Critique Request www.rehworkrehab.com.au/dev/

Hi All,

Request critique for http://www.rehworkrehab.com.au/dev/index.html. Single
page.

Issues I'm already aware of:
* It loads slowly (25 seconds at dial-up). This is due to: Images on page
that will eventually go to their own page; and yet to compress code. Indeed
I might have to jettison the javascript menu tree if I can't get page to
load < 11 seconds.
* The logo image has text within it, as part of the image. My client is has
supplied logo and is attached to it just the way it is.
* Navigation And Header Area is sized absolutely (px) rather than relatively
(% or em). The navigation area is absolute because I'm using a fixed width
image to effect the basic layout (two colum, one of which is a different
color going to bottom regardless of which area, content V navigation, is
taller). Header is fixed due logo image.
* HTML V XHTML. XHTML because I will be transforming with XSLT.
* XHTML 1.1 V XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.1 because
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml...#summary-table
merely says that XHTML 1.1 "Should not" rather than "Must note" be served as
text/html. This issue is a recurring and big debate. I'm not really
concerned to have the debate here. However, if you have a reason(s) for or
against that's as short as the one I've given then I'll be all eyes. (I'm
not convinced by Hickson's "Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful"
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)

Thanks,
Mellow Crow.

Mellow Crow wrote:

Request critique for http://www.rehworkrehab.com.au/dev/index.html. Single
page.

Overall: Well done!

- The body text is 80% of my preferred size making it rather hard to read,
especially given the lowered contrast of the not-very-light background.
- "javascript:" is not a standard protocol. There was a discussion about
this in one of the HTML newsgroups recently.
An interesting option was due to Jukka K. Korpela:
'A self-referencing link would be slightly more logical as well as much
more practical when scripting is disabled:
'<a name="foo42" href="#foo42" onclick="func();return false">.'

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Jim Moe wrote:

Mellow Crow wrote:

Request critique for http://www.rehworkrehab.com.au/dev/index.html.
Single page.

Overall: Well done!

Jim, thanks. Valueable feedback. You've given clear issues that I could
chase up elsewhere, look at old debates on, or start my own debates on (eg
in another newsgroup). However, I'll ask questions and you (or anyone else)
can answer them if you'd (they'd) like ... or leave them hanging as
rhetorical.

- The body text is 80% of my preferred size making it rather hard to
read, especially given the lowered contrast of the not-very-light
background.

Yes I'm ambivalent about the background color. If I have the time I'll try
and fix that (for the live site).

80% font. You mean: let font be 100% and the user set their preference.
Can't a user just override my 80% font setting anyway (eg Firefox "minimum
font" IE 6 "Ignore font sizes specified in web sites.") ? I anticipate:
"Sure but its more straightforward to let them control the default setting."
....?

- "javascript:" is not a standard protocol. There was a
discussion about this in one of the HTML newsgroups recently.
An interesting option was due to Jukka K. Korpela:
'A self-referencing link would be slightly more logical as well as
much more practical when scripting is disabled:
'<a name="foo42" href="#foo42" onclick="func();return false">.'

Yes that is an interesting option. A few moons ago I did have a go at
removing my "javascript:". I ran into all sorts of problems with my script.
I will have to look into this option and revisit the issue. If I don't do to
well in this case it might be one of those times when "in practice" trumphs
the "letter of the law".

Mellow Crow wrote:

- The body text is 80% of my preferred size making it rather hard to
read, especially given the lowered contrast of the not-very-light
background.

Yes I'm ambivalent about the background color. If I have the time I'll try
and fix that (for the live site).

If you up the main font size, it's not really an issue.

I could not tell much about the link colors. There is not enough
functionality to test them.

80% font. You mean: let font be 100% and the user set their preference.
Can't a user just override my 80% font setting anyway (eg Firefox "minimum
font" IE 6 "Ignore font sizes specified in web sites.") ? I anticipate:
"Sure but its more straightforward to let them control the default setting."
...?

Yes, let the main body text size remain at 100%. Let the visitor decide

about font size; you can never make the decision for everyone that
satisfies everyone. Also it pisses me off to adjust the font size because
of some deezyner's fetish.
You spec two MS fonts, Verdana and Arial. Verdana has a large x-height
which is why many page authors choose to reduce the size, "so it looks
right." Why choose a font you have to diddle to get to "look right"?
And not everyone has Verdana or Arial. You are punishing those folks.

I forgot to mention about the instructional images. Have a professional
photographer do them. There is no fill lighting causing high contrasts.
The surface under the mat should be flat; the model's feet look like they
hang over a ledge. The background, while pleasant, is distracting. The
camera should be on a tripod, not handheld.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Jim Moe wrote:

Yes, let the main body text size remain at 100%. Let the visitor
decide about font size; you can never make the decision for everyone
that satisfies everyone. Also it pisses me off to adjust the font
size because of some deezyner's fetish.
You spec two MS fonts, Verdana and Arial. Verdana has a large
x-height which is why many page authors choose to reduce the size,
"so it looks right." Why choose a font you have to diddle to get to
"look right"? And not everyone has Verdana or Arial. You are
punishing those folks.

I'm mulling over your comments with the assistance of
Steve Polley's "Why you should avoid the Verdana font"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html. It demonstrates the
large ex/em height of Verdana well and so your point about not choosing a
font you need to fiddle.

In the spirit of your comments he suggests not only leaving font-size alone
but font-family too:
"But unless you particularly wish to achieve a specific effect (such as
using a characteristic nineteenth-century font for a nineteenth-century
novel) then you would do as well to avoid using font-family at all."

Harsh advice: to give over the deezyn to the user/default browser settings.
Seems reasonable but it might be hard to let go

I forgot to mention about the instructional images. Have a
professional photographer do them. There is no fill lighting causing
high contrasts. The surface under the mat should be flat; the model's
feet look like they hang over a ledge. The background, while
pleasant, is distracting. The camera should be on a tripod, not
handheld.

I did suggest a professional photographer to client but he chose against
this. Indeed those specific photos he reshot again (some time ago) to:
- Fill the model's face with sun;
- Flatten the surface (It would seem like not doing the excercise right
otherwise.)
- Remove distracting background (well I cropped it).

Shots are still handheld so the slight blur persists.

You remind me to look out for a good photographer for the next client!

Thanks again Joe, much appreciated.

Jim Moe wrote:

"javascript:" is not a standard protocol. There was a
discussion about this in one of the HTML newsgroups recently.
An interesting option was due to Jukka K. Korpela:
'A self-referencing link would be slightly more logical as well as
much more practical when scripting is disabled:
'<a name="foo42" href="#foo42" onclick="func();return false">.'

I tested it. It works well except when javascript is turned off the page
will scroll to the link. One would expect this, especially in hindsight.

In my tree menu this is undesirable. Eg Clicking on a tree parent node, eg
"Back Care Exercises", when javascript is turned off, will scroll the page.
Better that nothing happens in this case.

I'm sticking to href="javascript:%20void%20(0);" as the rule.

BTW I had a scan of Jukka K. Korpela's interesting and provocative "Why
Style Sheets are Harmful" http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/styles/harmful.html
..

Why stop at letting the user determine font-family and font-size? It seems
to support the notion that the look of the page ought be given over to the
user rather than page author.

Worth thinking about. Perhaps all web pages ought, more or less, look the
same (on default browser settings) rather than trying to distinguish
themselves....

Mellow Crow wrote:

In the spirit of your comments he suggests not only leaving font-size alone
but font-family too:
"But unless you particularly wish to achieve a specific effect (such as
using a characteristic nineteenth-century font for a nineteenth-century
novel) then you would do as well to avoid using font-family at all."

Harsh advice: to give over the deezyn to the user/default browser settings.
Seems reasonable but it might be hard to let go

That is the minimalist approach, for sure, and ultimately it is all you

can truly expect. There is no one font family that everyone has.
Myself I offer more than just sans-serif. But I also test the layout
with different fonts just to be sure I have not become dependent on the
look of the "preferred" font.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)