The Klim website

Primary tabs

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
kris sowersby's picture
Offline
Joined: 18 Feb 2003 - 11:00am
The Klim website
0

www.klim.co.nz

is up and running. There shouldn’t be any broken links or anything. Have a look around and tell me what you think. It is my very first website, so I had to learn HTML and CSS from scratch. Please folks, be honest.

kris.

Robert Johnston's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 Apr 2004 - 8:56am
0

Great Kris — clean and useable.

Rob

paul d hunt's picture
Offline
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 - 11:00am
0

kris,
i hafta disagree. i think yer site looks great. once again i gotta say “go with yer gut” i might be biased tho, cuz light blue is possibly my favorite color. i was not distracted by the logo at any time while surfing your site. the portfolio pieces really wowed me and completely took me in, very good job, i must say. keep it up!

Benjie Moss's picture
Offline
Joined: 11 Jul 2002 - 11:00am
0

The background image and the logo look great.

First off. I don’t care what version you’re on, so why tell me? If you’ve got a couple of versions then fair enough, but unless you want to link to previous versions for users who might be familiar with an old site then I’d drop that.

I’m not 100% keen on the links. Unless you’re going to change the colour of the links then you’ll have to keep it for links in the text, but I’d try and drop it from the menu items for evry state but the roll over.

I thought there was a little bit confusion over the colour. The sections of type picked out with colour look good in terms of style, but I felt that using the same colour as the links gave them status in excess of their place in the content (eg. the media coverage page).

The breadcrumbs are helpful, but again, with the current page looking like a link I wasn’t as sure of where I was as I could have been. Also if you made them smaller, you’d have room to keep the links for each item in the portfolio, without having to use ‘next’ and ‘previous’.

I guess I feel that there’s not quite enough hierarchy across the site. On the portfolio>logos page the note has ‘Note:’ in bold, which is way too strong for a footnote given the weight of the rest of the page (apart from anything else, I think most people would get it was a footnote from the asterisk).

Generally it looks great, I don’t think you’ve made any mistakes and even though users won’t care it’s your first attempt that makes it more impressive.

cheers.

Robin Houston's picture
Offline
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 - 3:01pm
0

Nice site! I’m no designer (and you are a fine one), so I shall leave others to comment on the design. I noticed a couple of typos though:

  • on this page definately should be definitely;
  • on this page there are two Home breadcrumbs rather than one;
  • in the first sentence on this page there should be a word between
gregory's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 - 6:18pm
0

first off great job. I like the logo. its sweat

heres my concerns:

the logo looks like it is competing with everything in the site. maybe scale it down. I would also consider a san serif font for the links I am not sure but it also looks like they are fighting with the logo as well.

Also the actual site seems a bit crowded on a screen resolution of 1024x768.

keep us posted

kris sowersby's picture
Offline
Joined: 18 Feb 2003 - 11:00am
0

Hey, thanks for all the feedback people!

I am rather embarrassed to have typo’s, that is being combed at the moment.

You are right about the structure, the logo is a bit too much at the moment. version 0.8 will be dealing with structure and the finer navigational details, whereas this one was to get the content up.

Gee whizz, I am getting used to this interweb thing pretty quickly, I shouldn’t really upload inferior versions! Sometimes impatient, too easy to upload!

kris sowersby's picture
Offline
Joined: 18 Feb 2003 - 11:00am
0

Okay, v.08 is up and running. I have chopped home, and have it defaulting to “approach”. The language has been toned down, and the grammar has been groomed. The KLIM logotype is now greyed in the portfolio sections. Thank you all for the feedback, it is highly appreciated.

Randy Jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 23 Nov 2002 - 11:00am
0

The logo is still too much IMHO. I think it’s a size issue more than a tint issue. The floral fourishes are a tint issue. It’s tough to read the text over it. Maybe go as light at 10=20%?

As I said in my email. Great work in the portfolio!

Randy

kris sowersby's picture
Offline
Joined: 18 Feb 2003 - 11:00am
0
Geoff Riding's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Mar 2004 - 8:12pm
0

Kris.

I find the logo disturbing, it is too large and I think that light cyan attracts too much attention.

I find that, when I attempt to look at your portfolio, my eyes are distracted by the logo. I don’t think this is a good thing.

Otherwise, nice work.