PDA

View Full Version : New site up


imashination
04-25-2004, 03:44 PM
http://3dfluff.com/mash

:)

flingster
04-25-2004, 04:02 PM
looks pretty straightword but like that simple design about it...
all the links etc worked for me...would have like to see a few more works in the gallery...but its better you show quality than quantity i recon.
glad to see can still get to cb results..:thumbsup:

JoelOtron
04-25-2004, 04:09 PM
Crap, your 22?

I think I was french fry technician at a Roy Rogers when I was 22. Actually, can't even remember 22... must have been doing something good.

fxgogo
04-25-2004, 11:15 PM
Like the site Mash, nice and simple. Good colour scheme. Couple of points:


Make more emphasis of your back button. It is hidden in the corner and hard to see. It also needs to follow the design of the rest of the text.

I would be careful of putting such big pics on the site. Often potential clients won't have resolutions that big to deal with the massive pic sizes and will have to scroll the pic, which messes with the impact.

A personal point, but I don't like pop-up windows. Although sometimes they have to be used, I hate having to flip between windows, especially when it opens new windows with each new pic.

Also be careful of putting such high quality pics up on the net, there are some unscrupolus people out there, just itching to rip of anothers work. I know I am a bit paranoid.


So after those points, I will say again, nice site. Easy and fast to navigate. Well done.

RusMan
04-26-2004, 08:16 AM
Looks nice, I like the simple and easy to navigate design:thumbsup:

I agree with fxgogo about using such a big pics, make them just as big so you don't have to scroll on 1024x768, and if you want you can have a link to a higher res image.

imashination
04-26-2004, 08:17 AM
I really wasn't aware that the back button was a problem. Most people will use the browser's back button, its really only there for anyone who is directly linked to a sub page.

Regarding the size, these are ~1/6th of full res, I need to show enough detail. All modern browsers scale the images down to fit in the window anyway.

If someone takes my work and passes it off as their own, then this doesn't really impact me at all. If some kid wants to tell his mate how great he is, it makes no difference to me. If some idiot gets a job based on these images, he'll be fired within a week. Although maybe I stole them from Dale Williams ;-)

Thanks, Janine did the site while I was working on the content. Now I'm off to get 100's of them printed, my wallet already hurts.

Shilts
04-26-2004, 11:05 AM
Nice site, I really like it:thumbsup: Clean and simple design, nothing really fancy, just simple and to the point.

A couple of comments:
I agree with fxgogo about the back button. I have done a lot of research and observation work on browsing habits for my work, and at least 50% of people will look for a link actually within the html page itself for navigation. So usability states that it is usually advisable to cater for a variety of browsing habits to save frustration. It just seems a bit too unobvious(is that a word?) at the moment. How about incoroporating the back button into a cube graphic (for design consistency) maybe red with bold white text? Just a suggestion.

I will also re-iterate what the other guys have said about the size of the graphics - 43% of people (January 2004 stats) are still observing site on resolutions of 800x600 or lower(!). So maybe the pictures should cater for 800x600 users. It also means that the graphics won't be so large to download for slower connections.

Just a couple of thoughts - but overall the site is very nice mate.

imashination
04-26-2004, 02:04 PM
Regarding the back button. Ill think about it, but im lazy ;-)

"43% of people (January 2004 stats) are still observing site on resolutions of 800x600 or lower(!)"

My site isn't for those 43% :) My site is for graphic designers/artists. If such a viewer is running an 800x600 screen then they will be in neither a position to offer me a job or critiques on the content.

AdamT
04-26-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by imashination
Regarding the back button. Ill think about it, but im lazy ;-)

"43% of people (January 2004 stats) are still observing site on resolutions of 800x600 or lower(!)"

My site isn't for those 43% :) My site is for graphic designers/artists. If such a viewer is running an 800x600 screen then they will be in neither a position to offer me a job or critiques on the content.
Don't I feel silly with my 14" VGA resolution monitor (monochrome). :)

Scott M C4D
04-26-2004, 11:09 PM
Am still using a 14".Not because i cant afford one but simply because i have not got round to buying one yet.
I intend buying a new PC with one but cant find a good PC deal from a reputable company with a good aftercare

AdamT
04-26-2004, 11:57 PM
Omigod Scott! I was just kidding! Go out tomorrow and buy yourself a 19" LCD--you'll feel like you've been born again. :)

flingster
04-27-2004, 12:29 AM
you have to bare in mind a lot of workplaces run at 800x600 res standard setup...which is even more likely if their internet access is restricted as techs tend to find any ole kit to plonk in the corner...so don't be so confident that 40 odd percent is not your customer. However a note in your favour is we no longer install kit less than 17 inch monitors now...however for training services i would say you got it covered as those people viewing are likely to have larger monitors as opposed to any office setup.

:shrug:

JoelOtron
04-27-2004, 03:19 AM
I think its all fine--I just would like to see MORE stuff, and defintely some animation. The old Mash site had a lot of nice animatation examples, and I liked the descriptive text that went with each one.

Also the cubes initially give the impression of offering some kind of interactivity, mainly because of their arrangement. But I click and click on them and nothing happens... :)

Shilts
04-27-2004, 07:12 AM
Well... the last job I landed was with a print company. The way they filtered the flood of CVs coming in (both web based and cd-roms) was to let the secretaries and people on the front desks (on their 800x600 monitors and laptops) look for certain criteria and content that was considered important to the company. For example, I know they discarded Cds and web CVs from people who didn't clearly state their education as well people who were not considered to be educated from the right establishments.

As much snobbery as this sounds in this particular case, I think it is still good practise to cater for the 43% statistic (which is actually very high still :cry: ). You may argue that the companies you want to work for will be viewing on higher resolutions, and you would probably be right with a lot of companies. Just not all, maybe not even most.

But anyway, thats my view. Sorry to labour the point, and it may only be a minor point in your case becuase of the industry you are trying to get into, however, this is a misconception I had that nearly cost me my last job.

neilyb
04-27-2004, 08:29 AM
I like the general layout and feel, very simple and to the point. I have spoken with managers of design houses in the North of England and this is what they want....apparently sending CD's is a bad habbit as most of the time the letter and CD get separated, then theres the PC/Mac problem......the Web is the way to go.

I would try to add a little more content to the stills section, but I am sure you are working on that!?

When I was 22 I had a 386 running windows 3 with 640K of RAM.....oh and a mainframe to look after! God I feel old!

Good look with whatever you are trying to do!

N

imashination
04-27-2004, 10:01 AM
Thanks for all the replies :) For sending out my resume, I am including all 6 images printed out at 300dpi A4 plus I will include the site and images on a CD just for the sheer hell of it. This will get me past the secretaries with shitty old imacs.

Yes, more images will follow, but the site had to go up at some point :)

I may animate something. The problem with these images is that they have all had heavy photoshop work done on them.

Scott: For the love of god upgrade your machine! 14" screen, ATI Rage gfx card.... are you serious!? 300 gets you a 2.8gig p4 with half a gig of ram and 80gigs of hdd space. Another 80 gets you a reasonable 19" crt.

Send me your cinebench scores, you'll probably set a record :)
http://www.imashination.com/bench.html

neilyb
04-27-2004, 10:36 AM
Where the hell can I buy a 300quid 2.8Ghz machine with 512MB of RAM?

dann_stubbs
04-27-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by imashination
Thanks for all the replies :) For sending out my resume, I am including all 6 images printed out at 300dpi A4 plus I will include the site and images on a CD just for the sheer hell of it. This will get me past the secretaries with shitty old imacs.

all imacs are capable of 1024 x 768 resolution.

dann

imashination
04-27-2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by dann_stubbs
all imacs are capable of 1024 x 768 resolution.

dann

My point still stands ;-)

Are you entirely sure though? I remember there being a red one and a manky turqoise one at maxon which wouldn't budge over 800x600. I may have been wrong though.

stevem
04-27-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by imashination
My point still stands ;-)

Are you entirely sure though? I remember there being a red one and a manky turqoise one at maxon which wouldn't budge over 800x600. I may have been wrong though.

Mash - FWIW, they both can run at 1024x768

Don't ask me why they are running at a lower res...

CGTalk Moderation
01-18-2006, 03:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.