Website Overhaul........

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Currently have the website www.deckstardeluxe.co.uk and think it could be alot better. Im on bt web hosting and using their design program think its called "easysitewizard Pro".

Firstly the idea is to keep it simple. People hitting the home page can find the link they need straight away. Im thinking having tabs on the left side of the page for weddings, birthdays etc.. for the different type of events which will take them to a page to show some photos and a quick sales pitch.

I do need to find a good picture of a couple having the first dance as I have always felt rude about taking photos of the couple. Anyone have any ideas on this?

Finally anything on the site that I should include. Im wanting to take more 18th/21st bookings as nearly all my bookings have been weddings. The show is alot different for my "mobile nightclub" but not had the gig booked yet to take photos of it :S

Thanks for your help guys.

Neil

[Babybob]

Neil...

Have a look at your statement on the home page, there is a couple of grammatical errors and lack of capital letters etc, start there as that is the first thing people will see when they visit.

Eg... We are an PROFESSIONAL.....should be "We are a professional".... not really any need for capital letters in the word professional.

Put some capital's on the place names.

And..... "make your event an special"...should be "a special".

The last line could be rewrote if you felt the need with the word music replacing records perhaps.

Hope this helps.

[Spirits High]

The last line could be rewrote if you felt the need with the word music replacing records perhaps.

And shouldn't that be rewritten? :p :p :D

[rob1963]

The main thing I noticed was the width of your website pages.

Not only are they all different, but with one exception they all require scrolling from left to right in order to see the full width, so I think this needs addressing.

:)

[DJ Jules]

I do need to find a good picture of a couple having the first dance as I have always felt rude about taking photos of the couple. Anyone have any ideas on this?

You could either ask permission in advance to take a photo (if you're meeting with the B&G before the event that should be easy enough to do), or ask the B&G if you could have one after the event (as I'm sure their families would have taken plenty!) On your photos generally, why have you included such incredibly high resolution pics? If they're bigger than the average screen then they're too big - I have to scroll around them to see the whole thing and they take ages to download, even on 10Mbit broadband! Potential customers just want to be able to see the content, not print them as A1 posters ;)

Julian

[Babybob]

Just had a quick look through the rest of your site and there are quite a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in there, i'm a bit busy at work for the next couple of hours so I won't be able to help straight away but i'm sure Rob or Excalibur will be along shortly to point them out and maybe suggest some ideas.

I hope this was the sort of information you were after along with other ideas on improvements, as i'm not trying to pick faults.

For me spelling and grammar goes a long way in presenting a professional website and properly constructed method statements can make all the difference.

:)

[DeckstarDeluxe]

You could either ask permission in advance to take a photo (if you're meeting with the B&G before the event that should be easy enough to do), or ask the B&G if you could have one after the event (as I'm sure their families would have taken plenty!) On your photos generally, why have you included such incredibly high resolution pics? If they're bigger than the average screen then they're too big - I have to scroll around them to see the whole thing and they take ages to download, even on 10Mbit broadband! Potential customers just want to be able to see the content, not print them as A1 posters ;)

Julian

I've always held the view that while peoples eyes should be transfixed on the bride and groom I would of thought people looking at the dj taking photos wouldnt look very professional.

[Babybob]

And shouldn't that be rewritten? :p :p :D


Haha... well it's either/or....

v. re·wrote (-rōt'), re·writ·ten (-rĭt'n), re·writ·ing, re·writes

v. tr.

To write again, especially in a different or improved form; revise.
To put (material submitted to a newspaper or magazine) in a form suitable for publishing.
Computer Science To save (a usually altered file) over its most recent version in the same storage location.
v. intr.
To make revisions in written material.
n. (rē'rīt')

The act or an instance of rewriting.
Something rewritten.
re·writ'a·ble, re·write'a·ble adj., re·writ'er n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

;)

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Just had a quick look through the rest of your site and there are quite a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in there, i'm a bit busy at work for the next couple of hours so I won't be able to help straight away but i'm sure Rob or Excalibur will be along shortly to point them out and maybe suggest some ideas.

I hope this was the sort of information you were after along with other ideas on improvements, as i'm not trying to pick faults.

For me spelling and grammar goes a long way in presenting a professional website and properly constructed method statements can make all the difference.

:)

Yes indeed it does, english isnt my strongest point...... many thanks

[Babybob]

I've always held the view that while peoples eyes should be transfixed on the bride and groom I would of thought people looking at the dj taking photos wouldnt look very professional.

Well if they are transfixed on the B&G they won't be looking at you then..:D :D :D :D (I'd better put a few grins in, just in case ;) ).

Why not ask one of the guests to take a few snaps using your camera, as long as you have the consent of the B&G to use the shots on your webpage.

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Well if they are transfixed on the B&G they won't be looking at you then..:D :D :D :D (I'd better put a few grins in, just in case ;) ).

Why not ask one of the guests to take a few snaps using your camera, as long as you have the consent of the B&G to use the shots on your webpage.

thats the other point, consent... Naturally going to have to bite the bullet at some point.

[DeckstarDeluxe]

The main thing I noticed was the width of your website pages.

Not only are they all different, but with one exception they all require scrolling from left to right in order to see the full width, so I think this needs addressing.

:)

Yeah the template function in the program isnt great so not so easy to copy background from the home page to the same background for lets say the gallery section

[DeckstarDeluxe]

The main thing I noticed was the width of your website pages.

Not only are they all different, but with one exception they all require scrolling from left to right in order to see the full width, so I think this needs addressing.

:)

http://www.deckstardeluxe.co.uk/18birthday.html

is that page better on yours rob?

What size screen do you have? I have an 17inch and the page width has been ok on my screen

[rob1963]

http://www.deckstardeluxe.co.uk/18birthday.html

is that page better on yours rob?

That's perfect deckstar...no scrolling required now. Respect! :D


What size screen do you have? I have an 17inch and the page width has been ok on my screen

I have a 17" flat screen monitor.

[DeckstarDeluxe]

That's perfect deckstar...no scrolling required! :D



I have a 17" flat screen monitor.

Really? so is mine set at 1440x900 pixels? Maybe thats where the difference is?

Thanks for taking the time to view website guys.

[rob1963]

Really? so is mine set at 1440x900 pixels? Maybe thats where the difference is?

That must be what's causing the difference, as I only use 1024 x 768.

[Jiggles]

Looks lost on my 1920x 1080 screen.:doh: :dunno:

[Vectis]

You really ought to be designing for 1024x768 still (yawn :D )

I just did a quick report from my site stats for last 3 months...

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Looks lost on my 1920x 1080 screen.:doh: :dunno:

well my dad is bigger than your dad so there :P

[BeerFunk]

A website these days shouldn't be affected too much by the user's screen resolution - if all content is placed relatively

[DeckstarDeluxe]

You really ought to be designing for 1024x768 still (yawn :D )

I just did a quick report from my site stats for last 3 months...

HOW MANY HITS..................... :S

[rob1963]

A website these days shouldn't be affected too much by the user's screen resolution - if all content is placed relatively

Indeed, unless of course they're viewing it with IE8, in which it won't display properly, regardless of the resolution used.

:bang:

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Indeed, unless of course they're viewing it with IE8, in which it won't display properly, regardless of the resolution used.

:bang:

I take it the photos dont take ages to load now too?

[Vectis]

Indeed, unless of course they're viewing it with IE8, in which it won't display properly, regardless of the resolution used.

:bang:

If this is a problem then here's a temporary workaround...

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

Stick it in your <head> section and it forces Compatibility Mode (or in other words, it shows it like IE7 would've).

It won't be supported forever though so the underlying incompatibility needs to be fixed longer term.

[Jiggles]

Talking of stats, my site was visited by the government secure Intranet! :eek: From my link about checking it over.

[rob1963]

Talking of stats, my site was visited by the government secure Intranet! :eek: From my link about checking it over.

Whoaaaa Callum...Gordon looked at your website.

That's COOL!

:D :D :D

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Whoaaaa Callum...Gordon looked at your website.

That's COOL!

:D :D :D

expenses in order Callum ;)

[Danno13]

Looks lost on my 1920x 1080 screen.:doh: :dunno:

x2 for me :D


If this is a problem then here's a temporary workaround...

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

Stick it in your <head> section and it forces Compatibility Mode (or in other words, it shows it like IE7 would've).

It won't be supported forever though so the underlying incompatibility needs to be fixed longer term.

I tend to use this...

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">


Which makes IE render properly (i.e. compliant to proper HTML, exactly how Firefox works without any bodging..)