Like to know what you think
Hello all,
Im new here, just joined but have been developing sites for a while now.
I have just released a new site and I personally love the design. But unfortunatly like all proud parents, Im bias, so I would like to know what others think.
Design? remembering this is a content managed site, so restrictions did apply but still pretty flexable.
Your thoughts?
Busy posted this at 23:06 — 13th June 2005.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Welcome to TWF, can you please review a few sites as per the posting agreement, thanks
demonhale posted this at 23:56 — 13th June 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
In a Nutshell
First off the top graphics is not aligned to the left and right graphics (im using opera)... The links are ok, reminds me of Xp's buttons though... The text contents are quite difficult to read, blue text on blue graphic background should go, The whole page looks disorientated, fix those issues, and think of other schemes, The Semi-circle right graphics is not needed there...
dataNdesigns posted this at 00:21 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Will check out alignment issue in opera, XP buttons? fimiliararity, I am not anti microsoft as are my customers so this isnt an issue. Our shemes? the semi circle on the right avoids a blank white area.
Thanks for the feedback.
demonhale posted this at 00:43 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
If your worried about white spaces appearing at both sides of the web pages body, try using a modest repeating background that is subtle then center the contents of the page, make it self-adjusting which is quite possible when using CSS. What it will do is when visitors change resolution your page will still be at the center...
dataNdesigns posted this at 01:25 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
not worried about white space, just going for a different look, try to think out of the square a little. The opera issue is fixed.
I dont want to redesign the site to suit your graphical opinion. consider looking at it from a objective point of view and see what I was going for here. Repeating backgrounds are the norm and have used them many times before, nothing new there. That is acctually the look I was tring to get away from.
The customer is very happy with the site as it matches their theme, but I wanted a developers perspective on nav systems content layout and over all effect.
Your help with the opera issue was well advised thanks.
demonhale posted this at 01:39 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
I just suggested on that because most webdevelopers use that principle to make their site "cross-browser". I hope you understand that... To help you much further, your site looks ok now in Opera, well I tried the links and you have good contents like maintenance and tips, and the whole page looks conclusive... Its still hard to read the Welcome part becasue of the background. And guess what, importantly your site has the same alignment trouble as before when I used Mozilla. That means you have a cross browser incompatibility issue...
dataNdesigns posted this at 01:55 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Demonhale, its been interesting, the cross browers issues have been there for a long time and will continue to be, I will image. Glad you have found so much entertainment in finding issues. I have now tested in Opera and firefox of course my target audience is the market share being ie.
I guess not what I was expecting from this forum, a valuable lesson learned here. You are correct in saying that the site suffers from cross browser issues, as to do somthing new will always have glitches. DID YOU TEST IT IN VERSION 1.2 of Netscape as well?
demonhale posted this at 02:14 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Usually Members will pour out graphics and usablity issues soon for your site, it so happens my timezone is opposite theirs, so I kinda commented on cross browsers issues first, so that they can focus on other issues... You just heard from me, so wait for the TWF members... Your codes are clean as I can see, I know you have ample experience web developing, I NOw know you dont want to talk about cross browser issues... So it would be helpful to outline specifically what parts of your web site you want commented on... That way, those that will help you out soon will know that you want these issues sorted out...
IE: No Issues
Opera: No Issues
Mozilla: Issue: Top Image not aligned
Netscape: Didnt test, netscape always sucked... but if you followed above and you have no issues for the three, then netscape will have no issues too.>
Additional Suggestion:
dataNdesigns posted this at 02:58 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Great feedback, thanks and yes the background banner idea is a excellent one, in fact I will implement it!
The Motzilla issue is a problem however I will fix this as well. It really is a pain because the tables spacing is the problem, beleive it or not each browser has different table widths, even though all have been set they vary. Its not until you try somthing like this that it stands out.
Why have I gone for this style? I have been building in the "box" sites for ages now and I wanted the background that is usually wasted to be part of the site instead of just a complement to it. Once I get this perfect, I will be able to acctually add content to the background which with flow with site design.
What most dont realize if you blow out the optimization scale on the image you can use a full background with minimal size and only minor scarafice to quality.
My biggest issue with this site is that while I have to make it cross browser compatable, it is content managed, (I built the system) and I need to make it so if we change the banner and theme it can be done quickly and easily without recodeing the site.
steve40 posted this at 12:41 — 14th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
I hate your navigation, it qualifies as this sucks. Blue text on white background also sucks. You may think this post sucks, but that still doesn`t change the fact that these things suck.
#PS. Demonhale is right W3C would not even start to validate your site. This means you have more than one cross browser issue. If it were a personal site, thats up to you personally. But a public advertiser should be concerned with these issues.
dataNdesigns posted this at 00:59 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Thanks for the feedback, very consturctive.
steve40 posted this at 12:04 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
On a more serious note, I really do not like layered navigation it’s just plain irritating. This page design has far to much java, the internet is moving away from both java and flash. Internet explorer 7.0 will have no java support. Both these are open doors for virus invasion. Change it to PHP if you are going to use layered nav. Drop the flash, a great deal of internet users do not have shockwave installed. Java and flash are two of the worst scripts on the internet, flash probably is number one.
Blue text on a white background is an eye strainer, change it to black. I know changing, and removing these things will take some glitz away from your page. But that is also the more modern trend, to move away from so much glitz. And go back to some more practical web pages.
As it stands W3C cannot even determine your code type, I didn’t like the problem of cross browser compliance either, but you might as well get used to it. If you think this is a problem, you don't even want to know about handicap accessibility. Someday it will become mandatory to meet both browser, and handicap accessibility requirements.
dataNdesigns posted this at 16:41 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Steve - Where do you base your facts? please by all means, show me some reference anywhere that states the web is moving away from java and flash - There is more flash used now than ever before. Flash is one of the best multi media mediums available, not even to mention compression ratios and movie delivery, google has even started to search it now for content. You need to get your facts straight here and not just guess with bias.
Secondly try selling a website that doesn’t have any animation to a customer who wants it. Believe me they will go next door to the guy who does do it!
Third no shockwave installed??? are you kidding, again their is more now than ever before, what year are you living in.
Fourth who says they are the worst scripts? you, hehe and you are?
Fifth you mite have something with the menu system but will collect more opinions first.
Sixth After adding a code definitions - and some minor (very minor) changes the page validated immediately, I even stuck the symbol on the bottom just for you!
Handicap accessibility - now you are really pushing it, how many sites on the internet would fail that test, including yours!
The web is a medium; it’s for broadening horizons and pushing the limits, no sitting behind a pc telling everyone what they should not be doing cos it breaks some rules. Use your knowledge to help, not hinder or push opinions not based on fact! Image if everyone was like this, there would never be any progress or evolution.
I listed the site for real un-bias opinions, and I am very disappointed, but that said, you guys have pointed out some major flaws in my coding structure.
steve40 posted this at 17:14 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
W3C is easy, doesn't make it with WDG, or Site Valet though. It's not a big deal, but it still didn't pass. Definitely does not pass for handicap accessibility, of course mine doesn't either, but then I don't build sites for pay!. Be sure if I did they would pass.
Oh and I am not biased just telling it like it is. You think this is bad, you would not even want to post your site where I did once. If you used one table, and were not an expert with CSS your site was Dogie doo.
dataNdesigns posted this at 17:47 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Steve - Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way, I used to work in a large corp as a systems developer, this included working on the corporate websites and all of their backend systems, the development team alone was made up of over 15 programmers. It was a far different story then as every thing was documented and we had the time to put into ensuring that all was as it should be. However even their standards where not of the level you speak, and this was a Global company, accredited for their work.
Now I own my own development business with 5 staff on board, from sales, development and admin, I have jobs to protect and wages to make. Bottom line is the only concern and if you spend your entire time nit picking over every variable then you will go broke. Did you know in the 5 years I have been in my own business I have watch over 15 other development businesses go under in my area alone!
I don’t discount what you say, but I think its a bit over the top.
steve40 posted this at 18:18 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
It is over the top, and a load of crap!. But the more nit-pickey these browsers get the worse it will be. As far as handicap access goes, there are some countries in Europe, where if a handicapped person cannot access your site; you can be prosecuted and fined. I hope it never comes to that here.
As far as CSS goes I don't like it, its harder to work with than tables, and html. And has even more browser incompatibility issues. As far as I am concerned if it looks ok in IE that is good enough for me. But you will loose a lot of potential viewers if their browser (through no fault of yours), makes your page show up-side down.
That is a little extreme, but Firefox has height issues with tables, and you never know how it will look. The table at the bottom of my page stretches to twice it's normal height in FF. And there is really no fix for it, but FF users will tell you it's your page! not their beloved browser.
steve40 posted this at 06:20 — 16th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
I have found the same thing, in fact; the only ones that do are usually small personal sites. W3C of course is a standard, and is an attempt get all web sites cross browser compliant. It is not at present a mandatory thing, nor will it probably ever be. I read an article by one of the big web devolopers, that stated most of his clients would drop their web sites. Rather than pay out large amounts of money, to fix something that otherwise was already working fine.
IE is really the dominate browser on the web, and probably will always be. It of course has few problems even with mongrel coding. He further stated that it would mean such a loss of revenue, to all involved on the web. That it would be years before it could be standardized. I have an old site, not the one in my signature here; that is built with just anything that works. IE has no problem with it.
Bill Gates said he would not change anything about IE, to make it comply with the little rag-tag browsers. And if anybody changed anything, they would have to comply to IE. So there goes the neighborhood.
steve40 posted this at 14:41 — 16th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
Why fool with W3C then?. I have found with this last site, that I was able to get into the search engines within a matter of days. I have not been refused anywhere I have applied for a listing. Formerly with my other non-compliant sites, it was a different story. That is the greatest, and best advantage I see the extra work that coding a site to comply with W3C gives.
steve40 posted this at 21:27 — 16th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
You do know that google doesn`t even go by the keyword list. They snapshot your page, and select the ones they feel like. Usually the title, you almost have to know the name of a site to find it on google. After about a year (like with the older site) it will start to come up in various searches.
That is the reason I post my URL with my signature here, it comes up on the web as more links back to the website. I just advised a person on another category here to do the same. I am retired, and cannot afford advertising;so I have to do it the hard way. That means posting on many boards like this one, to get those all important link backs.
steve40 posted this at 01:18 — 17th June 2005.
He has: 490 posts
Joined: May 2005
I agree there should be consideration for small buisness, or for a new site for that matter. The first year is the make or break point for a small business, I know having been in one. If you make that first year, chances are that the following year you may stand to make a little money.
Since the internet is now the biggest medium they have, it's a little prejudice to restrict their exposure. Sounds a little like the bigger powers! have a little to do with this. And may even put in a little boot to keep it that way.
As for a new web site, the server I am now on monitors your activity, and if you don't satisfy their requirements within 30 days you are out. A little choicey I must say, since it usually takes a month to start getting any exposure.
The forum is just as bad no post for 25 days you are cut. So there is nothing free, you have to work your A-- off to stay on the web. Or put up with so many pop-up adds, no one can see your site anyhow. It gets just a little discouraging to say the least.
demonhale posted this at 03:11 — 17th June 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
As far as I know, most people use CSS and Table combinations... As for arguments sake, most top sites wont validate, and even in my sites, it wont entirely validate, but as far as my "raw code" one that aint touched by my webhost validates... The hosts inserted code usually doesnt validate... As far as my experience goes, if you build a site from scratch and check it out at mozilla and it works, it is then that you check on other browsers, This is where you apply some hacks to make it viewable to other browsers...
The main concern with business websites other than browser compatibility and as Steve and I discussed in the other threads before is advertising... As far as I know, paying to be advertised in World TV as well as on buses and trains usually works... For a little money you can also ask friends to paste your site url stickers to their cars... Unless you put up some curiousity and some news for your site, traffic and hits wont come in...
demonhale posted this at 05:11 — 17th June 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
World TV, I mean advertise on TV on Worldwide channels...
You could post that google question to a new thread, so that many could try and answer, coz I dont know if its entirely true...
selkie posted this at 12:41 — 25th June 2005.
They have: 4 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Stu -
Had to get my two cents in here on your site from another perspective.
You got great advice from demonhale and Steve about the "tech" aspects of the design and it sounds like you found some of their suggestions helped improve your site. I'd like to go out on a limb here and suggest there is more to website design and/or development than just the technical side of things and that is the DESIGN portion of it.
There are way too many boring websites out there that load perfectly and have the text perfectly centered. I personally love your out-of-the-box thinking with the wave on the side of the site. I see exactly what you are going for there and I think it's truly appropiate to the site as well as creative. Likewise the blue typeface. Yes, it is a trifle harder to read than black. But YES it does fit with the overall artistic design and feel of the site.
As a marketing consultant I'd give you top points for making the client's site memorable and marketable. So I say Great Job!
Selkie
dataNdesigns posted this at 18:14 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Steve - You know the worst thing, I posted one of my sites here to be reviewed, and I have just noticed that I am the one who cannot handle the reviews!
Thankyou for your summations, and I'll stop arguing now as a review is what I asked for and you are just suppling it. Your comments are well taken and Demondhales comments where also helpful, both impacted the site and that was exactly what I was looking for.
dataNdesigns posted this at 18:29 — 15th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Steve - yes I read that in the write up as well about the law suits, however, people sue for just about anything these days. But god there would be some law suits going on around the world if it became a trend. CSS well, under consideration, its too hard to implement on a full content managment system successfully and keep all options open as you cannot dynamicly create the css file easily. (however this could be my lack of knowledge on CSS).
This is the first of three I have built out of the box style, the majority of our other sites comply with multi browser as norm. Just that damn table problem. Basicly I have stuck in some spacers that trigger on Opera and firefox but still to do motzilla.
I have really enjoyed this, its now 4.30am here and I have been up all night (a different project due out this week) and will not bother to go to bed now. Debate always stimulates the mind!
dataNdesigns posted this at 02:22 — 16th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Steve - as a test I went through and validated some websites using W3c standards, did you know that google, ninemsn, microsoft and many many more leading sites failed!!!
I am truly shocked about this as you would just expect these developers to ensure that they passed!
What does this mean? Is W3C really taken seriously by the industry?
dataNdesigns posted this at 20:46 — 16th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Yes I agree, isnt it a shame though that browsers are not built with the user or developer in mind, i mean to have all browsers display the information the same way regardless, wouldnt that be nice!
I think search engines have alot to answer for, we have to currently built sites to suit search engines, dont they have an obligation to return the matches of keywords for the most relevant sites regardless?? doesnt seem to be the case as ultimatley we need to collect incoming links from promonent sites. Talk about strangle holding the business, It doesnt allow for new sites to get posted under competative keywords regardless of how good the content they have is. I guess its just another way of making people pay for good listing on a popular key word. All my sites rank 1 in two to three days of launching even the ones on the development server, but if I go for keywords that are really populare its a nightmare.
Does anyone have any advice on this?
dataNdesigns posted this at 22:56 — 16th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Steve - yes i had known that keywords and meta data had lost relevance, from what I understand this was due to developers and site owners abusing the system.
your signature is a good idea and I will take you advice, thanks, and yes I have sites that are ranking now for different keywords based on being older than a year. But do you agree that the ranking system leaves a bit to be desired as far as ranking new sites are concerned? I mean how does a small business expect to take off? Should google or others cater for this demand to help the new comers? I have been told that this is a trial period to see if that business is going to be around in a year, but thats a bit like the chicken and egg story, how can they get business if they dont rank?
dataNdesigns posted this at 02:14 — 17th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Exactly, and as for your server - ooch, but I guess they must have a reason. I get a lot of business for people who only have the web as a medium and theirt frontage so its important to get hits for them straight off the bat.
Have you found any sure fire ways to kick off with hits? I have tried a few things now for clients with varied results from newspaper ad to adwords, link exchange, banner ads, even cds and business cards, but nothing seems to generate long term consistant hits unless the site is worked hard by the owner. I guess its also to do with content. Have thought about promotions like free give aways or competitions, do you know if these have a track record of working?
Also just got word from the owner of dazzling blue, he got his first order through the web site the yesterday for $8000 pool, he was pretty happy and he paid his bill on time.
dataNdesigns posted this at 04:52 — 17th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
good points, what is world TV? and I have heard that google only goes 25 links deep if you build a link page, do you know if this is true?
dataNdesigns posted this at 12:59 — 25th June 2005.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Selkie, thankyou really appreciate the comments and the feedback, although few hold value to awards, I will add that this site did in fact receive an award within the first 2 weeks of release, and moreover, the client reported back to us that he had taken over $8000 in products direct from the site in the first 4 days, so he was pretty happy.
Thanks again and appreciate your comments.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.