Website request (1 Viewer)

[the_net_2.0]

Yes...I have a site that needs a restructure. It is in serious need of a table layout, as it does not look professionally done right now.

It's only a couple of days of work. I can really do it myself, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to do it. I know exactly what I need and what questions to ask, so the time someone would spend on reworking it, if they know what they're doing, shouldn't take but a few days at the most.

I only have 5-8 pages that need reformatting. Obviously I can write all of the code that's needed, if any, so that portion of it would not be requested. I need a layout and image suggestions, based on what we have now. I may implement a jquery nav menu or other js scripting possibilities, so I may need one or two questions answered about that as well.

If you want a small project, send me a message about it. We can talk on Skype or over the phone if you're in the USA.

I'm putting this here because it'll probably get the most views. Mods...move it if you want to. Also, I know this is not an advertising board, but I'm really not interested in registering yet another username on a freelancers board and wasting an hour of my time clicking around to get to the actual posting.

Thanks guys!

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I should give oDesk a try...

http://www.odesk.com/home

 

[Minkey]

It is in serious need of a table layout, as it does not look professionally done right now.

Tables on a website? Professional? contradiction in terms me thinks. or do you mean it needs to look like tables?

I need a layout and image suggestions, based on what we have now.

Link please

 

[the_net_2.0]

Minkey,

I sent you a private message with it. That's the only way I'll do it. sorry bud.

 

[dan-cat]

Pm me the link also plz

 

[Simon_MT]

Hi,

A facelift would certainly help although and deploy style sheets and expand the metatags; thiese issues are from a purely techinical point of view and does does not address the content.

Simon

 

[the_net_2.0]

all,

the CEO has done it in photoshop.

OK...well, not what he had planned, but I don't have much say.

 

[dan-cat]

Layouts should be designed in a graphics package.

It helps separate the visual design process from the functional coding of the site. When the two are mixed, the attractiveness of the site becomes an afterthought and can result in the ugliness you want to avoid.

 

[Minkey]

Agree, defiantly needs a face lift and a few alterations, my observations (please take this as constructive observations rather than a criticism ):

Logo - get it done properly so it's not stretched (as dan-cat mentioned in a dedicated graphics program and correct layout would sort it).

Background and other graphics - need to be 'cleaned up' they look a bit tacky tbh, if you scroll down to the bottom of a page the grey box turns to solid blue rather than back to the background which has gradient fill. another example if the graphic for the software it's been 'kludged' it should be in perspective.

Colours - not to bad, personally I would change the Independent Medical Login colour it doesn't quite fit. (oh and it's only on the first page)

Fonts - Georgia is better than Times New Roman but I would stay away from serif fonts, clean pro sans-serif fonts like Tahoma and Verdana etc are generally regarded as good fonts to use for websites. Though I agree it can be a bit more of a personal choice.

Links (on the actual page rather than the menu) - it looks very old school imo with the light blue dot.

and finally attention to detail - the url for each page has the individual page name starting in caps /Home.php for example whereas the rest is in lower case (as it will be) that's not necessarily a wrong thing or bad but the actual page title is in lower case home for example these should be the other way around. Sorry this may seem picky but attention to detail is very much part of my job and I apply it to anything I do and of course this being a professional website attention to detail is key for a good impression.

I often leave websites straight away if they don't look very professional and especially if they have any kind of obvious mistake or certainly a broken link - it's sloppy.

So if you simply want new graphics and leave the overall layout and positioning basically as is I'd be happy to help though I can't guarantee time frames I am totally swamped with work and other media projects but it shouldn't take more than a few hours to do. Remember I (or anyone) would need written copyright permission to alter any existing images any new ones would be fine

Oh and just noticed the pictures have inconsistencies in their edging - some are blurred and some are raised bevel embossed.

 

[the_net_2.0]

not bad advice, folks! Thanks to everyone here. I'm not even part of it anymore, so I just might pass this advice along if I sense that they would appreciate it, AND had time for it.

Thanks to you especially, Minkey. What has always caught me up about your posts is your nifty screenname. I love it!

 

[Simon_MT]

There is a lot ore more than looks alone. It you lift the bonnet you will find the absence of properly constructed metatags. Topographical information is on the page rather than within a Cascading Stylesheet. Most objects use position:absolute. The organisation of elements on the page is unstructured, the top navigation links are the last thing to be found on page save the StatCounter script.

The original site seems to have been developed for a 800 x 600 pixel environnment and hence the stretching of the logo. The shadow effect which ever method is a klug as border-radius and box-shadow as not fully support by IE.

Fonts are a matter of personal taste, yes we all use Arial Verdana and Tahoma but there is nothing wrong with a bit of variety after all there are only 216 safe web colours!

There are no missing links on the site save a script file jscookmenu.js.

The document type should Strict as this triggers full Standard Compliance Mode in most modern browsers as it enforces clean and compliant markup. There are a number deprecated tags and elements that still work but are now invalid to W3C stanadard.

My little example was just a straightforward attempt to convert the existing page document type from loose to strict using divs and stylesheets so that I could understand what was doing on without changing any content.

Simon

 

[dan-cat]

Both Minkey and Simon have shown how much work behind the scenes there really is with a well built site.

Usually the process goes something like this

1) Visual design is built in Photoshop. This is the eye-candy for the customer. It's very important as the decline of myspace shows. People are instinctively turned off by poor visual design and they won't care if the site is quick if it makes then nauseous.

2) This is then passed on to the HTML/CSS coder who translates the visual design into good browser compliant code. Again very important for efficient performance, cross-browser compliance and SEO. People who can perform both steps 1 and 2 are invaluable

3) Finally you have the functional aspects of the site that should be on a separate tier to the previous two steps. These are plugged into the results of the 2nd step hopefully without breaking the structure of it. This easily happens with addition of javascript, hidden fields etc etc and irritates the HTML/CSS coder regularly.

The graphics designer, HTML/CSS coder and the server-side coder (database, OOP designer) will all argue that they are number 1

 

[Simon_MT]

Once html5 and the features of CCS3 are consistently implemented, graphics will be less dependent on Photoshop.

Valid html and SEO are also useful but the most important is the actual content.

Simon