I actually like it better , the older one was a bit Gray top and black menu and these colours are much more alive .

It would be interesting to get their input with regards to removing the category option on the left side and making it very much "Fashion Designer like" website.

Over all it seems like they have very good "Call to Actions" and I wonder how the visitor reacts to "£2.95 Delivery" on the header.

I would actually replace (test it of course) the word "GO" with "Search".

I hope this helps.

Eran

Morning Amanda,

Looks alright - certainly ticks all the boxes in terms of "Also viewed", "Rate it", Facebook/Digg it, etc, (although the cynic in me doubts I would ever recommend a black cotton sock to a friend, while the website tells me at least two buyers would - why do none of my friends ever recommend socks to me? What sort of guarded sock-secrets are people keeping from me?).

Given it is a site primarily for a female audience, did you not think that the reviews/recomendations should feature a lot higher up in the browsing process? I had to drill down quite a way to find the vast numbers of reviews that some of the product had - you've got a motivated and interactive bunch of consumers, but you're hiding their recommendations away, and those recommendations are a powerful tool in selling to women. The "Customer Favourites" is hidden too far down - move it up.

Out of interest, was the team behind the look & feel mainly male or female?

Cheers,

A.

It does not make sense to be producing sites at 800 x 600 these days.

The commercial reasoning of catering to the small amount of small screen users versus giving big screen users a richer merchandising experience... seems self explanatory to me.

Although I have not seen the Figleaves stats I would be suprised if 800 x 600 accounts for greater than 3-5% of all users and probably less than 3% of sales.

Jon Bovard

On 09:10:45 21 October 2008 Ashley wrote:
>Hi Amanda
>
>I'm intrigued as to why it appears to be designed for a
>fixed width - I'm guessing for 800 X 600 screen
>resolution.
>
>That's very safe in terms of compatibility but goes
>against the trend of most redesigns we're seeing to use
>more screen real estate by designing assuming a higher
>minimum screen resolution (1024 X 768).
>
>Possibly it's because they're going for more international
>expansion where there are markets where lower screen
>resolutions are still the norm?
>
>Ashley Friedlein
>CEO
>E-consultancy.com

If you fancy trying something a bit different then why not try the 'pay it forward' methodology with a free internet surgery.

The idea is of my own creation and has yet to be trialed but it goes along the lines of:

Put a day aside about 3 or 4 weeks in advance and offer 30 minute slots to companies who have a website and are thinking of upgrading/enhancing/redesigning their site within the next 6 months*.

Arrange all the meetings to take place at a local hotel (book a small meeting room if you have the spare £ - if not just get coffees in the lounge area) and look at their sites in advance. Spend the day giving out free advice, ideas, suggestions and if need be, ball park figures. Don’t make it a sales pitch just a helpful friendly meeting. When you’re done take their card and give them a card/comp slip/small info pack about your business.

All being well the idea should offer exposure in the local paper, yield 5 – 10 warm leads/appointments and access to other local business via word of mouth.

Good luck with your business…

*One of your local/regional papers will probably have a business section and you should be able to get a bit of coverage from them. Partly as a new business starting out in the area and partly with the offer of a 'free surgery'. Chambers of Commerce could also be a resource to tap into too.