Review website please

[XL2006]

review website: http://www.billymurphylaw.com/

thanks :cool:

[XL2006]

I am actually looking for someone to give me all the negative points for this site so I can improve it. Thanks!!!

[pcthug]

Ok, the majority of the negative points stem of the fact that the website is flash. Because the website is flash based it is inaccessible, unprofessional, not optimized for search engines, invalid (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billymurphylaw.com%2F), cannot print text in a literal form, unable to link to individual pages, etcetera. Other negative key points I find essential to mention; an overall feel on unprofessionalism in design (I suggest looking at other successful, professional law firm websites and note on there simplicity, minimal graphical content, serif style typefaces, use of lighter color s throughout theme and repetition throughout pages.).

[chikago]

I like the website. I would change the font you're using for the quotes. Also, the text in the "profile" dropdown box is blurry, but I like the pictures and bios for your lawyers.

[KDLA]

Whoa - some of those lawyer pictures look like mug shots. They don't give much credibility to the staff.

You also need to consider that many of the clientele will be accessing your site through dial-up: the Flash usage isn't the best thing for this. Personally, I always consult my clients to regard Flash as decorative element only, being in all ways separate from the content and/or navigation.

Also, you should make your design as easy to navigate as possible. Most of the people accessing this will not be technologically savvy, and many times as not, not even own a computer, instead accessing this from a public library. (I work at one, so I know.) Your current design is image-heavy and lacks substantial content. Also, the Powerpoint-like presentation does nothing to ease the site's use and/or provide more information.

Good Luck -
KDLA

[fmiles]

unprofessional
You got this one wrong. Flash sites are sometimes twice as professional than something that design-illegible coders came up with valid W3C XHTML/CSS/WCAG/jakobnielsen/whatever sites that are losing customers because of boredom and random decoration.

Sorry for the harsh approach, but I'm standing behind this one.

Everything else you listed is true, though. Flash is a technical problem, but that's only one side of the matter.

To XL2006: The problem about Flash is that you can fail more easily in usability and clarity. I'd still recommend you go with good old HTML for your pages, you'll be safer that way. And it would be technically more valid, too.

[pcthug]

You got this one wrong. Flash sites are sometimes twice as professional than something that design-illegible coders came up with valid W3C XHTML/CSS/WCAG/jakobnielsen/whatever sites that are losing customers because of boredom and random decoration.Stating that Flash is superior to any W3C technologies is a completly invalid, unjust statement. Flash does not provide a professional interface, as Flash is a proprietary product owned by Adobe Systems Incorporated (formally Macromedia) and is not an industry standard; thus not operating on mainstream browsers without the installation of a foreign plugin. Concluding; How can any medium that requires installation of proprietary software to function and that does not conform to web standards be considered professional?

[fmiles]

Well, I definitely agree with what you said, but what I meant with “professional” isn't the “professional” in idealistic W3C standard way.

Let's imagine a scenario where 5% of the viewers don't have the plugin and therefore can't see your website. Your website is a Flash-powered multimedia interface that is used to market your product or service. Because of your successful corporate image and appealing design, your website draws 10% more customers than your competitors. You conclude that it's more profitable to continue with your Flash-based website, despite letting down the small portion of your potential customers.

Graphic design has been there for centuries, we are perfectly aware of what appeals to customers and what kind of corporate communication is the most profitable.

Flash is a tool that can be used either for good or bad. What's running the web business isn't web standards, accessibility or semantics, but money. The approach that makes the company most money is the most profitable.

Flash isn't an industry standard, but it seems to be the standard in graphic design circles. It's harsh reality that graphic design companies make more money from web design than any W3C standardistas with their technical and usability approach.

It's not professional in a professional sense of the word alright, but it's a cruel world.



Personally, I don't build Flash websites because of accessibility and semantic reasons. But that's just me.

[KDLA]

Flash is professional IF and ONLY IF the person using it has a professional level of experience with it. I've reviewed many sites here that use Flash that were far from looking professional.

BTW - Many computers in the workplace do not have Flash plug-ins (because most Flash websites are considered to contain non-work-related content). I would worry if a large contingent of my customers are those who'd be viewing my Flash site in an office setting. At one time, our statewide network was not allowed to install any sort of plug-ins. But, that might be a concern for just my area/state.