I would like to comment on the pages discussed by visor:
It looks great, but consider the size of the thing. As far as I can tell (without looking at the numerous frames in more detail) the entire site is just a big image map with rollovers. Today many people still use 56k modems and one must consider an efficient size to look ratio. My site is only 30k.
he uses horizontal scrolling, bad idea as most sites have vertical scrolling structure. users are disoriented when they are forced to scroll horizontally.
I’m very impressed with his 3d artwork, but in terms of navigation and layout, he’s design is by no means “great design”.
I am considering to submit this site to http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
wow, really nice. The swirling graphics really sets the mood for the site, which is great for a web site offering graphics services. However, it uses massive amounts of flash, not site breaking but generally a bad idea, as discussed on http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
the splash page says:
flash mx plugin
one should never dictate to the user the requirements of the site. It’s far easier for him to simply click away to another page than to buy a new monitor, download the latest flash plugins, and buy a bigger connection.
again, this not site breaking as it’s a graphics site and can expect patrons to have reasonably good hardware/software.
the design itself: it looks good at first sight. But look at it from a design point of view, where is the white space? There is not a single 10x10 px area without content of some sort, making it extremely busy. Good design consists of subtle and artistic balance of content (graphics, text) and white space. Trying to fill the entire page with content is a beginner mistake (as you can see on my first page, www.freepgs.com/kendo/, and is very out of character for such a big graphics site. Take the example of google, it uses about 70% white space and a small graphic at the top. This is inspired design.
The large central graphic creates very good visual focus, but this causes the homepage to be 566k, 113 seconds download time on 56k connections.
I like this one better than the first, but not worth of the title “great design”
I will also consider submitting this site to http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
this is perhaps the worst of the three, primarily because no one can get to it!
the moral: fancy graphics and animations does not = “great page”
just my 2 cents, and please do not take these comments as personal offence, just some objective observations.
ec2: thank you for the fix, I’ll definitely try that when I get some more computer time.