I think it would be more effective to use thumbnails to give a preview of your projects. It gives people more reason to click something and gives more of a feel of your work.

Someone who is looking to hire you may only spend a few seconds on your site if they don't see anything that grabs their attention. Make it easier to get a sense of your work up front.

Try using some navigation so people can find what they are looking for. If I'm looking to hire for video production, I would have to hunt for it.

Putting aesthetics aside, I feel that your colors overpower and distract from your work examples. A lot of your work is brightly colored and it competes for dominance with your site design. If you have a more neutral colors your work will stand out more.

+1

I totally agree. Wonder how they arrived at this design.

What the blog says regarding the rebrand itself

At that time, Shyp’s brand didn’t feel like the right fit. Strategically, we were focused on building the product and the team. Our visual identity was a mash-up of various trends: baby blue hues, cuddly rounded letters, a cartoonish wing icon. It was friendly and fun, but it didn’t represent the serious, innovative company we were becoming.

Personally I don't understand the direction of this rebrand. I understand that Shyp wants to redirect their branding. But why have they made these particular branding and design decisions? Everything looks so generic. The new logo is "Shyp" written in the same typeface used all throughout the site - with the same color, font weight and size. It doesn't stand out at all, and get's visually lost. It looks generic and unfinished. The site looks like the hundreds of startup launch pages that were thrown together in a few hours. And any brand recognition you've built is instantly gone.

Is this also because Shyp is pivoting towards enterprise, and therefore felt old branding was too cartoony and juvenile (and consumer targeted)? Still doesn't explain why this is such a huge departure and is IMHO lacking a distinct identity and finesse.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, and I doubt this will have a substantial negative effect on the company. But boy would I have loved to be a fly on the wall those rebrand meetings.

It would be extremely interesting to see an experiment with different form types. Most of us are not going to change the way we design forms because someone tells us it's better, nor should we. There needs to be some data and testing to back this up. I'm surprised that a website focused on UX would not have done any testing to support this. There isn't even an anecdotal evidence in the article. It seems like mostly assumptions made by the author, with the conclusion being that this is definitely better. Disappointing.

If anyone here adds easter eggs to their sites, can you give some examples of what they are, what are the triggers, and why did you choose to add easter eggs?

Hi Tom, awesome site. Maybe you could try adding some transitions to the menus such as a allowing the images to fade in/ out slightly? Maybe it would help it feel more "smooth".

I work for a lean startup and we can't afford to spend a lot to find participants. Depending on what we are trying to learn, we usually do one of the following:

• Contact existing customers for meetings or web conferencing

• Approach random people at starbucks/cafe of your choice

• Usertesting.com

I think the participants you need will depend a lot on:

1) the kind of product you have (if you have a more niche product you may need to be more picky)

2) what you are trying to learn. For example are you trying to figure out what is usable or use research for broad product development or validate specific ideas?