It's just a static visual:

http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/apply/development/

thoughts, comments, general feedback very much looked for...

--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

"Davémon" <nospam@nowhere.no> wrote in message
news:474c4$42f0e319$504427df$2721@datanet.co.uk...
I like it, it's beautiful.

It would be good to see whether another page with a lot of text would work
as well in that confined space though.

--
Helen, lime, et al.

In article <PdcIe.26442$Le2.196160@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
"lime" <nuthin@here.com> wrote:

the logo(?) Apply Recruitment is very plain but..

otherwise ditto what helen said.

Very nice

Matt

Davémon wrote:

"Davémon"...
Really nice colors and clean layout.
I might add a photo of a line of working people in the top cell with the
...er... logo [?]. Yes, like others have said, I agree that the logo, or lack
of, needs
work. Why isn't that cube/peg thing the mark? That is cute and clever.
Somehow, I expect the orange color to be inside the circle shape to match up
with the peg.
Maybe the same dark blue in the others to show it wasn't the right fit..?

I know this is a jpg, but if you plan to use a graphic for your text you
have some kerning issues.
[I won't even go into the text as a graphic issue..... ]
I might head the two columns with the title "Independant Recrutment Agency"
and use the "Your ... partners" and "Making it easier for you!" as a
subheads.

I think the scissors around the current vacancies box is confusing. That is
usually associated with a coupon
and, obviously, you cannot cut out something on a web page...
This should stand out a bit more as this is a major purpose of the site.
Mybe a red felt tip circle around it like you might do for the want ads.
Maybe separate that button into looking for and postings for jobs. Employ
your basic cube shapes, ghosted or solid,
in that box to unify the concept.

All in all, looking very good. I would investigate further into this site if
I were looking for a job. Trouble is, I don't know what kind of
jobs/employees or employers are involved. Maybe adding the photo up top can
help identify the type of positions available or
at least give a better idea to it.

hope this helps,

__Gem

woodsie wrote:
Thanks lime & woodsie.

The logotype isn't my work, and unfortunately it isn't in the current
project to change it.

--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

Gem wrote:

It's not an issue, using CSS, background image, padding and overflow :-)
eg. http://www.moronicbajebus.com/playgr...e-replacement/

They aren't industry or level specific, but unlikely to do much senior
management placements. An image of that nature would have to be so
generic as to be reasonably useless!

Thanks Gem, lots of good stuff there, some of which might find its way
into the final version. Cheers.

--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

"Davémon"...
ah-ha! cool. Thanks very much for that link. ack, I need to catch up and
redo my site... : p

What I meant was, if I were in your target demo, I would investigate the
site deeper if I had a clue about what type of jobs were being offered.
An image with smiling working people, could be just simple headshots, would
enhance the human connection. [and add a bit of color near that non-descript
logo]
Generic is good sometimes. Allows for a wider spectrum of viewers to relate,
especially if your jobs/placements are not so strictly defined.
YMMV. Maybe a testimonial photo/blurb from an employer/employee in that
vacant space then?

[what can i say... i like pictures! The great thing about web pages is that
you can use all that color without adding to the price tag, unlike print.]

You're certainly welcome!
Cheers right back.

___Gem

Gem wrote:

Will solve that, note: the visual is the 'About Us' page.

Rather than enhancing a human connection, I find the 'smiley happy
office worker' imagery which seems to fill stock photography librarys is
quite dishonest. Personally I think the communication that happens with
the box device etc. is on a much more human level.

What I meant by generic/useless is it does little to differentiate the
specific service offering, there's too much of that 'smiley-photo'
imagery in the world!

The way I see it is like so: You cannot not communicate, there is no
'generic' in photography, only specifics. The clothes, race, age,
gender, body type, attractiveness of the models all communicate ideas
which are too specific, and not going to be appropriate. 'Inclusive'
multi-age, multi-cultural, multi-ability images don't solve the issue,
but instead imply a certain liberal attitude, or worse, obviously
exclude the demographic that's missed out.

If it were a design for catering recruitment, then I'd have little
problem using an image of a smiling chef, because most of the other
issues are eclipsed by the fact he's got a big silly hat and apron on!


--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

"Davémon" ...
Fair enough. See link below.

heh, I like that sentence. alot. But remember that people often aspire to be
the ones in the
smiley photos.

Photos can be generic and vague while communicating many different
conclusions and apsirations.
The luckless demo *can* succeed. Look, here's a guy like me in the picture.
The uneducated demo *can* get ahead. Look, I could be like that girl in the
picture.
If you want to manipulate the positive reaction of specific viewers than
generic is no good but to influence, excite or incite
a non specific group than generic is best, imo.

Of course. But if you were hiring for a hotel with retail, spa,
housekeeping, valet, and golf/gaming outlets than the photo could indeed
include the
equally silly attire of these other professional career choices, yes.

Nice design/concept defending, btw.
This may be of interest to you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050810/...ex_differences

Thanks for the exchange.

__Gem

Gem wrote:

I'd argue that the specific cultural elements of dress which I mentioned
earlier forces the image to be specific.

Typicilly women looking at images of women have a reaction on a
'envy-empathy' scale. This is what causes cultural illnesses like
anorexia, indeed 'I /could/ be like that girl in the picture' if I
starved myself etc. Women will tend to 'put themselves in the shoes' of
the represented female figure.

Men looking at images of men however, doesn't work in the same way, it's
more a case of 'status-power', men feel slightly /threatened/ by images
of successfull attractive men, and feel superior in-front of
stupid-looking-geeky men. Men will tend to see the other man as a rival.

Opposite sexes looking at images of the other typically have a response
on a desire-ownership/rejection-alienation axis.

Which is why magazines, either for men or women, have pictures of pretty
ladies on the cover, and why adverts generally portray men as 'fools'.

I still don't think there is such a thing as a generic photograph. If
you mean representing the lowest-common-denomonator, or using the type
of image most common in a society, then I'll just shut up and agree!

Thanks. I enjoy rambling on about how I think when designing stuff.

Human communication is far more complex than that!

Their entire argument revolves around faulty logic. They asked men and
women to rate *personal* websites, i.e. blogs and the like, and then
used these results to critique *academic institutions* websites. Just
think about what qualities are expected from a university... it has
/nothing/ to do with masculine or feminine 'preferences'.

No, thank you. It's been good to question my assumptions, and push my
thought-processes!

--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk