New Design - What Do You Think?

[Photo-John]

So what do you guys think of the new PhotographyREVIEW.com design? I posted a poll so that we can tabulate the results:

What Do You Think of The New Design ?

Check out the reviews section! The review pages now have tabs and the pro reviews are integrated into the page. So all review content is now on one page. I've been waiting for that for a long, long time. Don't know what I'm talking about? Here's a good example:

Canon EOS Rebel XT Reviews >>

Been wondering what I've been doing? Now you know

[Michael Fanelli]

So what do you guys think of the new PhotographyREVIEW.com design? I posted a poll so that we can tabulate the results:

What Do You Think of The New Design ?

Check out the reviews section! The review pages now have tabs and the pro reviews are integrated into the page. So all review content is now on one page. I've been waiting for that for a long, long time. Don't know what I'm talking about? Here's a good example:

Canon EOS Rebel XT Reviews >>

Been wondering what I've been doing? Now you know

The design is nice but the top-page ad cover up all the choices. I don't notice that at home (my plugins are unuinstaled) but at school it is very annoying waiting for the advertising to stop bouncing around in order to navigate somewhere.

[Peter_AUS]

Yes Michael totally agree.

The other thing I hav noticed, it is too wide for a normal laptop. You could look at decreasing the width of the web pages a little there is enough white space to be able to do that especially with the Banner, there is a huge left side to the banner followed by the tabs, maybe decreasing te left side of the banner area might bring it back to a more workable width for some people. The having to scroll back and forth is a little frustrating (to me that is) using a laptop, but when using the desktop the screen size is OK, no problem.

Overall looking good.

[another view]

Aside from the Kodak ad (check the thread in Site Feedback), it looks great! I do like the tabs with the reviews too, but there aren't a whole lot of specs listed. It would be nice to show things like flash sync speed, etc - stuff you look for when you figure out if this is the right camera for you or not.

[Photo-John]

Excellent comment! And I'm happy to be able to say that more specs are coming. Shortly, we''ll have tons. More than you'll even want to read, I think
;)

[Liz]

Actually it looks great to me. Thanks for all your hard work, John. It seems the site has been improving continuously the past year or two.

I like the new look - agree with what everyone else has said.

BTW, I made this thread a sticky so we'll get more replies.

Liz

Excellent comment! And I'm happy to be able to say that more specs are coming. Shortly, we''ll have tons. More than you'll even want to read, I think
;)

[JSPhoto]

Looks pretty good John. Only thing I'd suggest is moving Sports from where it is up with Viewfinder and nature...etc. as I think it would be more noticeable to new users instead of way down at the bottom of the page where it's "lost".

Just my two cents....

JS

[Wolfeye]

Well, except for the fact that all the digital camera review links are broken, the site is fine. I haven't been able to read a single review for a week or more.

[mjs1973]

I love the new look PJ!

The one thing that kinda bugs me tho, (it has nothing to do withthe new design) is the way we have to link to the partner stores. I'm sure it's a no no to have a link that takes us away from this site, but I think it would be much more user friendly to be able to click on the link of a partner store, and go right to that stores site. Perhaps make that link open a new window and leave the PR page up... Just a thought.

[Photo-John]

Michael-
Actually, I think those links are supposed to take you straight there. They aren't supposed to open a new window. Those dealers pay for your business, so we should send you right there. I'll look into that.

[Photo-John]

Peter-
The width is only 100% in the forums. We made this compromise to give people on the forums all the space they could possibly have. We tried making the width the same as the rest of the site but it just didn't feel right. We decided that making the forum space as large and comfortable as possible was the most important thing. Plus, the functionality of the forums isn't affected. The header just gets a little wide. And only for those of us on laptops with very high resolution.

I saw the discussion about the ad yesterday and sent a link to the ad sales department. But Kodak is one of our biggest supporters and I don't think it's going anywhere. Advertising is a necessary evil and advertisers will always be figuring out new ways to grab your attention.

[Asylum Steve]

Peter-
The width is only 100% in the forums. We made this compromise to give people on the forums all the space they could possibly have. We tried making the width the same as the rest of the site but it just didn't feel right.

A little confused here, John. Peter says he has to scroll on his laptop. How can that be if the width is set to 100%? Wouldn't it shrink to fit his browser?

[Photo-John]

A little confused here, John. Peter says he has to scroll on his laptop. How can that be if the width is set to 100%? Wouldn't it shrink to fit his browser?

Good point. But it is coded for 100%. And no matter what resolution I use to view, it looks fine to me. I'm using both Firefox and IE. The only reason it would go to larger than screen size would be if someone posts a huge photo. And that will always be a problem. If Peter really does have to scroll, I don't know why.

[Liz]

I use IE. It is wide for my screen also - I have a 17" LCD monitor. I had no problem before, but now I have to go back & forth if I want to see who is posting - and read the post. I don't have both on my screen anymore at the same time.

Liz

Good point. But it is coded for 100%. And no matter what resolution I use to view, it looks fine to me. I'm using both Firefox and IE. The only reason it would go to larger than screen size would be if someone posts a huge photo. And that will always be a problem. If Peter really does have to scroll, I don't know why.

[Photo-John]

I use IE. It is wide for my screen also - I have a 17" LCD monitor. I had no problem before, but now I have to go back & forth if I want to see who is posting - and read the post.

Liz-
What resolution are you running your monitor at? Is it at 600x800? The design is supposed to work at 600x800 but I just checked and it looks like it's about 40 pixels too wide.

[Peter_AUS]

John, I did mention above with my screen shot that it looked like the size was hard coded at 846 wide, which is similar to your question to Liz.

[Photo-John]

Peter-
I misunderstood the problem. I assumed the header was designed at 800 pixels, because that's how it was supposed to be. This is one of those things that's so basic it got missed, I think. We sized it to go to 100% on the forums - when someone is running larger resolution, which all of us at the office are. Anyway - now that the problem has been identified we can try to fix it. But I think it's going to be tricky. I looked at all the tables on the Home page and they're all hard coded for specific pixel dimensions. So changing the headed will mean changing the whole front page. But we'll figure something out. Thanks for your help and for initially bringing this to my attention. I'm sorry I didn't understand.

[Peter_AUS]

That's OK John, it wasn't totally apparent either, I grabed the page and had a look in Dreamwaver which allows for the design layout to be looked at for column widths etc, as you would know I am sure. These things do get missed, especially in big projects like this one is.

It is interesting to watch the page as you shrink it with the edge of the browser on big screens and watch the text etc and graphics as they react to the page size width decreasing.

I would have thought though that the designers would have had the design window of the page set to display the 800 x 600 and then designed within that, one of the fall backs of having big screens, one tends to use the big screen size and forgetting about the actual wanted size. Which might have been the case.

Hey we all learn don't we. Take care and have a good night there on the West Coast.

[mdmc]

Good point. But it is coded for 100%. And no matter what resolution I use to view, it looks fine to me. I'm using both Firefox and IE. The only reason it would go to larger than screen size would be if someone posts a huge photo. And that will always be a problem. If Peter really does have to scroll, I don't know why.

I have to scroll about the same amount. My res is set to 800x600. one notch higer and it all fits.
I would occasionally have to scroll about 3-4 inches on some threads before. Ide have a normal view, click on a thread and it would just be very wide.
Other than that the new format looks better and seems to work fine.
Mark.

[mjs1973]

Everything fits fine on my screen here at work. My work monitor is set at 1024x768. I do have to scroll a bit at home tho. My home monitor is set at 800x600, and the monitor itself is a bit smaller than my work system. Guess I will have to spend more time on the forums at work.

[ken1953]

I like the new icons...gives the site a little "pizzazz"!!! Great job team!!!!
One question...are u doing away with the "Report this thread" button??? If so, are we doing away with that function and leaving it to the moderators?? Just wondering.
Ken

Nevermind on the report...just found it...the explanation point icon by the online/offline area.
Maybe an icon like the "Quote" button with a "Report" for those who don't use "roll over" popups on their browsers.
Ken

[Photo-John]

Michael-
I feel your pain about the ad. But ads pay for the site.And that ad doesn't have anything to do with the design. I will talk about it with other people at the office, though. We want everyone's experience on the site to be a good one. Balancing advertising with user experience is always a tricky tightrope walk.

We did some work on the review posting problems, too. Are you able to post a review now?

[Asylum Steve]

I feel your pain about the ad. But ads pay for the site.

John, the ad is fine. With a broadband connection, it plays for less than five seconds. What's the big deal?

And actually, I think it's kinda cool. Hey, and this coming from a guy who's hated Kodak on and off over the years...

[Photo-John]

John, the ad is fine. With a broadband connection, it plays for less than five seconds. What's the big deal?

And actually, I think it's kinda cool. Hey, and this coming from a guy who's hated Kodak on and off over the years...

If everyone hates it, then it's something to think about. On the other hand, at least it's not a Classmates.com or smilies popup :-) We've got a better class of problem. And it pays better, too.

We're working on some new standards for this type of ad. I think that's warranted.

[mjs1973]

I don't mind the add. At least it's not that buzzing bee!!!

As for the partner store issue I mentioned this morning... When I click on the partner store link under the "Shop" tab, it takes me to a page with with the partner stores listed on it. When I click the B&H link, it takes me to this page, not to B&H.

From there, I have to click on the "buy it here" tab to get to the stores site. It's just one extra click away, but I find it a little anoying. Maybe it's just me tho.