My site, your opinion

It looks very much like the templates offered by http://www.blogger.com,
(especially with respect to layout, and atom)...I'm not suggesting that you
copied the css and the page codes, just that it might have helped if you
had! A few tweaks and you would have had a similar result. It's all a
question of plagarisation versus learning/building from others' work a.k.a.
re-inventing the wheel unnecessarily I suppose ( a difficult ethical
question)!

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmichaelsremarks.com%2F&la ngpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

It's very poetic, filled with similies and metaphors -- your thoughts
obviously, and a natural web log. I can't understand why you didn't simply
get a template from the Google-owned www.blogger.com, make a few changes and
publish to your own server, it would have been the natural choice for
most -- especially as the result is almost identical.... anyway...

External CSS and strict w3c code have many inherent difficulties. One is
that the header doc type declaration messes with any dhtml and javascript,
especially with respect to browser software and so forth.

If you have not got Opera, IE5.x, IE6, Avant, Netscape and so forth, you'll
always be flying in the dark. At the very least, you should check your
pages at an Internet Cafe, a friend's PDA and on just about anything else
you come across before you 'launch it' and connect up your domain name.

A lot of people view web sites while at work, and it is not uncommon for
them to set up over-rides... they set the Internet Options (IE)
Accessibility to turn off your font and colour settings so it does not draw
attention to the fact that they are surfing instead of working (the screen
looks like they are looking at an office document). Some turn off (or don't
have) audio, a lot turn off graphics (speeds up page downloads), Flash,
animations, pop-ups and so on.

Any web designer should test their page under all sorts of browsers,
resolutions and weird settings -- do you know how many people do not
actually use the full screen resolution (the browser is not maximised)? I
know far too many people who leave the 'History' pane open -- this shrinks
the site real estate considerably!

.... so to finish my 'criticism' of the testing, your large header picture
may look great to you on your set up, but imagine it without the picture, on
a small screen resolution, 16 bit, with over ride settings, the history pane
open and the browser not at maximum, and you will see what the other posters
have been talking about.

If you get a free counter from http://gostats.com, for example, you will get
statistics about your visitors' settings which will help you make all sorts
of decisions.

It is also a good idea to bear in mind that 1 in 4 people in the world have
one of the three forms of colour-blndness. Test your pages at vischeck for
contrast etc. It is peculiar to see your page as others' may see it....very
entertaining, and very informative!

Not everyone has broadband, and so speed is of the essence for paying
dial-up visitors -- your background image/wallpaper is unnecessary when a
colour would do. I would suggest that you work on the header -- less
picture and more a short description of what the page is (remember the 'mom
test') -- not every user of the Internet is clever enough to know what a
weblog is/how it works!

Apart from my moaning, it seems fine to me, the divs work well under the
nine browsers I checked it on and while 800x600 laptops hate your site
(especially with over rides), it can be read easily enough -- and that is
the main thing after all.


<snip>

I have created a new design, new css and new xhtml for my website at
http://michaelsremarks.com - now I am searching for a lot of criticism,
tipps, hints and ideas how to make it better.

I hope that I am in the right group to get some feedback on this site.
Simply write about everything you think is important to say.
Thank you in advance for your feedback on my site,

Michael
/snip

On 2004-05-17 07:09:08 +0200, "dcd" <donot (AT) reply (DOT) here> said:

It looks very much like the templates offered by http://www.blogger.com,
(especially with respect to layout, and atom)...

Indeed, I used to publish my weblog with blogger, but this is a long
time ago. Now, I am working with Textpattern and if you would know it's
default template, then you would see that michaelsremarks.com is
completely rewritten.

I'm not suggesting that you
copied the css and the page codes, just that it might have helped if you
had! A few tweaks and you would have had a similar result.

Maybe, but then I would have no idea of css, xhtml, etc.

It's very poetic, filled with similies and metaphors -- your thoughts
obviously, and a natural web log. I can't understand why you didn't simply
get a template from the Google-owned www.blogger.com, make a few changes and
publish to your own server, it would have been the natural choice for
most -- especially as the result is almost identical.... anyway...

Well, what you have just said is that a blogger-template would do it! I
am sorry but this statement is the same as if I would say: Write your
text in Word and save it as a html-file. Where is the fun to do the
site by yourself? Where is the understanding of the (x)html structure,
the css and their combination?

External CSS and strict w3c code have many inherent difficulties. One is
that the header doc type declaration messes with any dhtml and javascript,
especially with respect to browser software and so forth.

I have already discussed this in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
and .authoring.stylesheets.

If you have not got Opera, IE5.x, IE6, Avant, Netscape and so forth, you'll
always be flying in the dark. At the very least, you should check your
pages at an Internet Cafe, a friend's PDA and on just about anything else
you come across before you 'launch it' and connect up your domain name.

It is a redesign, the site which was there before, had a completely
different design and worked on all tested browsers. (But, I have to
tell that, the site was done with pure html!)

... so to finish my 'criticism' of the testing, your large header picture
may look great to you on your set up, but imagine it without the picture, on
a small screen resolution, 16 bit, with over ride settings, the history pane
open and the browser not at maximum, and you will see what the other posters
have been talking about.

I cannot see any problem: If you override the whole css-file, the thing
is done with all the strucutral markup there is! On my PDA the site
works fine! (Tungsten T3)

If you get a free counter from http://gostats.com, for example, you will get
statistics about your visitors' settings which will help you make all sorts
of decisions.

My website hosting-service has its own "Webalizer" - and if I'd
optimize my site for the results I am getting there, then I could not
even see it on my own screen, because a lot of my users are visiting
the site with a higher screen resolution than I do!

It is also a good idea to bear in mind that 1 in 4 people in the world have
one of the three forms of colour-blndness. Test your pages at vischeck for
contrast etc. It is peculiar to see your page as others' may see it....very
entertaining, and very informative!

Works perfectly fine in every three simulation modes...

Not everyone has broadband, and so speed is of the essence for paying
dial-up visitors -- your background image/wallpaper is unnecessary when a
colour would do. I would suggest that you work on the header -- less
picture and more a short description of what the page is (remember the 'mom
test') -- not every user of the Internet is clever enough to know what a
weblog is/how it works!

That's a good idea and I will really do the mum and the grandma test,
but I will also link the word "Weblog" with an explanation for it!
Thank you for that hint!

Apart from my moaning, it seems fine to me, the divs work well under the
nine browsers I checked it on and while 800x600 laptops hate your site
(especially with over rides), it can be read easily enough -- and that is
the main thing after all.

At least four lines that do not destroy my self-confidence...

MK

On 2004-05-16 15:19:21 +0200, "Karl Groves" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> said:

"Michael Kalina" <michaelkalina (AT) despammed (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:40a74ea3$0$30786$3b214f66 (AT) usenet (DOT) univie.ac.at...
But I think that the picture is so important for the whole feeling on
this site that I think it is okay to have it that big!

Having an image
at the head of the page that takes up 30-50% of available vertical space is
creating a hinderance to the user's access to the content.

Okay, I'll think about it!

MK

On 2004-05-17 14:50:59 +0200, Michael Kalina
<michaelkalina (AT) despammed (DOT) com> said:

On 2004-05-17 07:09:08 +0200, "dcd" <donot (AT) reply (DOT) here> said:
Apart from my moaning, it seems fine to me, the divs work well under the
nine browsers I checked it on and while 800x600 laptops hate your site
(especially with over rides), it can be read easily enough -- and that is
the main thing after all.

Oh, and what I wanted to add: It is very funny that a lot of people try
to optimize their sites for 800x600, but not a lot think of what
happens to the people who use high resolutions. In the beginning, my
site was optimized for my own screen, here on my iBook 14" but when I
saw my site on a 1400xsomething screen it looked terrible! So I tried
to somehow make the site look good on nearly every screen, that's why
e.g. there is the 1100px max-width and the 400px min-width, otherwise
80%...

MK

Michael Kalina wrote:

On 2004-05-17 14:50:59 +0200, Michael Kalina
michaelkalina (AT) despammed (DOT) com> said:

On 2004-05-17 07:09:08 +0200, "dcd" <donot (AT) reply (DOT) here> said:

Apart from my moaning, it seems fine to me, the divs work well under the
nine browsers I checked it on and while 800x600 laptops hate your site
(especially with over rides), it can be read easily enough -- and
that is
the main thing after all.


Oh, and what I wanted to add: It is very funny that a lot of people try
to optimize their sites for 800x600, but not a lot think of what happens
to the people who use high resolutions. In the beginning, my site was
optimized for my own screen, here on my iBook 14" but when I saw my site
on a 1400xsomething screen it looked terrible! So I tried to somehow
make the site look good on nearly every screen, that's why e.g. there is
the 1100px max-width and the 400px min-width, otherwise 80%...

But why don't you give the left-margin 10% and the right one
too? Or rather, have it 90% wide and both margins 5%.
And have it centered too, so, when it hits the 1100px limit,
it doesn't stay at the left side of my screen.
On wide screens it still looks like you forgot to think
about wide screens now.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Michael Kalina wrote:

So I tried to somehow make the site look good on nearly every screen,
that's why e.g. there is the 1100px max-width and the 400px
min-width, otherwise 80%...

A pixel-based max-width penalizes those who use high screen
"resolutions" but large fonts.

I use an em-based max-width, although my site isn't exactly graphics-rich...

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

On 2004-05-17 15:48:05 +0200, Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> said:

Michael Kalina wrote:

On 2004-05-17 14:50:59 +0200, Michael Kalina
michaelkalina (AT) despammed (DOT) com> said:

On 2004-05-17 07:09:08 +0200, "dcd" <donot (AT) reply (DOT) here> said:

Apart from my moaning, it seems fine to me, the divs work well under the
nine browsers I checked it on and while 800x600 laptops hate your site
(especially with over rides), it can be read easily enough -- and that is
the main thing after all.


Oh, and what I wanted to add: It is very funny that a lot of people try
to optimize their sites for 800x600, but not a lot think of what
happens to the people who use high resolutions. In the beginning, my
site was optimized for my own screen, here on my iBook 14" but when I
saw my site on a 1400xsomething screen it looked terrible! So I tried
to somehow make the site look good on nearly every screen, that's why
e.g. there is the 1100px max-width and the 400px min-width, otherwise
80%...

But why don't you give the left-margin 10% and the right one too? Or
rather, have it 90% wide and both margins 5%.
And have it centered too, so, when it hits the 1100px limit, it doesn't
stay at the left side of my screen.
On wide screens it still looks like you forgot to think about wide screens now.

Centered.

On 2004-05-17 15:49:28 +0200, Mark Tranchant <mark (AT) tranchant (DOT) plus.com> said:

Michael Kalina wrote:

So I tried to somehow make the site look good on nearly every screen,
that's why e.g. there is the 1100px max-width and the 400px
min-width, otherwise 80%...

A pixel-based max-width penalizes those who use high screen
"resolutions" but large fonts.

I use an em-based max-width, although my site isn't exactly graphics-rich...

Does not work, because the picture is only about 1150px wide!

MK

Michael Kalina wrote:

On 2004-05-17 15:48:05 +0200, Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> said:

But why don't you give the left-margin 10% and the right one too? Or
rather, have it 90% wide and both margins 5%.
And have it centered too, so, when it hits the 1100px limit, it
doesn't stay at the left side of my screen.
On wide screens it still looks like you forgot to think about wide
screens now.

Centered.

Much better :-)

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Michael Kalina wrote:

On 2004-05-17 14:50:59 +0200, Michael Kalina
michaelkalina (AT) despammed (DOT) com> said:

On 2004-05-17 07:09:08 +0200, "dcd" <donot (AT) reply (DOT) here> said:
Apart from my moaning, it seems fine to me, the divs work well under the
nine browsers I checked it on and while 800x600 laptops hate your site
(especially with over rides), it can be read easily enough -- and that is
the main thing after all.

Oh, and what I wanted to add: It is very funny that a lot of people try
to optimize their sites for 800x600, but not a lot think of what
happens to the people who use high resolutions.

Yes, many forget that higher resolution allows bigger window size, and
also often lead to smaller window size.

In the beginning, my
site was optimized for my own screen, here on my iBook 14" but when I
saw my site on a 1400xsomething screen it looked terrible! So I tried
to somehow make the site look good on nearly every screen, that's why
e.g. there is the 1100px max-width and the 400px min-width, otherwise
80%...

Notice that my 1280*1024 may seem big on your statistics, but that I have
less than 600px wide browser window. (it is over 900px tall, which is the
reason I was not annoyed about your header image.)

Why 400px min-width? Someone using 10px fonts could fit it on his/her
page. In fact, I just read on Finnish newsgroup about someone who is
using even smaller fonts. (on 15" / 1600*1200, which I find hard to
believe!). And OTOH, someone using big fonts gets your long words
overflowing to right navigation column.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä