Freighter Cruise Site

[jspittler]

I just finished a website about a freighter cruise I went on. It is complete, but I can always make updates if I want to.

http://www.juddspittler.com/freighterbum

I tried to make it so that it would be an interesting site, even for someone that doesn't think they are interested in freighter cruises.

Thanks,

Judd

[GivenRandy]

Nice photos. Nice, clean look. Nice background color. Not in frames (which is good!). The "visited" checkmarks are unique and good. The use of insets / sidebars for additional information is nice. The FAQ is great.

The list of photos is good, but it is not clear that clicking on them brings up a GALLERY and not just an enlarged picture. The photo navigation buttons are a little small and difficult to use -- might enlarge them and make more simple looking.

The comment about "contemporary browsers" could be removed, or at least the reference to specific browsers.

All in all, an excellent site. I would visit it!

[Connie]

Nice clean site. However for my poor eye site your font is so small
it is difficult to read. I use IE with 800 x 600 resolution.

[mike7727]

You've succeeded in piquing some interest. I want to go myself now. The only thing that annoyed me was all the scrolling (necessary I guess). Nice look, easy to read. A pleasure.

[jspittler]

Thanks for your comments and feedback you guys. Interesting that my original post had been there for some time without response, then all of a sudden I get a bunch of replys. I certainly appreciate you guys taking the time to look at the site and provide feedback.

OK, cool, let me see if I can comment on your comments:

The "visited" checkmarks are unique and good.

The "checkmark" thing was my own idea and creation. It was nice to get the positive feedback on it. BUT I have to admit that there IS an issue with it. I used a font for the checkmark that I don't believe is native to Macintosh, therefore I think many Mac users will not see the the check marks. I tried implementing it different ways, but was unsuccessful in coming up with a solution which addressed all the issues. If this were a professional site, I might have decided to remove it due to this issue, but I decided to keep it in since I liked it. If necessary, the "site map" can be used to check that all pages have been visited... not a perfect solution, I agree.

The list of photos is good, but it is not clear that clicking on them brings up a GALLERY and not just an enlarged picture. The photo navigation buttons are a little small and difficult to use -- might enlarge them and make more simple looking.

I tried to clearly and concisely describe how the photo gallery worked in the paragraph text above it, but I am guessing that you may be referring to how gallery operation would appear to someone who may not have read every word in the text. Hmmm, I wonder if something as simple as adding the text "Select an Album:" just above the "gallery" would help to clarify?

As far as the navigation buttons, I will keep that comment in mind. The photo gallery application is a prepackaged add-in that I used. I am a little hesitant to modify it too much, but like I said, I will keep that comment in mind.

BTW, That application called "Gallery" is a very useful program to install on your website in a standalone form. It makes it so that you and others can upload photos VERY easily. It is multi-user so you can allow others to each have their own photo areas. OK, using Gallery is very easy, but to install it, you do need to use simple linux commands via an SSH interface. Gallery by itself isn't terribly pretty, but it can be VERY useful, and can be customized, depending on how much detail you want to go to.

As far as the "contemporary browsers" comment. Yes, I guess I agree that isn't necessary. When I started the website over three years ago (it took a LONG time to finish!) a lot of people really WERE using Netscape version 4... I can probably ignore that now.

I am not sure I have a good alternative to having to scroll. I kind of hate to break it up into smaller pages, because I am concerned that it will make it that much more likely for people to get lost. That is interesting feedback, though. Do you feel that in general, people really don't like to scroll when they are on a webpage containing textual content?

OK, now we come to the "small font" issue. This is an interesting one to me, since I originally thought the font looked about right... but I did recieve other feedback saying the same thing. I would like to understand this issue better. FIRST, I would like to confirm that everybody is seeing the same thing. I took a screenshot of the site as I see it.

http://www.juddspittler.com/friends/...mscreencapture

When you look at this link, does the text size look the same as what you see on your computer? Also, do you happen to have the "Book Antiqua" font on your computer? If not, you are seeing a different font... which SHOULD be OK, but if there is a problem, maybe that is related. Also, if the font looks small, are you using a Mac or PC? I am just trying to narrow down the issue.

If everybody sees it as I do, but people think the text is too small, that would be an important thing for me to know about.

(Oh... notice I used Gallery for simple "utility" things like that screenshot. What I did was set up a gallery that friends and family could use to upload shots. That way they could link to the uploaded shots there when sending emails and things, without needing to include the images as email attachments -- which tend to clog mailboxes.)

OK, well, hope to hear back from you guys. Thanks again.

Judd

[mike7727]

I don't see the checkmark; am on a mac. I thought the type was very readable (and my eyes are pushing 50); looks pretty much like the screen shot that you took. Using 1152 x 870 screen.

[Connie]

The font size on the screen shot is much better. I do have "Book Antiqua" font.
I have font size set to smaller, which is adequate on every web site I go to.
I'm a using PC with IE 6. It may be that the font you are using is not comparable
in font size with the standard fonts that are normally used. By the way I just
looked at the site again and set the font to medium and it was OK. That's something
I don't think about doing, because font size is not normally a problem.

In reference to the check marks, I don't see anything wrong with them. I agree
that it lets visitors know where they have been. I don't think they would cause
someone to leave your site.

[jspittler]

Connie,

Thanks for the font size feedback. I understand the issue much better now. There is something interesting about adjusting font sizes from the browser. The main thing is that depending on how the author defined the font size, trying to adjust it in the browser may or may not result in any changes. Originally, I had defined the font size in a way so that you would have seen it the way I "wanted" it to be seen regardless of how you tried to adjust your browser. In your case, that would have meant that you would have seen it just like my screenshot right off the bat.

The reason I changed it so that it was adjustable is that I heard that was the recommended way so that people who have vision problems are able to enlarge it. I defined the size so that it would appear "the way I intended it" when the browser was set to the default (medium) text size.

OK, I just did an experiment. I adjusted the font size for this page in my browser. The font size changed, but it didn't seem to change all that much, and was readable even on the smallest setting. When I looked at my page, the default font size appeared about the same as the body text on this page, BUT, when I made it smaller by one notch, it got WAY smaller, and when I decreased by another notch, it REALLY got smaller. That is very interesting. I wonder what it is about "Book Antiqua" that makes it so sensitive to font size changes in the browser? Or maybe it has to do with how I defined my fonts? Hmmm, that is very interesting.

Mike, I appreciate your input as well. That also helps me understand where things are as far as this issue.

Judd