TCTTS, looks fantastic.

1. Spread out the headings and center them over their respective columns. It is confusing to see "Date" with the movie title underneath, "Genre" above studio, etc.

2. The "Command + F" note is a great touch. Many people will be looking for a search box in that area.

3. Move the Twitter and Facebook icons or move the links at the end of the line. It looks unbalanced when the rest of the elements are centered.

4. Switch the name and release date. 99% of people will look for the name first, then they will read left to see the date, then they will read right for the rest of the info. It will flow better with name first.

5. You can do a Standard and Expanded view. The Standard view would hide columns like Studio and others that you may find important for some users but not all. I think is a better choice than a mouse over as it will still allow people to easily search and take in a large amount of info quickly by skimming rather than having to mouse over each title.

6a. This would be easier to show than describe, but I'll try: you can expand the category titles by mixing small and large type sizes. I would recommend Theatrical Release, Trailer Release, For Purchase Release (I don't love this one), Direct to Consumer, and Television Series. The word "Theatrical" could be the same size as your current categories and "Release" could be much smaller and centered below, putting the focus on Theatrical while also communicating clearly. I'll work on those categories I suggested.

6b. Why distinguish between theatrical release and direct to consumer?

quote:

---

first of all, great work, definitely would get lots of use out of this, i get most of my updates from texags (mainly you) as it is. with that said, i agree that i would make the studio information "mouse over" and maybe the same with length of trailer, just to help make it a little less cluttered, again, personal preference. also, im not sure "fri" needs to be listed on there either, if there was a case of a special day of the week release, you could just mark that particular film with "wed/thur", whatever.

---

Awesome, thanks. Good to know. I thought about that "Fri"/day of week thing, and removing it would definitely give me some more room if I just got rid of the day of the week bit altogether. I included it only because more and more movies are coming out on Wed/Thur now, and I want to be as specific as I can. But you're right, I should probably only mention the day when it's NOT a Friday. And just to be clear, that's not the length of the trailer, but rather the runtime of the movie itself. Guess I should probably move that column away from the Trailer column.

quote:

---

the main thing i (and i would assume many users) use netflix for is to catch up on tv series. it would be great to know when a tv series is listed/updated or even removed from netflix...again, me just being selfish i guess.

---

And I hear you, but yeah, that might get to be too much to keep track of. I'm trying to focus on when movies/shows first debut, not when they're moving to a new format (Theater-to Home titles being the exception). Sometimes Netflix doesn't even say ahead of time. They just announce that they added a new season/series day-of or a couple days before, so it might not do much good anyway. But I'll definitely consider it. Guess it depends on how comprehensive I want to to get with this thing, while ensuring that it remains a side-project and not a full time gig (unless by some miracle it actually gets popular enough to warrant a full-time gig).


[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/9/2013 11:42p).]

Stick with movies. It's what you know. It's what you're good at. You can't be all things to all people.

quote:

---

TCTTS, looks fantastic.

---

Much appreciated.

quote:

---

1. Spread out the headings and center them over their respective columns. It is confusing to see "Date" with the movie title underneath, "Genre" above studio, etc.

---

I've been thinking a lot about this since I first designed these mock-ups, and might just do that. The only reason I didn't is because the columns aren't uniform in size, so the headings would be spaced apart weird, at different intervals, potentially looking even worse. But I know exactly what you mean about certain headings technically being above different categories. It's an issue I've been wrestling with. It'll likely just come down to what the designers think is best, and there may be a way to keep it close to how it is now but make the "flow" less confusing. We'll definitely consider all options.

quote:

---

3. Move the Twitter and Facebook icons or move the links at the end of the line. It looks unbalanced when the rest of the elements are centered.

---

Yeah, totally agree. Like I said, the entire header area will be completely redesigned. I just kind of threw all the information I wanted up there without wasting time trying to design something I know will change. We'll do a nice, clean, kick-ass logo, and then place all that other stuff around it in a way that makes sense and looks really good.

quote:

---

4. Switch the name and release date. 99% of people will look for the name first, then they will read left to see the date, then they will read right for the rest of the info. It will flow better with name first.

---

Good note. I'm anxious to get others' opinions on this as well. My inclination was that the date is kind of the corner stone of the whole thing, since that'll be the defining column on the landing page, and we (obviously) read left to right. But yeah, title first probably makes the most sense. It's definitely the most important bit of info.

quote:

---

5. You can do a Standard and Expanded view. The Standard view would hide columns like Studio and others that you may find important for some users but not all. I think is a better choice than a mouse over as it will still allow people to easily search and take in a large amount of info quickly by skimming rather than having to mouse over each title.

---

I definitely like this idea. My only hesitation is having to enter in all the information an extra time (since I'm basically having to do a whole new spreadsheet for each category). But hopefully there's a way - via some web code I don't know about - to simplify that and have the "unnecessary" columns easily appear in an expanded view, but remain "hidden" otherwise.

quote:

---

6a. This would be easier to show than describe, but I'll try: you can expand the category titles by mixing small and large type sizes. I would recommend Theatrical Release, Trailer Release, For Purchase Release (I don't love this one), Direct to Consumer, and Television Series. The word "Theatrical" could be the same size as your current categories and "Release" could be much smaller and centered below, putting the focus on Theatrical while also communicating clearly. I'll work on those categories I suggested.

---

I know exactly what you mean, and I'll make a note of it and see what the designers say.

quote:

---

6b. Why distinguish between theatrical release and direct to consumer?

---

Mainly because it'd be information overload if ALL releases - both direct-to-consumer and theatrical - were on the same page. That, and I feel like the theater experience needs to remain something different from the at-home experience. Plus, the direct-to-consumer releases require an extra column: what platform they'll be available on (iTunes vs On Demand vs Amazon, etc.). Granted, if all together, that info could be in the same column as IMAX, 3D, etc, but I think it'd just get too cluttered and confusing. With the way the industry is going, more and more titles are going to be debuting at home first, and those are going to be your smaller budget dramas and what not. While the blockbusters and animated features are going to take over the theaters more and more. So, again, I want to keep those experiences/platforms different if for that reason alone.

GREAT notes all around, though. This helps a TON. Thanks.

quote:

---

Stick with movies. It's what you know. It's what you're good at. You can't be all things to all people.

---

Agreed. The only reason I'll be covering a few cable shows is because it's all starting to blend together with movies so much. A 10-episode season of Game of Thrones feels more cinematic than most movies out there, and that's only going to increase as time goes on. We're getting more and more mini-series too, which are basically long-form movies as well, so I kind of want to corner the market, so to speak, on the more the cinematic stuff like that, which will eventually blend together with all the direct-to-consumer movies anyway. Just trying to future-proof the site in that regard. Another reason why I'll likely never touch the network stuff.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/9/2013 11:49p).]

Please add the TV aspect

I'd love to know when shows are coming back in 2014 and what new shows I need to be on the look out for

Looks great. People have already touched on a number of things I agree with

quote:

---

genre and studio viewable on mouseover?

---

Excellent idea. Would use site as well.

quote:

---

Please add the TV aspect

---

You mean add the network stuff, or just don't get rid of what I'm already planning to do? If the former, I've gotta draw the line somewhere. Would be WAY too much to keep up with.

And thanks, cr0wbar.

Noted. Something along those lines seems to be the popular opinion.

If anyone cares, here's some title/logo/header inspiration I put together to give to the eventual designers. Ultimately, I'm going for a title-look that almost feels like the it could be on the cover of a magazine. Something bold, simple, and instantly recognizable.

Mostly, this is just a combination of potential fonts that could inspire something else. Would maybe only build-on a couple bits and pieces from some of these. Then potentially incorporate the title/logo with some kind of super-simple design loosely based on an idea or look from the second mock-up page, which is mainly just movie-inspired imagery I like that we could kind of sort of ape in some small way.

Either way, I'll likely keep the look black/white/grey, with maybe only a hint of color...



*** EDIT ***

Settled on a "final" look to give to the designers, so I'm taking down all the old mock-ups. Would rather they not be floating around for the next couple months while the site is being built.

Again, just wanted to tell everyone who contributed & critiqued how much I appreciate it. Really, I had no idea how valuable this exercise would be, as the final product will be a direct result of many ideas in this thread.

Thanks!


[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/16/2013 12:57p).]

^ As of now, I'm thinking about borrowing the basic idea from that Star Trek poster, but using dust-in-projector-light instead of stars. Obviously going with a completely different look/font.

But even doing something like that may be further than I want to take it. Don't want to get too cheesy or busy with the design. I want to stay as simple and clean as possible.

I really like the current look. Simple and elegant.

All I can say is it would be added to my bookmarks immediately, and would be visited daily.

Absolutely would use the hell out of the site.

I like the look and content. I do agree with a couple of the suggestions made so far:

• Mouseover for some of the information that isn't of great importance to the masses (studio, etc)
  
• Date/name order could be a sort option
  
• Maybe you could allow users to customize their view by hiding columns that don't matter to them and filtering and sorting on the different columns.
  

This is all pretty basic functionality that shouldn't be too difficult to build in, but definitely secondary to the content and appearance of the site while cost is a factor.

I am also a fan of keeping the cable shows, but as the site becomes popular it will likely lead to endless requests for expansion into other cable networks and broadcast tv, which should ultimately have a separate site.

I love the idea of dust in the light, but I also agree that the current format is pretty elegant. as is. Only concern is if it is eye-catching enough for the normal viewer. I guarantee this will be used in the industry though.

If you are still looking for someone to help build the website for you, I run a small webdesign shop and would love to talk to you about it.

quote:

---

All I can say is it would be added to my bookmarks immediately, and would be visited daily.

---

Awesome to hear. Thanks.

quote:

---

Absolutely would use the hell out of the site.

I like the look and content. I do agree with a couple of the suggestions made so far:

Mouseover for some of the information that isn't of great importance to the masses (studio, etc)
Date/name order could be a sort option
Maybe you could allow users to customize their view by hiding columns that don't matter to them and filtering and sorting on the different columns.


This is all pretty basic functionality that shouldn't be too difficult to build in, but definitely secondary to the content and appearance of the site while cost is a factor.

I am also a fan of keeping the cable shows, but as the site becomes popular it will likely lead to endless requests for expansion into other cable networks and broadcast tv, which should ultimately have a separate site.

---

Nice.

I like the the idea of being able to customize the view, kind of like iTunes, but it all depends on the tech/code. If it ends up being nothing more than a basic spreadsheet for each page, I'd have to enter in a movie's info for every single possible view, which would be a huge headache. But if there's some kind of coding system that's like a really advanced spreadsheet, where I don't have to enter in the info again and again for every page, the sky's the limit.

As far as the TV stuff, I'll stick to my guns. The whole idea behind the site is that I'm categorizing anything that's cinematic in nature. Since it's all blending together more and more anyway. I will never, ever have the desire to categorize CBS comedies or CSI or anything like that. And if I'm not doing all that kind of stuff, what I am doing should stay fairly manageable.

quote:

---

I love the idea of dust in the light, but I also agree that the current format is pretty elegant. as is. Only concern is if it is eye-catching enough for the normal viewer. I guarantee this will be used in the industry though.

---

Agreed. Plus, I want the final header/menu to be about a third or more thinner than it is now in order to maximize space for the listings. So that right there will force me to keep it pretty simple and straightforward. Ultimately, I'm just trying to find a happy medium that's clean and simple enough, while also having just enough "flair" to catch the attention of the normal viewer.

quote:

---

If you are still looking for someone to help build the website for you, I run a small webdesign shop and would love to talk to you about it.

---

I really appreciate it, but I'll most likely be looking for a company here in LA, one I can meet with in person on a regular basis throughout the design. But if for whatever reason I can't find anyone, I'll definitely give you a shout. Thanks!

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/10/2013 11:39a).]

quote:

---

I like the the idea of being able to customize the view, kind of like iTunes, but it all depends on the tech/code. If it ends up being nothing more than a basic spreadsheet for each page, I'd have to enter in a movie's info for every single possible view, which would be a huge headache. But if there's some kind of coding system that's like a really advanced spreadsheet, where I don't have to enter in the info again and again for every page, the sky's the limit.

---

You should basically have one row for each movie, with several columns of additional information. Even if the site only linked to an Excel spreadsheet, the user could easily have the ability to filter and sort based on that. However, in reality, a programmer will probably have you put everything into a database where information is linked by a primary key (possibly a combination of title and release date). The database structure would make it more flexible and customizable for the user. I'm sure any professional you hire would have no problem doing this easily, but as I said earlier, even if you don't go this route, it will still be a great site that I'll visit almost daily.

Good luck!

[This message has been edited by BEaggie08 (edited 12/10/2013 11:49a).]

I see what you're saying. What I think is complicated is probably nothing for a decent programmer.

My only reservation with this whole customizable/expanded view concept is the user having to click, having to make choices. The whole point of this site grew partly out of a frustration with having to do so much clicking to get to the information I wanted. So I wanted to present the all the necessary info without having to do anything. It's just there, and you don't have to make any choices about what you want to see. Being able to organize by category may be as far as I want to take it. Anything else makes me nervous that I'm getting away from the simplicity of it all.

I completely understand that the average user may not want to see the studio info, for instance, but simply seeing it may be the lesser of two evils if faced with having to make a choice about seeing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

Either way, I'll go through every conceivable option the programmer/designer and see what's best.

This is great! Like many others here, I would have this bookmarked instantly.

quote:

---

Thought about that, but it could be confused with what I'll likely call "Non-Theatrical" (formerly "Home/First-Run"). "Home Release" could easily be for movies coming exclusively to the home first. It's tricky...

---

Was trying to come up with something but you're right... very tricky. Would "retail release" work? or something along those lines.

Just found this thread today, so I haven't been able to consume it all.

I did notice discussion about including the Studio: I wasn't aware that people used this in deciding if they wanted to see a movie. I'd recommend instead including the [Director] or [Director and Leads].

Another quick thought, and again I haven't consumed this thread fully so apologies if this has been discussed: a way to filter movies with wide release, versus those with limited release and indie-er films.

On first glance though, the esthetics of the site looks great.

quote:

---

Was trying to come up with something but you're right... very tricky. Would "retail release" work? or something along those lines.

---

GREAT idea, and that's the first moniker that's made seriously consider using it, but the more I think about "retail," I feel like it might take away from the fact that the titles will be available to rent as well (for the first time). Granted, everyone is probably aware that movies are available to rent / On Demand the same day they're available for sale, but I don't want to confuse anyone. Though, I may still go with it. For now, I'm keeping Theater-to-Home as a placeholder, but I've made a note of "Retail Release" and will run it by some people. Thanks!

quote:

---

I did notice discussion about including the Studio: I wasn't aware that people used this in deciding if they wanted to see a movie. I'd recommend instead including the [Director] or [Director and Leads].

---

Studio is a big category for industry-types. Has nothing to do with whether someone will see a particular movie, but lots of people (myself included) like to see a studio's entire release slate, and it's great for figuring out when certain trailers will be released. Certain studios are known for certain kinds of movies, but that's something probably harder to peg if you're not paying all that much attention.

As for organizing by director or actors, I like the idea, but there's an infinite number of each, so it'd be kind of pointless. There'd be no way to categorize either column. I guess they could potentially just be in a non-categorized column, but that's getting into more detail than I want to. Every film's title will link to its IMDB page, so directors/actors can be seen that way.

quote:

---

Another quick thought, and again I haven't consumed this thread fully so apologies if this has been discussed: a way to filter movies with wide release, versus those with limited release and indie-er films.

On first glance though, the esthetics of the site looks great.

---

It's definitely something to consider, but it'd be a lot of work for not much gain. One or two limited releases per week, if even that, are fairly easy to look past, especially since I have the wide releases in bold. Plus, it can be tough figuring out if some movies are actually wide or not, if a certain title is being rolled out over a few weeks, gaining a few hundred theaters a week. If that makes sense. I will try to list titles twice, though, if they originally had a super-limited release and are confirmed to truly go wide a few weeks later.

Great feedback, though. Thanks for taking a look.

Looks great and I would definitely use it.

I'd like to see a column that said who the star or director of the movie is. If I'm scrolling down a list and it just says "'Movie Title', Drama, May 2014", then I don't much care to click on it. But if it had a single column that just said "Jennifer Lawrence", then I'd be inclined to click on it to watch the trailer.

^ Awesome, thanks. And I thought about that, but I just won't have the room. It's a good idea, but the info area can only be 1000 pixels or so wide, and I'm already cramming columns in there as tight as I can manage with the stuff I consider slightly more vital. Every film's title will link to its IMDB page, so directors/actors can be seen that way. There MIGHT be a way to do like a small pop-up window with that info when you hover your mouse over, but again, I'm not really looking for it to be any more of a database than it already is. Think of my site as more of a filter. If you're interest is piqued by the info provided, you can click once and dig deeper via IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/11/2013 5:21a).]

Alright, I may have finally cracked it.

I took a lot of y'all's suggestions and tried to implement what was doable for now. Mainly, I've done a super-rudimentary version of the Condensed/Expanded view. It leaves a lot of white space on the right, but maybe that's the point. Or maybe I can do something else (not very busy) with that space. We'll see. Either way, let me know if something like this is what some of you were talking about.

Doing so actually forced me to get the headings above their respective columns too. I didn't think I'd be able to, but after moving the movie titles to the far left, and doing ton of freaking math, I think it turned out pretty well. It's definitely for the better.

And again, remember, a professional will obviously make this all look a hell of a better/sleeker/cooler. But you guys have been a HUGE help so far. I can't stress that enough. This was way more (awesome) feedback than I expected. TexAgs will definitely get some kind of functionality/design credit.

Anyway, here's the newly-tweaked movie (only) slides...



*** EDIT ***

Settled on a "final" look to give to the designers, so I'm taking down all the old mock-ups. Would rather they not be floating around for the next couple months while the site is being built.

Again, just wanted to tell everyone who contributed & critiqued how much I appreciate it. Really, I had no idea how valuable this exercise would be, as the final product will be a direct result of many ideas in this thread.

Thanks!


[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/16/2013 12:58p).]

The logo with black bold text with white dust in it would be cool.
What would be useful, and maybe cut down on the columns would be something like the IMDB Preview Chrome extension. You hover over a movie title and it pops-up an IMDB info box.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/imdb-preview/fheakgimipfoonomgncncmjfnfnggmnp

^ I commend you that you are looking at Natalie Portman's IMDB site

Quad Dog, GREAT idea. What was initially turning me off the idea of a little mouse-over pop-window was having to enter in all that info myself. But if there's some kind of script that can pull the info directly from IMDB, that'd be phenomenal. Making a note of that. Nice work.

Will there be a filter? For example, what if someone wants to look for all movies that are not R rated, or not G rated, etc. Maybe a check-box filter.

I guess it's the dad coming out of me! :/

^ I thought about doing a "Rating" category, where it organzes all R-rated movies together, all PG-13 together, etc. I just honestly didn't think many people would care about that. But if there's a market out there for parents like yourself, or anyone else, I'll definitely consider it. It's just a matter of somehow making the heading fit above the column. Shouldn't be too much of an issue, though.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 12/11/2013 5:06p).]