Review Request: Authoretica.com (redesign)

its not bad... i like how it loads the content first then all the graphics later. There seems to be a difference in styles between the first page and subsequent pages. You should really keep the same theme throughout.

Thanks for that, but did you read my post? It's just a test page slotted into my existing site. The whole site will look like the test page once I'm happy with the changes.

Hello
Like the colour scheme, the shape of the site reminds of a portal, especially with the center content being so full, i never understand that, having so much content in one particular area when theres hardly anything in some other parts,but thats just me..
If people are looking for a site with your content no problem but if like me they happen to just browse there, i found the bio seemed out of place i had to search for the meaning of the site, it may be better in the center.
but all in all a nice site.
good luck for site.

Way to go on the layers thing. Looks good on IE 5.0. I don't want to spark a huge discussion but you may want to validate your page as you have alot of coding errors which could cause other browsers to chock. Since IE is pretty loose in how it handles html it looks fine for me. For other browsers it may not look good or could even cause them to crash. You can view your page's validation results here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.authoretica.com/books/c_priest.htm

Ofcourse it is always your choice if this matters to you but if you also want to validate your css then the results are here:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.authoretica.com%2Fbooks%2Fc_priest.htm&warning=1&profile=css2

As for the page it looks like many css designs do. This isn't necissarily bad but you want to make your design stick out just the same as someone with tables would. Maybe check out these sites for some ideas:
http://www.mezzoblue.com/
http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/
etc.. (follow links on his page. he has great resources)

Anyways good job so far!
-dk

Good on you for going CSS layout, but since you are you should use/do XHTML as the older browsers can display html/css - xhtml/css differently (doesn't have to be strict, transitional is just as good)

The book icon doesn't line up in Mozilla 1 or Opera 6, sits half in the main box, half out, nearly to the outer edge.
copyright section is unreadable (way to small) in mozilla

I think if you use the CSS layout make it two colums instead of three, using three makes the center section way to long with empty sides **use the space**

You should also be very careful what you have bold as your links are bold, maybe make your headings a different colour and/or even italic

At first I didn't realise the icons above the top links were links (mouseovers), maybe remove the gap between icon and link (text), the mouseovers don't work in opera.

That animated banner (top right) has a white line under it in mozilla as does the name banner.

Is it just me or are those shades of green a little off? The lightest one looks a tiny bit too blue compared to the others (quick PHotoshop check - yes, it is. Needs to be a little more yellow). The navbar colour also isn't the same as the body colour - I think those should be the same. While I'm talkintg about colours, I think the two sidebars should be using the same colours and something that recedes more from the green body. Right now they're standing out too much and distracting from the content. I'm also thinking that you could easily do a two column layout here. The design seems rather top heavy with all that empty space on both sides. They should be the same width as well.

As for the layout, I'm finding it to be really boxy. Try to find a way to make it less so (I know, that's not easy with CSS layouts). I also thinkt that the header should be larger and should have more impact - that could be a way to add some more dimension to the site in terms of shapes. Another idea would be to do something else with those honeycomb shapes you have there.

Good job overall though, and a big improvement over the last version.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I'll be taking a look at all your points.

As far as the 3 or 2 column issue goes, I'm not sure. I agree about the space below the side columns but the problem is that each author's bio is a different length and some authors have a lot of books and others don't, so each author's page will look slightly different when it comes to filling that space. I can do something about the right-hand side because I'm intending to fill the links box with links to articles, interviews, and fan sites, so that should fill that space a bit better.

The colour scheme is another tricky area, and I've spent ages tinkering with this shade and that one trying to find a balance. Megan, I know you say not to detract from the main content area but one of the sides (the left 'bio' side) is part of the content and not to be dismissed and if I make the right side weaker in colour it might unbalance the look. Though just looking at it now the right side is a bit too strong. More tinkering required I think.

I'm not sure I want to change the 'bluey' green though I quite like the mix of greens I've got there. Anyone think I'm wrong then let me know.

Is it clear that the 'current releases' box has quick jump links to each book or should I make that more noticeable?

But there is no logo, no banner?

Quote: Originally posted by clubart
But there is no logo, no banner?

Busy: Looked at the validations and I'm now css validated. The html one though has 8 remaining errors (all relating to one of the ads on the page) that I can't shift. Any ideas besides removing the ad?

it's all the same error (same link), replace the & in the ad line with &

Some ad sites state the code shouldn't be touched/changed so you might want to check it out first. You're only using HTML specs so it's not a big problem if you leave it in, page will display the same either way, just wont validate 100% (I have a site I left the ad as it was, wont validate now because of it, everything else does so it's a trade off)

Cheers Busy. As the css is now validated is there any benefit to adding the W3C graphic to my site to show this?

Checking the page at Anybrowser under the HTML 4.0 Transitional level brings up script errors on the graphic rollovers. Any ideas with that?

Thanks

no real point of the graphic, unless you want to show off your skills

which one did you check, 3.2 or 4.0 ?
your css will fail in the 3.2 as well as some html and the & is needed to validate to 4.0

IMO you should go XHTML 1.0 transitional

I wasn't quite happy with the first layout so I've made a second one. The first one is still there for comparison (see first post at top of page). The new layout can be found here: test page 2

The graphics need some more work and I'm not sure whether to drop the rollovers altogether. Any views on anything?

Thanks

Hi,

I've finally updated the whole site with the new design and would love some feedback. Thanks.

authoretica.com

Hey, looks nice!
The only bug immediately apparent is the menu on the top right of the page, this is rendered across two lines in IE 5 (1152x864).

This does look a little boxy, but serves its purpose well, and will no doubt get you some revenue from Amazon sales! As Busy said you may want to get some inspiration from those sites he listed...They look great!

was actually dk01 who listed the sites, but thanks for thinking of me

Ooops, sorry dk01...It's the Avatar that does it, just kinda sticks in your mind.