Rate the following sites

Could you guys do me a favor? Rate the aesthetics and usability of the following sites (out of 10, 10 being the best):

- Current http://virtuafighter.com/prototype/design15.jpg
- http://www.guardimpact.com
- http://www.fighters.net
- http://www.dailyradar.com
- http://www.hardcoregaming.com

I am wondering whether I should bother converting Design 15 to HTML as I believe the the interactivity and details of the HTML version should make it look FAR better than the image, but if Design 15 fares really terribly compared to these other sites then I won't waste my efforts needlessly.

Anonymous users need not apply please...this is not a popularity contest. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

Why do I even bother.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by GLC on 04/07/01 04:27 PM (server time).</FONT></P>

 

Jeff - I really don't think the ratings of other sites should matter. Why do we want to compare? We don't compete with them in any way, so...I see no point in deciding to convert Design15 based on the opinions of other sites.

cheers,

<font color=white> Llanfair the prized <font color=green>cabbage</font color=green></font color=white>

 

> - Current http://virtuafighter.com

2.5-3. It's poor but usable.

From 1-10? 8 It works, Excess HTML is not needed. The current design of the site works. It has everything you need from the main page. Even by todays standards this site is still a fine example. Plus the forum administered by Myke is one of the best, kudos for an excellent job!

> - http://virtuafighter.com/prototype/design15.jpg

1! Sorry, it's a total crap IMHO. Even as prototype design.

1????? Thatsa little tooooo low. I would say 5. Nothing really stands out. It actually looks quite common to me (layoutwise)but once coded i'm sure will look much nicer. The color scheme is spot on and follows the current site color scheme which many have expressed a strong vote in favor of. Did you use Fireworks to composite? Photoshop? or something else?

CrewNYC

 

Obviously, I have my own ideas of what is "good" or "bad," but when a person says a design is crap, I have nowhere to base where he or she is coming from. SO...if Design 15 was rated in comparison to other sites then I can get a better clue of what is desired.

In general it's just too difficult to get a consensus opinion on what constitutes as a good design. I have worked on too many web projects (hobby and *professional*) to realize that. Some people feel functionality should be emphasized over aesthetics, some don't. I am one of the former people. My aim is to achieve a design that is as pretty as possible but does not betray the usability of a site.

I have no problem at all ignoring the dissenting views of one person. But if enough people feel a design is inadequate then I will obviously listen. I am merely giving the opportunity to those people to voice and justify their opinions, and perhaps bring up a counter-example of what they would like to see in another pre-existing site.

 

> I have no problem at all ignoring the dissenting views of one person.

are you ignoring this "person" simply because he disagrees with you, or for the reasons he gives?

and wtf was that "anonymous posters need not apply" about? all opinions should be heard and weighed equally.

 

So far, the dissenting person has not given his reasons for dislike. What I am saying is that if a significant majority of the target audience things the redesign is great, then the dissenting views of the minority would be an acceptable compromise. You can't please everyone.

Also, like I stated previously, VFDC is for this community. Why should I bother listening to anonymous users who don't have the guts to declare who they are? Then again if anonymous users would be willing to give some constructive feedback and good tips for improvement then I would of course listen.

Finally, I think I should point out that the most successful and popular sites have very minimalist designs. Yahoo, WSJ, et. al. feature what most would call "dull" and "boring" designs.

 

Exactly jeff, no need to stress looks over function. Keep it simple, like the site you have now. Plus no matter how hard you try there will always be someone who will complain, this is true of almost everything...

CrewNYC

 

Jeff,

I think design 15 looks pretty good. Just make it simple and easy on the eyes, and don't spend too much time on it, as I'm sure you've got other things to spend your time on.

Nice work, just go with it.

-Jason

 

Personally, I don't think this site needs a MAJOR overhaul...maybe a few more specific forums...like a technique forum, combo forum etc...one of the sites on the internet that I think is excellently designed is www.capitalhiphop.com - excellent ubb system, navigation, and search utilities.

"Victory can be anticipated, but not assured" Sun-Tzu

 

-Current http://virtuafighter.com: 2
-http://virtuafighter.com/prototype/design15.jpg: 5
-http://www.tekkenzaibatsu.com: 5 (It's a lot more colorful than the current virtuafighter.com, but it's too busy. One main jpg is good, two are tolerable, but the animations and banner links and what not are a bit much.)

-http://www.guardimpact.com: 7
-http://www.shoryuken.com: 7 (A much more toned down version of tekkenzaibatsu.com)
-http://www.fighters.net: 7 (The color scheme is tolerable, but I like the use of jpgs as a backdrop for the text in the vertical sidebar)
-http://videogames.com: 5
-http://www.dailyradar.com: 6.5
-http://www.gaming-age.com: 4
-http://www.hardcoregaming.com: 4


-GhostDog

 

The VFDC as it is now is just fine Jeff. The problem isn't the design...there really isn't a problem at all in fact.
srk.com does facial overhauls all the time because the webmaster feels like he has new layout ideas and stuff and wants to test them out...it's not really a big deal. most of the sites you listed have UBB and that's the main reason for people visiting that site...not really for the design or anything...
idont know where i'm going with this.

Guten tag.

-sa

 

As long as it isn't bright pink or something I don't really mind,though I gotta say of the sites you listed I like guardimpact and VF.com,what do they have in common?....blue baby,It's easy on the eyes : P

 

Hey guys, thanks for the comments. I took another look at the prototype after a few days off of not thinking about it and decided that it's not what I'm looking for. I think the design is fine but I want a wider space for text than the fixed 600 pixels - side bar that we have. I'm probably going to aim for 770 pixels wide (enough to fit an 800 x 600 resolution) but have the main window for text positioned in such a way that no horizontal scrolling is required for 640 x 480 users.

If I had to rate the sites I listed above, this is how I would rate them:

- Current http://virtuafighter.com

4. Plain but it works. Moon-like left window is not very flexible, however. Also the choice in wording for the navigation is unnecessarily confusing to first time users. There's too little space for text; makes fitting stuff like movelists difficult.

- http://virtuafighter.com/prototype/design15.jpg

5.5. Much more functional version of the current design. I think it looks better too; I'm actually a fan of squarish, straight-lined designs. I'm a bit biased on this one since I have an idea of how the HTML version would look.

- http://www.tekkenzaibatsu.com

6. Looks very alive, despite the fact that the site is sparsely updated. Makes good use of space and looks great.

- http://www.guardimpact.com

6. GI is lucky not to worry about banner ads, because in their current design it would be difficult to incorporate one. Their method of layout is a bit confusing however and better fonts could have been used for their horizontal menu bar.

- http://www.shoryuken.com

5. Impressive looking header graphic but far too large. The site only looks decent on very high resolutions Something seems to be missing in my eyes with the design...not enough details maybe.

- http://www.fighters.net

5.5. Doesn't seem to be complete yet. The left side hasn't been used at all.

- http://videogames.com

6. The ultimate functional site and frequent visitors would appreciate its functionality. However, a lot of its "sub" sites have horrendous color schemes.

- http://www.dailyradar.com

7. I think DR is a well designed site, considering how many ads it has to incorporate. It looks good and it serves its function well.

- http://www.gaming-age.com

6. A lot of unnecessary fluff stuff in the design.