Website Review and Suggestions

**Makserver** · 06-12-2007, 04:27 AM

Hello to all, a client in Macedonia is not satisfied with my webdesign
They told me that the design is bad and they made a new one on a different domain name.
I would like to hear your opinion as I have offered them a update but they told me they like the new design much better.
The design from me: http://www.inexgorica.com
and the new design:
http://www.inexgorica.com.mk
your reviews will be highly appreciated!

**jv16** · 06-12-2007, 04:39 AM

All I can see is a non-loading flash intro / flash navigation.

Please don't use flash, especially not flash intros or flash navigation. They are bad for SEO, they are bad for your sales, they are bad for everything and for everyone.

**Makserver** · 06:14 AM

strange as the flash opens here fast on lots of different locations but I have changed the first page. this with IE, Firefox, Win XP and Ubuntu linux
The main question still is that according to us here from Makserver 3B the www.inexgorica.com is so much better than the www.inexgorica.com.mk and the last link is also for 80% with English mistakes.
Our design is plus with five languages!

**Kushal** · 06-12-2007, 06:57 AM

Hello mak,
All I can see after comparison to these: http://www.inexgorica.com.mk/ang.htm and http://www.inexgorica.com/index_eng.htm

The design of your previous site is better then http://www.inexgorica.com.mk/ang.htm But your page seems bad for SEO. Lots of your navigation is through button which looks like text which is also bad for SEO. The menu of your page (http://www.inexgorica.com/index_eng.htm) left hand side is hard to understand because of some crazy fonts. The links of contact us, site map, bookings… at the top of the site are also image and this is also bad for SEO. Your meta tag is also not proper nor the new site have. Proper meta tag and text links is very important for the business related websites. To make the good website you need to focus in the good content and SEO friendly pages more then designs.
oh yes, and in this generation I will advise my friends not to make website with flash as long as they need SEO friendly sites. It’s better if you use flash in secondary page to give documentation to your visitors….

**Makserver** · 06-12-2007, 07:26 AM

Hi Kustal thanks for the reply but I don't agree with you on the menu as the menu is clear to see and there is no problem with this.
Also the first page is NOT in flash but the main problem was with the fonts as Russian and Macedonian are totally different loading.
Also keep in mind that this web-design has been made in 2002! Since than, I am sure you know

, lots of things like styling have been changed.

**nieves22** · 06-12-2007, 07:35 AM

The old one dosen't attract anything... honestly(sorry!)
Maybe for colour or layout... it's too simple, but seems sad.

The new one, I think it's much better, too.
But the Logo I would to make it stop. it's a little frustrating to see all the time moving, moving and moving...!!!

**Kushal** · 06-12-2007, 07:55 AM

That was just a suggestion, but the decision is yours. If you are only looking for positive reply then sure I will help you: Your website is perfect.
Do you think this will help you?

**Cheshire_cat** · 06-12-2007, 09:12 AM

As a personal opinion I like your old design better, that maybe because the only thing I see in the new one is the one page with a flash window. I actually think that your old one could work if you did a couple things to it. Like align it the center and take off the flash and movies that don’t work. Like I said it’s my personal opinion, maybe if there was more for me to look at on your new one I would feel differently.
-Cheers

**itscooper** · 06-12-2007, 09:18 AM

Hi,

I think your one has better design and a lot more potencial that their's. Their version has far too many moving objects for my taste.

Their new one is, by all means, simple and (without all the motion) would probably be a suitable site. It wouldn't be fantastic but it would proabbly do.

Your one does does look a lot nicer. It could be more usable (i.e. I don't think it's quite perfect) but I think if you tweaked it they'd be better off going for your site.

True, your version does need some SEO (as does their's!) but I've always focused on usability before beginning to optimise my sites. I think you should look into optimising the site after you've dealt with any other issues.

I do like stylish fonts but I must admit I did find your menu's font hard to read. It's not that I couldn't read them at all, but most internet users don't like thinking too hard. I think it would make it easier on the user if you chose a slightly clearer freehand font.

Have you thought about purple links? I'm not sure it would work but the blue links blend in slightly with the backgrounds and borders. Perhaps you could try a purple, just to see if it would look okay.

I hope they see the light and choose yours!

Cheers
Chris Cooper

**Makserver** · 06-12-2007, 10:24 AM

well thanks for all the advise, again the old one was build in 2002 so that time it has been a different ballgame

And dear Kushal please don't understand me wrong I do like to hear and read your opinion and I do thank you.
But taste is different with any person...

Well for now I'll just wait as I do think the new website is a disgrace for any 4 star Hotel, full with English spelling mistakes and bad pictures.

**iDigit** · 06-12-2007, 11:12 AM

I think both of them are lacking some good structure, but I prefer the old one. The red in the new one is too intense for my liking.

**Cheshire_cat** · 06-12-2007, 11:16 AM

I miss read your original post - your design is better, I got them confused to the order of them.

**highanddry** · 06:44 PM

the .Mk site = horrible

.com site= Great improvement

I'm not sure which one is new and old but the .com is definately better.

A couple of things about the .com ... 1. get rid of the ridiculous and confusing (bad) flash intro. 2. Check your spelling and usage of words i.e. "informations"
3. The links are not easy to read.
4. Good Luck~!

**Makserver** · 06-12-2007, 07:22 PM

thanks the .com site is mine and the com.mk is the new one.

**archaznable** · 06-13-2007, 11:44 AM

Umm the second one is much better than the first one i'd say ....

**Makserver** · 06-13-2007, 12:11 PM

? you like the www.inexgorica.com.mk more?

**archaznable** · 06-13-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makserver

? you like the www.inexgorica.com.mk more?

Yap yap because the color on that one is good basically a red and yellow color compare to the other one ....

**90xjoeyx06** · 06-13-2007, 01:59 PM

the new designe looks way better looks like you got the whole thing sorted keep up the good work!

**highanddry** · 06-13-2007, 02:29 PM

you've got to be kidding me. the .mk one looks rediculous. The .com one is much better but could still use some work

**LadynRed** · 06-13-2007, 02:53 PM

Ok, BOTH of them suffer from bad flash implementation.

Personally, even though I like red, I prefer the original version, but color is subjective, very much a personal preference. I think the new one is too dark.

I really do not like the fixed scrolling center window on the new one, I have a scroll bar - it's part of my browser and usability studies show that people don't like or are even confused by more scrollbars on a page.

BOTH are bad tables for layout, and both have validation problems.

The original site is, IMO, cleaner whereas the 'new' site is dark and rather depressing, it does not have the feel of a 'resort' hotel. I think the original site has a better feel to it for the subject.