Design! Sincere opinions...

[tchescow]

I've designed these websites... :) the flash one with another team member, I would like to know everybody opinion, about which design you prefer, considering, colors, interactivity, design itself, everything... thanks a lot! Any comments are welcome!

The website links are:

Educational Robotics Pio XII
www.maristas.org.br/repio

Under Control - Html - Full content (choose html when you visit)
www.maristas.org.br/repio/under/

Under Control - Flash (choose flash when you visit)
www.maristas.org.br/repio/under/

Thanks a lot!


:)

[rbayer]

Both the html and flash sites look really nice and clean, but you may want to re-think a few things:

Definately loose the full-screen flash thing. Many of us browse multiple webpages at once and having one try to comandeer my screen was not a pleasant experience.
Also, the html version took an inordinate amount of time to load (a little under a minute with Cable).

As I said, they both look very nice, they're just a little cumbersome from a technical standpoint.

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by rbayer
Both the html and flash sites look really nice and clean, but you may want to re-think a few things:

Definately loose the full-screen flash thing. Many of us browse multiple webpages at once and having one try to comandeer my screen was not a pleasant experience.
Also, the html version took an inordinate amount of time to load (a little under a minute with Cable).

As I said, they both look very nice, they're just a little cumbersome from a technical standpoint.
Well said, and I agree with rob on this. Even though I didn't view the HTML version, I don't like full-screen flash-sites. I always have more than one thing running on my taskbar at once.

[Stephen Kowski]

anything non flash is good for me ;)

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by Stephen Kowski
anything non flash is good for me ;)
Minimal use of flash is good (eg: banners, intros like on the robocards site), but a full-flash site is not good for anyone (especially for 56k and lower users)

[SarahB]

Wow. That Flash site is AWSOME. But I have to agree with everyone else that its kind of annoying having it full screen. Because of the problems with the full screen, I voted for the HTML version. It was very nice and clean, without the problems that come with Flash.

[Raven_Writer]

I'm admitting I wanted a full-flash site for team 5 to, but a lot of the members didn't want it, and I soon figured out what was the problem. Stick with HTML, and use flash for navigation menus if you wish.

[AJ Quick]

I also have to agree with what Rob said.. I was looking at your site earlier today, and well.. I know not to click the flash button again. It took over my screen, and there was not an easy way to close out of it.

The HTML version looked nice, but took a while to load. This must have been because of your use of those consumptive Javascripts.. which although add cool effects, take a while to load, and slow down everything.

I say, loose the glitz, and keep it simple. You are very good designers, and can pull it off.

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by AJ Quick
I also have to agree with what Rob said.. I was looking at your site earlier today, and well.. I know not to click the flash button again. It took over my screen, and there was not an easy way to close out of it.

The HTML version looked nice, but took a while to load. This must have been because of your use of those consumptive Javascripts.. which although add cool effects, take a while to load, and slow down everything.

I say, loose the glitz, and keep it simple. You are very good designers, and can pull it off.
JavaScript is a great use for sites, but to much will overload the loading time. If you use FrontPage for your site (maybe others have this, to), check the load time thing at the bottom-right of the program to 56k, Cable, or ISDN. Those are the 3 most used connections.

[tchescow]

I've read the comments above! I'll be working on the flash website, and it won't be a full screen website anymore! You're right... a full screen website when you're working with any other websites or programs is a bad idea!
Another thing I'll do, is one broadband version and one version for lower speed connections (html websites)... the actual under control website on it's html version uses a lot of java/dhtml, and it really is "heavy" for the connection, so I'll be working on it! Thanks for the help! Please, if possible, send me or post at the under control guestbook your website links so I can publish them on the site! More comments... more suggestions please! :D

Thanks A LOT everyone so far!
:D

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by tchescow
Another thing I'll do, is one broadband version and one version for lower speed connections (html websites)... the actual under control website on it's html version uses a lot of java/dhtml, and it really is "heavy" for the connection, so I'll be working on it! Thanks for the help! Please, if possible, send me or post at the under control guestbook your website links so I can publish them on the site! More comments... more suggestions please! :D

Thanks A LOT everyone so far!
:D
Just lower the amount of javascript. You can do the same effect with other methods.

[tchescow]

Originally posted by Raven_Writer
Just lower the amount of javascript. You can do the same effect with other methods.

The html "light" version is online... I've removed some effects,
and resized some pictures, the problem, mainly was the main homepage... now its ok I guess... =)

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by tchescow
The html "light" version is online... I've removed some effects,
and resized some pictures, the problem, mainly was the main homepage... now its ok I guess... =)
I viewed it, and it looks nice. I looked at both the lite and full versions, and they both loaded decent for me (I'm on a DSL connection with a 1.5 meg a second speed).

[tchescow]

Originally posted by Raven_Writer
I viewed it, and it looks nice. I looked at both the lite and full versions, and they both loaded decent for me (I'm on a DSL connection with a 1.5 meg a second speed).

Thanks... under a nice connection both versions are ok! :) Soon the new flash version (not full window) will be online! By the way, in wich regional your team will be competing?

:)

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by tchescow
Thanks... under a nice connection both versions are ok! :) Soon the new flash version (not full window) will be online! By the way, in wich regional your team will be competing?

:)
Welcome, hehe. Team 5 is going to Pittsburgh and Great Lakes, you?

[tchescow]

Originally posted by Raven_Writer
Welcome, hehe. Team 5 is going to Pittsburgh and Great Lakes, you?

Team 1156 is going to J&J Mid Atlantic! :)

[gliebowitz]

J&J mid atlantic... see ya there!

[sevisehda]

Minus the fact that the flash commandeered my screen I liked it the best. Even though flash eats bandwidth, its still better visualy. In fact I'd suggest taking it furethr like having the pics in there. As long as you provide html for the dialups then your set. In the near future html will be gone the way of the Dodo along with dialups so it would be better for students to learn a "language"/software that will be around longer.

For a really nice website check out www.zippo.com (http://www.zippo.com) .

[Rob Colatutto]

Originally posted by Raven_Writer
Minimal use of flash is good (eg: banners, intros like on the robocards site), but a full-flash site is not good for anyone (especially for 56k and lower users)

theres still 56k users around? thought that was completely phased out when aol went to dsl

[Raven_Writer]

Originally posted by Nataku
theres still 56k users around? thought that was completely phased out when aol went to dsl
I used 56k for a while when AOL went to DSL. Then my mom got DSL, and I've gotta use that now. I still prefer 56k when checking Flash.