wardz Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 Hey, thats real good!!!!NICE ONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted June 16, 2001 Author Share Posted June 16, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Boba Rhett Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 I connect at 28.8 and run a resolution of 1024x768. The page fit well on the screen and loaded in about 40 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest digl Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 I have a terrible 56k connection, and it loaded in about a minute, and Im running at 1024x768 and it looks fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted June 16, 2001 Author Share Posted June 16, 2001 gee you guys What do you think to the layout? wardz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted June 16, 2001 Author Share Posted June 16, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_silvergun Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted June 17, 2001 Author Share Posted June 17, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted June 17, 2001 Author Share Posted June 17, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_silvergun Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 I have a T1 and it loaded instantly. It fitted on my screen at 1024x768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted June 18, 2001 Author Share Posted June 18, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_silvergun Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 How about a little animated guy doing some Taekwon-Do moves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Simpson Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 How about a link to this animation. Simply the best fighting animation you can find. Takes a while to load on a 56k though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.