Critique please

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:47:37 +0100, Nico Schuyt wrote:

Col Biggo wrote:
http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/

Technically is good. It depends on the subject of the site if the design
will be acceptable. I suggest you add the basic text and graphics and ask
again for a critique.
Black on gray is not so easy to read.
Isn't <b> not replaced by <strong> nowadays?
You forgot an alt text (Cynthia picture)
Nico

Thank you Nico,
This site will be just a family site and will only be four or five pages
but I am hoping that if the design is ok (I want to keep it really simple)
I can incorporate it into a charity site that I have <em>been</em>
volunteered to make. Totally agree about the Black on Silver but I cannot
think of any alternatives an keep the general feel of the page. I will take
on board all of your points and do what is necessary.

When the Ravens leave the castle will fall.
Colin

Col Biggo wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote:
Col Biggo wrote:
http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/

Technically is good. It depends on the subject of the site if the
design will be acceptable. I suggest you add the basic text and
graphics and ask again for a critique.
Black on gray is not so easy to read.
Isn't <b> not replaced by <strong> nowadays?
You forgot an alt text (Cynthia picture)

Thank you Nico,
This site will be just a family site and will only be four or five
pages but I am hoping that if the design is ok (I want to keep it
really simple) I can incorporate it into a charity site that I have
em>been</em> volunteered to make. Totally agree about the Black on
Silver but I cannot think of any alternatives an keep the general
feel of the page. I will take on board all of your points and do what
is necessary.

For a family site I would think of something less gray :-)
Have a look at http://www.fortron.net/ for an alternative idea.

When the Ravens leave the castle will fall.

And return immediately afterwards to eat the corpses on the battlefield an
make their nests in the ruins :-)

Good luck!
Nico

Barefoot Kid wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote

Isn't <b> not replaced by <strong> nowadays?

yes

That's why I used it in my latest site :-).
Problem is that the bloody FP has never heard of <strong>.
Nico

"Col Biggo" <c.biggoREMOVESPAM (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:10:56 +1000, Disco wrote:

Col Biggo wrote:
Could you please comment on the page at
http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/ thanks in advance

I like it too. But I would like to repeat what others have mentioned in
that I really do not like the way that you change the status bar message
when mouse over your link. All this means to me is that I need to
manually
look at your code to see what I am clicking on.

But other than that, I like it.

Thanks everyone,
Of course you are all correct about the status bar messages. Originally I
only changed the email link in the vain hope of stopping at least some
spam, then like a kid with a new toy sort of got carried away I will
get
rid of the js for the final version as you have suggested better ways to
achieve what I am after. Just a quick thought do you think that there is
enough contrast between the background and the main content text?
Once again thanks it is great to have your knowledgeable input

If you're concerned about accessibility (which you must be since you have
run it through the Cynthia tester), then no, there is not enough contrast.
However, a person with normal sight can view your page just fine.

- J

Disco Octopus wrote:

Col Biggo wrote:
Could you please comment on the page at
http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/ thanks in advance

Not sure if you want to, but you may also wish to use the XHTML
doctype ...

go on, don't be a tease, please explain 'why'?

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

William Tasso wrote:

Disco Octopus wrote:
Col Biggo wrote:
Could you please comment on the page at
http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/ thanks in advance

Not sure if you want to, but you may also wish to use the XHTML
doctype ...

go on, don't be a tease, please explain 'why'?

no reason for Col Biggo, but if I am to craete a *new* page then I will use
the latest spec/recommendation.

Disco Octopus wrote:

no reason for Col Biggo, but if I am to craete a *new* page then I will use
the latest spec/recommendation.

Then why not XHTML 1.1?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Toby A Inkster wrote:

Disco Octopus wrote:

no reason for Col Biggo, but if I am to craete a *new* page then I
will use the latest spec/recommendation.

Then why not XHTML 1.1?

no reason.

Col Biggo <c.biggoREMOVESPAM (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/

Your menu is too dark - I can still read it. DEcrease the contrast by
another 25% and it will become really invisible.

--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:55:27 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Col Biggo <c.biggoREMOVESPAM (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

http://www.btinternet.com/~colbiggo/

Your menu is too dark - I can still read it. DEcrease the contrast by
another 25% and it will become really invisible.

Thanks everyone,
It seems from what you are saying that there is not to much that needs
fixing with this page. I will finish a few pages completely and then ask
for a critique again. So again thanks.

"We were up to our elbows in your underwear drawer. It was like touching
the Shroud of Turin"

Colin