new Figleaves website

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