html crit these two sites please

Hi All,

Bearing in mind that I was a designer long before
I was a HTML writer, have a look at these and let
me know what you think:

www.augmentis.net

and

www.right4thejob.co.uk -- (And no, I didn't want the
animated gif clip-art or the flashing search button
either)

Regards

Michael Hughes
www.mfhughes.com

"Michael Hughes" <michael (AT) entamedia (DOT) com> wrote

Hi All,

Bearing in mind that I was a designer long before
I was a HTML writer, have a look at these and let
me know what you think:

www.augmentis.net

Falls apart when I make my font larger.

The only thing a screen reader will see is the navigation links. Pictures of
text is not a good idea.

www.right4thejob.co.uk -- (And no, I didn't want the
animated gif clip-art or the flashing search button
either)

Fixed width. Fixed font. Tables for layout (unnecessary ).

Cheers
Richard.

Bearing in mind that I was a designer long before
I was a HTML writer, have a look at these and let
me know what you think:

www.augmentis.net

I always consider that if you have to explain what the company name means
then it's a crap name!

CJ

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments so far,

* Fixed width.

I know. I prefer liquid layouts, but in the case of
this site, there are some large paragraphs of text.
If I make the site 100%, and someone views with a high
resolution, they're going to get some very long lines of text,
unless there's some way I don't know.

As I'm fairly new to strict HTML and CSS layouts, I'm
prepared to take any comments on board. I've always
used tables because they provide a quick (therefore on
budget) and easy (for putting graphics wherever you want)
way to complete my clients jobs on time. I'm not making excuses,
I'd love to design better CSS sites, but learning takes time,
and I'm on the start of that journey.

* Tables for layout.

See above.

* Alt text doesn't include all the text in the image.

Dunno. I thought I'd put in what was appropriate.

* Lists not marked up as such

Only just learned that one, it's in a site I'm working
on at the moment.

* Headings not marked up as such

True. Guilty.

* Centred text isn't easy to read.

I know. There's not much tho' only on the contact page.

* HTML is invalid despite claims to the contry.

Dunno what to do about that. I ran it through
the W3C validator, it said it was valid, so I believed
it.

Fixed width. Fixed font. Tables for layout (unnecessary ).

It's not fixed font..? I can change the sizes from within IE and
Opera. Small/Medium etc. Unless there's something else I don't know
about?

The only thing a screen reader will see is the navigation links. Pictures of
text is not a good idea.

I know. But what to do when the client tells you to make
some text into graphics so it looks smoother/can have some
naff glow/shadow effect etc etc.

Thanks and regards

Michael.

Michael Hughes wrote:

I know. I prefer liquid layouts, but in the case of
this site, there are some large paragraphs of text.
If I make the site 100%, and someone views with a high
resolution, they're going to get some very long lines of text,
unless there's some way I don't know.

If someone has a very high resolution, then they probably don't use
maximised browser windows. If they do, then it is not difficult for them to
resize the window.

* HTML is invalid despite claims to the contry.

Dunno what to do about that. I ran it through
the W3C validator, it said it was valid, so I believed
it.

I want it through that validator, it said it was invalid.

Fixed width. Fixed font. Tables for layout (unnecessary ).

It's not fixed font..? I can change the sizes from within IE and
Opera. Small/Medium etc. Unless there's something else I don't know
about?

The only thing a screen reader will see is the navigation links. Pictures
of text is not a good idea.

I know. But what to do when the client tells you to make
some text into graphics so it looks smoother/can have some
naff glow/shadow effect etc etc.

Either:
(1) Ask them what is more important:
* Search engine placement
AND
* Ability to get the message to the widest possible audience
OR
* Look the way it looks

(2) Use better alt text (and still suffer loss of people who can't zoom it
and need to).

--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/20...ces-ie-is-dead

Michael Hughes wrote:

I know. I prefer liquid layouts, but in the case of
this site, there are some large paragraphs of text.
If I make the site 100%, and someone views with a high
resolution, they're going to get some very long lines of text,
unless there's some way I don't know.

If someone has a very high resolution, then they probably don't use
maximised browser windows. If they do, then it is not difficult for them to
resize the window.

You could also look in to the CSS max-width property (with em units)

* HTML is invalid despite claims to the contry.

Dunno what to do about that. I ran it through
the W3C validator, it said it was valid, so I believed
it.

I ran it through that validator too, it said it was invalid.

Fixed width. Fixed font. Tables for layout (unnecessary ).

It's not fixed font..? I can change the sizes from within IE and
Opera. Small/Medium etc. Unless there's something else I don't know
about?

Eh? I didn't say that. Oh, you've mixed in a big bunch of different peoples
comments without attribution (beyond the header that states the message is
a reply to mine).

The text embedded in images is of fixed size.

The only thing a screen reader will see is the navigation links. Pictures
of text is not a good idea.

I know. But what to do when the client tells you to make
some text into graphics so it looks smoother/can have some
naff glow/shadow effect etc etc.

Either:
(1) Ask them what is more important:
* Search engine placement
AND
* Ability to get the message to the widest possible audience
OR
* Look the way it looks

(2) Use better alt text (and still suffer loss of people who can't zoom it
and need to).

--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/20...ces-ie-is-dead

Michael Hughes wrote:

Some pages validate, some don't. The ones that don't usually have
something in the php that prevents this.

Nothing in PHP should prevent validation. The usual cause is people using
query strings with & seperators but failing to escape them.

http://www.google.com/search?q=example&num=200 for example should be written
as <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=example&amp;num=200"> in a link.
^^^^^


--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/20...ces-ie-is-dead