Feedback on my web site

Hello guys,

I designed a web site real quick this afternoon: http://www.sharpfonts.com
- I'd like to know what you think about it. It's meant to be quick,
functional and simple. It uses a fair amount of Javascript. If
something doesn't work as expected, please let me know. Any feedback
is welcome!
Thanks,

Charles.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

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

Thanks. Wow, I'm testing in Firefox here, and it looks so much
different. This is daunting

It uses a fair amount of Javascript.

But why? Otherwise, the page consists of only: "Loading..."

To make the web site faster and do preload the site, as it's a small
site.

Why do you have the <div id="wrapper" style="display:none"
Seems without the "display: none" you wouldn't need all that JavaScript.

To hide the content while it's loading (the stuff that doesn't stop
moving while it's loading).

Things don't fit in their boxes...

Yeah, I don't know how to fix it here as I can't reproduce the
problem
Thanks anyway!

Charles.

"Charles A. Landemaine" <landemaine (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/sharpfonts.jpg

Thanks. Wow, I'm testing in Firefox here, and it looks so much
different. This is daunting

It uses a fair amount of Javascript.

But why? Otherwise, the page consists of only: "Loading..."

To make the web site faster and do preload the site, as it's a small
site.

You do realise that is what Google will see, the word "Loading..."? Your
site is totally invisible to search engines.

Things don't fit in their boxes...

Yeah, I don't know how to fix it here as I can't reproduce the
problem

Set your browser font size a little bigger.

--
Richard.

On Oct 31, 9:57 pm, "rf" <r... (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

"Charles A. Landemaine" <landema... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in messagenews:1193875623.732511.311600 (AT) z9g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com...
You do realise that is what Google will see, the word "Loading..."? Your
site is totally invisible to search engines.

Thanks Richard. I thought Google ignored styling.

Set your browser font size a little bigger.

I did, but it increases everything, not just text, and the web site is
only bigger, it's not broken here...

Charles.

"Charles A. Landemaine" <landemaine (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Oct 31, 9:57 pm, "rf" <r... (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:
"Charles A. Landemaine" <landema... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in
messagenews:1193875623.732511.311600 (AT) z9g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com...
You do realise that is what Google will see, the word "Loading..."? Your
site is totally invisible to search engines.

Thanks Richard. I thought Google ignored styling.

Ah. Looking a little closer at your javascript skulduggery I see whay you
may mean.

However, we don't know if google ignores display: none stuff. We *do* know
that it will penalise you for white text on white. Maybe it will also
penalise you for hidden "content". You just may be deemed as feeding stuff
to the search engine bot that a normal viewer cannot see. This is not
allowed.

In any case your whole javascript stuff is flawed. It will not work for some
10-15% of the people out there. That's the same as turning your server off
for a month or two out of the year.

Why do you think this enhances your site. None of the other sites I visit
regurlarly need to do this, and they are "fast" enough for me. I am used to
waiting a second or so for a page to appear. I am *not* used to having my
back button broken.

Besides any speed advantage in moving between "pages" is negated by the
dramatically increased download time for the first "page". In effect I need
to download your entire site just to look at your first page.

You also make the site non-bookmarkable. Try to bookmark one of your
"pages", it does not work.

Set your browser font size a little bigger.

I did, but it increases everything, not just text, and the web site is
only bigger, it's not broken here...

Using IE7 or Opera?

Font size, *not* zoom.

--
Richard.

On Nov 1, 11:14 am, "rf" <r... (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

However, we don't know if google ignores display: none stuff. We *do* know
that it will penalise you for white text on white. Maybe it will also
penalise you for hidden "content". You just may be deemed as feeding stuff
to the search engine bot that a normal viewer cannot see. This is not
allowed.

How would you create the "Loading" screen otherwise? Is there a way to
do it and not to be penalized by Google?

In any case your whole javascript stuff is flawed. It will not work for some
10-15% of the people out there. That's the same as turning your server off
for a month or two out of the year.

Are you sure there are as much as 10-15% of Internet users who turn
off JS? Seems very high to me...

Why do you think this enhances your site. None of the other sites I visit
regurlarly need to do this, and they are "fast" enough for me.

Because seeing the web site loading with images missing and text
moving as the style sheet loads doesn't look good. Also having to wait
just once is better than having to wait each time you click a link.
Moreover, I keep everything in just one file that is compressed by the
server (mod_gzip), so it loads pretty fast.

Besides any speed advantage in moving between "pages" is negated by the
dramatically increased download time for the first "page".

Hardly, because what is loaded is the web site look and feel and
content. When you click a new page on "normal" sites, you have to
download the navigation menu, the header, the footer, etc...
Everything again. Here, the header and footer are downloaded just
once. On normal sites, you have separate files to download (several
three-way TCP/IP connections with latency). Here, just one file. And
the site is very small, really. The "Loading" page takes a second here
to load.

In effect I need
to download your entire site just to look at your first page.

It's a small site, just a few KB...

You also make the site non-bookmarkable. Try to bookmark one of your
"pages", it does not work.

Yeah, this is a problem, actually I could create a workaround in PHP,
appending "?p=1" or something like that, to preselect a section.

Using IE7 or Opera?

Yes, Opera.

Font size, *not* zoom.

I only have Zoom
Anyway, I wouldn't use a "Loading" screen for a larger site, don't
worry

Charles.

On Nov 1, 5:02 pm, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder... (AT) southernskies (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Oct 31, 10:38 pm, "Charles A. Landemaine" <landema... (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

I designed a web site real quick this afternoon:http://www.sharpfonts.com
- I'd like to know what you think about it. It's meant to be quick,
functional and simple. It uses a fair amount of Javascript. If
something doesn't work as expected, please let me know. Any feedback
is welcome!

I'll ignore the ongoing discussion on JavaScript! {g}

Your design gets real messy in both Firefox and IE when the text is
resized, since the black block and green bar remain unchanged. A
simple fix would be to size the black block in ems, and to perhaps
centre vertically the menu text within the green bar.

In IE the difference between the "steps" of text sizes is *way* too
extreme: I can't make the text slightly larger or slightly smaller, I
can only get increments or decrements of about 50%.

Write out the following 100 times on the blackboard:
Pages should *never* have an active link to themselves in navigation
menus!

Using bold in the navigation menu to identify the current page is fine
in itself, even a good idea, but your present formatting means that
any menu items to the right have to jog slightly to make way for it,
which is a little untidy.

The following two items are such major failings that you can now
consider a ruler to have been sharply rapped across your knuckles:

Hovering my mouse over menu items only shows me the domain name rather
than the target page's URL. This is *very* annoying behaviour! This
breaks a fundamental rule of website navigation.

You've effectively disabled the Back and Forward buttons for pages
within your site. This is also *really* annoying! No website should
*ever* do this!!

You should have your CSS in an external file; clicking through to
other pages will result in faster downloads for users. And of course
it would be easier to maintain, etc.

You shouldn't have more than one "h1" heading; it's supposed to be the
top-most node, and should probably be used for the site name on the
black bar.

The heading text doesn't resize in IE when the user resizes text.

Your link colours don't change for visited URLs. Please don't do
this!

The "small print" doesn't resize at all when the user resizes text.
Please don't do this, either!

Overall, I rather like the design choices. My only artistic criticism
would be that you should lose the line that runs along the length of
centre of the green bar. I might be inclined to make the main text a
very dark green as well, just to be more cohesive.

And OK, I will comment on the "Loading..." issue: it lasts longer for
me in IE than in Firefox. I suspect that the site would in fact load
more quickly if you got rid of it and the preloading! Far better for
a user to start to see meaningful content straight away, with perhaps
some images not being instantly available, than for them to see
something that takes their mental focus to the centre of the page and
then loses the message before they've probably even read it... Give
people what they're used to unless you have a *really* good reason not
to. People with slower connections are used to images loading a bit
sluggishly, so won't think it a deficiency of your site (unless your
server really *is* slow), so there's no need to interfere with
expected behaviour. They'll judge your site against all the others,
not all the others against yours!

--
AGw.

Thanks for all these comments. I'm surprised by each point. I think
there are a few problems such as font size, but most points are a
matter of personal preference IMHO.

Charles.

On Nov 1, 5:05 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Yep, that is the IE bug when overall text (body) is sized using em
units. Still a bug in IE6, and I don't have access to 7.

body { font-size: 100%; }

..will fix it.

Thanks for the tip. I tried locally and the size is consistent across
browsers.

Charles.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote

AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

In IE the difference between the "steps" of text sizes is *way* too
extreme: I can't make the text slightly larger or slightly smaller, I
can only get increments or decrements of about 50%.

Yep, that is the IE bug when overall text (body) is sized using em
units. Still a bug in IE6, and I don't have access to 7.

It's still a bug in IE7.

body { font-size: 100%; }

..will fix it.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

"Charles A. Landemaine" <landemaine (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Nov 1, 11:14 am, "rf" <r... (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:
However, we don't know if google ignores display: none stuff. We *do*
know
that it will penalise you for white text on white. Maybe it will also
penalise you for hidden "content". You just may be deemed as feeding
stuff
to the search engine bot that a normal viewer cannot see. This is not
allowed.

How would you create the "Loading" screen otherwise? Is there a way to
do it and not to be penalized by Google?

You miss the point entirely. You don't *need* a "loading" screen". Or rather
*you* might bit *I* most certainly do not.

Hundreds of millions of web pages out there simply present the page to the
browser. Why sould yours be any different?

Are you sure there are as much as 10-15% of Internet users who turn
off JS? Seems very high to me...

That's the current guess.

Why do you think this enhances your site. None of the other sites I visit
regurlarly need to do this, and they are "fast" enough for me.

Because seeing the web site loading with images missing and text
moving as the style sheet loads doesn't look good.

In your opinon only.

Also having to wait
just once is better than having to wait each time you click a link.

No, it is not, IMHO.

Moreover, I keep everything in just one file that is compressed by the
server (mod_gzip), so it loads pretty fast.

Whatever. I am telling you now though: all of this is totally overwhealmed
by the fact that you have broken my back button.

I consider the back button to be the second most important thing in my
browser. If you break it then there is a very good chance that I will simply
move on to the next search result.

You also make the site non-bookmarkable. Try to bookmark one of your
"pages", it does not work.

Yeah, this is a problem, actually I could create a workaround in PHP,
appending "?p=1" or something like that, to preselect a section.

Simply lose the javascript.

Using IE7 or Opera?

Yes, Opera.

You are building a site for the web and you only test in Opera? Oh my.

You should also have at least IE6, IE7, Firefox and Safari (I have found the
windows beta OK) and probably Lynx which will give you idea of what blind
people may hear.

--
Richard.