|
|
|
|
Thread title: Flockey Web Development Services 2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread tools
Search this thread
Display Modes
|
|
06-13-2008, 02:04 AM
|
#11
|
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: Apr 2006
Location: US
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,802
|
I must admit I wasn't a fan of your previous portfolio design, but this one is much better. Nice work James.
|
|
06-13-2008, 06:10 AM
|
#12
|
Status: Member
Join date: Mar 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 453
|
James has been doing amazingly well with his latest designs. Good job!
|
|
06-13-2008, 06:49 AM
|
#13
|
Status: Waving
Join date: Aug 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,694
|
|
|
06-13-2008, 07:17 AM
|
#14
|
Status: I'm new around here
Join date: Jun 2008
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 12
|
Very nice. good luck and keep doing what you do.
|
|
06-13-2008, 07:23 AM
|
#15
|
Status: R'tard
Join date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,959
|
The way the <strong> tag is used, it could misguide search engines.
|
|
06-13-2008, 07:57 AM
|
#16
|
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: Dec 2005
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Expertise: Design
Software: Photoshop
Posts: 2,410
|
Quite impressed actually, i'll be honest and thought the old version was pretty poor but this is definetly a step up. Only change i'd make is getting rid of the scissors and maybe increasing the size of the logo / removing the text from underneath it.
Good job.
One other thing, i've just read over your contract for clients, i'd look at re-writing it or altering the current one. I think it could be a lot clearer and shorter, and idea maybe to use a custom contract for each project. Rather than listing all your services and prices etc you could list what your undertaking for that specific project and just require one signature.
|
|
06-13-2008, 09:30 AM
|
#17
|
Status: Sin Binner
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore.
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 1,363
|
I really like the new design bar the scissors and the small logo. However, I think a lot of the text doesn't fit together.
For example, you say "We are an in-house based company from Glasgow." which sounds very professional, but then next to that you say "It’s also a great way to socialize, so please do so and follow me on Twitter " which is super casual.
I think you should choose one or the other.
|
|
06-13-2008, 09:49 AM
|
#18
|
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: Aug 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 1,767
|
Originally Posted by slavingia
For example, you say "We are an in-house based company from Glasgow." which sounds very professional, but then next to that you say "It’s also a great way to socialize, so please do so and follow me on Twitter " which is super casual.
I think you should choose one or the other.
|
Do kind of agree, i think the only thing that makes "We are an in-house based company from Glasgow." sound professional is company. If it was.. "We are an in-house based team from Glasgow." It changes a whole lot. He's probably going for a professional, yet not over the top type.
|
|
06-13-2008, 10:47 AM
|
#19
|
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: May 2005
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,571
|
Yeah, being 'in-house' is kind of casual right? Alot of business men use Twitter. For this version I want to make sure that I get to know my clients better and I think having a twitter account could be a greater advantage in achieving that.
Thanks for the heads up guys
|
|
06-13-2008, 11:40 AM
|
#20
|
Status: Community Archaeologist
Join date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland
Expertise: Software Development
Software: vim, PHP
Posts: 3,820
|
I'm liking the new design but as always I feel that the actual content and some of the design decisions are really letting you down.
For the text on your page, I'd heartily suggest hiring a professional writer because I know at the moment you're going for "kind of casual" but actually getting bland and generic. There are also a number of grammar and spelling mistakes which any company, however casual, should do well to avoid.
You're probably not wanting an in-depth review so I won't ramble on too much! So I'll sum it up with, great work but could do better (sounding like a school teacher!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
|