Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1
    Member #
    38371

    Current Rating

    Visual Appeal:
    0.0 out of 5

    Accessibility:
    0.0 out of 5

    Website Speed:
    0.0 out of 5

    Compatibility:
    0.0 out of 5

    Overall Rating:
    0.0 out of 5

    Rate This Site


    Advertisement (login to hide this!)


    You must be logged in to view this site

    Which site looks better?

    I am designing a website for a doctor and these two sites have caught my eye. I am stuck as to which one I should model my site after, can anyone suggest which they like better, or maybe which parts from one that you like or don't like? Thanx

    #1 Pavlick Chiropractic in Harrisburg - Sports Therapy

    #2 Paul Bigelow OD PC ? Eye Care | Boise, ID

  2.  

  3. #2
    Senior Member donkey123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    143
    Member #
    25691
    Liked
    17 times
    My favourite is number #2 Paul Bigelow OD PC ? Eye Care | Boise, ID as it seems more open without the borders on the side, I would however extend the light blue background all the way across the screen. The logo can also be vastly improved and polished with more style.

    Cheers.
    IQ Catch Intelligent Dating for Smart People www.iqcatch.com

  4. #3
    Member djitsz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    67
    Member #
    38199
    Liked
    17 times
    I would definitely go with the first one as it has a much more modern look and feel and makes more effective use of white space.

    The second one feels very dated and the header looks quite amateurish. Also the images seem to be thrown around on the page somewhat haphazardly.

    I'd use a bit more colour though and use something more original than blue which 80% of sites seem to have as their stock colour.

  5. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    14
    Member #
    38383
    I like djitsz suggestions quite a bit and agree with them as well. Much more modern look to the 1st website. Great use of white space. If anything I'd change, it would be to make the background/header image smaller on website #1 but other than that, it's nice.

  6. #5
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    Neither. This is one of the most futile exercises in web design and development, since we equate the value of a site based solely on its design and the corresponding HTML code that we see. We don't see the underlying functionality. We don't know whether one site converts more than another. We don't know whether there are features that the customers of the site use that we don't see. We don't know whether one site generates more traffic than another. We don't know several other things that we need to know to properly answer this question. I put this on the same level as a "web design award". If another designer does or doesn't like something that was built, and that designer isn't a part of the target market for the site, then why is the other designer's opinion relevant?

    We're also making an apples-to-oranges comparison. One guy's an eye doctor, the other a chiropractor. They're also in two completely different US states and as such would reach two completely different target markets with completely different considerations.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  7. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    14
    Member #
    38383
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGAME1264 View Post
    Neither. This is one of the most futile exercises in web design and development, since we equate the value of a site based solely on its design and the corresponding HTML code that we see. We don't see the underlying functionality. We don't know whether one site converts more than another. We don't know whether there are features that the customers of the site use that we don't see. We don't know whether one site generates more traffic than another. We don't know several other things that we need to know to properly answer this question. I put this on the same level as a "web design award". If another designer does or doesn't like something that was built, and that designer isn't a part of the target market for the site, then why is the other designer's opinion relevant?

    We're also making an apples-to-oranges comparison. One guy's an eye doctor, the other a chiropractor. They're also in two completely different US states and as such would reach two completely different target markets with completely different considerations.
    There is nothing wrong with the question. He asked a question about aesthetics, which is pretty simplistic. It's not a full service question and it doesn't require a full service answer. Seems like he just wants to get the ball rolling and needs a starting point. There are much better ways to go about gathering all that other information. Like from his client.

  8. #7
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    Actually, there is a pretty severe flaw in the question: to wit, asking a relatively small sample size of people that aren't in the target market which site they prefer. It doesn't establish anything concrete or usable.

    The question itself also didn't state aesthetics specifically, and asked about "or maybe which parts from one that you like or don't like", which implies functionality as well as aesthetics. Again, we're not in the target market and just because we don't like something doesn't mean it's an invalid thing to include.

    If he needs a starting point, he should be asking his client for his / her other marketing materials. If they're not prepared, then the client needs to get them prepared.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  9. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    14
    Member #
    38383
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGAME1264 View Post
    Actually, there is a pretty severe flaw in the question: to wit, asking a relatively small sample size of people that aren't in the target market which site they prefer. It doesn't establish anything concrete or usable.
    This is supposed to be THE place for this question, otherwise, what's the point of having this forum? If it's so pointless, why keep it?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGAME1264 View Post
    The question itself also didn't state aesthetics specifically, and asked about "or maybe which parts from one that you like or don't like", which implies functionality as well as aesthetics. Again, we're not in the target market and just because we don't like something doesn't mean it's an invalid thing to include.
    We couldn't possibly know who or what his target market is (or whether or not we would be included within that sub-group) because he didn't include that information. Doctor is a very general term and if he had access to that invaluable discussion group, he probably wouldn't be here. He's here because this is where the web designers are at and he's asking for some perspective from his peers. Big difference.

    Also about the functionality, there really isn't much functionality on either website other than the basic general design functionality anyways. Nothing special to really consider outside of the aesthetics. Each has a menu at the top, with a big graphic underneath, plus some other small bits of information. Each website has basic links in a menu. One menu is more sophisticated than the other, probably because it has more information in it. Each has a phone number up top (one on the left, other on the right) and one has more information in the footer, the other does not.

    Paulbigelow.com has a three column layout underneath the main graphic. Graphic, header, paragraph. As opposed to pavlick with three graphics, each with a header underneath, no information other than the one paragraph to the left of it all. More aesthetic things. One has a call to action on the bottom, the other does not. No need to get too specific, these are generalities. These are also opinion worthy. He's just asking for a basic model to follow after. Not for anything more serious than that. These really are preference things and things any designer can have input on.

    I really don't see the point in saying, that no one should have an opinion on the topic. Of course we can and well, we do. Chances are his client doesn't know more about the subject than the people who do it for a living so I can't imagine his client would have a very educated opinion. You're right about one thing though, one opinion isn't really more important than another and a lot of things are really about personal preference more than anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGAME1264 View Post
    If he needs a starting point, he should be asking his client for his / her other marketing materials. If they're not prepared, then the client needs to get them prepared.
    Not all clients are equal. Some better than others. Semantics take the fun out of life. Live a little.

  10. #9
    Unpaid WDF Intern TheGAME1264's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Not from USA
    Posts
    14,483
    Member #
    425
    Liked
    2783 times
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeLakes View Post
    This is supposed to be THE place for this question, otherwise, what's the point of having this forum? If it's so pointless, why keep it?
    Actually, the Website Ratings and Reviews forum is for people to post their own work for rating and review, not for this. I'm allowing it because a discussion has ensued that isn't spammy in its nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeLakes View Post
    We couldn't possibly know who or what his target market is (or whether or not we would be included within that sub-group) because he didn't include that information. Doctor is a very general term and if he had access to that invaluable discussion group, he probably wouldn't be here. He's here because this is where the web designers are at and he's asking for some perspective from his peers. Big difference.
    That's exactly the point! How are we supposed to evaluate this in any way that would be considered useful without all of the information required to make that kind of evaluation in the first place? If you and I don't know which of the sites generate more traffic, more conversions, and are more useful to their owners. Evaluating a website without that information is like evaluating a car based on the body work. We need information that we do not have and are not privy to in order to form a proper opinion (and no, useless junk metrics like Alexa and SEMrush don't count).

    There is nothing of use or value to be gained from this.
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeLakes View Post
    Also about the functionality, there really isn't much functionality on either website other than the basic general design functionality anyways. Nothing special to really consider outside of the aesthetics. Each has a menu at the top, with a big graphic underneath, plus some other small bits of information. Each website has basic links in a menu. One menu is more sophisticated than the other, probably because it has more information in it. Each has a phone number up top (one on the left, other on the right) and one has more information in the footer, the other does not.
    That's not necessarily the case. Some sites have functionality beyond that which we see, since the functionality is included in an area not linked to from the main site (e.g. a subfolder or a subdomain). I built an admin for a doctor's office many years ago that contained several forms that took me 10 hours to build but generated a detailed X-ray requisition. The requisition was emailed and stored in a database, and then the X-rays were generated and the results were uploaded to the site and sent to the doctor's office by email. Saved about 4 days each time. It wasn't linked to from the main site because the doctor was the only one that needed to use it, but it was a part of the site nonetheless.

    Are you going to find that functionality on either of these sites? Are you going to find any functionality on either of these sites that pertains to their fields of practice? Who knows?
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeLakes View Post
    Paulbigelow.com has a three column layout underneath the main graphic. Graphic, header, paragraph. As opposed to pavlick with three graphics, each with a header underneath, no information other than the one paragraph to the left of it all. More aesthetic things. One has a call to action on the bottom, the other does not. No need to get too specific, these are generalities. These are also opinion worthy. He's just asking for a basic model to follow after. Not for anything more serious than that. These really are preference things and things any designer can have input on.

    I really don't see the point in saying, that no one should have an opinion on the topic. Of course we can and well, we do. Chances are his client doesn't know more about the subject than the people who do it for a living so I can't imagine his client would have a very educated opinion. You're right about one thing though, one opinion isn't really more important than another and a lot of things are really about personal preference more than anything else.
    Sure, a designer can have input on them. I never said a designer couldn't have an opinion. What I said was that the opinion is based on a fractured fairytale...on partial information that doesn't generate an opinion that is valuable. It's a matter of preference, which in the end is what makes the whole exercise pointless since 1) we're not in the target market and 2) we're not basing it on anything substantive.
    If I've helped you out in any way, please pay it forward. My wife and I are walking for Autism Speaks. Please donate, and thanks.

    If someone helped you out, be sure to "Like" their post and/or help them in kind. The "Like" link is on the bottom right of each post, beside the "Share" link.

    My stuff (well, some of it): My bowling alley site | Canadian Postal Code Info (beta)

  11. #10
    Member djitsz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    67
    Member #
    38199
    Liked
    17 times
    Calling people's opinions pointless sounds like an opinion to me. As long as the person asking the question finds it useful to gather opinions on what others think is good design, who is anyone to judge that this is pointless?

    I personally think opinions (even if they are not from a target audience) can be very helpful in triggering thoughts on what works well and what doesn't. Even though it's partly subjective, there are generally agreed principles of effective design.


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Remove Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com