need some critique for a site

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:49:56 +0200, Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen wrote:

Tony Cortese 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



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).

The only problem I saw was the images in the header weren't aligned in 800
x 600. I did test before with Firebox in 1024 x 786 (my screen size) and it
looked good and made a bad assumption it would be ok in 800 x 600. Other
than that I can't see anything wrong. What OS and screen size you're using?

All the Tell Me More's shouldn't be there, instead
let the items in the list be links.

I found out that people click on these links more than if the text itself
was a link. "Tell me more' is more tempting.

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...

These are geared toward newbie webmasters.
Now it sounds more like your own personal opinion.
Many pros use Dreamweaver. I can't agree with everything you say.

But I wish you the best of luck on your project!
Thanks.

--
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

Tony Cortese wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:56:11 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
Neal wrote:

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

Brilliant!!! I have to remember that analogy

Doesn't always work Some people stain their roofs before selling the
house even though the shingles need replacing.

That's clearly because they're not going to keep it. I assume you're
going to keep your site?

--
Ben M.

Quoth the raven Tony Cortese:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:20:59 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Quoth the raven Tony Cortese:

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

Somehow that comment made me think of lemmings.

I am willing to guess that most sites designed using pixel sizes
for fonts are done with a WYSIWYG editor that is lacking in
clues, by authors that are not aware of the ramifications of
doing it.

I use Dreamweaver

We knew that...

but I can't blame it because the options it offer when you create a
font in css have all the available css options for font size. I
have looked at many sites' source and the majority use pixels.

Yes they do, but we're here trying to change that to the new era.

Another point I don't think anyone as made yet. In my 1024x768
browser window, there is a lot of white space on either side of
your content. Why not take advantage of it? Your middle column
should float with the browser window size.

That was intentional. I use 1024x768 too. I used a template to
create the page and to make everything float without breaking
anything required a major rework. I intentionally used little
content in general so that the web pages don't look too busy

Sure. We all use templates. Make your template an anysizedesign
template. What if my browser is.. 600 px wide? 1132 px wide? Monitor
resolution is irrelevant.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

This one as well:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

Your image-swapping stuff doesn't work if JavaScript is turned
off or unavailable.

That's fine. If you don't have Javascript enabled, static images
show up.

Ok, so long as the site continues to work without it.

Opening new windows is a Bad Idea™. Newbie users get lost when
they find their Back button is now broken.

The idea was to use it for links that go to external sites in order
to have a window that's in house if they wander off. I took the
new window off from the 'tell me more' link because in this case,
the back button is needed to get back.

The problem is when the newbie has his browser maximized, and you
issue another fullsize window, the newb doesn't realize your site is
still underneath because there is no working Back button in the new
window. I've watched newbs do this: re-enter google.com in the address
bar and look for a new site 'cause yours is gone. Sometime later -
usually when they've finished surfing, they close the browser and find
your site's window underneath.

I'm wondering why you refute all the suggestions given you by the
professional authors who have responded.

I don't have to believe every idea that's thrown to me is a valid
one and as one side of a discussion, I can bring in my ideas and
reasining.

It seemed as if you were disputing all the advice.

Plus what makes someone a professional? Who's a pro and who's not
to me in this NG? I can't tell.

You can probably tell by the delivery.

If one pro says use Arial as your default font and another pro
says use "Trebuchet MS", which pro should I listen to?

I think all the pros said "don't use Verdana" rather than "use Arial"
or "use Trebuchet MS."

If you go back to my site, you'll notice that I have already
implemented many suggestions already!

I see you've added
FONT-FAMILY: "Trebuchet MS",Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
to just about every item in your CSS. That isn't necessary; just use
it once for the body { }.

For some reason, your page seems to be loading the style sheet three
times (or at least my Mozilla developer toolbar displays it three
times). Never seen that before. I haven't figured why yet.

These will help:
http://validator.w3.org/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/csscheck.cgi

You should specify a background-color for every color, too.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Tony Cortese wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Quoth the raven Tony Cortese:

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

Somehow that comment made me think of lemmings.

I have looked at many sites' source and the majority use pixels.

^^ says it all really.

Your image-swapping stuff doesn't work if JavaScript is turned off or
unavailable.

That's fine. If you don't have Javascript enabled, static images show up.

If you it in CSS it will work regardless of whether or not JS is enabled.

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?

The alt.html.* groups are adequate for asking about usability.

I'm wondering why you refute all the suggestions given you by the
professional authors who have responded.

If one pro says use Arial as your default font and another pro says use
"Trebuchet MS", which pro should I listen to?

What if they are all recommending you not use Verdana, as they are now?

--
Ben M.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:05:04 GMT, Ben Measures wrote:

Tony Cortese wrote:
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"?

Because browser can interpret javascript and run it while the validators
can't. If I have any html tag in a script, the validator doesn't know that
and will report an error.

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.

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.

No true. All famous sites give errors when validating their html yet they
like very fine and humans interact with them just fine. In fact humans
don't know if the html is wrong unless they go through it with a toothcomb.
A house can be missing a truss, a beam, few boards but is still livable and
usable.



--
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

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:27:52 GMT, Ben Measures wrote:

Tony Cortese wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Quoth the raven Tony Cortese:

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

Somehow that comment made me think of lemmings.

I have looked at many sites' source and the majority use pixels.

^^ says it all really.

Your image-swapping stuff doesn't work if JavaScript is turned off or
unavailable.

That's fine. If you don't have Javascript enabled, static images show up.

If you it in CSS it will work regardless of whether or not JS is enabled.

I am not exactly fond of image swicthovers but that Javascript was in the
template and I left it plus I don't know how to do the same effect with
css.

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?

The alt.html.* groups are adequate for asking about usability.

I'm wondering why you refute all the suggestions given you by the
professional authors who have responded.

If one pro says use Arial as your default font and another pro says use
"Trebuchet MS", which pro should I listen to?

What if they are all recommending you not use Verdana, as they are now?

I took away Verdana even though I like it.


--
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

Tony Cortese wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
Tony Cortese wrote:

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"?

Because browser can interpret javascript and run it while the validators
can't. If I have any html tag in a script, the validator doesn't know that
and will report an error.

The browser parses the HTML first /then/ passes JS code to the
interpreter, not the other way around.

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.


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.

No true.
A house can be missing a truss, a beam, few boards but is still livable and
usable.

A missing floorboard has hardly the same effect as a missing <table>
tag. Whilst I'd hope the page is still useable, it would not be
presented as you intended.

--
Ben M.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:27:27 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Quoth the raven Tony Cortese:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:20:59 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Quoth the raven Tony Cortese:

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

Somehow that comment made me think of lemmings.

I am willing to guess that most sites designed using pixel sizes
for fonts are done with a WYSIWYG editor that is lacking in
clues, by authors that are not aware of the ramifications of
doing it.

I use Dreamweaver

We knew that...

from MM_ prefixes?

but I can't blame it because the options it offer when you create a
font in css have all the available css options for font size. I
have looked at many sites' source and the majority use pixels.

Yes they do, but we're here trying to change that to the new era.

Another point I don't think anyone as made yet. In my 1024x768
browser window, there is a lot of white space on either side of
your content. Why not take advantage of it? Your middle column
should float with the browser window size.

That was intentional. I use 1024x768 too. I used a template to
create the page and to make everything float without breaking
anything required a major rework. I intentionally used little
content in general so that the web pages don't look too busy

Sure. We all use templates. Make your template an anysizedesign
template. What if my browser is.. 600 px wide? 1132 px wide? Monitor
resolution is irrelevant.

Anything 800 and above will work. For now below 800 will have to scroll but
you're correct. The site needs to resize properly and be fluid regardless
of screen resolution. Due to time constraint, I couldn't work on every
little detail. I had to work on all the programming on the backend also.
I am like the pregnant woman at 8 months who just wants the baby out

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

This one as well:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

Your image-swapping stuff doesn't work if JavaScript is turned
off or unavailable.

That's fine. If you don't have Javascript enabled, static images
show up.

Ok, so long as the site continues to work without it.

Opening new windows is a Bad Idea™. Newbie users get lost when
they find their Back button is now broken.

The idea was to use it for links that go to external sites in order
to have a window that's in house if they wander off. I took the
new window off from the 'tell me more' link because in this case,
the back button is needed to get back.

The problem is when the newbie has his browser maximized, and you
issue another fullsize window, the newb doesn't realize your site is
still underneath because there is no working Back button in the new
window. I've watched newbs do this: re-enter google.com in the address
bar and look for a new site 'cause yours is gone. Sometime later -
usually when they've finished surfing, they close the browser and find
your site's window underneath.

That's the effect I wanted. If they wander off, I am still there
I took that effect away in the links where the people might not be able to
go back to the site.

I'm wondering why you refute all the suggestions given you by the
professional authors who have responded.

I don't have to believe every idea that's thrown to me is a valid
one and as one side of a discussion, I can bring in my ideas and
reasining.

It seemed as if you were disputing all the advice.

I want people to hear my side of the story also. They understand how other
webmaster work.

Plus what makes someone a professional? Who's a pro and who's not
to me in this NG? I can't tell.

You can probably tell by the delivery.

If one pro says use Arial as your default font and another pro
says use "Trebuchet MS", which pro should I listen to?

I think all the pros said "don't use Verdana" rather than "use Arial"
or "use Trebuchet MS."

If you go back to my site, you'll notice that I have already
implemented many suggestions already!

I see you've added
FONT-FAMILY: "Trebuchet MS",Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
to just about every item in your CSS. That isn't necessary; just use
it once for the body { }.

I replaced verdana with "Trebuchet MS".

For some reason, your page seems to be loading the style sheet three
times (or at least my Mozilla developer toolbar displays it three
times). Never seen that before. I haven't figured why yet.

These will help:
http://validator.w3.org/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/csscheck.cgi

You should specify a background-color for every color, too.

Because the home page has some include files some of which had a css link.
Fixed.


Thanks for the suggestions.


--
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

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:12:37 GMT, Ben Measures wrote:

Tony Cortese wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:56:11 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
Neal wrote:

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

Brilliant!!! I have to remember that analogy

Doesn't always work Some people stain their roofs before selling the
house even though the shingles need replacing.

That's clearly because they're not going to keep it. I assume you're
going to keep your site?

Good point too

--
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

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.

I am assuming you're talking about the pages from the 'tell me more'
links.
These page have little content. Without the nav bar, the page will look
too
empty.
It's a nav bar so I am not sure why you think it's repetitive.

Jake always tests sites by "listening" to them - so the repetitiveness he
speaks of means that each page will have the nav bar read out, so he is
suggesting that you add a 'skip to main content' link at the start of the
page.