Floors of Stone - Floor Tiles Company - Please Review!

Hi Guys,

My brother and I are in the process of finishing our first website for a real client. It's a floor tiles company and the website combines ASP.NET v2, JavaScript, Flash and XHTML 1.1. All of the tile data is stored in a back-end database (Access 2003), I've also created an admin panel which allows our client to easily add/remove/modify tile data and tile images to and from the website.

I'd really appreciate it if someone could review/comment on the site (whether that's in terms of design, functionality, or whatever)...

Floors of Stone - Website


There is also a sample-request page - be sure to check it out, it took a lot of work! Go ahead and request samples if you want, they won't get sent out (I still have control over the database i.e. the site hasn't been officially launched yet). The interface is written in flash and all of the requests are stored into a back-end database via ASP.NET.

Also you may not notice it, but if you click on the pictures of the tiles on any of the tile pages (limestone, marble, etc.) a pop-up product gallery appears. That took a long time too

Thanks in advance!

Think it looks very good...Couple of minor points I'd make:-

It doesn't fit very well on my screen (1024x768) and there's quite a bit of scrolling required, up and down and it doesn't quite fit left to right either. I guess that's not going to easy to change if a lot of it's in flash though. I personally don't like sites that involve alot of scrolling.

I found the text on the Quality & Service page quite hard to read. Could maybe do with lightening the text up a bit. Or maybe keep the same white background throughout. Seems a bit strange to change the background colour on part of the site.
<edit>I've just looked at the page again and I now realise it flicks between the 3 paragraph sections, highlighting each as it goes. It does take a while to switch though, so might be an idea to have this done manually (say when you roll the mouse over or something)</edit>

Maybe just try a bit of left & right padding as the text looks a bit cramped against the side. Also see the first comment above; The text is slightly cut off on the right on my screen, so you have to do a slight right to left scroll.

And the popup image gallery is a good idea, but it didn't give me any clue how to close it. In the end I just clicked off it, but it might be worth just having a close button in the bottom right corner or something.

Also, on the main page, maybe have the big scrolling images as links to the individual tile pages aswell. I kind of expected them to be links.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Rich, appreciate the input

You're right, some of these changes will be easier than others, but I'll have to run them all past the person who I'm working for. Hopefully I'll get the go-ahead on most of those changes.

Edit:
In regards to the padding... We designed the site so that it would just about fit into a 1024x768 screen. However, when I tested it on a 1024x768 screen, although it did all fit fine (without the need for horiontal scrolling) I did find that there is literally no padding on the left and right. We've designed the site so that it looks good upto 1900x1200 resolutions, so as you may know, its a hard balance to make it look good on all resolutions.

No Problem. I always think it's very courageous to put sites up here for review, with the possibility of your work being shot down in flames, so I try and be as constructive as possible...

I would have thought the majority of visitors will have a lower screen resolution, but suppose it depends on what your client's asked for. I'd be inclined to design it so it works on the size of screen most visitors will have and those with bigger screens will have blank spaces...I think you can do a screen size test with Javascript and then redirect to an appropriate sized site...Not sure though, but might be worth considering...

Think the overall design is very nice though...Particularly liked the sample request page...Well done...

We did quite a bit of research on screen sizes. These are the resolution stats for 2007:

1024x768 | 53% | 22791
1280x1024 | 14% | 5863
800x600 | 9% | 3878
1280x800 | 8% | 3611
1440x900 | 4% | 1625
1152x864 | 3% | 1150
1680x1050 | 2% | 853
1280x768 | 1% | 606
1400x1050 | 1% | 541
1920x1200 | 1% | 310


Unfortunately our client has a new Dell laptop with a whopping resolution of 1920x1200 - and despite the fact that only 1% of all internet users have that resolution, he insisted that it looks good on his computer. That's why we designed the site to look good on 1024x768 - 1920x1200 resolutions. In fairness 1280x1024 is going to be the next most popular resolution, so we were kind-of future-proofing the website in a way.

Hi there Lawrence, client here; you never know who's gonna stumble upon your forum comments. Clients have feelings you know.

I'm a bit concerned that the two reviews you've had both comment that the site doesn't fit into a 1024 screen width. It should do, that was definitely part of the spec, and if it doesn't that's down to you guys, not my laptop's screen resolution. More worrying is that if it doesn't fit, it's not something that can be easily changed at this late stage by the sounds of it.

Deflecting constructive criticism by blaming the irrational client doesn't seem good practice and wouldn't endear you to future clients. After lengthy discussions with you and Matt, and after asking for screen resolution usage data, I thought we arrived at a mutually agreeable page format. I have been very open to all your advice and as I understood it, there was no real compromise to having a 1024 wide site with header images which resized upto 1600. There seemed to be no other compromise to these potentially extra wide images other than a very slightly longer download time. The proportion of users who would be able to see images wider than 1024 is 38% currently (not 1%) and sure to rise.

I believe 800 wide sites look very dated and I also believe that sites that are purely 1024 wide will look dated soon enough. That's why I thought a 1024 wide site with screen width header images would be a sensible bet for the next few years. NOT because I have a flashy new laptop....DO ME A FAVOUR!

You should know by now that what drives every business decision I make is getting the maximum return on my investment. Web designers with aspirations of running their own businesses one day should take note.

Later

Paul

the site look very nice, I have 1280x1024 resolution.
the only thing that I noticed missing is Contact Us Form - the
ability for the visitor to send message/feedback directly to the
web master or someone in charge, and not via email.
apart of that it's really nice looking and simple to use, I really
liked the Request Sample section with the LightBox.

Overall, it's a very nice site indeed Loz.

I understand where you client comes from in regards to screen size.
I honestly believe that a compromise should be made between you and the customer.

Even though we may not agree with what a customer may want, ultimately, they are the ones requesting
the work; therefore, it would be extremely wise to listen to their requests in regards to screen size.

You don't really have to explain the reasons why the particular screen size to others
As long as you and your customer have come to an agreement,
a simple "it was requested with this particular resolution by our customer" should suffice anyone's curiosity.

No other details should be given about our customer's preferences or equipment.

This is the golden rule of developer/customer relation.

I'm not a pro in web design and developement but a a surfer i found the site to be good, very attractive and informative as well. Regarding the amount of scrolling involved in surfing the site I think that nowadays almost on all sites you have to scroll down to get what you want. So that's fine.
I personally feel that different color shades can be used to bring in more charm in the Price section instead of a black board.

Sorry, i want to read your website, but i can not open it.

many things can change in year and half, you know.