need some critique for a site

#11

Tony Cortese wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:33:18 -0400, Neal wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:07:00 -0700, Tony Cortese
bigdiscounthosting@gmaildotcom> wrote:

I would like to receive some constructive critique for
this site in terms of proper browser rendering, layout,
user interface & navigation, clear unambigious content,
ease of use ... etc.

http://www.big-discount-hosting.com

See
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...2Fwww.big-disc
ount-hosting.com%2F . You need to fix 100 errors before
anyone can meaningfully check your code.

Not every error it reports is valid. It reports errors on
dynamic javascript simply because it's not "smart". Plus
it's reporting errors that I can'd find like a </head> that
has no corresponding opening tag. I have a <head> and a
/head> so I am not sure what it's complaining about.

Please ignore the html validation part. I mean I can find
this stuff myself. There are tons of html validators out
there.

Yep, but as you just stated, you don't understand the errors
it comes up with. Also, this group is called
alt.html.critique. This means it is to critique html. Not
design as such :-)

For instance the error of the meta that can't go there and the
<head> that had a missing tag: that's because you didn't put
quotes on the values of type and rel in the <link> element.

Quote:

I am really interested in the human experience. If you, as
a human, is affected by an html error, yes then it's a
problem.

Only a matter of time before your code starts to effect humans
;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Magnum - Born To Be King

#12

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:01:37 -0400, Neal wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:45:38 -0700, Tony Cortese
bigdiscounthosting@gmaildotcom> wrote:

I am more interested in the user experience and what a human eye sees. I
will fix the html stuff later.

The "html stuff" affects what the user sees, hmm? Some of the errors can
cause your site to fail for some users. Some reduce usability. Really,
start there. There's no sense in painting a broken chair. Fix the chair
first, then we make it pretty. Function before form.

What's wrong with the font choices?

Randomly chosen:

.text-8 {
FONT-SIZE: 8px;
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
color: #000;
}

Never set font-size in pixels. Especially this small, which is illegible
for many. IE cannot resize it. Therefore, people cannot read the content,
and you lose business.

Use % for font-size units, and think carefully about going below 100% as
if the user has set their preference, that'd be it.

I'll experiment with that. Although using pixels is very common.

Quote:

Verdana is not a good choice for general text unless you use a large fnt
size. What if Verdana is not available? Experiment: try uninstalling
Verdana from your machine, or stripping it out of the CSS temporarily. See
how it gets rendered with the second choice Arial.

That's why there's a font family with different fonts. I am not specifying
verdana only. The site looks very similar under arial and sans serif. I use
Windows so I don't have helvetica

Quote:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html for more detail on
the unsuitability of Verdana for most WWW use.

That's debatable.

In general, the site will be improved but right now it's a new design and
wanted the site out and I am targetting the general population. Overtime,
the little stuff will come in, better usability for the visually impaired
and such.

It seems many people here are hung up in html detail only. I would like to
get feedback in user usability. Is it easy to navigate? Do you have a
frustrating experience..why?
If you're looking for a web hosting company or already a customer for a
host, does the content in my site offer the kind of information you need?
Is something missing?

Stuff that you read in Neilson's books and books like "don't make me think'
and the likes?
Maybe I am in the wrong NG, is this NG specific to html only? I know it's
under alt.html. Any recommendations to where "usability experts" hang out?

Tony Cortese
--
Send camera phone photos straight to your online photo album plus a loaded
web hosting package for only $4.95/month - No other Fees
http://www.big-discount-hosting.com

#13

Tony Cortese wrote:

Quote:

Use % for font-size units, and think carefully about going
below 100% as if the user has set their preference, that'd
be it.

I'll experiment with that. Although using pixels is very
common.

Common != good.

Quote:

It seems many people here are hung up in html detail only.

Because it is called alt.html.critique :-)

Quote:

Maybe I am in the wrong NG, is this NG specific to html
only? I know it's under alt.html. Any recommendations to
where "usability experts" hang out?

I think here and in alt.html are good places to test usability.
Thing is it all depends on the code.
As Neal said: fix the chair before you paint it.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Magnum - Matter Of Survival

#14

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:29:43 -0700, Tony Cortese
<bigdiscounthosting@gmaildotcom> wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:01:37 -0400, Neal wrote:
Use % for font-size units, and think carefully about going below 100% as
if the user has set their preference, that'd be it.

I'll experiment with that. Although using pixels is very common.

Sadly, so much of what is commonly done in web desigh is ill-advised. This
is an example. Serving text that is legible is one of the most important
parts of havinbg a webpage. If they can't read the content, you lose. More
and more authors are getting it, though, and I suspect within the next 5
years we'll see a lot less px font use.

Quote:

Verdana is not a good choice for general text unless you use a large fnt
size. What if Verdana is not available? Experiment: try uninstalling
Verdana from your machine, or stripping it out of the CSS temporarily.
See
how it gets rendered with the second choice Arial.

That's why there's a font family with different fonts. I am not
specifying
verdana only. The site looks very similar under arial and sans serif. I
use
Windows so I don't have helvetica

Yes. You'll note that while Verdana is legible at a small size, Arial at
that same size is not legible. Reason: the x-height is so large on Verdana
as compared to Arial that Arial appears smaller than Verdana at the same
font-size. So if Verdana is specified at a small font size, you risk that
any user without Verdana will not be able to read it.

BTW, it's quite likely your default sans-serif font is Arial, so no wonder
they look similar.

Quote:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html for more detail on
the unsuitability of Verdana for most WWW use.

That's debatable.

In general, the site will be improved but right now it's a new design and
wanted the site out and I am targetting the general population. Overtime,
the little stuff will come in, better usability for the visually impaired
and such.

But it's not even them. People with keen eyesight can have problems with
8px fonts. It's just too damn small.

Quote:

It seems many people here are hung up in html detail only.

The name of the place is alt.html.critique - that kinda sets the tone.

Quote:

I would like to
get feedback in user usability. Is it easy to navigate? Do you have a
frustrating experience..why?
If you're looking for a web hosting company or already a customer for a
host, does the content in my site offer the kind of information you need?
Is something missing?

Stuff that you read in Neilson's books and books like "don't make me
think'
and the likes?
Maybe I am in the wrong NG, is this NG specific to html only? I know it's
under alt.html. Any recommendations to where "usability experts" hang
out?

I'm trying to impress upon you that small fonts is a big usability killer.
But you want more... Ok. New windows break the back button. Get rid of the
new windows on the links.

#15

Neal wrote:

Quote:

But it's not even them. People with keen eyesight can have
problems with 8px fonts. It's just too damn small.

Also don't forget that the higher resolution people get on their
screen, the smaller the font will look.

I wonder what your monitor size vs resolution is?
I'm on a 19inch screen, set to 1280x1024. Your Mega Plan list
looks awfully small. I do have excellent eyesight. And I have
Verdana. Now if I would not have Verdana, or worse, I'd up my
resolution to 1600x1200, it would get smaller. Now imagine I up
my resolution _and_ don't have Verdana...

Really, your font is way too small.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Magnum - Only A Memory

#16

Tony Cortese wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:33:18 -0400, Neal wrote:

You need to fix 100 errors before anyone can meaningfully check your
code.

Not every error it reports is valid. It reports errors on dynamic
javascript simply because it's not "smart".

What makes you think browsers' html parsers are any "smarter"?

Quote:

Please ignore the html validation part. I mean I can find this stuff
myself. There are tons of html validators out there.

Then there's no good reason for you not checking for errors.

Quote:

I am really interested in the human experience. If you, as a human, is
affected by an html error, yes then it's a problem.

The browser will present your website based on the code you write. If
what you write is imprecise, so the presentation will be.

--
Ben M.

#17

Tony Cortese wrote:

Quote:

I would like to receive some constructive critique for this site in terms
of proper browser rendering, layout, user interface & navigation, clear
unambigious content, ease of use ... etc.

http://www.big-discount-hosting.com

Tony Cortese

Hi Tony,
I can't see that anyone else has commented on your
banner. It looks totally f***ed up in my browser
(Mozilla Firefox).
All the Tell Me More's shouldn't be there, instead
let the items in the list be links.
What you have in your Webmaster Toolbox is exactly
what webmasters don't need: Photo Images - we use
our own photos; Dividers/Bars,
Backgrounds/Textures, Buttons, Bullets - we don't
use them; Fonts - our visitors can't use them;
Sounds, Midi, WYSIWYG HTML Editors, Web Templates,
Animated Gifs - we hate them...
But I wish you the best of luck on your project!

--
Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen
http://home.online.no/~ingerfaj/

#18

Neal wrote:

Quote:

There's no sense in painting a broken chair. Fix the chair

Brilliant!!! I have to remember that analogy

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

#19

In message <ky4rk2necoo1.w89dnrdz3nut.dlg (AT) 40tude (DOT) net>, Tony Cortese
<bigdiscounthosting (AT) gmaildotcom (DOT) ?.invalid> writes

Quote:

I would like to receive some constructive critique for this site in terms
of proper browser rendering, layout, user interface & navigation, clear
unambigious content, ease of use ... etc.

http://www.big-discount-hosting.com

Tony Cortese
--
Send camera phone photos straight to your online photo album plus a loaded
web hosting package for only $4.95/month - No other Fees
http://www.big-discount-hosting.com

Go through your site and make sure that all images have the appropriate
'alternative text' set.

It's important to people looking at your site with either images
switched off, text-only browsers, etc.

It's especially important for links. Without alternative text, there is
no way to access items in your main heading:

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/BG01X.JPG (64k)

Because of the large repetitive menus on each page, you could do with a
'skip to main content' link at the start of the page.

Also, some people have Javascript switched off; so any function that
relies on JS should ensure there's an alternative method available e.g.
access to the Live Chat page.

regards.
--
Jake

#20

On 19 Aug 2004 19:28:23 GMT, Els wrote:

Quote:

Tony Cortese wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:33:18 -0400, Neal wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:07:00 -0700, Tony Cortese
bigdiscounthosting@gmaildotcom> wrote:

I would like to receive some constructive critique for
this site in terms of proper browser rendering, layout,
user interface & navigation, clear unambigious content,
ease of use ... etc.

http://www.big-discount-hosting.com

See
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...2Fwww.big-disc
ount-hosting.com%2F . You need to fix 100 errors before
anyone can meaningfully check your code.

Not every error it reports is valid. It reports errors on
dynamic javascript simply because it's not "smart". Plus
it's reporting errors that I can'd find like a </head> that
has no corresponding opening tag. I have a <head> and a
/head> so I am not sure what it's complaining about.

Please ignore the html validation part. I mean I can find
this stuff myself. There are tons of html validators out
there.

Yep, but as you just stated, you don't understand the errors
it comes up with. Also, this group is called
alt.html.critique. This means it is to critique html. Not
design as such :-)

I mentioned this point in my post

Quote:

For instance the error of the meta that can't go there and the
head> that had a missing tag: that's because you didn't put
quotes on the values of type and rel in the <link> element.

I guess it should have said I have missing quotes upfront. Thanks for the
catch.

Quote:

I am really interested in the human experience. If you, as
a human, is affected by an html error, yes then it's a
problem.

Only a matter of time before your code starts to effect humans
;-)

I was trying to find out if it affects humans... NOW.

--
Tony Cortese
--
Send camera phone photos straight to your online photo album plus a loaded
web hosting package for only $4.95/month - No other Fees
http://www.big-discount-hosting.com