This concept is a new version of an older concept. View Old Version
Concept Description
- Website:
- www.archives.gov
- Objective:
- Appeal, Usability
- Target Market:
- All ages
- Categories:
- web design graphic design
Looking forward to your suggestions for revisions!
In particular, please comment on which font, gradation, header, and footer you like better between version A and version B.
Previous Versions
Version 1
Concept Reviews
-
I like the design, it is clean.
Personally, I find the background gradient a little distracting and for this type of website, I would suggest using a solid color.
The only part the I see needs fixing is the section above the footer. The spacing is off between all 6 sections. If you even it out, I think it would look a lot better.
Other than that, I like its simplicity.
-
-
Justin Edelson commented:Viderity, my comments was based upon version B.
I like the footer of version A better, but I don't like the centered text. Also, in version A, the "News and Events" width looks like it fits the design better.
-
-
Really like the concept, it looks clean and nice. Wel done, allthough I personally would go for version B. Oh and I'm not a big fan of the fading in the back why not try a light solid grey color?
Regards,
Gijs
-
Viderity commented:
Gijs, thanks for your helpful feedback! What specifically do you like better about version B? And, which footer layout do you prefer - A or B? Thanks again!
-
Gijs Scholman commented:Viderity, first the little fading on top of Version B, that gives the mid section just a little bit more exposure, and some more depth to the page. Second of all the alignment of the text in Version B (accept for the margin on the sides that is better in A). Also the text seems a little less bold then in Version A. Also in the footer I like version B more beceause it has more space and draws less attention, but the little reflection I personally would delete that, 2 years ago that was super hot, but not anymore.... Btw for the background you could use a radial fade (instead of a linear).
-
-
Hi Viderity!
I would like to 'thumbs up' for 2nd one. Fonts Lookin awesome, and Icons are going well with Fonts, Its really awesome, Overall 5 star Ratings from me, only thing i would like to mention is the are ( USA.gov | Nation.....) try Taking whole text area a bit below, i mean it should start from where the reflection ends. and the text under the News and events, I think you should not leave spaces after each Topic, Try starting the next heading immediately after the first one finishes. I hope you get me.
Best of luck, I hope I helped yew. (Y)
Best Regards.
-
Viderity commented:
Thanks for your review! When you write "the 2nd one" are you referring to version B? Between A and B there are differences in the fonts, text alignments, header gradation, and footer formatting. Are there specific things that you like better about one version over the other?
-
Basit Chughtai commented:Yes Version B, I feel its better to use Version B than Version A, because, it has very nice Font, and feather effect on header and reflection etc. which maks it look more creative. So my suggession is to use Version B, but try Arranging the Text as I mentioned in the above comment. I hope it'll look Awesome. =]
Best of Luck [=
-
-
I personally am not fond of the background as I think it's a bit too...generic and simple - I also do not care for the reflection of the page where the footer is. I think a script writing image would go really well for the background as well as a more of antique color - perhaps something lighter than this #cdc0b0 or you may go darker or even an olive color.
I think I prefer the icons on version A as it's more of a letterpress/silhouette style.
All in all, great layout. Perhaps, instead of a GO button just have a search icon button.
For some design inspiration, you may want to check out Sunlight Labs contest. Very neat stuff: http://sunlightlabs.com/contests/designforamerica/
By the way, I could swear you had a ton of concepts for the Archives site. I take it the clients didn't feel in tune with the previous design?
-
The background does not match the rest of the layout. I have a tendancy to lean towards using a solid black. That way the colors pop. You may even be able to take one of your images and lay it in the black so it is very transparent. This will give the background some texture without overpowering the rest of the site. The footer on both versions is too much.
-
I got it in no time. I read the title and saw the brown image and realized what this site is about. Nice work
-
I don't like the gradient on the background
I like the second version, because you took the advice of "farshad ali" and align the content to the 5 boxes above, looks much better.
the 5 boxes that are categories, I think, look great.
So there is nothing more to say on this design but I would like to say that for this website with that great logo you created you could have designed a more paper looking website with no boxing.
here is an example: (now don't take the hole design as an example just the paper layout, I think it would work great with your graphics and the logo, the 5 boxes, the typography and so on)
http://champchoel.deviantart.com/art/newspaper-layout-102515789?q=boost%3Apopular+news+paper+website&qo=9
-
- Use the background image tot "pop" the site
-
Viderity commented:
Thanks for your comment! Can you explain a bit more by what you mean when you write "Use the background image tot "pop" the site"? We tried a solid background but it made the page look older (less contemporary).
-
Versions A and B seem really similar... (both look really good). I guess I would pick B if I had to choose.
I would center Publications and Resources under the Veterans button though.
-
Great design, loving the content placement, header, color combination and text styling. Prefer Version B more.
I could only notice 2 areas that could potentially be improved: - background gradient would either need to be moved further down all the way to the footer, as it looks a bit confusing now in mid-level - would look sharper without the reflective mirror effect below
-
Like A better due to the clearer font
-
Like this design a lot. Loving the colours, very welcoming.
Also, I prefer the version with the centred text, just for the record.
The only thing I would maybe consider changing would be the gradient. It is a little bold, maybe make it a little bit more subtle so it doesn't stand out too much. Find it a bit distracting from the beauty of the rest of the layout.
Other than that, great job!
-
blue gradient does not look that nice compared to the rest of the design.
-
I think overall it is great! Very refined and and finished. A few details though:
The footer takes up half of the site. That is a bit too much in my opinion. I would work on reducing the height of the footer or move some of that content to their own sections out of the footer.
The background is a bit generic. I feel as though something else could be used for the background, maybe a subtle texture or such, to help the background recede a bit.
Great site though. very nice and clean!
-
The left-aligned concept looks the best. The graphics with color and text overlays really make this part of the site engaging and attractive. The header and footer area is a little boring, though. I'm guessing that there isn't a colored logo? The only thing that looks out of alignment is the Connect with Us section - it needs to move to the left to line up with the Shop Online text.
Good work.
Hi Justin. Thanks for your helpful feedback! Do you prefer version A or B? And, does your comment apply to the footer in version A or B?
Also, we tried a solid color for the background but some felt it dated the design. It seems like some of the most contemporary designs are using all white or gradient backgrounds (e.g., microsoft.com).