alright..I think i'm ready for a peer review

[tadster]

The site is www.actiontad.com

I'm interseted in knowing what it is like on a Mac (IE, Safari and Opera)
so any Mac users please chime in.

And for everyone, how do you like it?
Do you like that most of the information on the site is all there once the site has loaded?
Do you like the folder navigation style?
Do you think the site needs deep links?

Does the search bring your result into focus for you?
For me focusing happens in FireFox, Opera but not IE 7 or Safari (windows)
What is it like on IE 8?

And, how many of you knew about what the site describes
(the mxmlc.exe compiler and pure AS3)?

thanks in advance,
Tad

[runawayprisoner]

I got this when trying to view your ping pong demo:

[IOErrorEvent type="ioError" bubbles=false cancelable=false eventPhase=2 text="Error #2124"]

Which usually means "loaded file is not recognized" or something along that.

[tadster]

runawayprisoner, could you tell me what system and browser you are using?

[tadster]

@ runawayprisoner - 2124 means loaded file is a unknown type, what has happend is that my server responded with text instead of a swf file because the time from the request to the time of the response was too far apart
(which is some security i built in)
I've been using dial-up to test the site and it works for me.
If anyone else is having this problem please let me know, i'll need to do away with, or increase the time allowence.

[runawayprisoner]

Okay. I purposefully limited my bandwidth and it seems to work fine now. But that might mean that it won't work right for some other people. I'm on Windows XP, using Opera and Firefox.

[kkbbcute]

Okay, massive problems with this site, harsh comments incoming:

1) The site design is to put it in a nice way, terrible (sorry). The naviation bar looks weird, with that outline going across to try and make it look like a tab. Get rid of that and design some proper buttons instead in Photoshop or something, its bound to look much better.

2) Secondly, the option to change your site's BG color is redundant seeing that it doesn't improve the user experience in any way. Somehow having lots of customizability of the BG color is a gimmick at beest seeing the fundamental lack of design in your site.

3) This site looks really last generation. The solid background fills, the serif fonts which cover everything from the loading prompt to the buttons to the actual text, all make up for a confusing situation whereby no one has any idea what is a link, content or just a prompt. Play around with fonts and colors a lot more.

4) Bland viisuall palette. Seriously, a black and white picture of a man, against a light blue background does little to pique up interest. Try going for more striking colors for your navigation bar and stuff instead, like a deep blue, etc.

This just barely scratches the surface, but for a professional site to be used in the future, or even a personal blogm, this one's a no-no. A lot of improvement to be made here. I'm using IE8 Windows 7 Beta.

[tadster]

Thanks runawayprisoner, after your post I did away with my whole time check thing, it will not work the same on different time zones.

@ kkbbcute,
question, why do like actionscript.org so much? It uses the same fonts, and a straightfoward style.
The main thing about actionscript.org is the content, when someone visits here they are likely to find what they are looking for,
the same principle is how i did my site.

1. what outline are you talking about? there's a box and folder tabs on top.
2. what if someone likes red instead of blue or black instead of blue? Its all about options,
msn does the same kind of thing.
3. last generation? it's a flash site, that flash actually gives you the content of the page,
and if the user does not have flash the site falls back to giving the content via AJAX.
confusing??? the tabs are the links, or you can just use the search in the flash,
the content appears in the box, where else would you expect the content? oh, and another word (wikipedia).
it's really funny you even said last generation,
i was hopeing that this could turn into a discution about flash focused sites and deep linking
3.a
about fonts, if you did not know fonts are different from system to system, people can custimize their fonts, Arial on my computer may not be the same on another computer. That is why most professional websites stick to default fonts.
4. I did not want to "pique up intrest" with colors or much flare...but with CONTENT, that is what most users want right?
INFORMATION, not just a show, if I want a show I'll watch some tv, when i'm online it's INFORMATION that i seek.
4a. you want to see some flare? some cool flash stuff to watch? goto another one of my sites hoaxrevealed.webs.com
(gota use firefox for it)
I've made many different kinds of sites, actiontad is all about the content not flare or visual appeal.


now kkbbcute, if your going to spend the time to write so much you could have answered all my questions, you missed four:

Do you like that most of the information on the site is all there once the site has loaded?
Do you think the site needs deep links?
Does the search bring your result into focus for you?
And, how many of you knew about what the site describes
(the mxmlc.exe compiler and pure AS3)?


And i'm sorry but I've got to ask you to show me some of your work, you can't be so critical without something to show for it.


And for everyone else I'm seeking peer reviews here (or useful info like @ runawayprisoner) not just the rantings of those who watch the internet like tv.

[kkbbcute]

Hey, relax, don't need to be so defensive, this section is just somewhere for everyone to give their ideas. Anyway to answer your questions, yes, i know what the site is describing, BUT that's about the only question I could answer, for one simple reason.

No one will even bother to look further at your site because the design is boring! What do you mean by you don't need to pique up interest? If your site doesn't pique up anyone's interest before they know what your site is about, no one would bother to read. You made an assumption here that everyone comes to your site ready to absorb all the information you are handing out, which is not the case! You have to realize that.

Many people are just surfing the web hoping to find a good source of info, if they chance upon your site, and the first thing they see is a few boxes on the screen with a gimmicky color changer that tries to separate this site from numerous others, what would they think? Even the sponsored advertisements are more colorful and dynamic than your site.

Seriously, if you think about it from a user's point of view, someone who is new to the site, would they continue browsing? It's like saying I buy an MP3 player just to listen to music. In that case, why doesn't everyone go for something like Creative Zen instead of Apple's iPod? It's because the iPod not only looks cool, it feels cool to use, in addition to delivering your music. The same thing here, design is something you cannot just ignore.

P.S. What need do I have to prove my credentials to you? I don't need to go around showing off, it's unethical, now just treat the above as friendly advice.;)

[tadster]

that's about the only question I could answer...
No one will even bother to look further at your site because the design is boring!
...
Many people are just surfing the web hoping to find a good source of info


@ kkbbcute...you could not answer this question?

Does the search bring your result into focus for you?


and um..people read to find out what a site is about, and my site is a good source of readable info.
I have "piqued interest" with content not design.

Currently I have about 10 visitors per day.
people come to my site searching for how to use pure ActionScript to make swf files, and that is what they find,
and that is what keeps them coming back.

kkbbcute... with all do respect, you are from outer space. :)

will someone more grounded please chime in.

[kkbbcute]

If 10 visitors per day satisfies you, then the person from outer space has nothing left to say and will hide eternally in an asteroid belt until further notice, and as I said, I couldn't answer that question because the site doesn't even bring me to want to search for stuff assuming I was just an ordinary visitor. ;)

It's strange how even a guy from outer space can spot those flaws.:p

[tadster]

a quote from microsoft:
"The items that make a good web site are purpose, content, and easy-to-view design with quick navigation for users."

actiontad.com fits that description.

kkbbcute, if you want to be an Extreme Critic you need to learn how to critque.
And you need to be willing to answer questions, that's part of being "friendly".
statements like this:

The site design is to put it in a nice way, terrible (sorry).

are rude, unfriendly, and very unprofessional.
if you could not tell from the title of my post, I am seeking professional, tastefull, peer reviews.

If content did not matter, or if the "ordinary user" needed to be "brought to search for something"
then sites like, google, wikipedia, craigslist, and actionscript.org would have never made it.
Users search sites because they are looking for information, not because the site looks cool.

[kkbbcute]

Hey, cool it, if you don't want any comments on your design, then just say so, don't need to beat around the bush and try quoting from others about what is or is not right. If you can convince yourself, so be it.;)

But if you aim to look at your site from a users perspective, design is of great importance, its like you going to a job interview wearing a singlet and flip flop sandals, the looks are always important. Sure you could argue that what makes a good employee is someone who is hardworking and responsible, but if you come to an interview dressed up so sloppily, no one would even hire you, let alone get to know how great a worker you are.

The same thing goes for your site. If you actually read the comments that I gave, you would have realized that apart from just saying "your site sucks", I gave a whole lot of ideas on how you could actually improve it. If you choose not to take my help on how you can improve your site and you just want people saying "Hey, I love the content on your site." then what's the point on letting others criticizing your work in the first place?

So I'm not being unprofessional of trying to hurt your feelings, I'm just being very real and frank. If someone's going to die, you're not going to tell him, "You're going to live a long life!" That's just not the way things are done, you have the tell him the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Deceiving him would only make you a liar and him a person who is self-deceived. I'm not going for neither, so when you say that others just insult your work, do keep in mind that they do have to take time to tell you how to improve.

[tadster]

title of post: "alright.. I think i'm ready for peer review"
@ kkbbcute:
a quote from your last post:

Hey, cool it, if you don't want any comments on your design, then just say so, don't need to beat around the bush and try quoting from others about what is or is not right. If you can convince yourself, so be it


these are the specific questions that I asked:

I'm interseted in knowing what it is like on a Mac (IE, Safari and Opera)
so any Mac users please chime in.

And for everyone, how do you like it?
Do you like that most of the information on the site is all there once the site has loaded?
Do you like the folder navigation style? (only question about design)
Do you think the site needs deep links?

Does the search bring your result into focus for you?
For me focusing happens in FireFox, Opera but not IE 7 or Safari (windows)
What is it like on IE 8?

And, how many of you knew about what the site describes
(the mxmlc.exe compiler and pure AS3)?


did you read them?
only one asks about design and it is a specific question,
in your first response you went off about design, fonts, the background changer, and colors, which i did not ask about,
and you never addressed my actionscript.org question that i asked afterwards.
In all your replies you have been unprofessional and off point. that is my point.
the professional quote i gave proves that.

Websites are meant to be interacted with not just looked at, If you want to be a critic of websites, you must be willing to interact with them.


P.S.
I hope you realize that all your replies are keeping this post "new"
so if your aim is to belittle my site, or me, it's not working, in fact I'm getting new users everyday thanks to your replys, so if you feel compeled to continue this Flame War, be my guest, but I'd really like to hear the opinions of others now.

[tadster]

oh, @kkbbcute, and if someone was going to die would you say something like this?:

I'm going to let you down easy, there is no hope, your going to die, sorry.

would that be letting them down easy? NO!
again I quote you:

The site design is to put it in a nice way, terrible (sorry).


how is saying something like that putting it in a nice way?
A nice way would be like:
The site design is to put it in a nice way, lacking.
or (for your death analogy):
I'm going to be frank, you may not make it, but keep hope alive.

those are examples of being "nice", "freindly".

in your second post you claimed to be giving "friendly" advice,
but you have not.

I'm learning from your first post, check the site again in about a week.
will you learn from my posts?

[kkbbcute]

oh, @kkbbcute, and if someone was going to die would you say something like this?:

I'm going to let you down easy, there is no hope, your going to die, sorry.

would that be letting them down easy? NO!
again I quote you:


how is saying something like that putting it in a nice way?
A nice way would be like:
The site design is to put it in a nice way, lacking.
or (for your death analogy):
I'm going to be frank, you may not make it, but keep hope alive.

those are examples of being "nice", "freindly".

in your second post you claimed to be giving "friendly" advice,
but you have not.

I'm learning from your first post, check the site again in about a week.
will you learn from my posts?

:rolleyes:Never meant for this to be a flame war:rolleyes:


I'm going to let you down easy, there is no hope, your going to die, sorry.
Anyway I didn't ask you to give up hope, I never did say that, if I wanted to tell you to give up hope or to belittle your site, I won't even be giving you comments on how to improve your site, but yeah, never mind about that. If I wanted you to give up, telling you how to improve would be an oxymoron. I think we have a weird communication block.

Okay, so how about this, you stop complaining about my critiques, and I stop complaining about your complains about my critiques. That way we can get along just fine:p Anyway thanks for replying to my thread.

[dannyhouk]

Hi tadster, could I weigh in?

I know you're dividing design from the content, but the two go hand in hand. How you say it ("the design") is just as important as what you say ("the content"). Just compare your site to some who is also offering ActionScript advice and tutorials, like http://senocular.com/.

See the way the large text headers grab your attention, and swooping stripes in the background draw in your in and down through the content? This little visual cues entice and elicit attention to your content. What you have written seems clear and understandable, but it is presented so blandly that I personally wouldn't linger very long to read it. Unfortunately, I agree with all kkbbcute's critiques, harsh as they may be.

Also, if you post in this forum you really need to accept whatever comes. Of course, you can defend your design choices for the site, but make some visual tweaks would help immensely. Here are some suggestions I would have to kick up the visuals a notch:

1. Give the background (the left and right sides of the page) some color or gradient. This will make the center section "pop" off the page.
2. Use a sans-seriff font, like verdana or arial, and left-justify the text instead of center. There are many studies out there that show that sans-seriff fonts are easier to read, and most articles follow the standard left-justify for readability sake.
3. Pick more contrasting colors for outline and tabs. As it stands now the pale blue on grey is what contributes to that "bland" quality we talked about.

Finally, make it a practice that when browsing sites that make you think "wow," just spend some time thinking about how they achieved that "wow" and copy it. That's what all web designers do. And it's okay to have crumby first drafts, we all do that too, so just consider your current site a first draft and now begin tackling a second one!

Best.

[kkbbcute]

Finally, make it a practice that when browsing sites that make you think "wow," just spend some time thinking about how they achieved that "wow" and copy it. That's what all web designers do. And it's okay to have crumby first drafts, we all do that too, so just consider your current site a first draft and now begin tackling a second one!
Best.

On the contrary, actually that is not always the best case. Good sites canbe made by copying other good sites, but a GREAT site is always original. It's the fact that it's special that makes it outstanding, just take a look at the Molosgroup website (which happens to be in this forum section too).

But yeah, thinking about what made you go "Wow" would work too.

[tadster]

Thanks kkbbcute and thanks dannyhouk, after all these posts, the friends that i originaly made the site for are actually saying the same things. so a total visual rework is in order, i'm going to go with rounded corners instead of square, arial, and much more colors, and different fonts for the tabs per kkbbcute's suggestion. please, please check it out by tuesday, i'll be done, they have also requested that i talk about the need for Java with all this, and include an example of a race car game, the re-design is about done, but i'm waiting to finish the car game before i update everything, all should be done by this tuesday,
thanks alot for your critiques, honestly kkbbcute, it took you hounding me for me to realize some things, again thanks, and please check back and do another critique on or after wenesday.

[tadster]

oh, I've known about senocular ever since it came out, he has also recently redesgined that site, it was not like that at all originaly....so i too need to redesign.

[nakedkafka]

I'm not a big fan of that design, but I agree that it's a personal opinion. I think, if you are going to do an "AS tutorial site" you need to add more content, Much much more content. nothing other can be said, fonts can be changed, colors swapped, but more content will bring you loads more visitors and opinions.

[kkbbcute]

Okay, will check back in a few days time, and hoping to see a great new site ;)

[tadster]

Okay the basic re-design is complete, no more box, no more white background, instead its a gradient black to c8c8c8,
i really dont like IE, it can't handle my pngs, so the background is just a jpg, and there is no true transperency, otherwise in ie6 it would look really bad, please tell me how the gradient comes out on your system. oh, don't mind the adds for now, and that black line under wrapps is where a small goo search will go. Two more examples have been added also, and yes nakedkafka (cool name) it does need more content, a new example will be put on every week. but the purpose of the site is not to be a tutorial, but to be a place to see straight out pure as3 examples and the resulting flashes.
kkbbcute, how does it look?

[kkbbcute]

Too text heavy I would say. But a better improvement nonetheless.

You might wanna consider adding a title or logo to your site, and there seems to be a white bar at the top, presumably from an ad that wouldn't load. Also, try adding a background for your text, maybe I could upload a jpeg to give you an idea on what would make your site look better, would you want that? :)

[tadster]

yes the text needed a background, i've given it that bar, just had to finish things up, that was phase one of the re-design, as of today, phase two, i think the navigation looks better now a bit wider and as the background of the text, with a hover effect also.
Now, you get a white bar at the very top? a thiner white bar ontop of some thicker goo ads? That's supposed to be the flash, are you not getting the flash at the top with the spining (t)ad logo? its small, but its main function is to be a client side search of the page. Are you using dial up perchance? That's a problem if your not getting the flash and not getting the alternate jpg. Have you waited more than 30 seconds on the page and still the white bar?

[maskedMan]

So there is something I notice when I click the 'change color' links on actiontad... the page completely wipes its style sheet for a second and re-renders. It's more pronounced on a slower machine, as well.

It's extremely jarring, so much so that I would recommend removing the option entirely until you find a way to prevent this behavior.

[kkbbcute]

Yup, the white bar's still there, and there's a way to prevent the problem maskedMan is talking about, just don't re-render everything until all the new componenets have been loaded into the cache already.

[tadster]

I've fixed the css change problem, kkbbcute its alot more simple than that

[tadster]

.............and that last post of mine is a good example of the slowness of the computer i am using right now, i had no intention of being done but my computer took so long to relalize i was typing and the post was subited thinking the previous enter click was for it...that to say, the computer i use to test the site is really slow..and my site works great on it, and on IE6. I also use Richard Dallaways, Sloppy, to slow my laptop down. But yes the change was jarring, and kkbbute it's solved by calling every style sheet to the page as the site loads, via JavaScript: document.getElementById('sitecss').href=redcss.src ..and so on back to the blue, that way when a user wants to change, the css has already been called on, so the page will only have to load the red bar, and black bar not the whole css, but it takes a bit longer at the start.


Anyway, kkbbcute i would really like for you to be more specific about the "white bar" you are seeing, have you ever seen the flash file? the animated (t)ad?
maskedMan are you seeing the flash?
I know runawayprisoner must have seen it, that's the only way the examples can begin to get loaded.

and on every computer i've tested it works, I go to libraries, and other places that commonly have 'slow' computers, and they
all display the site fine, even on IE6.

[kkbbcute]

The problem of the white bar strangely solved itself:p

I would still say that your design needs more working on. Aim to make your logo more vibrant, make it bigger, make it bright and dynamic, let it stand out! Also, I would say that your search prompt area is not obvious enough, and I had trouble actually finding it on a quick browse through.

Just two simple things you could improve on.

Other than that, great, hope to see more progress! :)

Note: Tested with Windows 7 IE8, FF3, Safari 3

[tadster]

cool, thanks kkbbcute , it does take about 4 seconds not matter how fast or slow any computer is for the white bar to go away, that's because the flash is dishing out the actual contents of the page, and needs to do so one at a time, to not be recursive with the JS calls. Final re-design phase three, Sunday...font control.

[kkbbcute]

Oh okay the, will check back soon for the font update :)

[tadster]

hey k k b b ( shouting from the hilltops :) ),
I've put in the font changer some time ago and forgot to mention it, also the site is now on phase 3 (hopefully final)
the annouying ads are gone, the colors are more together, and the graidient background is gone, (it does not look the same on every setup.)
From your perspective it may look a bit like the original version, but i think it's better this way...
i'm awaiting your extreme critique..

[Kimchee]

the buttons are a bit strange, if you scroll over one the text is black, but if you scroll off the text portion while remaining on the button the text turns grey?

[kkbbcute]

Okay, I still have to say that there are a few design flaws with the site. Firstly, don't use a gradient to distinguish between your text background and your webpage background, it just looks weird, the black to grey transition. I've attached a jpeg of a design you might want to consider that makes the distinction between both backgrounds very clear, personally I feel it's nicer that way.

Also, you might want to try improving your logo, because if you ask me, a small "Actiontad" in the corner with a rotating bracket just doesn't cut it, and looks a little too gimmicky. Try redesigning one that looks, well, cool. I don't know how to put it, but I suggest you experiment with vector designs and large fonts. ;)

[tadster]

thanks Kimchee. As of tonight that will be fixed, a simple css thing, you had to click on the text not just the button section, yes that was very strange.
ok kkbbcute i like that pic, but i really like the graidient transition more, and most others do to..but thanks for your pic, i'm sorry i can't use it in some way....hmmm... what i really like about your pic is the mysterious thing in the background, i think i'll do something like that in the grey area to try to signify the two parts better.

[kkbbcute]

ok kkbbcute i like that pic, but i really like the graidient transition more, and most others do to..but thanks for your pic, i'm sorry i can't use it in some way....hmmm... what i really like about your pic is the mysterious thing in the background, i think i'll do something like that in the grey area to try to signify the two parts better.

Okay, if you like the gradient more, then go for it, can't wait to see the next update ;)

[tadster]

Ok kkbbcute, I've redone the whole site from the inside out. The design is still plain, but I like plain,
just a little subtle style to it.
The whole 'options' situation has been expanded somewhat and put in the bottom, and the flash is now secondary, as well as the javascript.
I really hope you can like it at least a little, i think it flows better now, better than it ever did (it never really did flow before)
And now it will be easier for me to keep adding examples every week. Thanks for pushing me forward.

[kkbbcute]

Hmmm... I can say that although there's little to comment on design-wie, the site's navigation is simple to comprehend and work around with. My only beef is that the starting colors of black, white, and grey seem a bit too plain. Maybe add a dash more color? (Make the starting color red/blue)