http://www.neveredenproductions.com/

Never Eden Productions is my company site... Umm I made a really basic design trying to put out what I've got to say... BUT! my site has to be more artistic? basicly does any one have any really really good sugestions for my site... cause I'm running out of ideas... + Crits would be cool seeing that I dont make sites all that often..

PS. The Art section not even done.. I want to tear down entier site and make it Flash, but I dont know flash yet... so if I come across a good HTML design then I'm happy

that was the worst menu ever, no offense

by the first look of the frontpage it looks like a non-working site,
as you don't see any apparent links or menu.
(and no i don't read the text )



and don't do flash, it is horrible, would make you site complely inaccessible.

if you can do better, by all means please doo, cause I cant think of nething else -_-

I reckon it must have a lot of work for the first page, but honestly it took me a bit too long to realice it should be doing something. I think you may loose many visitor by keeping it or at least (I also hate to get rid of anything I´ve worked in ) try make the links more "noisy" and the display. dunno, it comes up to me now for instance to light the display (like the mobile phones) when onmouseover the links. dunno, just an idea, I´m no web disigner, just simple user.

I like the concept but even on a 21" monitor @ 1152x864 I find the links difficult to locate and mouseover text hard to read. Maybe a smaller full view of the camera but with an exploded macro view of just that particular area used for navigation might work. I can envision it with visual zoom tracers betwixt the two.

I too am just a simple user and know that when I first hit a page I am more likely to attemp a visual fix on the navigation prior to reading any text directions. Even so the links do seem to be a sort of easter egg hunt. With that said, I still stress I like the concept, would just be nice for it to be a bit more intuitive.

Cheers,
Glem2

well I guess I did a good job in editing the picture of my camera? lol if no one can find the links then I matched everything up perfectly...

Alright so a closer look at the camer? just that its hard to find interesting parts to a camera.. maybe I'll just give it a different angle and have the screen open with the menu on there.. that might look better as well... besides that maybe change the site white with some cool depth of feild photography in the corners..

ne sugestions? really a wide open subject on design.. I could probly do it.. as long as it requires photography

with my camera as the site, must be easy to determind.. I'm a Director of Photography
ne way nuff bout me

IMHO...

Firstly I would like to say that the concept is great, its just a shame that the size of the buttons and the LCD display on the camera are very small compared to the size of the camera itself. This is causing two problems:

1. The size of the menu (camera) has to be huge so the buttons can be a reasonable size, this means your menu is using too much room, and your content is being forced off the bottom of the screen on lower resolutions.

2. The actual 'hit-area' of your buttons and the size of the LCD display are very small compared to the size of the camera/menu. Small buttons and associated rollover text in large menus will always produce a counter-intuitive feel.

One solution would be to replace your photograph of an actual camera, with either an illustration or 3d rendered camera.

This way you can design the look of the camera to feature larger buttons and a bigger LCD display (and remove the buttons which have no purpose on the current menu - which will also cause some confusion).


That's my main point out of the way... now I just wanted to add this:

Akh

You are correct in saying that this menu could easily be done in HTML/JS, but only a fool would dismiss Flash technology as 'inaccessible'. The truth is Flash has fought hard to become a integral part of the web, and its use will continue to grow. Either you embrace it or you will be left behind.

if you're wanting to make an accessible site, then you shouldn't use flash, for the same reasons you shouldn't use javascripts and cookies.

Flash also limits the users ability to control the interface, they can't increase the font size, or turn style sheets off. Many users will also find the fancy graphics often associated with flash disorientating. It does not take any more than common sense to realise these points, and i also realise that flash could be accompanied by a html site, this however, adds to the designers work load... i could go on, but there is little point

who is your key-demographic? that is the most important thing to consider

We are arguing about two different meanings of accessible here... Akh accuses Flash of being 'horrible' and will make any site 'completely inaccessible'... meaning that people simply cannot view the content - anyone with a brain will tell you that is nonsense.

On the other hand there is the web term 'accessibility', which is something completely different. This term refers to how accessible a website is to people with disabilities.


I agree with you 'Three' that for a website to be open to as wide an audience as possible, that a HTML only site is the answer, and that Flash and Javascript will create problems on at least some machines - but without said scripting capability, interaction is impossible. The fact that Javascript and Flash are still so wide-spread is testiment to what they bring to the web environment. As you state - the use of Javascript and Flash technology is wholly dependent on your content and audience.

Returning to the issue of website 'accessibility' for disabled viewers using Flash. You are correct in highlighting that there is no way to use a browser to increase the size of text or change styles so that content is more easily read. However, you must remember that Flash is not HTML, it is a completely seperate environment, and as such it is the developer/designer who can add this type of accessiblity feature if it is required. A designer could for instance offer any number of the usual features such as resizing text, substituting fonts, and changing colours, as well as many others which are outside of the scope of normal HTML. Any of the 'accessibilty' features carried out by a browser can be recreated in Flash actionscript - should the developer really need those features.


It does not take more than, 'common sense' (and some knowledge of the very format you discredit) to realise that Flash is NOT to blame for a bad Flash website, the designer/developer is - any website can be poorly developed in HTML or Flash.

One final point I want to make is that Flash is a web standard, like it or not, anyone who refuses to acknowledge this fact WILL be left behind, and WILL NOT be enjoying the many varied and rich websites that are springing up all over the net, with Flash content. Ignore Flash at your own peril - especially if you are a web developer.

can flash sites be read with a screen reader?

this is not me having a cheap dig, i don't know the answer, my knowledge of flash isn't very good, mainly because i haven't taken the time to learn it. After seeing many flash sites, and being impressed by all of their bells and whistles, i was still put off by their lack of accessibility, i have still yet to see a flash site that has encorporated the features you.

You've made me rethink my stance on flash, for certain applications i've always thought it was a damn sight better than html.

The biggest drawback with Flash based material on the web is that search engine bots (the same thing as your screen reader?) will not read information contained within a SWF, that is completely true. This is an issue that is being addressed by the search engine developers, and although the majority of the text is still 'hidden' from bots/spiders, the mainstay criteria of HTML document searching is still available (Meta Tags and Links used in the Flash movie). But then, to get anything ranked properly these days requires more than just the right content.

Flash was originally developed to do more or less what Javascript does, to bring interaction to HTML, but that was 4 versions ago. During the past 5 years the platform has grown rapidly and is now capable of some truly nice things... for instance, streaming and interactive video (no need for additional QT plugins or WMV plugins), dynamic content and feeds, including XML, php, webcam, microphone objects, and a really robust object orientated scripting engine which is both intuitive and very powerful.

The way I see it, Flash is a totally free medium which just happens to work well on the web, its not an alternative to HTML, its a way of producing good interactive content at sizes which can be served online. Any advanced features you may wish to include, must be hand coded in actionscript - therein lies our problem, in that some features require an advanced knowledge of Flash Actionscript to incorporate successfully, and make online Flash as 'accessible' as online HTML.

Having said all that, I also see Flash as a tool which has had wide-spread misuse, as Flash was seen by a lot of people as an easy way to 'spice up' a website which is otherwise lacking, and my own personal hate on any website is a Flash introduction followed by A HTML only site - I mean what is the point of that?? no-one wants to view introductions, and all too often they are poorly made anyway.

It seems that for every well made Flash website there are a hundred poorly made sites. So, let me throw a few sites I like in your direction

The Day After Tomorrow (Movie Promotion)

VodaFone Futures

2Advanced Studios


The 2Advanced website is a bit 'flowery' for my taste, but an exceptional piece of construction none-the-less. But, these sites all show what Flash in the right hands is capable of. Nothing short of exciting web content

Three... I hope you do find some time to at least play with Flash, you sound like you like what it can do, but have also seen the worst of Flash (and there is a lot of it about). But I think that with the obvious knowledge you have about the web development, you could provide some really good stuff.

gl m8

well personaly I liked Flash.. cause its simple information that I want to post... and the grphx would Pep up the site.. thats why Flash would be perfect.. + the info I put on it.. is really basic stuff.. Prices.. Contacts.. and demos? thats pretty much it...

my "Art Site" would probly be different.. it would have to be updatable regularly

Sorry for the double post, but I've made a new header for the site with the Nav bar and all... tell me if its better guys?? and or what I should add or remove for a Film and Photography Company???

new header

in terms of file size, it is too big!, 54kb of header image will slow down your site load time, this - especially as it incorporates your navigation - has the very negative effect of slowing down the users experience, they have to wait for the image to load before they can go anywhere or do anything.

but it looks good, perhaps the black lines on the sides which stick below the blue bar could be removed just to clean up the look

I have to admit - for concept rather than execution, I prefer the original menu (the camera). Even if getting it working in practice would have been a difficult task.

This design will give you a lot less headache - but the trade-off is that you now have a header that is no where near as individual as your initial concept. The design is clean and clear, and there can be no mistake as to what is a button and what is not. So as always for a pain-free solution - go for tried and trusted.

But I would also say - don't give up on your first design, get it working and take into account peoples opinions, and you will have a much more interesting design in the end.