Suggestions for improvement sought

ADAM Web Design · #1 (**permalink**) 10-08-2005, 08:51 PM

The site (just so people can find it):

Award Kitchen Refacers

Now...here's the situation:

I did this for a client in a little over two weeks, including the creation of the logo from a design concept provided to me, business cards, etc.

So...for a site done in two weeks, given all the other stuff I'm doing, I'm reasonably pleased with it and the client is ecstatic.

But...I know it could use some work in some areas, and these will be addressed within the next couple of months with the client.

I've got my own thoughts on what areas these are, but I wanted to compare them with the ideas you guys came up with.

CJacobson · #2 (**permalink**) 10-08-2005, 11:19 PM

For starters, where you have the before and after pictures on the homepage, I think it should be the same kitchen photographed from the same angle. It looks to me like two different kitchens, and thus it looks like a misleading comparison. Many people expect remodelers to try to rip them off, so you should go to extreme measures to make your client seem honest.

I also think you should set the pictures up so visitors can click on them to see enlarged views side-by-side. Of course, next to the enlarged views would be a great place for a testimonial and a caption explaining the cabinet refacing process as it applied to that example project.

I don't care for the checkerboard-tile kitchen in the header. The kitchen to the left of that image looks like the it's only halfway re-modeled. (The backsplashes are missing and it looks like the sheetrock has been torn up and not repaired yet.) The other two images are night-and-day better. I believe I'd prefer the header in Technicolor.

Dcrux · #3 (**permalink**) 10-09-2005, 10:10 AM

CJacobson makes a point, which applies to the testimonials. Mr. & Mrs. S.L. and the rest do not seem real, use full names or don't do testimonials. Your client is on-site, and so can take pictures of the customers so add the customer photo.

It's clear you're aware of what creates credibility from the copy. I encourage you to expand on this and go all the way. As pointed out, improve the photos. You could go so far as to label and detail improvements.

Finally, there isn't a unique selling proposition against competition. What's your competitve advantage? Most business are simply not very good at articulating the value they bring to the table. That is one of the leading reasons companies find it hard to compete on anything but price.

Certain companies are in industries which have to work twice as hard to be perceived as half as good. Remodelers are one industry which has to work harder.

ADAM Web Design · #4 (**permalink**) 10-10-2005, 05:32 PM

Okay...interesting comments so far.

The one I don't totally get is about renovators having to work twice as hard to look half as good. I've got a theory as to why you might have said that, but in order not to influence it, I'd like to have a little more elaboration on that thought, please and thank you.

tony · #5 (**permalink**) 10-10-2005, 07:22 PM

Firefox is showing your materials on the material page heading off to the right but it's ok in IE.
If you can I would eliminate the need to scroll on the index page, maybe trim the header.
Other than that it looks good!

Tim · #6 (**permalink**) 10-10-2005, 08:18 PM

The site looks and works fine in the usual browsers on a PC. Just a few points that might help;

First, I suggest you correct the errors in the css (here) and the xhtml (here), also on the contact page (3 errors), testimonials (3), consultation (4) and a curious 1 on the_process page.
Also, in your meta-tags you have surplus (blank) description and keywords tags and I'm not sure what flyaway.js is supposed to do (nothing for me!). Firefox doesn't fit the materials page, horizontally.

I'm not keen on the colour scheme, they don't compliment the coloured photos, especially the horrible pink photo on the process page. I agree with the comments about before and after, mouse-over swap images might work well but I realise that was out of your hands. I also feel that it would be good to emphasise the Award brand and attribute it with keywords like 'quality' rather than just value. The Formica, WilsonArt and Arborite logos should be much smaller and the Award logo needs some design time to make it stronger and credible.

We all have to make the most with what we're given and I think you've done a good job with lack-lustre content.

ran_dizolph · #7 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 04:18 PM

Hi,

Not a bad looking site...i like the layout, and the navigation is easy to follow.

In FF, as pointed out, the materials don't align properly to the right.

I'm going to agree with the colour scheme comment...just seems too bland. I understand you wouldn't go all out with blinding neons, but i'm thinking some subtle earthy-tones would do nicely.

looks good, clean code.

keep up the good work!

MarcieZoob · #8 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 05:01 PM

It's a clean layout but for some reason it does not feel balanced to me. The logo on the top left and the 5-year warranty starburst tip everything off to the left. The color scheme is kind of odd, especially when combined with the b/w photography. Those samples s/b COLOR.

I agree with CJacobson about the before/after - the images s/b from the same angle so we know it's the same kitchen. For first impression, I think the before/after images need to be larger in the white area instead of that numbered bullet list.

The "Dream" page is where they are really selling themselves but it seems kind of ordinary. Could you create a more interesting portfolio? Also, the quality of the enlarged images is very poor, each one is quite pixelated. For SEO purposes, make sure you revise your ALT tags for the enlarged images. Here's an example of your current formatting:

alt="Larger Image: picture_r_large.jpg"

The site has a really high "We" factor. Your current "we" occurrence is 9 times on the home page for 7.26% density. I always direct clients to use their name more frequently in their copy, especially for SEO.

I assume you have yet to to SEO, though, so these things will come later... ?

nullvariable · #9 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 08:07 PM

I'd work a bit on the CSS for the main page. Change the numbers from images back to numbers. I created an example showing how I did it (I knew it could be done but before I went and told you to do it, I made sure I could :-)).

I would also move the rollovers out of images and into CSS. This will make it more search engine friendly and help boost the load time. It takes almost 30 seconds to load the page over a 56k modem

I like the navigation and the over all feel of the site and it looks ok in FireFox, IE and Opera. You also did a great job fitting in with 800x600 resolution!

ADAM Web Design · #10 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 10:08 PM

Okay...what was really creepy about all of the comments are that they're pretty much the same ones that I'd either had thoughts about myself or expressed to the client.

To everyone that commented on the copy and pics: agreed and discussed. Content in both regards is to be provided within the next few months.

Re: colour pics in the top. Also to be adjusted, but there is a reason they're black and white.

MarcieZoob: I noted the pic thing with the client, but I have no alternate descriptions for the pics, so I just put that in there for now. I'm not overly concerned about the pics being found for SEO purposes, though, since the company is only targeting a small area. For those who know the GTA, draw a shape containing the 427, 401, Gardiner Expressway/QEW, and 403 as the "sides". That's the area.

As far as the quality of the larger images themselves...yup, they're that bad. Digital cam pics to come, which will dictate the style of the "portfolio" from there.

nullvariable: I knew how to do it that way too. But the client wanted the numbers to stand out, and they wanted to use that font. Since it's not a common font, images are it.

I don't like the way CSS rollovers perform, and I'll deal with the small sacrifice in load time to get them to work like...well, rollovers. The big issue is the background JPG and the two corresponding PNGs, which will get adjusted over time.

Bootboy: thanks for the validation catches. All but one of them related to an ASP procedure that I tweaked just before I finished the site, so they all took about 5 minutes to fix.

The CSS validation is one I can't do much about, because it's a PNG issue and IE needs the filter to handle PNG correctly. I can deal with the warnings.

Thanks again, all.

drummin · #11 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 12:50 AM

As far as css buttons, have to tried putting all pictures on the same image and then doing offset to show hover etc? This way all pictures are loaded because it's the same image.

ADAM Web Design · #12 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 01:31 AM

I don't follow what you mean.

drummin · #13 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 01:57 AM

Make picture with all button views you wish to use lined up one on top of the other. Use "background-postion" to set offset view. This CSS just uses two offsets, but you could modify if needed for visited etc.

#menu a {background: url("../images/but.gif")
no-repeat 0% 0%;
background-position: 0 0px; height:14px; width:108px; display:block; font: bold 10px/1 Tahoma; color: #FFFFFF; text-decoration:none; text-align:center; margin:0px; padding:0px;}
#menu a:hover {background-position: 0 -21px; color:#00FF66; height:14px; width:108px; padding:0px; text-decoration:none;}
#menu a:active {height:14px; width:108px; padding:0px; color:#F0FFF0; text-decoration:none; background: url("../images/but.gif")
no-repeat 0 -21px;}

You might need to fuss with the offset or even change spacing of buttons on your image, but once you got it, it works great.
Drummin

Dcrux · #14 (**permalink**) 10-14-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

I'd like to have a little more elaboration on that thought, please and thank you.

To expand on the "twice as hard ... half as good comment" I refer to a commercial. Can't quite remember when it aired but one had a remodeler. The remodeler tells the customer they'll tear out the back wall to the kitchen. Then, they'll disappear for two weeks (don't bother calling ...we won't pick up). This went on for a bit until the announcer tied the opening to the advertising message.

Anything that gets news play year after year is on what I call "the list." I've never done a comprehensive survey, but moving companies, roofers, remodelers, some financial services and used car salesman top the usual suspects list. Marketing hype only buries you deeper, guarantees don't mean a thing ....you need to establish authenticity first.

I go into web copywriting with a human voice on my site.

This means any company in the industry doesn't get the benefit of a doubt. If testimonials seem even slightly fictional, in blacklisted industries they will be treated as fictional. Full names, photos, scanned images of handwritten notes; they all work to underscore the realness of the testimonial.

All many companies know how to do is pile on one unbelievable claim onto another. Either that or nonsensical buzzwords or industry specific jargon which means less than nothing. Ad man Eugene Schwartz explained it is better to make one fully believed claim than ten partly believed claims.

Keep in mind this doesn't stop with the testimonials, but carries to product photos, copy details which make for authenticity, and can carry on to something as mundane as invoicing, diagrams which actually explain something, returning phone calls promptly, being at the client site when you say, having the materials, cleaning up afterward, and so on.

shawtyshygurl · #15 (**permalink**) 10-16-2005, 07:16 PM

I think your site is just explanatory. It might be plain but it shows the information that is needed and it is not cmplicated. But like some people said earler, your pictures should be links and you should have pictures with other angles and side views. But overall good.

Can you also review my site at http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...=254318#254318

ADAM Web Design · #16 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 01:27 AM

You got a deal. :)

DCrux: I hear you now. I suspected that's what you meant but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.