jasc - just another site critique

It's in test phase, so any comments will be welcome
www.titre.com.ar

regards - jm

I suppose it looks OK, but there's a couple of things I noticed right
away, both have to do with separating presentation from content..

Your styles should be declared in a separate file.

You used tables for layout instead of css (usually with divs).

The validator plug-in for Firefox shows 32 warnings, including things
like using <p> for spacing instead of properly defined CSS.

The content is too vertical. You have to scroll down a lot for very
little information.

Javascript can also be completely removed from the content (html), but
you did a good job since the page loads OK without javascript enabled
(I have it off by default).

Just my two cents.


julianmlp (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

It's in test phase, so any comments will be welcome
www.titre.com.ar

regards - jm

fred.haab (AT) gxxxxail (DOT) com wrote:

I suppose it looks OK, but there's a couple of things I noticed right
away, both have to do with separating presentation from content..

Your styles should be declared in a separate file.

They are in fact definet through an external css file

You used tables for layout instead of css (usually with divs).

Yes, I am slowly changing such a kind of crime

The validator plug-in for Firefox shows 32 warnings, including things
like using <p> for spacing instead of properly defined CSS.

Most of the errors are related to "alt" missing attribute

The content is too vertical. You have to scroll down a lot for very
little information.

That's true.

Javascript can also be completely removed from the content (html), but
you did a good job since the page loads OK without javascript enabled
(I have it off by default).

so do you never visit an ajax powered site? I mean, you don't even
have a gmail account? Ohhh, I didn't see! You have already a gmail
acc....
Or do you turn on javascript specially for a particular site?

Just my two cents.

Thanks

reagards - julian

<julianmlp (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

fred.haab (AT) gxxxxail (DOT) com wrote:
I suppose it looks OK, but there's a couple of things I noticed right
away, both have to do with separating presentation from content..

Your styles should be declared in a separate file.

They are in fact definet through an external css file


You used tables for layout instead of css (usually with divs).

Yes, I am slowly changing such a kind of crime


The validator plug-in for Firefox shows 32 warnings, including things
like using <p> for spacing instead of properly defined CSS.

Most of the errors are related to "alt" missing attribute


The content is too vertical. You have to scroll down a lot for very
little information.

That's true.

Javascript can also be completely removed from the content (html), but
you did a good job since the page loads OK without javascript enabled
(I have it off by default).

so do you never visit an ajax powered site? I mean, you don't even
have a gmail account? Ohhh, I didn't see! You have already a gmail
acc....
Or do you turn on javascript specially for a particular site?

Just my two cents.

Thanks

reagards - julian

AJAX is the work of the devil. Many.many sites will be broken if this trend
continues

Paul

julianmlp (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

fred.haab (AT) gxxxxail (DOT) com wrote:

Your styles should be declared in a separate file.

They are in fact definet through an external css file

There may be some, but I saw a lot of styles declared inline in the
document.

Javascript can also be completely removed from the content (html), but
you did a good job since the page loads OK without javascript enabled
(I have it off by default).

so do you never visit an ajax powered site? I mean, you don't even
have a gmail account? Ohhh, I didn't see! You have already a gmail
acc....
Or do you turn on javascript specially for a particular site?

Firefox, among the many other helpful things, has an extension called
"NoScript" that has scripts turned off by default, it let's you know
when a site has javascript, and gives you the option of enabling for
that site (permanently or temporarily).

So yes, I have it enabled for google and gmail. Having it disabled
avoids the vast majority of unwanted popups.

fred.haab (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Firefox, among the many other helpful things, has an extension called
"NoScript" that has scripts turned off by default, it let's you know
when a site has javascript, and gives you the option of enabling for
that site (permanently or temporarily).

So yes, I have it enabled for google and gmail. Having it disabled
avoids the vast majority of unwanted popups.

I had no idea such an extension exists. I'm a FF user myself. I'll
search for it...

regards - julian

Paul Watt wrote:

AJAX is the work of the devil. Many.many sites will be broken if this trend
continues

Are you being serious?
Well, you could have your reasons, but I think it's late

regards - julian

julianmlp (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote in
news:1149110277.253133.120870 (AT) c74g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Paul Watt wrote:

AJAX is the work of the devil. Many.many sites will be broken if this
trend continues

Are you being serious?
Well, you could have your reasons, but I think it's late

One reason could be the same as one of the primary objections to frames:
misuse of AJAX can create unaddressable page configurations; that is to
say, pages that can't be reached directly from a specific URL, but only by
starting at a particular URL and drilling down through a series of clicks.
If that were really acceptable, the WWW would never have overtaken Gopher.
There are some cases where unaddressability isn't really a problem; on a
forum/blog type of site where you can expand various messages in a thread
(e.g. Daily Kos) it really isn't a problem that you don't have a unique URL
for each combination of expansion/contraction. That kind of use of AJAX is
IMHO legitimate. But other cases are either illegitimate or need to be
augmented to preserve addressability; zoom levels for maps and scroll
position within database tables are examples.