Can you please give me comments about this website

Hello, I am trying to get inputs for this website can you please let
me know what you think.

www.rapidtest.com

Shama wrote:

Hello, I am trying to get inputs for this website can you please let
me know what you think.

www.rapidtest.com

A bunch of ads. Yawn.

The copyright notice at the bottom says 1992. The quality of the code
reflects this date.

In article
<97e95e25-13fe-487c-87ec-6758ad29343b (AT) x1g2000prh (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Shama <shamabpatel (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hello, I am trying to get inputs for this website can you please let
me know what you think.

www.rapidtest.com

It is bad enough having one thing that flashes on and off, distracting
one's attention; it is simply ridiculous to have a number of them.

--
dorayme

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Shama <shamabpatel (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
writing in news:97e95e25-13fe-487c-87ec-
6758ad29343b (AT) x1g2000prh (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Hello, I am trying to get inputs for this website can you please let
me know what you think.

www.rapidtest.com

It's God awful.

The text in the navigation is too small to comfortably read.

The static image for the video is really bad. It's blurry, and I don't
know how many people are going to want to click to watch a video on the
first page. If you really want to let people watch a video, put it
somewhere else.

That space can be used more efficiently for featured ads. The featured
ads are below the fold, so users may never find them.

And what the heck do merekats have to do with dianostic testing?


--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Shama wrote:

Hello, I am trying to get inputs for this website can you please let
me know what you think.

www.rapidtest.com

This will seem rough and blunt and rude, but I'm not inclined to spend
much time on a critique, since so many of my comments will reflect
issues that have come up here over and over again. Don't let my
terseness put you off.

I hate it when people say "your site is ugly", but I'm afraid this one
is quite unattractive. I would never buy anything from this company,
even if I read the page, which I wouldn't. The multiple blocks with
fading colored edges and blinking displays are grotesque. The flashing
is distracting to the point of being annoying. There's no reason good
enough for me to stay here. (Possibly not even to do a critique, which
is probably why the others' replies were so brief.)

This page is made of dreadful, Dreamweaver-generated, invalid code
purporting to be XHTML but which is merely a huge table-based layout in
quirks mode.

I'm astounded by the small number of markup validation errors:
16 Errors, 156 warning(s) at http://validator.w3.org/

The CSS validator at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ can't even find
one of the CSS files, so it's hard to say how many problems there really
are.

The Flash movie of low-res, poorly readable slides from some old
PowerPoint presentation, with no narration (or explanation of why the
film represnts "Special Offers") is of no interest to me, the visitor.
There's certainly no reason for me to waste 5.5 minutes of my life
watching it.

The page has no text. There are text links in the "Our Products" menu at
left, very brief captions, and in the outdated footer. The rest of the
content is all images. You should view the page once with image-loading
disabled (sad-but-true: it's actually an improvement).

Search engines will index your text (maybe), and this page has been
designed to not expose very much of it. You have few alt texts, and the
ones you do have are wrong (and repeated).

The page is an insult to the notion of accessibility. I won't even list
the offenses.

What's all that JS for?

What should a visitor do when your JS code (somehow) executes
alert ("Your browser does not support AJAX!"); ? How do you hope they
will react?

Get rid of the hit counter. Nobody's interested, and it doesn't work anyway.

The CSS style names are meaningless.

You've set no background color. It may be white for you but it's pink
for me. Ick.

The rest of the site (beyond this page) seems to be 5 or 6 pages with
tables of links to PDF files. These pages are overlong and slow to
respond. The text tends to be too small and low-contrast.

Oh, boy. I was going to ask you pointedly where on the planet you're
located, and suggest that the lack of location makes me even more
certain I shouldn't send you my money. But I went to the about.html
page, and now I'm typing through my tears.

There's another video, with the same piece of classical music. The
narrator (a professional! Good!) mentions aurally that you're Los
Angeles based. Well, that's something. Why not put that at the bottom of
every page?

The video on about.html is absolutely and undeniably illegible. What
circumstances led a human to post that video on the site? Also, it
starts automatically. Don't do that.

The music overrides the narration and several points early on (I only
made it halfway through). The narrator you presumably paid a large
percentage of the marketing budget for can't even be heard over the violins.

Under "Certificates" there is ... nothing. Below that, in tenny cursive
script, is "Note: Hover the mouse anywhere on the certificate to stop
the slideshow." Well, there's no certificate to try that with, but
nothing stops the video except the video controls themselves.

I see the contact.html page has actual address info. Good. Perhaps you
could also change the title to include the company name (also on
about.html).

Google for "About Us": Results 1 - 10 of about 1,670,000,000
Google for "Contact Us": Results 1 - 10 of about 1,960,000,000

But that's enough to keep you busy for a while. GL, HTH.

--
John
I guess I *was* inclined to spend some time on it. :-(

In article <4a3b4d0b_5 (AT) news (DOT) bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John (AT) DELETE (DOT) Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:

...a huge table-based layout

I'm astounded by the small number of markup validation errors:
16 Errors, 156 warning(s) at http://validator.w3.org/

The magic of tables, you see. <g>

--
dorayme