May I see some good examples?

I'm just confused at what is good, because nobody's site in here even comes
close to cutting the mustard. What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards? What are the URL's of the people here who
critique. I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

Thanks in advance!
Michael

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

mvmishler (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I'm just confused at what is good, because nobody's site in here even comes
close to cutting the mustard. What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards? What are the URL's of the people here who
critique. I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

http://www.csszengarden.com/

<http://www.independent-testers.org/>

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

mvmishler (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I'm just confused at what is good,

At the risk of feeding a troll
I would suggest beef ribs and a very cold beer.

What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards?

http://www.webstandards.org

And any site covering beef ribs and very cold beer.
--
mbstevens

mvmishler (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I'm just confused at what is good, because nobody's site in here even comes
close to cutting the mustard. What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards? What are the URL's of the people here who
critique. I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

Thanks in advance!
Michael

mv,

Keep in mind that this is alt.HTML.critique, so you should not be
surprised to find that most comments you receive here are related to
HTML technical issues, not to the kinds of things that would concern a
traditional graphics designer (though we often get into those as well).

To 'cut the mustard' here, a site should demonstrate awareness of, and
respect for, a number of basic truths. I have summarized most of them
at http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/index.html. I believe that
those pages themselves meet most of the technical criteria that would be
applied here. Note, however, that they are informative but not
presented in a way that would win any graphics design awards. I
believe, however, that the presentation is appropriate to the material
being presented, which is a design criteria often overlooked in sites
submitted here.

Another site of mine, http://BeallSprings.org, also should meet most of
the technical criteria. Again, it does not provide the sort of flashy
display you most often see in commercial sites. A very early version of
this site was reviewed here with little negative comment (except that it
was sparse on content, which is gradually being corrected.)

Most of the sites presented here for critique were done by people who
are just getting started or have done only a few sites. They have
learned from tutorials they found on the web, many of which are
seriously deficient, rather than from the primary sources (i.e. the W3C
Recommendations). It is therefore not surprising that many of them
generate numerous (and similar) 'negative' comments. But these comments
are not negative in the value sense. We assume you submit your site for
review because you want to learn; each comment is therefor part of the
learning experience you requested. [There's a fair chance, even though
I haven't requested a review, that I'm about to learn something about
the sites I've referred to above. I expect that. I will learn
something. That's why I'm here.]

Chris Beall

Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN (AT) sohnen-moe (DOT) com> wrote:

I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

http://www.csszengarden.com/

CSS zengarden is an example of poor coding. It tries to push CSS as a
technology capable of radically changing the look and layout of a site.
To do this it litters the markup with loads of spurious code. CSS should
*not* be used in that way. Markup should be minimal, the idea that major
changes can be made to a site without touching the markup is a fallacy.

http://www.independent-testers.org/

Poor alt content.
Screwed up document outline.
Headers that aren't headers.
Divs & spans used where semantic & structural markup should have been
used.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus wrote:

CSS zengarden is an example of poor coding. It tries to push CSS as a
technology capable of radically changing the look and layout of a site.
To do this it litters the markup with loads of spurious code. CSS should
*not* be used in that way. Markup should be minimal, the idea that major
changes can be made to a site without touching the markup is a fallacy.

That's pretty accurate, but there are some damned pretty sites there,
and Dave Shea even mentions that this is not how markup should be
written. This doesn't stop clients asking for sites that can be "Zen
Garden-ified" so that they can change the entire layout with one CSS
file. If it really was that easy to re-style the site completely
through the CSS, they wouldn't be coming to me for the work in the first
place.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Spartanicus wrote:

I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

http://www.independent-testers.org/

Poor alt content.
Screwed up document outline.
Headers that aren't headers.
Divs & spans used where semantic & structural markup should have been
used.

Well! I rashly assumed such an organization would test its own site.

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

mvmishler (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I'm just confused at what is good, because nobody's site in here even comes
close to cutting the mustard. What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards? What are the URL's of the people here who
critique. I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

Thanks in advance!
Michael

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

www.thefwa.com

SpaceGirl wrote:

mvmishler (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I'm just confused at what is good, because nobody's site in here even comes
close to cutting the mustard. What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards? What are the URL's of the people here who
critique. I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

Thanks in advance!
Michael

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com



www.thefwa.com

Michael,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would like to point out
that Spacegirl's entry on this list, as well as the sites that it lists,
do not meet the criteria generally espoused here. They may be good
sites from the perspective of visual appearance, but they are not good
from the standpoint of:
- Use of open, nonproprietary technology.
- Adaptability to a variety of user environments, including
accessibility for those working in a non-visual mode.
- Search engine accommodation.

In other words, they appear to be good print designs, but not good web
designs.

Chris Beall

mvmishler (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I'm just confused at what is good, because nobody's site in here even comes
close to cutting the mustard. What is an example of a site that's even
close to critique standards? What are the URL's of the people here who
critique. I'd like to know by example what is a good site.

Thanks in advance!

Well, feel free to have a bit of a look at mine.
Visit eather, http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc or
http://home.primus.com.au/kellykk/freewebdesignonline depending on if
the main site at freewebdesign.cjb.cc is still down.
I have tried to make the site simple to navigate around and easy to
use.
It also validates and is quick to load even on a 14K modem!.
--
Regards Chad.