Jump to content
Ixzion

New Portfolio Site

Recommended Posts

Hello, all.I've been busy working on my portfolio since the last site I posted. Check it out:http://interstylews.rpgmmag.com/Any advice or critiques you give, I will listen and be thankful for your time.Note: The site doesn't fully-validate yet. The validator keeps giving weird stuff for the HTML. I may just get rid of the validator icons altogether. Note2: I haven't sent this off yet. I'm just getting some feedback before I shop it around.

Edited by Ixzion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly Validation Quirks :)I really like it, it's got a fun light appeal and you're incident reports really make me want to read that text more than if it was just some text in a pargraph, Good JobIf i could change one thing it would be the slight separator in the content backgroundSince i can't describe this as well as a picture with an arrow here's a screenshot with an arrow pointing out the "separator" .... http://goo.gl/hvcK8 .... I think just get rid of itAnd secondly not a problem for me but your code and tools area might be a little difficult to read for some since your words take up the whole line and are practically touching ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.And the separator is there because I thought it would make it look kind of like a folder crease. But if it can work without it, I might as well throw it out.As for the code/tools area, I could probably decrease the size of the text to make it a bit easier to read.I'll work on it today. Thanks for the feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha it's awesome!I sat looking at the bottom for ages thinking hmmm 1 browser is missing... What is it? Then I realised it's Safari. Why isn't Safari listed? Surely if it works on Chrome it works on Safari? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice work...secret agent! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Looks great! Incredibly unique design.(BTW, I think that 'separator' looks good. It does indeed give the appearance of a folder.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for your replies. :)Let me hit on what I've done since last post:1. Thrown out the validator icons.I would have liked to have them on the side opposite to the browser icons, but I'm not gonna spend all that time smashing my brain in when the site can speak for itself. 2. I decreased the size of the text on the notecard.After tessarian mentioned it, I agreed that a smaller text size on the card would improve readability and I modified it. I think it does look better. Thanks!3. I added the Safari icon.I tested the site in Safari and it works as surmised by ApocalypseX. No reason not to add it, right?4. I went with my gut and kept the "folder crease" part.It just feels wrong to take that out, so I'm keeping that part in.Thanks again for the comments and feedback. It's very appreciated. I'm starting to get into the job hunt now. I'm hoping my humorous portfolio helps me stand out from the super-serious business portfolios. My ears are still open for more suggestions, though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it may look nice, there's some major flaws with your website.1) The site is very inaccessible. Most of it's just made up of images, there's very little text for search engines to pick up on. Also with JavaScript disabled your portfolio doesn't even work - JS should only enhance a site, not depend on it to function.2) The user has to download 1.5meg in order to view your site - very possibly a deterrent for anybody with a slower connection. That's mainly down to the images, and not using fairly simple CSS tricks (that you claim to have many years of experience with) to be able to reduce the file sizes drastically. You could also compress the output with Gzip, use sprites, add long-term expire headers to your external resources, move the JavaScript in the <head> to an external file, combine several CSS or JavaScript files together, etc.3) IE7 and less has some issues with your JavaScript portfolio part (the text on the right).Also not such a problem, but why there's such a large gap underneath the website (in FF3.6.13 at least)?In my honest opinion, I think all you know is how to use Photoshop and slice up an image - plus some basic HTML / CSS knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst it may look nice, there's some major flaws with your website.1) The site is very inaccessible. Most of it's just made up of images, there's very little text for search engines to pick up on. Also with JavaScript disabled your portfolio doesn't even work - JS should only enhance a site, not depend on it to function.2) The user has to download 1.5meg in order to view your site - very possibly a deterrent for anybody with a slower connection. That's mainly down to the images, and not using fairly simple CSS tricks (that you claim to have many years of experience with) to be able to reduce the file sizes drastically. You could also compress the output with Gzip, use sprites, add long-term expire headers to your external resources, move the JavaScript in the <head> to an external file, combine several CSS or JavaScript files together, etc.3) IE7 and less has some issues with your JavaScript portfolio part (the text on the right).Also not such a problem, but why there's such a large gap underneath the website (in FF3.6.13 at least)?In my honest opinion, I think all you know is how to use Photoshop and slice up an image - plus some basic HTML / CSS knowledge.
Thank you for taking the time to write that up. However, I'm not going to respond right now because your post comes across to me as condescending and borderline insulting. Maybe you didn't intend for it to sound like it, though, so I'm gonna go cool down before I respond.---------------Okay, now I'm ready to respond to you.1. This site is merely a portfolio that I'm going to show directly to HR people. I don't see the need for search engine-readable text yet.2. I know about graceful degradation and all that. I do agree that, in theory, javascript should be used to enhance a site instead of require it to work. However, from what I have read, only about 3% of the entire internet has javascript disabled. Another interesting fact: Facebook requires javascript enabled to use.3. You did have some good information in your post. I decided to try and compress my portfolio and I shaved 1 MB off and managed to keep the quality just about the same. Thanks.4. While I generally am interested in as much compatibility as possible, my portfolio works in 5 major modern browsers. I don't think anyone I apply with is just going to have such an old browser on hand.5. I am using the exact same version of Firefox as you are and I see no such gap.6. I don't like your assumption that I'm lying about my technical knowledge. If you would look at any of the work that I have present on the site, especially Radio1617, you would have been able to see that my skill extends much further than that. In my honest opinion, I think you wanted to brag about how much you think you know and treat me like I'm some kind of poser to make yourself feel good about yourself.For the record, I don't need to be told that I'm crapping sunshine and gold when I'm not, but I'd appreciate it a lot more if people gave me constructive feedback without sounding like MrAdam. Edited by Ixzion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down people :). I do think MrAdam has some valid points, but it did come across as very abrupt. The site certainly is very witty and original, however it must be remembered that people often do make assumptions based on face value, be it of a website or anything else, and there are some things that, if changed, would help increase the appeal of your site.The use of images as text is something that would be good to reduce, as this is generally a bad thing, not just for SEO but for accessibility and speed. If you still want special fonts, there are several different solutions, such as CSS's @font-face. The use of tables for non-tabular data, and superfluous break tags (which can be replaced by unordered lists and margins, respectively), also detracts from the code, and their removal will probably speed up loading times.These issues are not so important, I suppose, if you are approaching larger organisations who may not be so, uh, specialised, but it will make web developers frown. If you are aiming for larger organisations, though, backwards compatibility with older browsers, especially IE6, is imperative, as many, many companies with integrated Microsoft environments haven't upgraded yet. Also, HR people probably won't know what all those acronyms down the bottom mean, so you may want to have an alternate description for them (including words, for example, like "dynamic", "database-driven", "rapid", modern", and "standards-compliant" (or something :))).Finally, maybe it's just me, but the copy does begin to, uh, get to me after a while. For example, for the "BLUEKRUSH" site you say "In our combined 30+ years on the force, we've never seen anything like it", and while the site is nice, it is not necessarily the most amazing design in the world. Things like that make me suspicious of the rest of your statements, so I would suggest just toning it down a bit. Overall, though, it is a very good start, and I think you have a clear path for further refinement. Good luck!P.S.: just to be pedantic, MVC is technically an architecture or paradigm, not a framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down people :). I do think MrAdam has some valid points, but it did come across as very abrupt. The site certainly is very witty and original, however it must be remembered that people often do make assumptions based on face value, be it of a website or anything else, and there are some things that, if changed, would help increase the appeal of your site.The use of images as text is something that would be good to reduce, as this is generally a bad thing, not just for SEO but for accessibility and speed. If you still want special fonts, there are several different solutions, such as CSS's @font-face. The use of tables for non-tabular data, and superfluous break tags (which can be replaced by unordered lists and margins, respectively), also detracts from the code, and their removal will probably speed up loading times.These issues are not so important, I suppose, if you are approaching larger organisations who may not be so, uh, specialised, but it will make web developers frown. If you are aiming for larger organisations, though, backwards compatibility with older browsers, especially IE6, is imperative, as many, many companies with integrated Microsoft environments haven't upgraded yet. Also, HR people probably won't know what all those acronyms down the bottom mean, so you may want to have an alternate description for them (including words, for example, like "dynamic", "database-driven", "rapid", modern", and "standards-compliant" (or something :))).Finally, maybe it's just me, but the copy does begin to, uh, get to me after a while. For example, for the "BLUEKRUSH" site you say "In our combined 30+ years on the force, we've never seen anything like it", and while the site is nice, it is not necessarily the most amazing design in the world. Things like that make me suspicious of the rest of your statements, so I would suggest just toning it down a bit. Overall, though, it is a very good start, and I think you have a clear path for further refinement. Good luck!P.S.: just to be pedantic, MVC is technically an architecture or paradigm, not a framework.
Thanks for the post.I did see some information about @font-face, but I didn't feel like being bothered with it before. But I will go ahead and invest some time in converting that over. It probably will be better in the long run.I do understand the value of backwards compatibility and I have complied with this on commissions I've done in the past. What I didn't figure on was your statement about so many companies still running things on IE6. I didn't think that an HR person hiring for a web position wouldn't understand those terms. I guess I'll look into it.The main point of the site is to be humorous while still showcasing some of my skills. Perhaps the hyperbole I used in "30+ years..." was a bit too much. I will probably re-word it to have the same thought, but not as...suspicious...Finally, I did try to look up the right term to call MVC. I've always seen it called a framework, so I went with it. I'll correct this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, I did try to look up the right term to call MVC. I've always seen it called a framework, so I went with it. I'll correct this.
The frameworks (like Rails, symphony, zend, cakePHP, etc) implement an MVC logic. They themselves are not MVC however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry? You asked for a critique and I gave you one. Apologies if it came across overly aggressive, but what's the point in just saying "wow looks amazing"? That's not constructive. I realise I'm not your target audience but you are asking me, as part of the community, for constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I asked for constructive critique. As I said in my response to you, I don't need anyone kissing my butt and I didn't have a problem with your suggestions. If you read my post (or checked the site again), you would see that I took your advice and improved the site, for which I am grateful.The problem I DID have: Your tone. You came off sounding extremely rude and it pissed me off. That's really all there was to it.Now, I don't want to continue to derail this topic with this misunderstanding anymore. The next time I post, it'll be because I've made some more changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking at your page from opera mini I can see that your text is escaping at the bottom overlapping other content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say that I love the idea behind it all and it's a great way to show off your work. Love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun looking site. I've seen nothing like it, and unique is probably good.There are a lot of nice effect son it...and I like the folder crease too. Although to me it looks like two ceramic tiles against each other. Perhaps change the colour of the folder to something closer to the standard manila folder colour. To make it look more like a folder, drop the "request information" on the top right by 50px or so, add a shadow/line to imitate the folder cutout then write your name in the top right.maybe something like "Potential Employee: MALAKA D. STITH" or maybe something more esoteric to suit the style of the page: "Suspect: Stith,M.D."The scotch tape effect might be better as an add on on top with transparency so the tape does not appear to be lying underneath the paper.Did I understand you are using it as an add-on to your resume in seeking jobs?If so, I suggest the following:you refer to three sites, one has 16 validation errorsone has 199and BlueKrush is..??So if you are saying you can design a web site for my organization, you should also be able to show me you can write code that is pretty, functional, and validates.I wonder also if it is too much graphics and not enough text. True you are not thinking so much of SEO: Who would Google "i,m looking for a programmer with PHP/SQL experience?Still you could probably redo the file card ant the bottom with real text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies. I have not stopped work on this portfolio. Actually, I have done a decent bit more work on it. I converted all the graphics to text where applicable and I've been looking into how to make this site work with Javascript disabled and I'm just about done. I was going to post again once I had it online.@Guy,Yeah, I am trying to use it to help myself get a job.BlueKrush is a simple photoshop sketch right now. I haven't created any code for it. The others are a little more complicated. I can access and validate one but not the other. I will probably just throw one of the pieces out and create something new in its stead. I do agree that validation is nice to have, but not even Google is validated and it's the #1 site on the web.But I will take all of that to heart as I prepare to show off version 2 of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree that validation is nice to have, but not even Google is validated and it's the #1 site on the web.
Well, wouldn't you like your site to be "better" than Google? Haha...a company worth billions (trillions?) and they still use old HTML: width=100%valignaligncellspacing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys. I've finally updated the site.3 things:1. Finally, the site looks and can work 100% without javascript enabled. I spent a fair deal of time making the site work without it. Hurrah.2. I went back and compressed the images as much as I could and turned all the image text into regular text.3. It finally validated! Woot.What do y'all think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does indeed degrade gracefully. There is one little issue though. The textarea in your "Request Information" section gets really small when JavaScript is disabled. (FF 3.6)Other than that, the improvements are lookin' good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, thanks for the catch. I had to change the ids for the form fields to classes because the validator wouldn't stop crying about it, even though because of the noscript check, each set would never be up at the same time (technically, they are, though, perhaps). I simply forgot to change those in the CSS after passing the validation. I fixed it and it should be gravy now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright guys. I've finally updated the site.3 things:1. Finally, the site looks and can work 100% without javascript enabled. I spent a fair deal of time making the site work without it. Hurrah.2. I went back and compressed the images as much as I could and turned all the image text into regular text.3. It finally validated! Woot.What do y'all think?
I have a neat extension with Google Chrome that allows me to turn off and on several page elements.if you are curious it is called "pendule"site degrades well with images off. Most of the important images have suitable alt text.However, with CSS off I notice one thing:
<p><textarea rows="1" cols="1" name="message" class="message">Your Message</textarea></p>

you use CSS to dimension the message box but without CSS, the message box is one row by one column.Think of the CSS as an override and give your message box something like 5 rows by 20 columnsother than that - very good work...and google has some real text to grab onto: try googling your name.Happy job hunting....and add some meta tags "description and keywords" to enhance your visibility.Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×