Please critique ICU site

Hi,

Several months ago I received something of a (well justified)
hammering from this NG with the Intensive Care site I put together :-)

http://www.nepeanicu.org/

I have produced an early version of a potential replacement that I
would love some opinions on. Only a single page at the moment at:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/

Thanks for your trouble,

Andrew.

sorry.no.email (AT) post_NG (DOT) com wrote:

Hi,

Several months ago I received something of a (well justified)
hammering from this NG with the Intensive Care site I put together :-)

http://www.nepeanicu.org/

I have produced an early version of a potential replacement that I
would love some opinions on. Only a single page at the moment at:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/

Thanks for your trouble,

I think the overall look of the site is appropriate to the
subject/business concerned.

The font seems a little light (not enough contrast) to me. I saw you
had it defined as black on white - maybe it needs to be a little more
bold (font-weight: 600)? Sizes are good.

Strong dislike for the links that do not show as visited. My personal
preference - but on a large site I forget where I have been, get
frustrated and leave.

--
TK
http://www.wejuggle2.com/
Still Having a Ball











..

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Terry wrote:

The font seems a little light (not enough contrast) to me. I saw you
had it defined as black on white - maybe it needs to be a little more
bold (font-weight: 600)? Sizes are good.

Actually, it's probably too contrasty. You'd be surprised if the
background were actually darkened a bit, it might actually be easier to
read. The problem is that too contrasty makes it look too harsh and
hard on the eyes.

Just my two cents.

Other than that, honestly, they both validate, they both look OK to me.
The simpler, newer one holds up better when the font and windows sizes
are changed, but I certainly don't have anything negative to say about
the first one. I've only just started reading this group, but I can
only imagine people slammed the fixed width... and I don't know how
well those colors (the banner and the side) went together, although
it's not too distracting.

Simpler is better, but I don't know why people would go off on the
first one.

On 26 May 2006 17:07:36 -0700, fred.haab (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Terry wrote:

The font seems a little light (not enough contrast) to me. I saw you
had it defined as black on white - maybe it needs to be a little more
bold (font-weight: 600)? Sizes are good.

Actually, it's probably too contrasty. You'd be surprised if the
background were actually darkened a bit, it might actually be easier to
read. The problem is that too contrasty makes it look too harsh and
hard on the eyes.

Just my two cents.

Other than that, honestly, they both validate, they both look OK to me.
The simpler, newer one holds up better when the font and windows sizes
are changed, but I certainly don't have anything negative to say about
the first one. I've only just started reading this group, but I can
only imagine people slammed the fixed width... and I don't know how
well those colors (the banner and the side) went together, although
it's not too distracting.

Simpler is better, but I don't know why people would go off on the
first one.

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your comments. There were several major problems with the
existing ICU site including:

1. Table based layout with only rudimentary CSS
2. Non-semantic use of tags
3. Lack of logical structure to page (H1 H2 etc tags)
4. Unnecessary fixed width layout
5. Transitional doctype when strict should have been used

etc etc. I have spent many hours learning from these mistakes and hope
to expunge the site in about a month. New site needs more work yet
though :-)

Andrew.
--

Andrew Strong
w(s pa/nt' a)/gan ai)nikta\ ka)safh= le/geis.