Opinions/comments on my band's website...

#1

Hello,

I just finished my band's website and I'd like to hear some comments.
Design, colors, content, code... The works.

Here's the URL: http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

I know the site does not really validate against the html4.1 spec, but
the two errors I get are caused by a non-standard tag I use to leave out
the floating NavBar for IE, because they don't seem to support the CSS
code behind it. If anyone knows a better way to leave out code on IE
browsers please feel free to share it with me :-) For now I just leave
the W3C button, because all the other stuff is compliant.

Greets
Tommy

#2

TomB wrote:

Quote:

Hello,

I just finished my band's website and I'd like to hear some comments.
Design, colors, content, code... The works.

Here's the URL: http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

Black on red is impossible to read for red-green colorblind people.
This means that approximately 8% of US males will not be able to
navigate your site. I cannot comment further since I am red-green
color blind and could not read your navigation bar.

/mde/

#3

TomB wrote:

Quote:

I just finished my band's website and I'd like to hear some comments.
Design, colors, content, code... The works.

A few days ago in c.i.w.a.h., when you were told about the red on black,
you said "Anyway, I'm gonna try some different colors now (suddenly I
realize the benefit of a stylesheet). I'll miss the red though..."

Quote:

Here's the URL: http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

It's still hard-to-read red on black.

Quote:

I know the site does not really validate against the html4.1 spec, but
the two errors I get are caused by a non-standard tag I use to leave out
the floating NavBar for IE, because they don't seem to support the CSS
code behind it. If anyone knows a better way to leave out code on IE
browsers please feel free to share it with me :-) For now I just leave
the W3C button, because all the other stuff is compliant.

Those buttons mean nothing to your visitors; they only mean something to
you and to most of the readers of this group. You should remove them
(especially if it doesn't validate for whatever reason).

Your "floating navbar" is difficult to use. Way Too Small; folks with
motor difficulties probably can't get to a specific link. What's wrong
with a regular sized menu?

body { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 75%; }

That's 75% of everyone's default size. Why microfonts? You should use
100% for body, maybe 85-90% for legalese, and adjust <hx> accordingly.
Oh wait: there are no <hx> elements. Look that up.

Drop the Verdana.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

You need to learn what a CSS file is. Put it in one and call it from the
<head>.

The rest of the code looks ~1995 or so.

--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck

#4

In article <7c1d6$4356db9c$52ae141d$3172 (AT) news (DOT) versatel.nl>,
TomB <drumscum (AT) dusk-metal (DOT) kicks-ass.org> wrote:

Quote:

http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

Well, it loads pretty quickly in Safari on a 56k connection. It also
looks decent in Lynx.
I'd aspire to getting it to validate to 4.01 strict. Oh, and although I
have them for a personal site and have been too lazy to dump them, I'd
get rid of the validation icons. Nobody who visits your site cares but
you and the people who care if it validates. That'd be a percent of your
present visitors from usenet.
I'm warming up now. I'd isolate the CSS from the HTML page, and I'd
leave off using deprecated attributes where CSS would do the job. The
strict DTD and a validation attempt will point the way if you're
interested.
Let's check Mac Firefox: The NavBar is offset into the main section of
your table by about 3em. It's actually quite stylish if unintentional.
Now Mac Opera: Looks fine with the NavBar a little further to the left
than in Safari.
Zooms give variable but acceptable results. I have no problems with the
overall style.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

#5

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

Quote:

TomB <drumscum (AT) dusk-metal (DOT) kicks-ass.org> wrote:

http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

(Which is nothing more than a redirection to
http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk/ )

Quote:

looks decent in Lynx.

You think so?

NavBar News Bio Media Shows Band Releases Contact Forum Guestbook
Links

Home
News News
Biography Biography
Media Media
Shows Shows
Band Band
Releases Releases
Contact Contact
Forum Forum
Guestbook Guestbook
Links Links

Seems to me to be a lot of pointless duplication there. The
recommended "alt" text for decorative icons is alt="" (or possibly
alt=" "), and that could be appropriate here - or possibly some
separator character such as middot (but WAI checkpoint 10.5
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-...h-divide-links
is "until user agents...", and arguably that "until" has now been
reached).

The extensive navigation stuff at the top provides no means to go
quickly to the content.

Since this is about music (well, not my kind of music, but one kind of
music anyway), there's no reason that it wouldn't be of interest to
blind and sight-impaired readers, so I'd expect to see it take some
note of the WAI guidelines.

Even though it has used transitional (which is what, 7-8 years old
now?) it fails to validate, for no excusable reason, so its overt
claim to validate is frankly a lie. Like you, I'm sceptical of the
value of such validation icons on general web pages, even where
they're the truth; but when they're a lie they devalue the whole
thing.

While there are no /errors/ reported in the CSS, I think I would want
to pay some attention to the warnings. This is a site which is very
likely to need overriding with a user stylesheet by some kinds of user
(red-blind for example) so IMHO it's important to take whatever steps
one can to avoid the cascade going wrong:

http://www.websitedev.de/css/validator-faq
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#style-colors
http://www.css.nu/articles/CSS-colours.html

Oh, and it forced a horizontal scrollbar in my current browser window,
for no good reason that I could discern. A more-flexible design would
be better, without needing to compromise the specific viewing
situation which the author had in mind.

The markup style is years out of date, as others have commented.

#6

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

Quote:

TomB wrote:

I just finished my band's website and I'd like to hear some comments.
Design, colors, content, code... The works.

A few days ago in c.i.w.a.h., when you were told about the red on black,
you said "Anyway, I'm gonna try some different colors now (suddenly I
realize the benefit of a stylesheet). I'll miss the red though..."

Here's the URL: http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

It's still hard-to-read red on black.

Yeah, I know. I tried some different colors, but I haven't come up with
something that is satisfactory. And I just don't want to use white. But
it's still on the things to change list...

Quote:

I know the site does not really validate against the html4.1 spec, but
the two errors I get are caused by a non-standard tag I use to leave out
the floating NavBar for IE, because they don't seem to support the CSS
code behind it. If anyone knows a better way to leave out code on IE
browsers please feel free to share it with me :-) For now I just leave
the W3C button, because all the other stuff is compliant.

Those buttons mean nothing to your visitors; they only mean something to
you and to most of the readers of this group. You should remove them
(especially if it doesn't validate for whatever reason).

Good point. I might remove them then. One question: is it considered a
"bad" thing to have those IE specific tags in the code?

Quote:

Your "floating navbar" is difficult to use. Way Too Small; folks with
motor difficulties probably can't get to a specific link. What's wrong
with a regular sized menu?

It's the biggest size possible without having it covering essential
content of the site in 800*600. Any tips? I'd like to keep it because
you lose the top menu when you scroll down and the bigger pages.

Quote:

body { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 75%; }

That's 75% of everyone's default size. Why microfonts? You should use
100% for body, maybe 85-90% for legalese, and adjust <hx> accordingly.
Oh wait: there are no <hx> elements. Look that up.

There are <hx> elements. Look closer.

Quote:

Drop the Verdana.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

Very good point. On the change list.

Quote:

You need to learn what a CSS file is. Put it in one and call it from the
head>.

I put the CSS code entirely in the header because the <head> is
included on every page with php. Is it really important to have it in a
seperate file?

Quote:

The rest of the code looks ~1995 or so.

That's done intentionally, to suit the music ;-)
But seriously, I'm just a starter, so I have no clue whatsoever what's
fashionable html coding...

Tommy

#7

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, TomB wrote:

Quote:

the site does not really validate

What is the difference between "does not validate" and
"does not really validate"?

--
Netscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable.
Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels in <news:sci.lang>

#8

There isn't. "Really" is used in a totally redundant way.

#9

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:50:55 +0200, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , TomB
<drumscum (AT) dusk-metal (DOT) kicks-ass.org> in
<7c1d6$4356db9c$52ae141d$3172 (AT) news (DOT) versatel.nl> wrote:

Quote:

Hello,

I just finished my band's website and I'd like to hear some comments.
Design, colors, content, code... The works.

Here's the URL: http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

I know the site does not really validate against the html4.1 spec, but
the two errors I get are caused by a non-standard tag I use to leave out
the floating NavBar for IE, because they don't seem to support the CSS
code behind it. If anyone knows a better way to leave out code on IE
browsers please feel free to share it with me :-) For now I just leave
the W3C button, because all the other stuff is compliant.

There is no obvious way to get back to the home page once you go to a

child page. I figured out that clicking on the logo would do it, but
if you are going to have menus, particularly if you are going to have
several, then put a home link on them.

Also, I see the floating menu in Firefox, but not in IE. Why have both
when the top menu is so obvious and, well, large?

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

#10

drummerdusk (AT) netscape (DOT) net wrote:

Quote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

TomB wrote:

I just finished my band's website and I'd like to hear some comments.
Design, colors, content, code... The works.

A few days ago in c.i.w.a.h., when you were told about the red on black,
you said "Anyway, I'm gonna try some different colors now (suddenly I
realize the benefit of a stylesheet). I'll miss the red though..."

Here's the URL: http://deimos.curious.be/~dusk

It's still hard-to-read red on black.

Yeah, I know. I tried some different colors, but I haven't come up with
something that is satisfactory. And I just don't want to use white. But
it's still on the things to change list...

I know the site does not really validate against the html4.1 spec, but
the two errors I get are caused by a non-standard tag I use to leave out
the floating NavBar for IE, because they don't seem to support the CSS
code behind it. If anyone knows a better way to leave out code on IE
browsers please feel free to share it with me :-) For now I just leave
the W3C button, because all the other stuff is compliant.

Those buttons mean nothing to your visitors; they only mean something to
you and to most of the readers of this group. You should remove them
(especially if it doesn't validate for whatever reason).

Good point. I might remove them then. One question: is it considered a
"bad" thing to have those IE specific tags in the code?

Your "floating navbar" is difficult to use. Way Too Small; folks with
motor difficulties probably can't get to a specific link. What's wrong
with a regular sized menu?

It's the biggest size possible without having it covering essential
content of the site in 800*600. Any tips? I'd like to keep it because
you lose the top menu when you scroll down and the bigger pages.

Try a horizontal menu check out About.com's articles - the menu always
pops up across the top.

Quote:

body { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 75%; }

That's 75% of everyone's default size. Why microfonts? You should use
100% for body, maybe 85-90% for legalese, and adjust <hx> accordingly.
Oh wait: there are no <hx> elements. Look that up.

There are <hx> elements. Look closer.

Drop the Verdana.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

Very good point. On the change list.

You need to learn what a CSS file is. Put it in one and call it from the
head>.

I put the CSS code entirely in the header because the <head> is
included on every page with php. Is it really important to have it in a
seperate file?

The rest of the code looks ~1995 or so.

That's done intentionally, to suit the music ;-)
But seriously, I'm just a starter, so I have no clue whatsoever what's
fashionable html coding...

Tommy