July 5, 2010 at 1:50 PM #48738
I just finished redesigning my website. I would appreciate it if you could test it out for me. I’m trying to make sure it works across all platforms and web browsers.
The buttons should bring the content up in a pop up window.
if you have any problems, let me know. Quicktime player is required if you want to view the videos though…
July 5, 2010 at 3:05 PM #199842BruceMolParticipant
It all worked great for me and looks really good.
July 5, 2010 at 3:08 PM #199843
If you don’t mind, what web browser did you try it on. and were you on a PC or Mac?
July 5, 2010 at 6:26 PM #199844KenParticipant
Nice and clean Rob. A good look. I’m using Chrome browser on Mac OS 10.5.8 resolution is 1920×1200. My only issue was the website design is stuck top left of my browser. I would like it better to open in the center of my browser.
July 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM #199845
Yea, I used to have a website that always stayed centered, but I got tired of it. Just tryin something new…
July 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM #199846KenParticipant
Dig it. It’s just odd to me, because when the page opens, I have to actually turn my head to the left to read the content. Other than that it looks great.
July 5, 2010 at 7:16 PM #199847BruceMolParticipant
I was using Firefox on a PC.
July 5, 2010 at 11:44 PM #199848birdcatParticipant
Hi Rob –
Nice, clean look. The videos didn’t play but I was (am) using my stepson’s Vista laptop and QuickTime may not be installed for FireFox.
July 6, 2010 at 12:00 AM #199849pseudosafariMember
PC, IE8 with current updates and QT installed. Vids played fine, but I prefer embedded ones to ones that launch separate browser windows(just my preference).Also, I noticed the text is a graphic and not typed on the screen (can’t highlight it with a mouse, if you know what I mean). Any reason for doing it that way? Doesn’t it hurt search engine results, etc.? Just curious.
Other than that it’s top notch, good pic, etc.
July 6, 2010 at 12:56 AM #199850
“Also, I noticed the text is a graphic and not typed on the screen (can’t highlight it with a mouse, if you know what I mean).”
<span style=”font-style: normal;”>I know what you mean. I’m not a web guy, so I feel like making a jpeg for the body is just easier. Not sure what engine you’re talking about though. Do you mean search engines? I’m not really worried about that. I’d rather knock on doors and shake hands to meet people</span>
<span style=”font-style: normal;”>I hear ya on the embedded videos thing too. Just tryin somethin new. it’s easier to update this way too.</span>
Thanks for the feedback though. Much appreciated…
Thank you too, ‘Cat. Unfortunately, that’s the problem with Quicktime – not everyone has it. That’s something I’ll address in the future.
August 20, 2010 at 8:48 AM #199851AnonymousInactive
Workingperfectlyfine in a Win7 64bits usingthelatest Chrome Beta.
August 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM #199852hmuellerParticipant
Spending time putting a website together to promoteone’s business is essentialbut also time consuming – time spent more profitablyshooting video. So I was wondering if anyone here uses a WordPress-based website and whether you havefound it easyto use and fast to set up?
August 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM #199853
“Spending time putting a website together to promoteone’s business is essentialbut also time consuming – time spent more profitablyshooting video.”
In my opinion, in the long run you’re better off making a website rather than trying to make instant cash by goin on a shoot.
I’ve never made a website via WordPress, but I can say that my current website only too 2 days to create. Sure, FIRST LEARNING Dreamweaver is time consuming, but so is everything else. After a while you get the hang of it.
August 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM #199854hmuellerParticipant
Hmmm, interesting. I asked if anyone had used WordPress, and I get comments from people who had not. WordPress is an effective way for people without web design skills to put together very attractive and functional websites – and as such would potentially be of interest to many videographers. I thought it would be valuable for our readers to have a discussion around that. I was certainly not commenting on the merits or otherwise of Rob’s website, that has been covered well enough by the previous comments.
August 21, 2010 at 11:03 PM #199855D0nParticipant
safari on the mac, looks great!
August 22, 2010 at 4:42 AM #199856SteveMannParticipant
OK, how’s this.
I tried to use WordPress and found it too complex and restrictive for my taste. Either you take the short-slope learning curve and use the multitude of templates that are available with some modification, (and look like all the other websites using the same template), or you take the very steep learning curve and you develop your own templates. I wanted to spend my time on my business of video production – not building a website.
I found WYSIWYG Web Publisher and have been exceedingly happy with it. It uses a UI that I am very familiar with having been a Visual Basic programmer for my productive years. You put objects on the page and set up the objects parameters. When you like what you see, you hit “publish” and WWB generates the HTML code and optionally FTP’s it to your site. Your site can be as simple or as complex as you like.
Now, before you purists flame me about the “messy” code that WYSIWYG programs generate, here’s two things to consider.
1) I am in the business of producing videos – I AM NOT a web designer and I don’t intend to become one, so I don’t need to know nor care what the HTML code looks like. Just as long as the page looks good on most browsers.
2) In addition to not caring what the code looks like, as long as it works, WWB is the only web development tool that I’ve seen that passes the W3C Validation. Dreamweaver can’t. Can wordpress?
3) And the price is reasonable.
August 22, 2010 at 7:37 PM #199857EarlCMember
A web site’s work is never done. It is never finished, completed or perfect. A web site, by the very nature of its dynamics will always be a work-in-progress.
There are simple and effective web sites. There are complex, dense and entertaining web sites. There are websites that never work, some that work on occasion and others that appear at first glance to be doing everything they should and attracting eyeballs unlimited.
The philosophy of web site creation, navigation and production is broad, bridging many thoughts, concepts, real experiences and opinions. There are purists and amateurs, and those among them that should share more or say nothing, or have no room to talk.
The primary question a web site developer of any rank or persuasion should ask of him/herself is – does mine work for me? And within that question is a strata of layers that if honestly answered, provide the thoughts that go to improving this work-in-progress. And any web site’s measure of “effectiveness” can only be judged and qualified based on the expectations of the person creating it – first.
Yes, others have opinions. Some will hate it for no specific reason. Others will love it for the same. Some will stop and peruse, others will jump off immediately. Some will respond to a call for action, or leave in a huff the first time their order doesn’t go through properly – whether the fault of the site or human error, or not.
There are proven tricks and tools, methods and approaches and there are approaches yet to be developed, tried and proven. There are bad and wrong things to do, and things a person can do that as right as they may be are not going to work for them, their particular service, product or program.
In the final analysis, yes there are many things that can be done better, and there are a host of things that can be disastrous. But there’s no perfect right or wrong way, and no perfect solution or formula. Hence, our sites will always be works-in-progress.
Some are willing to learn, experiment, adjust and challenge themselves toward improvements. Others just want to glow and brag and have everyone who visits their site tell them how perfect the site is. Whatever it takes.
My personal approach is less rhetoric, less glitz, more concise and understandable and easy-to-find information, simple navigation and less layering requiring the visitor to determine where exactly the web site information is that they’re looking for and how to get to it in the least amount of clicks.
That’s just me. Simplicity. Easy navigation. Basic information – availability (and how to contact me on every page), where I am and at least an idea of how much I cost). My products and what I do (samples work best here) and less of why they should use video, or photography or the latest and greatest technology. If the web site visitor wasn’t already sold he or she would be visiting.
IMHO a website isn’t for “selling” it’s for getting the visitor to follow through on an action he or she has already sold themselves on.
In the above respects I continue to use the “hammer and handsaw” philosophy as it applies to the diversity of tools for web site building and development – whatever it takes to build a house.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.