WebProNews.com

**mike** · #1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 05:33 PM

We're working on a new design/layout for WebProNews. Have a look at it if you don't mind, and let me know what you think about it. It isn't 100% finished mind you, but we're getting pretty close now I think.

dharrison · #2 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 06:03 PM

Hi Mike

It looks good, but you do realise that at 800x600 you get the horizontal scroll bars and quite a bit of scroll bar to that (Basically it cuts off that right-hand column).

I may look at this into more detail in the morning, but its getting late here and I am absolutely cream-crackered.

Later,

ADAM Web Design · #3 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 06:22 PM

So...much...information. Brain...overloading.

I realize that WPN covers a lot of stuff, but couldn't you cut all that in at least half? Take half of the articles away from the left, remove at least one of the two ads that appear in the middle (both Xerox ads), maybe institute a menu down the left for all the News/Blog Talk stuff instead of just having 5-10 links for each.

You just get hit by too much too soon. it's very confusing.

mlevenhagen · #4 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 07:00 PM

Hi Mike!

I think it looks good; I like the template. You know what? The width doesn't bother me so much in this case...

The most important information is contained in the main body... Navigation is contained above the main body.

The right column is just a bonus. As long as the information is not your main focus. People will scroll. I scrolled:) It's a professional looking website so I would be curious....

I have a large screen, but I often have my 'Favorites' bar open in IE. So I won't see that right column right away... but I don't need to. I think what I'm interested in is in the body and it doesn't affect my navigation... maybe?

You have a lot of ground/information to cover so it's probably hard for you to leave stuff off the main page. If you do want people to pay attention to the right column, I'd have to say you'd need to decide to either make the page longer OR split it off into it's own web.

Have Fun!

nullvariable · #5 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 07:33 PM

The layout and general feel of the page are great but I have the same problem with 800x600, This is so neatly trimmed off the page many users might not even notice that it is gone.

The CSS file is HUGE! A lot of the advantage to using CSS is its inheritable traits. Your CSS file defines a lot of duplicate features. For example:

Code:

input.search {
	font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
	font-size: 10px;
	color: #000000;
	width: 90px;
}
select.search {
	font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
	font-size: 10px;
	color: #000000;
	width: 90px;
}

Both of these definitions are identical, I would roll them into a single definition.

The front page files the W3C validation with 294 errors! Many of them look to be from using a plain & instead of & in the URLs.

I love the fact that the site is content heavy but I agree that it should be spread out a bit.

NV

**mike** · #6 (**permalink**) 10-11-2005, 11:40 PM

the 800x600 appearance was of course considered. We wanted the right colum to come in as an 'add-on' kind of thing. I think most folks reading our stuff are probably over 800x600 anyway.

The little .css issues and some code sweeping remain to be finished.

There is a lot of content, but I like having a lot of content. The trick is displaying the content. As far as that goes, we've put a lot of thought into graphic balance and appearance of the page and what should go where etc... There are still some changes pending in this aspect I believe, but the most drastic of the changes are probably about finished now.

dharrison · #7 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 02:40 AM

Mike

That is fair comment and you are probably right, but it is still a popular resolution and we are not all web developers on this forum.

What I'm trying to say is IF a visitor with an 800x600 resolution came to visit your site (and it is possible). The horizontal scroll bars stick out like a sore thumb and would give them the impression "Hmm, these people report on everything in the Web Professional's World, but their website doesn't even fit my screen!?! Err.. bye bye."

Just a thought, but at the end of the day, but you did ask what we thought ;-)

Best regards

nullvariable · #8 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 04:04 AM

To follow up with the comment about resolution, I have a coworker who for some reason puts his start menu on the left side of the screen. I've had to tweak a couple of pages because after watching him load them I realized how goofy they looked. Point being people these days have lots of different side panels and toolbars open all the time. But hey I like 1024 and I won't have a problem seeing the content :-)

MarcieZoob · #9 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 05:37 AM

Nice clean layout - it looks really good on my 1280.

I personally think that the content is easy to find. Yes, there's a great deal of content but a visitor can easily find what they need.

Nice job, great resource!

kgun · #10 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 08:13 AM

Comments on navigation, load times, content, code, etc...

1. Navigation
Good enough for me. I miss a home link / button, but I have no problem navigating in my browser. Other people say there shall be a home button. But if you think objects, and you will train the surfer to click on objects, the cube, or the name, I agree with you, and do the same myself. Train the surfer to think digital objects with properties. When I click the Newsletter folder, I am directed to: http://www.ientry.com/page/newsletters/ Is that natural or should the newsletter be on a subpage of the site?

When I now click home, naturally, I am directed to http://www.ientry.com/. Somebody may have problems returning to WebProNews. Is the magazine designed for the moms and pops or the more advanced IT person?

2. Load time
That is worst for me in Norway with a three year old computer with 1 Gb memory, a 2.7 Gb processor and standard connection. If I want something improved, it is the load time.

3. Content
It is partly Ad driven with rotating banners and it is a news magazine. Then there have do be very different colours and graphics. News papers / magazines usually have a lot of sections, with different colours and fonts. It is a digital news magazine and it fits well to my screens. I use a Matrox graphics card for dual screens and it fits nicely to the 17 and 19 inch screen in IE. Same in my verision of Opera and Firefox. I think it loads faster in Opera 8.5, but since I am from Norway, I may be biased.

4. Scrolling
I look for content and information and it looks very much the same as Norwegian digital news magazines that I am used to. I have no problems with scrolling.

5. Code.
The load time, is that due to the heavy use of tables? Would it load faster with less use of tabels and more CSS? You use Google and Yahoo in the KW tags. Some mean that should not be done. I have no problem with it, but do not know US practice or standard. What about loading the upper sections before the lower?

6. Conclusion.
I started by looking at the green indicator and thought. It is an electronic newsmagazine. Do you know of any much better? I have a lot of links in my collection, but can not rememeber other digital magazines that have much better design and layout. If I find one that sets a standard, I will post the link. Another site with much information, graphics, navigation and sections? I thought of http://nasdaq.com/ and http://www.cboe.com/, but that is not news magazines. There is a great difference between these two sites. The first loads much faster. In an ideal world, you should make a site that can be viewed in any browser, even in http://lynx.browser.org/, on any connection and in any screen. That is in an ideal world. I think the most critical factor is load time.

If you think for the future, more and more information will be available on mobile phones. Tv is available today. In the next step you may try to make a version for the mobile phone. That project should have the effect of improving the code for the W3 version of the site. Cooperation with Sun (java for mobile solutions), Nokia and Opera?

**mike** · #11 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 10:29 AM

Very appreciative of the comments to this point.

I know the scrollbar is perhaps a bit off the general concensus of how things 'should be', but I think it actually works ok for this page... I have checked it in 800x600 and think it still does what I want it to do as far as page 'performance'. In other words, I don't know that it would drive me away as a visitor/user and it has some good stuff in it (the WebProWrld section in particular).

Kgun, excellent catch on the subscribe process. This is definitely something that will be gone through a bit more asap.

Load time/code sweep these two probably go hand in hand to a large extent (I expected some issues here at this point).

My overall concern is more with content 'flow' and/or organization. I know there's a lot of information on the page. As such, one of the primary goals is to present it in such a way that it doesn't overwhelm the visitor and people can find their favorite sections easily to read what they want to read about.

pete200677 · #12 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 10:48 AM

had a very quick look, much much better, way prefer the layout.

800*600 doesnt really matter, maybe 3 people left at this resolution.

LookForLinks.com · #13 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 03:48 PM

Sheer looks: I like it. In fact I like it very much and I see a lot of websites, really. I like the way you integrated the leaderboard except maybe it's not a leaderboard (750 width instead of 728)?

Logo should be sharper. It's not sharp. Designers always do that. (:-) They start from some font and then resize it. And it gets... uh... fuzzy... unsharp. Anyway, what font is that actually?
http://images.ientrymail.com/webpron...ertestleft.gif

*** NV, your remark about HTML compliant code is really very interesting and I wonder if it makes any difference in regards to search engine positioning if it were faultess, but I'm getting off topic! :-o

*** Peter, 800x600 is more than 3 people: 11,85% on a site we started tracking in August. I don't like it as much as you do but it still is a number to keep into consideration.

;-)

kgun · #14 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 04:53 PM

*** NV, your remark about HTML compliant code is really very interesting and I wonder if it makes any difference in regards to search engine positioning if it were faultess, but I'm getting off topic! :-o

Use what Andilinks wrote here:

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=54067

Scroll down to
W3C Validation

on the link

http://www.seomoz.org/articles/searc...php?comments=1

she mentioned.

tfinch · #15 (**permalink**) 10-12-2005, 09:34 PM

Mike you have your work cut out for you! This site is quite large and I think you have done a nice job organizing all the content. My main job is website design but since I've been coming to WebProWorld, I've taken advantage of the marketing, database, and many other sections. Everyone is right there to help! I agree with the people who says keep all the content and topics. You never know when someone might need it. Nice job!

dharrison · #16 (**permalink**) 10-13-2005, 03:03 AM

Hi Mike,

I do like the new site, Good job!. Fair enough that it is a bit busy, but magazine sites generally are. Just forget everything I said about resolution before. It was a bad comment (*slaps self on wrist) :-)

This is a bit picky, but probably worth mentioning:

Your search facility works, but it takes you to the Google listings for WebProNews in an external Google page. I was expecting the results to come up within the site (if that makes sense).

I know its still WPN, but it may alienate a few viewers, but this is solely my own opinion.

HTH,

iany · #17 (**permalink**) 10-13-2005, 04:32 AM

Way too much for me.

I am with Adam here. I am in the KISS camp. People far too busy to scroll through a very busy site. Fatigue sets in very quickly. Although it certainy looks very professional I would like to see a site like this at the forefront of design and I really don't think this is. Remember the old publishing adage. White space attracts the eye.

I also cannot abide advertising in the body of a site like this (I know there are commercial considerations), but it is a turn off for me.

On the plus side the overall template is attractive and eye catching (too much Javascript maybe). The resolution thing shouldn't be an issue - particularly for the majority of people who use the site. Given the efforts of messrs Dell & HP, cannot see o many casual users with 800 x 600 screens these days. I certainly don't know anyone who is still in the steam age.

Keep at it. Lose half the content and you will have a winning site.

Cheers

Ian

**mike** · #18 (**permalink**) 10-13-2005, 09:09 AM

Hmm. Losing half the content wouldn't be my first choice. WebProNews covers search and ebusiness and covering those areas is gonna take a lot of content. The news moves fast and there's just a lot of it. I think actually one of the primary goals of this review request would be geared towards the quality of the information presented and the way in which it is presented. Can you come here and feel confident you're going to see comprehensive coverage of our focus areas (search and ebusiness)?

The search results showing up on Google results pages was done initially simply as a quick 'placeholder' for the search function. Sort of a 'we'll have a search function here' kind of thing. But then after it was up, we started to kind of like it actually. It's quite fast and comprehensive and pretty much everybody is comfortable and familiar with Google style results... so what else do we want? Well sure, it's best to keep things on our domain, but the results will be sending folks back to our domain anyway. So, the value of developing/enhancing our own search function is somewhat debatable.

Again, appreciating the comments. Apart from form, though, what do you think about the function of the site. Is it accomplishing what it needs to with all of that content? I can handle the 'too much info' criticism provided we are accomplishing our goals (namely comprehensive coverage of search and ebusiness).

kgun · #19 (**permalink**) 10-13-2005, 06:21 PM

1. Top news headlines.
Good placement. Should the news open in a new window? Personally, I prefer a new window.

More top news. Good.

2. Blog Talk.
Good placement.

More Blog Talk. OK.

3. Headlines with text in left column.
Good.

4. Expert articles, eBusiness resoruces etc.
Good enough.

5. Advertising.
If you are a profit maximizing magazine, there is an optimum that may depend on the placement and quantity of Ad. There is always a danger of finding a point (far) away from profit maximum by using too much of a single input. In my view, (compared with similar magazines), that point is not passed.

6. Information.
I am most familiar with the financial business where information and rumours may be a driver in the short run. Buy on rumours and sell on information. Heard that before? Some people in this business never get enough information. People working with information sience and technology may think otherwise? E.G. rumours should not be so important.

**mike** · #20 (**permalink**) 10-13-2005, 07:22 PM

hmm. new windows. I like new windows too.

JKomp · #21 (**permalink**) 10-13-2005, 07:33 PM

nice but if anything a little cluttered.

dharrison · #22 (**permalink**) 10-14-2005, 02:24 AM

Do adverts have to appear in the print-only version of the page? (well you did say test for functionality)

Also I do have to sound the "page being too cramped" horn. Its fair enough that you want to display the most recent articles, but that Monster Advert breaks up the list and can be quite confusing. I recommend that you have your most recent articles at the top, and then from about "64% of search advertisers..." have as a list of, er... less recent articles and just add their titles and then the advert (If you really must).

I see what you've done, you've kept the entire page as a blog in true magazine style. But do you really need to pad the page out with so many adverts? And in some cases, duplicate adverts to that.

But the site is very good.

Hope this helps,

dharrison · #23 (**permalink**) 10-14-2005, 06:15 AM

Sorry, when I say list the titles of articles, I do mean have them as links.

I did write that last bit early this morning. :-|

kgun · #24 (**permalink**) 10-14-2005, 08:47 AM

I sit in front of a 21 inch screen when I write this, and it shows ok in that too.

1. Fast loading pages (too little code?)

http://www.w3schools.com/

http://www.websia.no/

2. Good design.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/

http://www.efinancialnews.com/

http://newsisfree.com/

3. Ad Placement.

Dominating banner at the top. Great in my view. Let them pay if you have millions of readers. A dominating banner on a site with more than a million readers would not be cheap in Norway.

Other Ad spread over the page or in special sections, e.g. along an edge. Opionion is devided as is design, the use of animation, graphic elements, different fonts and colour.

It is impossible to satisfy everyone. I know people that love Ad, and other that hate it. All in all it is big business. Is it possible to do it better than your competitor? That is the question.

jmoran77 · #25 (**permalink**) 10-14-2005, 03:56 PM

Awesome look, adn looking at it from my Powerbook G4 at 1440 it is quite a site. The amount of info actually makes me salivate as it is an advertisement in itself of how popular the site is. Personally, the demographic of the people you are hitting is professionals and seekers so hats off on organizing such a massive site.

kgun · #26 (**permalink**) 10-14-2005, 04:47 PM

It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice. I consider the real vice is making losses.
Winston Churchill

I consider making losses and having to fire your employers as the real evil.
kgun

dharrison · #27 (**permalink**) 10-15-2005, 07:15 AM

Fair comment, but in any case, you don't need two of each adverts on a page.

Advertise something once, but twice just screams desperation (Please click on my ad!!).

**mike** · #28 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 03:01 PM

The instance of 2 ads for the same sponsor appearing on the same page is a random event. Ads rotate.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode