rather than warm and inviting; an if you view other photogs sites for examples you will understand my view.  You want to draw in clients or people in general, you have to connect with them, draw in their curiosity.  Use "warm" earth tone colors, maybe use Calibri font style, use some of you landscape photography as a banner.  My suggestion is use HTML5, it's newer coding I guarantee you will be a convert.

It seems you have some pretty decent work, but google a few of these members website, then go back try again with your site, my grade C-, just because you seem to have the know how, and there is actual potenial in both your website and photography. I wish you luck in the future.


----------



## sekhar (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm with Tyler on this, you really need to start over IMO...there are way too many things I don't like here. It looks like something I used to see many years back here in US. Or it could be a country thing: looks like you're from near Brussels, may be the sites you have there are different than those here in US. If you plan on serving US visitors, I'd say change.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 3, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Lets face it, you didn't want feedback, because this website was  "exactly the way you wanted it."


Yes and No.
I wasn't planning on even changing anything on the website because of others thoughts. I intended to make it so.

I wanted feedback just only to know how people think about it, how they feel when they're navigating, what it does to them.

Besides, it's not because a few people don't like it, that everyone dislikes it. 
Someone else already said: "I like it; it's simple, clean, informative and straight-forward. Well done."
But that doesn't mean that everybode thinks that way neither.



o hey tyler said:


> If you wanted feedback, you'd actually  listen to what people were saying in regards to the pile of code you  promote as a website. This is the most frustrating thing for me, as  someone who tried to give your website honest feedback, and spent time  on it trying to use it.


You have to know I really appreciate your efforts because it's the only way I get a honest feedback.



o hey tyler said:


> I've seen a LOT of websites, and there are things that just "work" and  every website should have. Like a nav bar, like maximized screen real  estate, like fonts that are readable up close and for extended periods.  It's all up to how you style those elements. If you want your site to be  used by people other than yourself, these are things you NEED to  consider. You have less than 5 seconds to grab the attention of a  viewer, your five seconds was technically up before I figured out what  to do to see your work. If it were a website I was browsing on a whim,  it would have been closed immediately and shunned into oblivion. *You are  essentially setting your website up to fail. *


That was the purpose... maybe you're still not getting it from my explaination before.

I know all that. I've seen a LOT of websites too, maybe too much. I'm on web'design' forums for years now, too.
I've already made plenty of websites. I know about usability and readability and what a navbar is intended for and that you have less than 5 seconds etc... I know about marketing too, as I made projects for businesses too.

I came from a website that was perfect made for visitors like you as you discribed, for a large audience. 

But now I don't need it anymore. I'm done with webdesign lately. It frustrates me that it's getting a more boring business than before. All websites look the same.
I'm kind of nostalgic to the websites I saw when I was younger, 18 years ago. Old style, but original. Wrong purposes.  
As I became a dad, I have less time for that. I still have plenty of other hobbies I want to fulfill like bicycling, basketball, playing guitar, going out with friends, travelling,... Still, I have a fulltime job AND am a dad. I chose to let go one of my hobbies: webdesign. I'm not going further in that. I don't need marketing, a target audience, tons of visitors to get publicity money, selling nothing.
But I still wanted some of my series of photos online, to show friends and family. Still wanted my coding stuff online for others to download. And still wanted some space of myself, in my own user-unfriendly design that I always wanted. It does not need to work for 'mainstream' as I don't use it as a visit card to show for a job offer.

But then again, I was curious to know what others thought about it. 



sekhar said:


> I'm with Tyler on this, you really need to start  over IMO...there are way too many things I don't like here. It looks  like something I used to see many years back here in US. Or it could be a  country thing: looks like you're from near Brussels, may be the sites  you have there are different than those here in US. If you plan on  serving US visitors, I'd say change.


Totally not a country thing. I just wanted to get this different from all other websites that look the same. My intention is succeeded.
I plan visitors from everywhere, aswel people from Brussels will think this site is odd.

And for me it's a plus that a website is sometimes a Zelda Quest to find out what it's meant for. Hide the obvious please.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 3, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I have some issues with your site that kind of directly contradict what BlackSheep has said.
> 
> When I first visited your site, I had no idea what to click. I thought it was literally a one page website with nothing to "do" on it. I tried clicking the picture in the middle to enter the actual website that utilized more of my screen real estate... Nope, didn't work. I scrolled down as far as I could to look for an "Enter" button... Nope, couldn't find one. I then realized by hovering over your header that the "title" of the page is actually a series of links.



This is... VERBATIM... my experience with your site.


----------



## sekhar (Feb 3, 2013)

e.rose said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I have some issues with your site that kind of directly contradict what BlackSheep has said.
> ...



But if you knew what to click, it'd be like any other site. Why'd you want that?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 3, 2013)

All websites do not look the same. Yes, you can get numerous themes and tweak them to the way you want them. In that regard, some are similar. If you have a web designer/brander like I did, your website will look quite different, as its custom designed/branded.

My site was not based off any template, and you'll be hard pressed to find one that looks similar or reacts the same.


----------



## IByte (Feb 3, 2013)

sekhar said:


> But if you knew what to click, it'd be like any other site. Why'd you want that?



Because when it comes to clients that potentially want to hire you; you want things K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid for us miltary folks) styl..


----------



## sekhar (Feb 3, 2013)

Guys, I was obviously being sarcastic!!! Did you read my first comment above? There is almost nothing I like about the site (and I agree with virtually everything Tyler said). Even the little content on the home page has a scroll bar, for crying out loud. I write web apps in my day job, and there is virtually nothing about this site that is consistent with the UI/UX design principles I follow.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

sekhar said:


> ... there is virtually nothing about this site that is consistent with the UI/UX design principles I follow.


Maybe, if you read what I wrote, you could see that this was the purpose to not follow the design principles, usability principles, readability principles.

I could do worse, I could do much more fun to frustrate visitors. 
But I kept it neat, no animated Gif's on every first page with 'under construction' signs.
I could place the unnecessary scrollbar at the left too, fun for confusing people  
No buttons mentioning that this site is made with frontpage.
No bad color contrasts so the font that is already small enough, won't be readable anymore.
No hided navigation that will only show if you hover with your mouse.
No annyoing mouse cursor in another style like crosshair or when you hover a link it changes the cursor to the progress or wait cursor.
No image in the header of the site that is 500px height so people with a 800*600px screen have to scroll down to find a navigation. No circular button in front with the logo of the site that ain't clickable neither. 


You obviously have no clue of the intentions that I had. You could have, but you readn't.

But the funny fact is that if you compare the website with ranking/value meter like Alexa or something else, it still rates good, or anyway better than Tyler's one that is made "the good way". (as an example I compared for fun).

bulevardi.be is worth $ 347 - Worth Of Web
tylerdrummphoto.com is worth $ 132 - Worth Of Web
Mine: By Alexa Traffic Rank 5,350,126 
Reputation: 26 
Tyler's by Alexa Traffic Rank 13,205,797 
Reputation: 2 
Or on Webuka - Website worth calculator you can see the difference too.



Ironically, I'm not in competition, not anymore. I don't have to find clients or have to do marketing.
I don't need the good principles anymore of what a good website should be, I can do without any rules what I want 
Ironically I knów how all stuff should be the correct way because I came from webdesign business and with my previous sites I did it the good way. I don't need any explainations about that


----------



## Benco (Feb 4, 2013)

Dikkie said:


> You obviously have no clue of the intentions that I had. You could have, but you readn't.



Well you've stated yourself that you intended your site to look and work like it does and everyone's agreed with that, you suceeded in making it very archaic. As to why you'd choose to do that, who knows? It's as if you've got yourself a horse drawn wagon when everyone else is driving cars and when asked why you say 'because I like horses'.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

Benco said:


> It's as if you've got yourself a horse drawn wagon when everyone else is driving cars and when asked why you say 'because I like horses'.


Almost.

It's more like I've got myself a horse drawn, and asking for feedback about it, and everyone begins about cars that are better, faster, more usable etc.. and not about that horse that could be better in brown instead of black 

In this example, I'd choose the horse instead of the car aswel. As I'm also using public transport rather than a car, shaving myself with a blade instead of a machine. I'm way back in time here. Would you read this message in time if I post it with a pigeon?


----------



## Benco (Feb 4, 2013)

Right. Reading between the lines it looks like you're trying to present yourself as someone edgy, someone different from the herd by deliberately making your site different in the only practical way, by making it old fashioned. That doesn't really work though, unless people know exactly why you've made the design choices that you have made your site just looks like a old, poorly built relic from an earlier internet age. If people do know what you're trying to do then for one thing they already know about you which renders such manipulations obsolete and for another it just makes you look as if you're trying to present an artifical image of how 'different' you are.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

Benco said:


> why you've made the design choices that you have made your site just looks like a old, poorly built relic from an earlier internet age.



Well it's not all that. 
A good example of a prehistoric website would be this: Website van Robert Vanderkuylen

In comparison, mine is still 'modern', it just has sober layout. 
There is in fact a big difference, certainly if you look at the code: tables, inline scripts, ... 

While I've used quite modern ways like jQuery, proper HTML markup, SEO friendly built,...

It looks like only 1 page, but you can access it with different urls:
bulevardi  or ?page=people, ... 
It looks like I used PHP instead, with 'include' functions, but it isn't, it's plain html with a whole javascript process that I built up, just to have some fun beating a php system.
No one would know that from the outside. No one would care neither, but if I compare with a prehistoric site... there really are big differences. Compared to the other site I mentioned... I could go worse than you can imagine


----------



## Benco (Feb 4, 2013)

However good it may be under the skin is irrelevant, it looks old, dull and stale, that's as far as a lot of people will go with it. My reaction to your site is 'Meh' and I suspect that's how most people will react to it. If you wanted to make a site that was off putting to the largest possible number of people then well done, you've achieved it.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

Benco said:


> My reaction to your site is 'Meh' and I suspect that's how most people will react to it. If you wanted to make a site that was off putting to the largest possible number of people then well done, you've achieved it.



HOORAY !!


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 4, 2013)

The difference between your website and my website is that my website actually gets clients. Which apparently Alexa doesn't count for. Great job, you used the snapsort of websites. 

You are potentially the most backwards thinking person I've ever met. Just be glad you're not doing paid or commissioned work, as the layout of your website would actually matter. I'm still lost as to why you'd want to have a website that you coded by smashing your head on a keyboard, but to each their own, I suppose.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 4, 2013)

P.S. I am completely certain that calling yourself a web designer is stretching the truth. You may have coded and built sites in 1998, but web design has changed and left you very far behind.


----------



## Tee (Feb 4, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> P.S. I am completely certain that calling yourself a web designer is stretching the truth. You may have coded and built sites in 1998, but web design has changed and left you very far behind.



It's kinda like when Facebook photographers say they've been shooting for 30 years when really what they mean is they've owned point and shoots that got pulled out for birthdays and Christmas. 

I had a Geocities page in 2001 but that didn't make me a web designer. Lol.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 4, 2013)

I didn't have any problem with the navigation.

On Chrome, however, the entire page scrolls AND the tiny little box in the middle scrolls. Both of these are annoying, since there's not enough content anywhere to warrant scrolling. Making me scroll to see your content is actually just asking me to hit the Back button, unless your content is INCREDIBLY COMPELLING.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 4, 2013)

Tee, another thing I find to be funny is that if you go to Pingdom tools, and enter both of our websites, mine consistently outperforms his archaic site 82/100 to 79/100. 

I wonder what other benchmarks we can test that don't really matter?


----------



## runnah (Feb 4, 2013)

I wish people would just pony up the $$ and hire someone. There is so much going on behind the scenes that make the difference between success and failure.

65% of my clients are people who tried to build their own site or had their friend/brother/cousin build it for them.


----------



## sekhar (Feb 4, 2013)

Dikkie, I appreciate your passion and conviction, but please also follow basic forum etiquette (and common courtesy). All of us went to your website, spent time there, and took the effort to give you feedback. We did it as fellow TPF members, and we did it gratis. And instead of saying thanks, you come back and insult us because you don't like how we feel?

I don't think it's productive to extend the discussion, but I did want to part with a suggestion (more to others like you, not to you specifically) that if you do start a post asking for feedback, please do state your intention better. E.g., in your case, your original post asked: "...But I don't know how it is for the visitors as for usability/readability etc... Any feedback will be welcome." And that's what we did: we assessed it for usability/readability/etc. and told you what we thought. If you'd asked us if we thought it was edgy, we'd have given you a different assessment. Anyway, enough said.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

sekhar said:


> In your case, your original post asked: "...But I don't know how it is for the visitors as for usability/readability etc... Any feedback will be welcome." And that's what we did: we assessed it for usability/readability/etc. and told you what we thought.


I fully understand. But no one seems to get the irony in that ...  

E.g.: If I made a website in black and white only, and asked for a review of the colors I used. I wouldn't think I'd have to explain later on that it was not actually the colors...  but I fully understand some people would try to assess the colors.

Even after explaining it 3 times, some people still miss the point and react as they haven't read anything I explained. But I guess they've just been playing a game the whole time.


o hey tyler said:


> The difference between your website and my website is that my website actually gets clients.


If you read what I wrote, you'd know I don't need clients. The site is definitely not a visitor card.
Anyway, I guess it's furthermore pointless to explain all this to you, again.
I already know it's not me, in other topics you react the same to anyone else 


o hey tyler said:


> You are potentially the most backwards thinking person I've ever met.


First of all, you never met me. Second, I have the ability to think in other directions than only forward, too.
Besides in some situations in life, forward is not always the good way.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 4, 2013)

Your website isn't very nice to look at.

It reminds me of one of those text based role playing games on Windows 98.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> It reminds me of one of those text based role playing games on Windows 98.


I love that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Thanks for the compliment.

Or GameBoy in MonoChrome. 
You gave me a radiant idea, Sir !


----------

