New Website

[Karizmatik]

Any feedback, criticism, love, etc. is more than welcomed!

Also, for those who are running slow internet connections -- Please let me know about load times once you enter the main site. I'm in Australia and on one of the slower DSL speeds right now and I only have to wait 30-60 seconds, so I figure for everyone else it can't be any worse.

Theres a downside / upside to the wait time, I guess. Upside is once its loaded, you don't have to wait for anything else inside the site to load again. Downside is, people may get fed up with waiting.

Any thoughts are appreciated!

http://kariz-matik.com


*EDIT* -- I cut down the size of the site from about 7MB to 1.5MB -- So it should load at literally a fraction of the time it used, so around 10-15 seconds or so. Please let me know if this is right for everyone else!

[POTN Head]

I hate you :(

I was all excited and stuff and the website loaded and was playing a cool animation and then...runtime error that crashed my IE and my bagillion tabs I had.

:(

[Karizmatik]

I hate you :(

I was all excited and stuff and the website loaded and was playing a cool animation and then...runtime error that crashed my IE and my bagillion tabs I had.

:(

I run Firefox and I have loaded the site countless times with no runtime errors.

I just tried it on IE (I believe 7) and it worked fine on there as-well.

Maybe close some tabs? :lol:

[Faolan]

Fails Validation (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkariz-matik.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&No200=1&verbose=1)

That's to start with, your code is shot to hell, you have tags closed that's not being opened, you have extra tags that breaks the standard HTML.

Why are you stating 1440 x 900? The web is fluid and as designer you have to understand that. You can't tell a visitor how to visitor how to view the site they'll ignore it.

Landing page. Lose it, common mistake for people to make. They don't serve a purpose these days.

Flash takes too long to load, I waited 30 seconds before I gave up.

Mailto: See my FAQ, common 'mistake'.

How about some nice tooltips for your buttons at the bottom of the screen?

[Hikin Mike]

Took my about 40 seconds. If I were a customer, I would have left.

I pretty much agree with Rob, especially the splash page. You need a better <title> page and suggest adding your location in that title page. I would add a short bio about what you do and where you are located on your home page....unless you don't care about being found in Google and other search engines. Google "SEO".

[Karizmatik]

Fails Validation (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkariz-matik.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&No200=1&verbose=1)

That's to start with, your code is shot to hell, you have tags closed that's not being opened, you have extra tags that breaks the standard HTML.

Thanks! If I knew how to fix all that, I might. The way I see it though - The page loads, so it can't be that important.

Landing page. Lose it, common mistake for people to make. They don't serve a purpose these days.

For a website that takes a while to load, I think it does. I have my contact details on the splash page -- So if it does take too long for a customer to load, they can contact me for a meeting instead. In most cases, I know you'd say the customer would just move onto another website, but 90% of my business is referrals from previous clients, so they want to see a gallery.

Flash takes too long to load, I waited 30 seconds before I gave up.

30 seconds? That's it? Jeez! :eek:


Thanks for the input people!

[jhuckelberry]

30 seconds? That's it? Jeez! :eek:


Thanks for the input people!


This is the internet. If a site takes more than 10 seconds to load I leave, unless I'm there for a specific purpose. If I was already a client I'd maybe wait, but if I came across your page by searching I would have closed it out and not waited.

[Karizmatik]

This is the internet. If a site takes more than 10 seconds to load I leave, unless I'm there for a specific purpose. If I was already a client I'd maybe wait, but if I came across your page by searching I would have closed it out and not waited.

Point taken!

Okay, I managed to cut the site down from 7MB to 1.5MB without losing quality -- So it should load in about 10 seconds now! :D

Thanks again for the input people.

[Hikin Mike]

Thanks! If I knew how to fix all that, I might. The way I see it though - The page loads, so it can't be that important.

It's not always about loading. Have you checked other browsers? How about older browsers, like IE6? Having a "clean" code makes the bots find/index your site. If "they" have a difficult time deciphering your site, then page ranking well suffer. ;)

[Faolan]

Actually it's a miracle that the page loads at all, there is so much broken code about it that it's a disaster zone. It means that SEO spiders probably won't know what to do and will hit your page your search engine rankings.

As to loading? er, I had to click on the image to load the flash... Was it supposed to open in a pop up? The metric that designers work to is that you have about 5 seconds. Maximum.That is to grab sometimes attention and keep it, that means information at their fingertips quickly.

As to clients contacting you? What information you have on your landing page? Nothing, I was given your contact details I couldn't ascertain who, what or why I should hire your services.

19 seconds to load a gallery is still far too long to load a gallery, plus sound effects/music is a big no, no. Read my FAQ as to why...

If you don't know how to code HTML/CSS then your site is not an asset, it's a liabilty. Whilst most people probably don't care about the coding standards of the site, they do care about information and there is a severe lack of that. You're created a hostile environment that gives no incentive to the visitor to explore or stay. Sit down and re-think your site, and learn to code not just for your business but also to make the 'Net a better place.

[Karizmatik]

Actually it's a miracle that the page loads at all, there is so much broken code about it that it's a disaster zone. It means that SEO spiders probably won't know what to do and will hit your page your search engine rankings.

This may seem crazy to you, but I don't rely on search engine rankings.

As to clients contacting you? What information you have on your landing page? Nothing, I was given your contact details I couldn't ascertain who, what or why I should hire your services.

As I said before, 90% of my clients are referral -- So they know who I am and what I do long before they type in my URL. I prefer this over random Search Engine hits. The only reason for a website is for the gallery, nothing else.

Read my FAQ as to why...

Because your opinion is iron clad? I'm sorry but, no thanks.

19 seconds to load a gallery is still far too long to load a gallery

Perhaps you should take a page from your own FAQ -- Because your sites gallery took about 15 seconds for me to load thumbnails of the images, then another 5 for one small image in lightbox.

My entire website takes 19 seconds to load -- But once it's loaded, nothing else has to. Including all of my 980 x 700px images.

And really, if a client cannot stick around for 19 seconds -- I don't want them. Why would I want to deal with someone that impatient or arrogant to think 19 seconds is too long? No thanks.

I do appreciate your input, but you need to dial down the idea that your opinion is 100% fact and not just an opinion.

Btw, http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celticshadows.co.uk%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0&No200=1&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.654

[Menelaus]

Your photography is really the only thing you have going for you, IMO. Took far too long to load, the black wood texture background is WAY overused right now, navigation is clunky, sound is enabled by default.

I'd consider abandoning Flash, at this point.

Edit: Your site didn't load in 19 seconds for me, took over a minute to load the main page (not splash).

[Karizmatik]

It's not always about loading. Have you checked other browsers? How about older browsers, like IE6? Having a "clean" code makes the bots find/index your site. If "they" have a difficult time deciphering your site, then page ranking well suffer. ;)

Thankyou Mike! Well said. I'll have a stab at the HTML later on today. :)

[Faolan]

Aye I know there is validation issues on the site, that's been rectified in the latest version. It was an update to the site that broke one of the libraries. The site was validated at launch 2 years ago, and barring one page it should validate.

As to 15 seconds on my gallery, that's unusual the longest I had to wait on the gallery to load was 8 seconds and that was on a clients computer. Normally the gallery will load in 3-5s. Total weight of the gallery is very minimal. At most per gallery they have to load 250Kb of thumbnail images at most and 10kb for a webpage, that's all. Larger images are not that big either with weights from 30kb to a maximum of 150Kb. In comparison your gallery is what 1.5Mb?

At the end of the day you asked for a critique, whilst my FAQs are not written in stone nor have I ever claimed they are 'fact' they come from research and 9 years of experience based on my views hence the post title, if you want to 'break' rules fine but as with any design discipline you got to know the rules before you break them.

It's arrogance on your part if you are willing to discard visitors who don't have patience. Especially if it's a customer who's willing to hire your services for big money.

Have a read of this:

5 Seconds (http://www.palmerwebmarketing.com/blog/you've-got-5-seconds-don't-waste-them/)

[Karizmatik]

Aye I know there is validation issues on the site, that's been rectified in the latest version. It was an update to the site that broke one of the libraries. The site was validated at launch 2 years ago, and barring one page it should validate.

As to 15 seconds on my gallery, that's unusual the longest I had to wait on the gallery to load was 8 seconds and that was on a clients computer. Normally the gallery will load in 3-5s. Total weight of the gallery is very minimal. At most per gallery they have to load 250Kb of thumbnail images at most and 10kb for a webpage, that's all. Larger images are not that big either with weights from 30kb to a maximum of 150Kb. In comparison your gallery is what 1.5Mb?

At the end of the day you asked for a critique, whilst my FAQs are not written in stone nor have I ever claimed they are 'fact' they come from research and 9 years of experience based on my views hence the post title, if you want to 'break' rules fine but as with any design discipline you got to know the rules before you break them.

It's arrogance on your part if you are willing to discard visitors who don't have patience. Especially if it's a customer who's willing to hire your services for big money.

Have a read of this:

5 Seconds (http://www.palmerwebmarketing.com/blog/you%27ve-got-5-seconds-don%27t-waste-them/)

As I said, I do appreciate the input.