fi3er

before I post the link, I want to ask, if I even can. I finished my online portfolio and want to know others people opinions, BUT I also know that some discussion portals dont like such threads ( cgtalk for example ) so I ask if theres no problem to do it at cgarch?? jeff?

STRAT

theres no problem. post it up

__________________

fi3er

ok, thanks for info STRAT. soo, here we go...

www.fi3er.com

C&C welcomed, whatcha think about WEB and about ARCHITECTURE presented ???
( Iam a lil scared now ) [img]redface2.gif[/img] :winkgrin:

Josh

Well I must say you need to chop up those images if you want to make this a good web page. Because when I opened up you index page I was able to read your info until the whole image loaded and then it reduced to fit the window. And I know you can expand it to original size, but you do not want your viewer to do any extra work.

Also it is very graphic intensive. There is no real info on your pages, just images. That is nice and all, but what about some sort of description?

Also, there is no way to navigate thru your page. You need a way for your user to be able to back to the index page without using the back button. You typically want a navigation bar that is visible at all times to your user. You cannot assume that all users are as computer savvy as you are. The best test is to take your website to someone you know that is not very good with a computer and see how they navigate and if they have trouble. It will be a little hard to sit back and watch, because what may be obvious to you, may not be obvious by your users.

crazy homeless guy

chopping up the images into smaller pieces will also make the pages load faster. this is true for most images.

for example....
if you have an image that is 600 wide x 400 tall, and cut it into 4 300 x 200 chunks, and reassemble it in a table, it will load faster.

use dreamweaver to assemble your pages, and not photoshop.

__________________
travis schmiesing

garethace

I think we must be careful here guys. Because obviously if Daniel was doing a project (and he seems to be really addicted to building what he designs as opposed to just visualising them like a CG Artist would do) he would present the project on an A1 board, or series of boards, to be read at a foot or two away in a competition or for a client to observe.

The idea of building a web site, is a separate department, to the actual Architectural design department in practice. I believe Daniel is first and foremost an Architect. And how he organises his work, for presentation is fundamentally as an Architect would do it. To actually use the whole A1 board like a canvas, to pack in as much useful communicative visual information about a project onto that board.

Normally the CG Artist only supplies material, which an Architect might arrange at a reduced format on his presentation boards, along with everything else. The less text on a presentation the better. The fact, that technology and internet bandwidth hasn't caught up with people like Daniel yet, is beside the point. Ideally, in the future, Architects will not have to present actually cardboard, or spongeboard mounted physical material anymore.

But the judgement rooms for competitions will have a couple of A1 sized LCDs on the walls, and the A1 board will be displayed on these, directly from a huge 20,000 by 15,000 pixel photoshop or corel draw file format. Heres hoping anyhow.

P.S. To be honest with you, I cannot see when more Architectural colleges buy into this large format LCD technology now, especially for interim crits where Architectural students may be working primarily on computers. Thumbs up to Daniel's web site, I say. He is just doing what any good Architect/builder of buildings would actually do. It just hasn't been 'cut up' for display on a 15-inch laptop screen that is all really.

Diego Rosales

In terms of usability, I would consider setting up the page so the user doesn't have to load a full 1024x2800 image at once. That's just overkill for low-bandwidth connections. Take also for example the fact that the people who will be interested in your work might not have a big graphic display like some of us, and might be running at a much lower resolution (1024x768). Anyway, even at 1600x1200 it looks huge.

An important point is that people will feel much more confortable (and will spend more time looking at your work) if they "feel" they are in control of what they see at a given time.
I would make the index more informative and try to cut the information (text, images, etc) into "chunks" delivered at user's request.

Lastly I would make the links clickable and not just an image.

This could be helpful: http://www.useit.com

/Diego

kid

great projects. very groovy interiors. I really like the foam blocks.

I had no problem with the site design, it better than a lot of architects sites where there seems to be an abundance of useless and poorly executed Flash design. I did have a problem reading Czech though

__________________

Hazdaz

I think the site looks great... or more specifically, the images look great, BUT...
... and this is a big 'BUT', I would imagine that the site would be completely un-usable to someone with dial-up.

I found it funny that even the resume (something that would normally be all text) was one large bitmap!... so instead of taking all of 5 seconds, if someone is on dial-up, it would take like a minute or 2 to load up. I would defintly look into changing that.

While I like the simplicity of the site, there should be SOME navigational links to it.

garethace

The guys criticisms are all valid ones, but I agree with Kid also. For those of us lucky enough to have a fast broadband connection, at work or whatever, the large images are no problem. My favourite was the foam block project too. I think a theoretical concept like the foam block concept, needs a big canvas to properly illustrate the notion. Similarly with the technological smart bath idea. Which are strong Architectural concepts, and cannot be said, on a 300x300 pixel image.