Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Open Forum › Building the basic video production website
- This topic has 8 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 14 years ago by Anonymous.
May 11, 2007 at 10:50 AM #43527AnonymousInactive
The old look is toast. The biggest addition is the Photo Gallery. Trying to get a nicer looking site that still loads quickly is the challenge. I hate trying to search sites that have so many graphics, photos, etc. that it takes forever to load- even with DSL. My tolerence level is 5-10 seconds.
let me know what you think of the new look. http://www.kbvp.com We are constantly tweaking the site, so please add your comments.
May 19, 2007 at 12:11 PM #182578TomScratchParticipant
(Glad to be back. The Videomaker website had a onehundredpercent record over the last couple weeks of freezing up my whole computer system (XP/Toshiba laptop). No other site was messing me up like this. Something from Chico was causing a meltdown of my Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0, so I got rid of it. Going back to 5.0 cured it. Fingers crossed.)
I like your website. Between this and repeat customers you must be thriving. I may be revisiting your Useful Links.
Note that your opening page is all static. If it didnt say video everywhere, Id a thought you were a digital still photography service. This page looks like it was removed from a print magazine and pasted there.
Made me wince your statement in the post (not your website), I hate trying to search sites that have so many Now if you are a clone of your target audience, that may be OK. What is relevant is this, how your current target audience feels about this (that you already have in the bag) and how your future target audience might feel about this (those who are in the relevant market that you have not reached yet). The beginning and end of it is business. If dazzle or something else serves the business purpose, or at least does not get in the way, you have a winner!
Many aviators are older (e.g., 40 and up) and may not have the impatience of an audience pinned (rightly or wrongly) with the attention deficit label. Pre-flight checks take more than 30 seconds. This m.o. might be there for dealing with websites.
I am not into the gluttonous use of effects and clutter on visuals that is considered hot by a lot. When CNN introduced massive clutter in lower thirds some 20 or so years ago, it was IMHO a drag on visual aesthetics for the ages. But where would web sites be without this so oh well When you are reading subtitles, you may be missing the nuances, even basic info, in the visuals. (So I watch foreign films more that once to get the visual information.) My bottom line here is that I do concur on the simpler is better aesthetic!
Best Regards Tom 8)
May 20, 2007 at 9:51 AM #182579AnonymousInactive
Love your site. Love the overall design and composition! Good work.
May 20, 2007 at 10:16 AM #182580AnonymousInactive
Thanks! I am adding video and stills on a regular basis. Shortly, I am starting a review type page for video related gear. These reviews will be more related to real world use and observations.
Keith Breazeal http://www.kbvp.com
May 31, 2007 at 4:26 PM #182581AnonymousInactive
The great experiment is getting results. Since I have posted several videos on Google, the web site traffic shows a good increase. When my videos make the "Popular" and/or the "Featured" list, the traffic increases by at least four fold. With the addition of the still photos, there has been a signifigant amount of hits to the new image gallery.
Bottom line, target your customers and give them plenty of options on your site. Add new videos and stills on a weekly basis. Google Video has driven a lot more traffic than Youtube. Forums provide a great tool to reach people, so search out forums that meet the subject matter, and introduce yourself. Try not to come off as a spammer with a link. Personalize your intro to the type and subject matter of that particular forum. If you have a cool photo that represents you, post that at the intro. It takes time to build traffic, so be patient.
May 31, 2007 at 4:49 PM #182582AnonymousInactive
Thanks alot for the info on that. I am a novice that is very interested in site building and promoting of my future videography business. Will post mine when I can create it one day (pretty far from now).
So far, I just submitted the two, small time, un-related-to-video sites I’ve created with a web page builder to the major serach engines. As far as I can tell, it takes time to get your site indexed well doing this before they are ‘findable’.
May 31, 2007 at 5:13 PM #182583AnonymousInactive
What else is interesting is the percentage of traffic from Europe and Asia. I can see this in the "Admin/Logs" and a bar graph showing the time of day the highest traffic is going to the site. The peak traffic is hitting from 12-5pm EST, so this would equate to after work hours in Europe. I think about 50% of mine is from "the other side".
July 21, 2007 at 3:55 AM #182584ARichardsParticipant
I know when I had my site designed roughly 7 years ago, it was with the express purpose of keeping it low-bandwidth. Graphics were kept to a minimum and it’s primarily text in the form of video articles, interviews, and reviews. At the time I was on dial-up and was lucky if I could get 5kps. I keep meaning to dress up the site with a snazzier look, but I still like the low-bandwidth aspect. I like information at my fingertips and not having to wait for a ton of graphics to load (such as 40 different smilies and ads hosted by third party websites – grrrrr). My site is dated, and there are certain aspects I wish I’d had designed otherwise, but it is what it is.
July 21, 2007 at 8:36 PM #182585AnonymousInactive
It looks a bit cluttered. Maybe put the photos below the navigation and move the search to be below the header, but above all of the body. Maybe move pop content/etc. to the right side, mirroring the left. Oh, and: I personally hate fixed-width designs (especially when the width chosen fits on my monitor twice side-by-side).
Also, for some reason, the filmstrip up top looks like it should be clickable. It may just be me, but if others think so, you may want to rethink the graphic that is there and blend them a bit to show that they aren’t clickable (or maybe have each frame go to a page that shows a sample clip or just a larger image).
My new personal site ( http://videoproductionsupport.com/ ) was based upon a fixed width page and it appears to be working well in variable width form.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.