Critique wanted http://www.my-julian-california-land.com

Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

"Bill Fischer" <billfischermd (AT) dslextreme (DOT) com> wrote

Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

Hi,
Just a few points.

Page doesn't "flow".
Theres no real structure to the page.
Nothing lines up, looks un professional.
just my 2 pence worth

--
Cheers

Paul

http://www.paulwatt.info

Bill Fischer wrote:

Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

Almost none of the text fits in any of the boxes. Apparently the layout
is fine tuned to a single font and package. Try changing the text size and
see what happens.

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

Bill Fischer wrote:

Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

It is legal in HTML 4, but a bad idea, to use new windows
to open new pages. You break the visitor's back button.
You are also taking over preferences from the visitor. Most modern
browsers allow you to set whether you want to open things in a new window.
Your page is suffering from divitis. Instead of...

<div class="divlinks" id="layer6">
<h3>Links to Photos and More Information</h3>
<p class="links"><a>....</a></p>
......
</div>

....it would make more sense to use an unordered list...
<h3>Links to Pho...</h3>
<ul>
<li><a>...</a></li>
</ul>

....because this is what it in fact is. It is not a series
of paragraphs.

The colors and contrasts are good, and fit the subject matter well.
The "Live in Peace..." h3 shouls either have a transparent background or
the div it is in should have a border like the other divs. I think I
would go for the transparent background.

Not a bad page at all.
--
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:06:02 -0700, Bill Fischer wrote:

Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

I guess it's okay. I think maybe it is over-designed by someone who is
not really a designer. Color choices, for example, could stand to be
rethought a little. Also, the photos in general are awful. (Lousy
photos, IMO, is easily in the top three things (if not *the* top thing)
that shout "not a professional". Mind you, getting good photos is a lot
harder than most people realize.) You may want to consider, for example,
using pictures from when the trees actually have foliage on them. Surely
there is a time of year when the trees are green?

Also, who really cares if your page is valid HTML 4.01? You do, yes. Any
professional HTML coder should care. But your clients won't. I cannot
understand why people insist on putting those little W3 tags on their
pages. Yes, *do* use valid coding, but you don't have to advertise it; no
one cares.

And finally, you are using tables for layout. No one in *this* HTML
newsgroup is going to okay that practice! Me included. There are better
ways to lay out the page, namely CSS layout. Google on "CSS layout",
find one you like, and misappropriate it for your own. I'm talking
layout, now, not design. Steal the CSS code that places the page
elements, bu don't steal the images, and design scheme from another
layout. I hope you get what I mean on that.

Allright, later...
--
JDS | jeffrey (AT) go (DOT) away.com

http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

Bill Fischer wrote:

Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

Thanks to all of you for your replies.

" ... looks unprofessional."
"I think maybe it is over-designed by someone who is
not really a designer."

There's a reason for that.

"Almost none of the text fits in any of the boxes."

How did you detect that? I've looked and I can't see the descrepency.

"It is legal in HTML 4, but a bad idea, to use new windows
to open new pages. You break the visitor's back button."

You're not the first person to make that comment. I'll fix that in my
re-do of the site.

"Your page is suffering from divitis. ..it would make more sense to use
an unordered list... "

I'm not trying to seem inflexible or stubborn, but why does it make a
difference if I use a table or a layer? I'm using FrontPage 2003. I
feel I have more control over the page by using layers.

"Also, who really cares if your page is valid HTML 4.01?"

That's a good point. I'll get rid of it.

Sorry about the graphics. I'm not pleased with them either. As to
getting a professional photographer, when you're doing the site on a
shoestring, you meet certain budget constraints. My staff is limited
these days to one -- me.

My property is located in an area ravaged by the Cedar Fire in October
2003. My place was totally destroyed. The underbrush is coming back,
but the property still lacks for greenery.

Thank you again for your comments.

Bill Fischer

billfischermd (AT) netscape (DOT) net wrote:

"Almost none of the text fits in any of the boxes."

How did you detect that? I've looked and I can't see the descrepency.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/julian.jpg

You need to think about sizing the containers using em units instead of
pixels, so that when folks with visual problems who have larger font
sizes set as their default, expands the text but not the boxes.

Use percentages for font-sizing instead of points (points are for
printing, and points/pixels don't resize in Internet Explorer.

http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

On 2006-07-14, billfischermd (AT) netscape (DOT) net wrote:

Bill Fischer wrote:
Critique wanted www.my-julian-california-land.com

Thanks to all of you for your replies.

" ... looks unprofessional."
"I think maybe it is over-designed by someone who is
not really a designer."

There's a reason for that.

"Almost none of the text fits in any of the boxes."

How did you detect that? I've looked and I can't see the descrepency.

<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/www/julian-california.jpg>

[snip]

I'm not trying to seem inflexible or stubborn, but why does it make a
difference if I use a table or a layer? I'm using FrontPage 2003.

If you are serious about producing a good site, don't use
FrontPage. It produces the worst HTML I've ever seen (and that's
saying something).

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2006-07-14, billfischermd (AT) netscape (DOT) net wrote:
I'm not trying to seem inflexible or stubborn, but why does it make a
difference if I use a table or a layer? I'm using FrontPage 2003.

Layer is an old Netscape term. Call it CSS-layout, or divisions [<div>].
Tables are for tabular data. Like spreadsheets, address lists - where
columns and rows relate to each other.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?lnk=hpsg&q=layout+table+abuse>

If you are serious about producing a good site, don't use FrontPage.
It produces the worst HTML I've ever seen (and that's saying
something).

The common list of the worst HTML editors... <g>
4. Microsoft FrontPlague
3. Microsoft Word
2. Microsoft Excel
1. Microsoft Publisher

Reading the source of a page produced with Publisher is a chore worse
than changing your grandbaby's diapers.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

If you are serious about producing a good site, don't use
FrontPage. It produces the worst HTML I've ever seen (and that's
saying something).

Rumsfeld said: "You go to war with the army you have."

I have FrontPage 2003. And, yes, I try to go into the HTML code to make
corrections.

Which designer do you recommend?

Bill Fischer