crit of uphamgo

Hi all,

Any comments on http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/ ?

Things I am aware of already:
* I'm still waiting on content for the front page and about page.
* The CSS is a little too verbose and needs a bit of cleaning up. Valid
though.
* Need to split off the CSS that is page specific and only load it on those
pages.
* Images take a while to load. Not so bad as the content and navigation are
visible almost immediately.

Cheers!

--
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" - Blair Houghton
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.nrkn.com/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Nik Coughin wrote:

Hi all,

Any comments on http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/ ?

Things I am aware of already:
* I'm still waiting on content for the front page and about page.
* The CSS is a little too verbose and needs a bit of cleaning up. Valid
though.
* Need to split off the CSS that is page specific and only load it on
those pages.
* Images take a while to load. Not so bad as the content and
navigation are visible almost immediately.

Cheers!

CSS : http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/uphamGo.css

In message <xNVQd.2011$1S4.228639 (AT) news (DOT) xtra.co.nz>, Nik Coughin
<nrkn!no-spam!@woosh.co.nz> writes

Nik Coughin wrote:
Hi all,

Any comments on http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/ ?

Things I am aware of already:
* I'm still waiting on content for the front page and about page.
* The CSS is a little too verbose and needs a bit of cleaning up. Valid
though.
* Need to split off the CSS that is page specific and only load it on
those pages.
* Images take a while to load. Not so bad as the content and
navigation are visible almost immediately.

Cheers!

CSS : http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/uphamGo.css

A few thoughts:

(1) I've looked at it a few browsers and it looks OK in
Netscape/Mozilla, in an old Netscape, and also with the stylesheet
switched off. It also looks OK in IE and Opera, except for an alignment
problem on the FAQ page:

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/UP03X.JPG (34k)

which is exaggerated as the font size is increased.

(2) I think a sans-serif font would look better for body text (rather
than Georgia) -- but that's just a matter of taste.

(3) I would be inclined to make the text boxes on the Contact page
bigger. It's impossible to checked what you've entered without having to
scroll -- especially with the message box.

(4) For the benefit of AT users (screen readers, talking browsers, etc.)
I'd be inclined to add a return link (hidden if necessary) from the
footnote on the Products page.

(5) You could compress the images quite a bit further.

That's about it, really.

regards.


--
Jake

"jake" <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote>

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/UP03X.JPG (34k)

That is the standard IE 3 pixel bug. It's not a big deal but there are
workarounds for it.

In message <VX%Qd.164654$K7.39902 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, rf
<rf@?.invalid> writes

"jake" <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/UP03X.JPG (34k)

That is the standard IE 3 pixel bug. It's not a big deal but there are
workarounds for it.


.......... also Opera (7.51).

(How come you're seeing my post when you claim to have killfiled me
months ago? Am I on parole?)

--
Jake

Nik Coughin wrote:

Hi all,

Any comments on http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/ ?

I think I would only display the row of four images once, at the
bottom of the pages. As it is now, the complete top set of images
takes up just over half of my viewport. There is not much space "above
the fold."

Firefox, ~800x600 with a couple of toolbars and a row of tabs, leaves
about 400px for your page.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna...marginset.html

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:19:40 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Nik Coughin wrote:
Hi all,

Any comments on http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/ ?

I think I would only display the row of four images once, at the
bottom of the pages. As it is now, the complete top set of images
takes up just over half of my viewport. There is not much space "above
the fold."
yes, but a judicious selection of images to reinforce the subject

could tell quite a story
something like 4000 words

I found the design quite appealing for a purely informational site,
who
what
why
results

johnSteve

"jake" <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote

(How come you're seeing my post when you claim to have killfiled me
months ago?

I only ever metaphorically killfile people and I have probably forgotten
that I might have "killfile"ed you.

Am I on parole?)

Perhaps you haven't said anything stupid recently? :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

Nik Coughin wrote:

Any comments on http://www.uphamgo.co.nz/ ?

Thanks everyone. Will take your comments into consideration.

In message <KT9Rd.165002$K7.72583 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, rf
<rf@?.invalid> writes

"jake" <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote

(How come you're seeing my post when you claim to have killfiled me
months ago?

I only ever metaphorically killfile people and I have probably forgotten
that I might have "killfile"ed you.

Am I on parole?)

Perhaps you haven't said anything stupid recently? :-)

Only killfiled 'metaphorically'? Your loss, I guess. Just think of all

those time you were talking complete nonsense and I could have set you
straight ....... ;-)

regards.
--
Jake