What do you think?

[theplim]

have just joined the forum a couple of days ago. i would like your opinions of the site i manage for friends in Brittany. they have a gite there. i want to update the site to give it a cleaner look and feel, without changing the basic content too much.. any ideas for extras to include also invited, (i am already lookng to add online booking and confirmation pages). thought about the possibility of adding paypal or similar facility too, if anyone has done this already, again advice before i take the plunge, would be gratefully accepted!!!!

in the past i have done what i thought was right, but now this forum with people of simillar minds, due to the interest in the same subject, can perhaps add that extra something to my friends site.

http://wrycottage.hn.org

thanking you in advance

the plim

[vrooje]

plim,

Your cottage looks charming! Let me give you my comments in list format, just off the cuff as I browse:

• First, your site automatically re-sizes the browser window and re-positions the window every time a link is clicked. I have a large monitor with high resolution, but your page forces me to view it at 800 x 600. If I maximize or even move the window, it will re-size and move itself to the left side of my screen every time I click on something. This is frankly driving me crazy, absolutely batty. I think you absolutely should optimize your site for viewing at 800x600 (not 800 x 640) and even make the re-sizing available (perhaps by a link next to your "This Site is Best Viewed at..." text, or just link that text), but I don't advise forcing everyone to do that. It's worse for me because I use Firefox, which supports tabbed browsing (IE users don't know what they're missing), and when your page opens in a new tab it resizes every site that I have open in other tabs!
  
  I am not usually a fan of background textures, but I think yours is fine. It's not at all too distracting for me. Still, just warning you that some won't like it.
  
  What is that triangle above "Gite" in your title header image? It looks like an accent on the "e", but as far as I know the word gite doesn't have an accent. I like that font, by the way.
  
  The picture on your homepage looks very cozy, except that it seems very pixelated to me. I suggest using a higher-resolution version and even getting rid of the scrolling text (replacing it with static text).
  
  I would add more summary information to your home page -- the simple fact that it is a rental cottage in Brittany, France (not everyone knows what a gite is or where Brittany is), as well as an enticing blurb to draw people in. Nowadays people will not just surf a website because it's there. You have to give them a reason to click further than the front page. For that same reason, an extra picture or two on the home page might also be a good idea.
  
  Also, I suggest more descriptive page titles -- put a few more keywords in them. Page titles are very important for search engine rankings, and a title like "Home Page" won't get you anywhere.
  
  I very much like the idea of the House Hunting Special! That's an excellent idea.
  
  A couple of your exterior links don't open in a new page. I suggest that they do, just so people can easily get back to your page.
  
  Do you have a webstats feature that you use other than the counter on your front page? I ask because if you do, consider taking the counter off. Little gimmicks like free counters, flashing and curving text effects, animated gifs, etc., can make a site seem amateurish.
  
  There are two camps about putting a "Last Updated" text on your page. If you update often, it may be reassuring for the potential client to see that. But what if you don't update for 6 months? Will your site look bad? I personally don't put that information on my site for everyone to see, but some do.
  
  Why no picture captions on the inside tour? There are some with the exterior photos and I think they definitely help. Captions are a great opportunity to help your potential client mentally place themselves at your property.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm being harsh. Maybe it's just the forced page resizing that has me noticing little details. It looks like a very charming place and I think you're just a few steps away from a very nice site.

Cheers.

[chris_haze]

plim

I tried to look at your website to review it but could not get it to load up on my pc. I waited 4 or 5 minutes and all I could see was the 'wallpaper' and the message about viewing being best at 800x600.

You may be losing bookings because of the slow loading so this is obviously a priority to try and resolve in my opinion.

Good luck
Hazel

[paolo]

Same problem for me - not loading and I am on broadband. I'm sure it's a temporary thing though.

[theplim]

thanks for the feedback vrooje also to paolo and hazel.
have tried the site today, all seems ok. i know my isp is currently ugrading their network at the moment and this has caused a few problems for me in the last week, so if you get 5 mins sometime, could you pls try again, i really would appreciate it.
vrooje i think the comments are valid and i definitely do not think they are harsh (anyway even if they were, i did ask for critisim of the site and i got it and if you ask, you have to take, yeh!!). also they are in the general area i was looking to change in the next version of the site, especially as a firefox user when browsing!! (not so much though when compiling site pages, still use that IE thing!!!) most excellecnt point though about the page title bits, definite point on the update list!!!.
with regard the pictures, i too have a very hires monitor and yes they can be grainy, but with many people on modems (some 1.5million still in the uk alone) what to do?. higher res piccies, usually means bigger file size, which could be bad for these modem users, how have you got round this problem?

thanks again

the plim

[vrooje]

plim,

Your pictures are all displayed at a low enough size that you ought to be able to optimize them for the web... you could have fairly large images and still keep them down to 20K or less each. That topic is dealt with in these threads:

viewtopic.php?t=445

viewtopic.php?t=163

What it looked like to me (for example; I don't know the actual numbers) was that you had saved the image as a 100x200 and were trying to display it as a 200x400. That's very different from the image optimization techniques linked to above.

[Alan Knighting]

Plim,

I agree with Brooke.

Basically you optimise down to achieve a required file size without losing much in the way of quality. You should never try to optimise up, all possible quailty has already gone and you are just making matters worse if you do.

Alan

[theplim]

Thanks for the info and links .. will take a look and see if i can get the piccies right.


many thanks


the plim