PDA

View Full Version : hey dudes can u help me out?


wardz
06-15-2001, 08:27 PM
Hi lads,

As some of you know I like to do a bit of Flash. I am doing my Taekwon-Do Club's website and I need some people with different specs to have a look at it before it properly 'goes live' and tell me any probs

preferably people with 36k modems and less up to cable, and all types of resolution.

Any CONTRUCTIVE critiscm is also welcome with the design (and I still have some fine tuning to do with the preloaders so dont worry about that)

(n.b the gallery is not up)

In advance, cheers.

wardz
http://www.taekwondoitf.com/shell.html

CaptainRAVE
06-15-2001, 08:29 PM
Hey, thats real good!!!!NICE ONE!

wardz
06-15-2001, 08:34 PM
cheers,

I need to know more than that, what connection do you have? Did it take too long to load? Did all the text fit the page?

wardz

Boba Rhett
06-15-2001, 09:00 PM
I connect at 28.8 and run a resolution of 1024x768. The page fit well on the screen and loaded in about 40 seconds.

digl
06-15-2001, 10:34 PM
I have a terrible 56k connection, and it loaded in about a minute, and Im running at 1024x768 and it looks fine

wardz
06-15-2001, 10:40 PM
gee you guys :)

What do you think to the layout?

wardz

Wilhuf
06-15-2001, 10:54 PM
Wardz I like your layout. Simple, clear and concise. How websites should be.

My personal bias is that I do not like over-produced slow-loading websites. Having said that, and in no way implying that your page is, I must ask why it is necessary to use flash when simple html and text could accomplish basically the same effect you have constructed in flash?

Flash does not appear to add anything functionally better than HTML at this point, since you appear to be showing nothing more than text.

Consider a straight html implementation, unless your design specification requires flash.

Load times were about 5 seconds per top level link. My connect, 768/768 SDSL, Internet Explorer 5.5, Win98SE.

wardz
06-15-2001, 11:06 PM
because my good friend, I haven't got a clue about html!

This is my first 'draft', over time it will improve and I have got 2 more sites to do - when i get some more time i will make them a little more complex. And the people using this particular site don't want to spend half an hour looking at pretty graphics when all they want is the news, they get bored easily.

Also, I feel more comfortable in Livemotion, do you understand what i mean by that? You sometimes get a program where you feel like you know what your doing without having to think about it...

Thanks for the feedback, ALWAYS welcome, anything to improve...

wardz

StormHammer
06-15-2001, 11:40 PM
Well, it certainly looks okay to me, wardz. Everything fits well on the page at 1024 x 768 res. It loaded in about 20 seconds on my 56k connection, using Win98SE, IE 5.5.

And I know what you mean about finding a particular application that suits you. I've got a lite (old) version of Adobe Photoshop (came free with a scanner, I think), but I rarely used it. I keep returning to PaintShop Pro because I get good results quickly. The same is becoming true of Painter, now I've really started to explore it.

If you did want to dabble with HTML in the future, though, I'd strongly recommend Macromedia Dreamweaver. I've tried a couple of others, and although Dreamweaver seems a little sparse to begin with, it's got a lot of hidden functionality (which I don't really use ;) ). I produced my site with it, and it didn't take me that long, really.

But again, stick with what works for you. ;)

ed_silvergun
06-16-2001, 06:40 PM
Looks great, Wardz. It's flashy (pun intended) but remains functional and uncluttered at the same time.

It took 10-15 secs to load on my 56k v90 modem, which was connected @ 36k at the time. I'm running Win98SE, IE 5.5, and I have a desktop resolution of 1024x768.

The only problem was that I got scrollbars in 1024x768 as shown by <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/geek/silvergun/Wardz.htm">this screenshot</A>. As most people nowadays browse in 1024x768, maybe you should think about tweaking the layout so that the bottom banner fits better on the screen in this resolution.

Just a thought. Top site though - well done. :p

wardz
06-16-2001, 10:16 PM
ed you're right,

Last week I did it PERFECTLY so it fitted 1024*768 cos thats what i use, then someone pointed out that they didn't use that resolution so i spent all week trying to find a happy medium and thats what i came up with.

Your comments have been noted and I will tweak it again so you don't need the scrollbar hopefully.

He better bloody like it, ive spent ages trying to make it look interesting but modem efficient at the same time!

ED, I also notice you were looking at some quality sites at the bottom - good taste!


wardz

wardz
06-17-2001, 07:01 PM
UPDATE:

Mr Sahota has seen the provisional site and thinks its average. Help. I need to do some more "flashy" things. i can't get my creative juices flowing and I need your help - GIVE ME SOME IDEAS!

regards

wardz

ed_silvergun
06-17-2001, 07:48 PM
More animations, perhaps? As Wilhuf said above, there' little reason to use flash unless you do something "flashy" with it. If the guy thinks that's average, well, go mad with animations. If it's too much, you can always take some off. :p

CaptainRAVE
06-17-2001, 08:06 PM
I have a T1 and it loaded instantly. It fitted on my screen at 1024x768.

wardz
06-17-2001, 08:28 PM
cheers, but i can't think of many animations to put in, thats where you guys come in, Have any ideas for animations or sounds? Background music?

wardz

ed_silvergun
06-17-2001, 09:20 PM
How about a little animated guy doing some Taekwon-Do moves?

Darth Simpson
06-18-2001, 03:18 AM
How about a link to this (http://games.sohu.com/fightgame/fight3.swf) animation. Simply the best fighting animation you can find.

Takes a while to load on a 56k though.