web site redesign comments

[powdork]

I'm in the process of redesigning the layout for my site and am at the point of looking for comments. all comments are welcome (even about mom).

old layout(this is now the new one)
new layout
edit- those wre from april. the newly redesigned page is now live here


if you can also leave your screen resolution that is important since the layout and css file vary by screen res.

known bugs
1. i know it doesn't validate. i'm currently working on that but comments are appreciated.
2. Google adsense is currently tampering with fonts and font sizes, which is why some of the ads might not match each other or the site.

[Blurred]

you changed the shape of the image on top of the page, and that constitutes a "redesign"? lol

[f2f]

i think your most major design problem is how long it takes for the page to load. both the old and the new. looks like blurred gave up midway.

go thin on the javascript and consider serving at least the title page statically or making it lighter on info.

[MTT]

I have failing eyesight and have been staring at a puter screen since 6AM.

14 inch TFT Lap-top. 1280X800 32 bit. Tried it at 100% and 125%

First I cannot say why, but I like the original oval shaped about Lake Tahoe in the upper Left. It’s the 1 distinguishing feature on your front page. I did not have as positive a (FEELING) with the rectangular image on the newer version.

I like the subtle background shading,
As long as your links and content remain it’s all good.

[powdork]

you changed the shape of the image on top of the page, and that constitutes a "redesign"? lol

it's not an image, it's a flash file
i changed the flash logo substantially.
changed css to remove the blues folks were complaining about.
i removed all the links under each category to the recent forum posts.
removed the blue lines noone liked.
mostly in response to comments from a previous thread.

i'm not overly concerned about load time currently just because the server has been slow all night for some reason. also, if you are in ie, it takes longer to load because of the way ie loads pages. firefox presents all the content immediately while loading the js in the background.
in general, on medium dsl it takes about 2 seconds to load with firefox and between 4 and 5 seconds with ie.

[Crock]

viewing at 1680x1050

the second one is much cleaner, but I agree with the comment about the oval vs the rectangle flash slideshow. Something about it doesn't appeal to me as much as the original. On the lower right side where you have the Lake tours and Activities box, I really like the header having it's own background color, and would like to see it become more of the overall theme.

Something on the left side bar that separates the google ads from the nav bar would be a nice, simple touch.

Also maybe recommend using a different font color for links and main text, or just something to break up all that blue.

Bout as nitpicky as I can get I suppose. Nice site though.

[powdork]

^i agree with all those points. the tours and activities box is created by viator. I like the idea of reproducing that, but have to work on their rounded corners, which have issues.
given the comments about the new header versus the old header. i easily have about 70 pixels to the right of the header that i can use. i will most likely expand the header to fill that void and then put an oval dissolved mask over the right side so that it is somewhat similar to the previous site, without the blue line. I hate the new logo font, but am also way over the papyrus so I'll experiment with that too.

oops. meant to add this picture showing differences between ie and ff. the bg color is definitely different, and you can clearly see how much better ie renders the font (look at capital W, make sure the image is full size).

[brice618]

Holy content vomit batman!

There is so much to stare at, that I don't know what to stare at. It could be that I have no interest in Tahoe Real Estate though. It seems like you could really re-organize into something that wouldn't be so dense that I would actually care to search through the page. I think a combination of formatting (text and visual) and content organization would be best for this thing. You don't have to tell everyone everything from the get go if its clear and easy they will find what they want.

In the last image your Heading is "Fishing Tahoe's Lakes" then you describe it with "Whether it's flyfishing a quiet alpine stream..."

[gunit130]

I just threw up in my mouth looking at that.

Maybe have a look at this for an example of a "good website". http://www.visitinglaketahoe.com/

[powdork]

if you had a brain you would know that is not actually a web site. You would realize that is simply one splash page that links to the north shore visitors bureau web site and the south shore visitor's bureau web site (both of whom have extensive budgets).
enjoy the throw up in your mouth.

[toast2266]

Aside from a complete restructuring of how the text is presented in the middle (its a lot of words to sift through to find what you're looking for), the left side bar should be separated out somehow. I also don't like the font in that left sidebar.

[brice618]

I guess what I was saying is that you have tons of information, probably very good information, as noted by a previous poster. Now you have to find a way to display that in a manner that is simple and clear to a user. Which means not overwhelming them with all of this nice information immediately but at their chosen pace.

One way to do it is reduce redundancy. For example you have a menu with all of the different "sections" of your site, and then in the center column you re-represent that same information in a more detailed format. It clutters the page so much that looking through both seem laborious when they are actually telling me the same thing (basically).

One strong point of your site, Lake Tahoe Tours and Activities, is hidden at the bottom forcing the user to scroll and search for it.

The About Lake Tahoe section would probably be better near the top of the page.

Try and do this on a piece of notebook paper. draw out a "screen" then try and write/sketch your information onto it. It forces you to reduce the content to the relevant information per a certain page. In my opinion, the less scrolling the better.

A website is much more than just displaying content. Its designing the way the user interacts with the content. Right now your website just displays content (again probably very good content) and you need to find ways to re-digest the content to the user in a way they will find helpful. With familiarity your website probably does become easier to use, but you're probably losing people due to the "shock" of so much information being displayed.

[pappag]

(1) Too much going on and you would benefit from condensing it all.

(2) Learn how to use flash and combine all the crap on the left side of the screen and put them underneath your logo at the top.

(3) Pic of the day (more like the week) is not a bad idea, but the ad right underneath takes away from it.

(4) Why the summary in the middle of the page? Subject titles should be plenty indicative.

[powdork]

thanks brice, and i wasn't referring to you with the throw up in the mouth thing. it was just below your post. your points are very good and i am looking at reducing the home page to the size of the screen with no scrolling required.

thanks also npg, coupla more people tell me there's too much on there and i may get the idea. i am well versed in flash and may just leave the page as is and use flashobject to serve something completely different to those with flash. the ad under the pic of the day rotates, and the image ad definitely takes away from it. currently i'm testing them for ctr and it does surprisingly well. if i reduce the size of the page there won't be much inthe way of ad space, but there will end up being new pages where it can be more targeted anyway. the summary is sort of a legacy thing. when the site first came out there was only the summary and the left navigation. i kept it probably not to miss out on the search terms that were within.

[davep]

The main text in the middle has the same look/feel as those empty fake-pages you get when you mistype a webpage (c.f. http://www.performancebikes.com/ ), and same as the google adds on the side of your page.

So when I look at the page I instantly think it's all a bunch of random adds and want to close it.

[The Dad]

Honestly?

Both look amateurish. Circa 1995.

I agree with MTT that removing the oval logo treatment removes the one thing that actually looks mildly distinctive. The rest of the page looks like someone's cybersquatting on a domain they want to sell.

You need an interface designer.

[cranked]

too...

much....

text...

Can you not create teasers and categories? If you are going to have that much text on the home page, you should only have one story. I am not sure what your model is - affiliate or ads, but I there is a lot of work to be done here.

If the goal of the site is to be a cnet for tahoe, you need to make that clear...i can't tell what the purpose of the site is from the outset. If you are trying to be the trusted source for "all things tahoe", you really need to make the site look more professional.

[Lonnie]

too...

much....

text...

And not enough boobs!

[jondrums]

I disagree. I like websites with actual content! This site has a ton of content - real information, like with pictures and data and notes and stuff. So it looks a little dated and crowded, there's nothing worse than a flashy site that doesn't have the information I want.

[mtskier]

i'm sure these are repeats but here goes:

i don't like sites with white backgrounds.

change font style and color.

remove all ads from the top banner.

ad more photos to the site.

put a photo, vid, slideshow on the home page. you have to entice people to click past the homepage. what is your bounce rate? number of pages per visit? average time on site? i think the homepage is where your site falls flat.

[Patches]

Like others said, list look suspiciously like a linkfarm. Here is a similar site that is softer; not recommending this design but just note how it appears to have "real" content at a glance.

http://www.empirereport.com/

[TNKen]

I thought it was a redirected ad site.

[powdork]

Like others said, list look suspiciously like a linkfarm. Here is a similar site that is softer; not recommending this design but just note how it appears to have "real" content at a glance.

http://www.empirereport.com/

sorry, but i don't find that similar at all.

the bounce rate of the home page isn't that bad. It's not much traffic though. The vast majority of the traffic arrives via google to interior pages rather than the home page.

[72Twenty]

I got a nice page load error.

[mtskier]

Like others said, list look suspiciously like a linkfarm. Here is a similar site that is softer; not recommending this design but just note how it appears to have "real" content at a glance.

http://www.empirereport.com/

the color, font, boxes, organization, etc immediately make that site more readable.