synatribe
Aug 8 2009, 01:46 AM
This design has been throwing me off for the last week. It's another ecommerce site, I cant seem to get the site to look appealing.
Here is the problem, initially, that "Free shipping" crap wasnt suppose to be there, but without that image, there is too much white space
Im going after a control chaos look but it looks too cluttered, I need tips on how to clean it up. I've literally made about 15 versions of just the header and sidebar and I still cannot get it to look half way decent.
Btw I hate web 2.0 looks
sorry for the frustrations. DESIGNERS I NEED YOUR INPUT!!
This site has to go live in 3 days !!
AHHH!
*end rant*
http://fashionleveca.com
Mikeplyts
Aug 8 2009, 01:52 AM
Oh man, that sidebar looks a little ugly. :/ I suggest you make it so that the little headers for the navigation have that red stretch to the little plus and minus signs. I also think you should make the navigation have like one menu already collapsed, instead of all of them contracted. Maybe you could also try adding another advertising thing in the sidebar?
technicolour
Aug 8 2009, 02:32 AM
I actually think the sidebar looks fine. The only thing that irks me is that you have 'BOTTOMS' 'OUTERWEAR' 'TOPS' all in caps, while the dominating font of the logo above it is not capitalized. I know the Leveca is right under it, but it's not the bold flashy font that grabs your attention.
But really, that is the only thing that irks me. The whole contracted navigation, IMO, is more organized. It bugs me to no end when the navigation on some sites looks like this:
OUTERWEAR
-Jackets
-Shirts
-clothes
-clothes
-clothes
-clothes
ACCESSORIES
-something
-something
-something
etc etc etc x4534535
It's just an eye sore, IMO. But I like how you have this set up. Very modern, very nice.
emberfly
Aug 8 2009, 03:00 AM
I think it looks fine
Mike
Aug 8 2009, 05:23 AM
I agree with Kristina about the casing of certain sets of text. Besides that, it looks alright to me. I don't know why you're trippin' out exactly.
synatribe
Aug 8 2009, 10:41 AM
thanks guys, the thing that was really bothering me was the white space, it felt like there was too much white space. I removed the background and Im going to make the entire layout wider. I think 700 pixels across would be to small for an ecommerce site :] Thanks though :]
Mikeplyts
Aug 8 2009, 10:56 AM
Well, Kristina, I meant like only have one menu collapsed and have all the other ones still contracted. :/
technicolour
Aug 8 2009, 09:29 PM
QUOTE(Mikeplyts @ Aug 8 2009, 10:56 AM)

Well, Kristina, I meant like only have one menu collapsed and have all the other ones still contracted. :/
And I still have no idea what exactly you're envisioning. Explain, please?
elletricity
Aug 9 2009, 03:55 AM
^ I THINK he means, instead of this:
+ BOTTOMS
+ OUTERWEAR
+ TOPS
make it looks like this (when you open the site):
+ BOTTOMS
LEGGINGS
PANTS
SHORTS
SKIRTS
+ OUTERWEAR
+ TOPS
So that one menu is fully displayed and the other two are collapsed,
but all three menus are collapsible.
emberfly
Aug 9 2009, 03:59 AM
QUOTE(elletricity @ Aug 9 2009, 03:55 AM)

^ I THINK he means, instead of this:
+ BOTTOMS
+ OUTERWEAR
+ TOPS
make it looks like this (when you open the site):
+ BOTTOMS
LEGGINGS
PANTS
SHORTS
SKIRTS
+ OUTERWEAR
+ TOPS
So that one menu is fully displayed and the other two are collapsed,
but all three menus are collapsible.
He said the opposite of what you're showing... (which would be weird). I like what you showed better.
elletricity
Aug 9 2009, 04:07 AM
Haha, my bad.
Mikeplyts
Aug 9 2009, 08:57 AM
QUOTE(elletricity @ Aug 9 2009, 04:55 AM)

^ I THINK he means, instead of this:
+ BOTTOMS
+ OUTERWEAR
+ TOPS
make it looks like this (when you open the site):
+ BOTTOMS
LEGGINGS
PANTS
SHORTS
SKIRTS
+ OUTERWEAR
+ TOPS
So that one menu is fully displayed and the other two are collapsed,
but all three menus are collapsible.
yeah, that's what I meant! I guess I just didn't word it right. :/
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.