Special sneak preview

[orionid]

So this is what I’ve got so far with my website. I’m going to populate the blog with a few more DIY articles from the archives before I pull the trigger and release, but the article there now is pretty indicative of the kinds of things it’ll have.

http://buckscorner.com/home/

What I would like, if you don’t mind, is for you to poke around and effectively beta-test, and let me know what you think.

Many thanks in advance.

[Yugoboy]

Looks good. Do you plan on watermarking your pics, or just letting them go free on the internet?

Also, on your contact page you indicate a potential stop in “NY” in September. Would that be NYC? Or Upstate? Both?

I ask about watermarking, because I’m in the earliest stages of putting together a blog myself to showcase my photos and photoshops. I haven’t decided whether/how to deal with ownership of my images. For the moment I’m considering a watermark approach, but I’m open to other ideas.

I ask about the NY trip because I know ennuipoet‘s in NYC, and I’m at the other end of the state. Depending on where you roll up to, it could be party time for either or both of us.

[orionid]

Thanks. They’re low enough resolution that I’m not terribly worried. I may make a simple watermark at some point, though.

Also, that says NV, as in Reno, the biggest little city. I’d really like to make it to Potter NY in July for LDRS, but I don’t think it’s in the cards.

[CauseISaidSo]

Looks good, orionid. Good job categorizing your sample shots and nice “About Me” section. All of the links seem to work fine. My only complaint would be the dark blue against black link color (e.g., the “Posted In” links at the bottom of the Brownholio article) – it’s darn near unreadable.

[CauseISaidSo]

Yugoboy, I take the same approach as orionid on my photo site. I don’t have anything larger than 1024×768 (800×600 in some cases). Unlikely that anyone’s gonna use that commercially, so I don’t sweat personal use.

[Yugoboy]

So my 900px-wide Baseball shots don’t really need a watermark, then?

I haven’t really decided what else is going on there, but after numerous requests to see them, I figured I’d better have a better place to show them off than an interior thread here (not that there’s anything wrong with here!)

[lokisbong]

Looks really good man. I love the name for the DIY section. Void my warranty! lol!

[sleeping]

If you’re going to have a category for “flora and fauna” it should probably have a bit more fauna in it? They seem to pretty much all be in “the Natural World” instead…

[Choc-Ful-A]

I think the site is really good on a coup[e different levels. First, the pitch/story is really compelling. The idea that you’re an artists/engineer split brained person who wants to work on projects, preferably in collaboration with others is great. And I’m a big fan of the DIY ethos (and hardware projects) so the “void my warranty” section is my favorite.

The only missed opportunity IMO is that when pulling up the photos in the different sections there’s no captions or links to more info to learn the backstory. Since I know some of what went into producing the ones in the low-fi and conceptual ones I wished other people viewing them had a way to get that info.

[orionid]

Thanks, all.
Sleeping, good catch. I wanted to keep the shots that were more of the “intimate landscape” style in the natural world section, and the ones that focused more on the details of the plant itself in flora and fauna. I guess there’s just an imbalance in how many non-flower plants I detail on. I could probably move the poison ivy shot over.

Choc-Ful-A, I debated the same thing, and leaned towards an overall “cleaner” feel. There’s still some options that I can fiddle around with in the gallery software I’m using, so I’ll see what else I can do.

[Choc-Ful-A]

Well don’t mess with it if everyone else likes the simplicity and cleaner feel. That can be pretty powerful, just look at Apple design…

Maybe if there was a separate area for backstory or “the making of” then people could dig for more info if they wanted without adding clutter to the UI?

But my main point was that I think you’ve hit on something really good with the site. And all the creative tinkering with equipment to get the photos definitely should be publicized for people to see. It’s impressive from a physical object perspective and the results are uniqueand charming as well.

[sleeping]

I guess there’s just an imbalance in how many non-flower plants I detail on. I could probably move the poison ivy shot over.

Uh, fauna = animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna)

[Barracuda]

Hyperlink color is the only thing that really jumps out at me. And perhaps the fact that when you first load the home page it is virtually empty. It takes a few seconds for the first line of text to appear in the fade-in. Might I suggest instead of and all-black background for that putting a faded-out image behind the text. That way there is something on the page for the visitors eye to focus on before the text appears.

[Yugoboy]

Hyperlink color is the only thing that really jumps out at me. And perhaps the fact that when you first load the home page it is virtually empty. It takes a few seconds for the first line of text to appear in the fade-in. Might I suggest instead of and all-black background for that putting a faded-out image behind the text. That way there is something on the page for the visitors eye to focus on before the text appears.

This is such an obvious point, I don’t know why no one made it before. I noticed that, too, but forgot to remark upon it… I was looking at the content.

[orionid]

I guess there’s just an imbalance in how many non-flower plants I detail on. I could probably move the poison ivy shot over.

Uh, fauna = animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna)

Well, uhhh…… There you have it.

Also: Thanks for the feedback so far. I’ll probably post a few changes tonight. Any recommendations for hyperlink color? Brighter blue? Red?

The background is actually a dark denim weave with a hint of blue. I could probably lighten that for monitors that don’t have good low-end acuity.

Edit: Also, taking a look at it from work just now, the center black background column appears to be wider in IE than it does at home in chrome. I can probably code-monkey a fix to that.

[Author]

Posts