Chocolate website

[tod]

Hello

Using the responsive Lycan theme, here is a website of a master artisan chocolatiers.
www.evocationchocolat.fr
Erase background tool really helps me to extract chocolates without efforts (fantastic tool).
Utilities>"website variant">"Share with all variant" is also a great tool to add objet in each variant of the website.

To create this website I firstly taste each and every chocolate (life is so hard sometime...)

Thanks for any opinions/advises

Regards

[gwpriester]

I wish I had not visited that chocolate website tod.

Lovely site.

[Boy]

Nice site, especially the 'regular' one. The mobile site lacks the navigation menu on a number of pages. You also have some of them in named in English or they have underscores in them.

[asignpro]

What is this white box? I'm using firefox 3.1

[Kathi:)]

Nice..but i need some chocolate now

[tod]

Oups, I've forgoten, a rectangle on the "present" page.
I need to correct it quickly

[Cloud]

Hi Tod, I was wondering why when you clearly have a mobile variant of your site you have gone with such a narrow site for desktops, the vast majority of users will be on at least 1200px available, I would recommend a minimum of 960px but really you can get away with anything upto 1160 easily. This will allow you to have some 'white space' and give you ample room to have a wider navigation bar which would allow you to use a larger font for buttons.

[tod]

Hello

Thanks for your answer

I wish designer offer a real responsive design. In this case, I would do my best to get a good result in high and low resolution. Not sure it is possible since responsive design concept may not be really compatible with designer principle (objets have a position)

Jacco Blankenspoor says "There is No Best Size for a Website" (june 2014). Is he right or wrong ? I haven't find a good answer yet.

As an exemple Google search page give a large blank space on the right when you do a search, why ? My answer is : to allow 99% people having a correct result.

I think narrow site is only for people having a little smarphone, and other have a wide range of resolution.

I'm not sure wich resolution is the best so I symply let the defaut resolution

Regards

[Cloud]

Think of it this way, people with a resolution below 960px wide only make up around 0.5% of all screens (that's for desktop pc and laptop) you cannot cater for everyone but you can cater for the other 99.5% who have a wide display by having a site which is around 960px wide. There is no best site size for websites but these days 960px is the minimum you should aim for. Resolutions below 800px have not been the majority since 2001 and below 1024px have not been the majority since 2007 ( http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

I used to use 960px a few years ago and when I checked the analytics I found that I was catering for a small section of users and giving a bad user experience to the majority. therefore I increased to 1060px. Now I am using 1160px wide without any problems and of course have variants for tablet and mobile phone users.

Like I said you are already catering for the mobile market so simply increase your desktop version's width, give the site's visitors a good user experience. Of course if xara had a responsive website system in place we would not be having this discussion (to a certain extent at least)

[lyleosborne]

Although I somewhat agree with Cloud's stats, I do find fault with his opinion that Tod simply change his desktop variant to a higher resolution. It is NOT as simple as Cloud makes it appear to be. Also, I viewed Tod's site at 1024x768 and it looks fine. I also viewed it at resolutions approaching architectural and engineering standards and that's when things start to become rather small. As a designer, I feel we are still in the dark ages of good web design - namely, we still must design for an even greater assortment of view ports than we had in the 90's across multiple browsers and operating systems. It seems we are no better off than when Tim Berners-Lee created this thing in 1989. Perhaps we as designers are to start by working from the top down approach - however, in order to do so costs a great deal of money and time. Are companies willing to pay for the designers expenditures in hardware and software that will inevitably be incurred? Doubtful! Perhaps the best solution is some kind of happy medium? Of course, it also must take into account who our viewing public is likely to be. Average "Joe" on the couch vs. "Whiz Kid" at Los Alamos. Better still, let's just all go back to the IBM "green screen" and forget point-n-click :-)