site critique request

#1

Hi,

I work on one website for a while now and want your opinion and tips for
improvement.
My website is in Dutch, the url is: http://www.vakantiefeestdagen.nl/

Thank a lot! [I hope ;-)]
Wouter

#2

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:42:27 +0100, Wouter <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) mail.for.me> wrote:

Quote:

I work on one website for a while now and want your opinion and tips for
improvement.
My website is in Dutch, the url is: http://www.vakantiefeestdagen.nl/

- Table layout: don't do that. The content of your page is _not_ tabular data.
Use appropriate mark up and add css for the presentation.
- 30kB (excluding the imported external files) for hardly any content on your
entry page: way too big for comfort.
- Inline styles: not good. Are a maintenance desaster to happen.
- Fixed width: harmful for your site, since part of your page disappears and
makes me have to right scroll to find out what's there.
- px For font-size: px are generaly a bad idea on screen. Google to find out why.
- Microfonts on inputbuttons: I can't read them unless I change my browser
settings. Now, why would I do that just to fix a flaw in your design?

Please read back about a week or two in this group, in alt.html,
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
and, because you're Dutch: nl.internet.www.ontwerp.
Read those groups, pick up the general ideas and concepts on design. Then ask
again.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#3

Thanks!

Quote:

- Fixed width: harmful for your site, since part of your page disappears
and
makes me have to right scroll to find out what's there.

I though the center part was not fixed width, by design (HTML 100% valid on
that part), only minimal width and I though it works (at least not in MSIE 6
and Mozilla 1.3+ and on a Mac)?

Quote:

- px For font-size: px are generaly a bad idea on screen. Google to find
out why.

Hmm.. yes, I should fix the 2 buttons on the right

- thanks I had
forgotten about these.

Quote:

- 30kB (excluding the imported external files) for hardly any content on
your
entry page: way too big for comfort.

Hmm.. I see what you mean with the 30Kb+.. I did not notice that, so I
should put the menu and header in some iframes (so they will only load
once)?
BTW. did you notice your frontpage is 38KB+ and all other pages 30KB+
(http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/), notice the iframe and .css. (NOT to
dis you, just like I did not notice it for my page, you probably didn't for
yours?). Do notice that my webserver uses GZIP to send the webpages to the
client, zo the actual download is less than 7.5KB.

I'll have a look at how to define non pixel sized fonts without destrooing
the page lay-out.
It's hard to do in my opinion, because the menu with is not easilly to make
dynamic.
What I want is the menu borders to just fit it's content and that all blocks
on one side are equally wide (that gives more rest for the eye).
I found that hard to do with non fixed fontsizes, but if you have any tips
on that I'm happy to learn!!!

Thanks,
Wouter

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

: On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:42:27 +0100, Wouter <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) mail.for.me> wrote:
:
: > I work on one website for a while now and want your opinion and tips for
: > improvement.
: > My website is in Dutch, the url is: http://www.vakantiefeestdagen.nl/
: >
:
: - Table layout: don't do that. The content of your page is _not_ tabular
data.
: Use appropriate mark up and add css for the presentation.
: - 30kB (excluding the imported external files) for hardly any content on
your
: entry page: way too big for comfort.
: - Inline styles: not good. Are a maintenance desaster to happen.
: - Fixed width: harmful for your site, since part of your page disappears
and
: makes me have to right scroll to find out what's there.
: - px For font-size: px are generaly a bad idea on screen. Google to find
out why.
: - Microfonts on inputbuttons: I can't read them unless I change my browser
: settings. Now, why would I do that just to fix a flaw in your design?
:
:
: Please read back about a week or two in this group, in alt.html,
: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
: and, because you're Dutch: nl.internet.www.ontwerp.
: Read those groups, pick up the general ideas and concepts on design. Then
ask
: again.
:
: --
: ,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
: | weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
: | webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
: |zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
: `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

#4

DO YOU HAVE STAIRS IN YOUR HOUSE WOUTER LOL ^)_^

#5

Quote:

DO YOU HAVE STAIRS IN YOUR HOUSE WOUTER LOL ^)_^

Sorry I don't understand your remark.
What makes you think I live in a house?
And why would I consider stairs?

if it's a remark on the pixel part.
stairs do not hold the floors of the upper levels
the levels are just hold on a fixed height by the walls

Wouter

#6

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:17:35 +0100, Wouter <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) mail.for.me> wrote:

Quote:

- Fixed width: harmful for your site, since part of your page disappears
and
makes me have to right scroll to find out what's there.

I though the center part was not fixed width, by design (HTML 100% valid on
that part), only minimal width and I though it works (at least not in MSIE 6
and Mozilla 1.3+ and on a Mac)?

I didn't look into it. I just noticed the scrollbar. Why would it be there if
not because of a fixed (or min-width) design?

Quote:

- 30kB (excluding the imported external files) for hardly any content on
your
entry page: way too big for comfort.

Hmm.. I see what you mean with the 30Kb+.. I did not notice that, so I
should put the menu and header in some iframes (so they will only load
once)?
BTW. did you notice your frontpage is 38KB+ and all other pages 30KB+

Yes, but unlike the page you put up for a critique, mine actually carry content.

Quote:

Do notice that my webserver uses GZIP to send the webpages to the
client, zo the actual download is less than 7.5KB.

I don't understand. How do I get 30kB of page if not received as such?

Quote:

I'll have a look at how to define non pixel sized fonts without destrooing
the page lay-out.
It's hard to do in my opinion, because the menu with is not easilly to make
dynamic.

Why do you think so? Look again at my pages (or those of any of the regulars
here) and you see how it's done. It is actually very easy. Use ems or other
relative size unit to style both font-size and box sizes and you're okay.

Quote:

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news

psk7cces0x5vgts (AT) zoete_b (DOT) ..
: On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:42:27 +0100, Wouter <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) mail.for.me> wrote:
:
: > I work on one website for a while now and want your opinion and tips for
: > improvement.

Please, snip the part you do not reply to. Keep the size of your posts down and
keep all content relavant.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#7

Quote:

I though the center part was not fixed width, by design (HTML 100% valid
on
that part), only minimal width and I though it works (at least not in
MSIE 6
and Mozilla 1.3+ and on a Mac)?
I didn't look into it. I just noticed the scrollbar. Why would it be there
if
not because of a fixed (or min-width) design?

Probably because you have a small screen resolution?
And yes, it has a minimal width, that's just the fancy part; scales
infinitly but srinks only till a serten level.
Minimal logo width (765) + advertisement width (120) + 2 pixel border = 887
pixels < 1024 pixels.
So I assume you don't have a 1024x786 or larger screen.

If the whole site has a fixed width (so not only the menu), the site will
not use the full width while it can, so people need to scroll while they
wouldn't have. And that's a pitty right?

Quote:

Yes, but unlike the page you put up for a critique, mine actually carry
content.
Well all my 50+ pages do, exept the text on the homepage, that's just

explaining what you can do on the website, people need to know what they get
if they become a free member... (e.g. just extra site functionality, that
can't be given without loggin in, due to privacy problems)
But I think the menulinks are content too..

Quote:

Do notice that my webserver uses GZIP to send the webpages to the
client, zo the actual download is less than 7.5KB.
I don't understand. How do I get 30kB of page if not received as such?
Because all webbrowsers (NN 4+, MSIE 5+ etc) support receiving pages in

zipped form.
So you can reduce the size of the packages the user will receive by sending
it compressed.
The more tekst there is on the page, the better you can compress it (because
of the way .zip compresses).

Quote:

Why do you think so? Look again at my pages (or those of any of the
regulars
here) and you see how it's done. It is actually very easy. Use ems or
other
relative size unit to style both font-size and box sizes and you're okay.
Well.. your menu's take time before they are shown.

Some times more then 3 seconds on my XP2000+ system.

I like the <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Site
Updates" href="xml/rss_actueel.xml"> part.

Do you know that your submenu's on:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/disclaimer.html
if you mouseover Index for example, do not work in MSIE 6?

On a very old website:
http://www.professional-webmaster.com/
(made in 2000 and only links are updated in 2002).
The <ul> <li> system of menu structures are also utilized (I think).

Notice that blind people will find your left menu on the bottom of your
page.

And then again, I would like to have serveral boxes, all the same size.
And what if people do not support css? On my current design they will see
the same layout.
I also want to use the FieldSets I use now, I'm not sure if that will be
shown well on MSIE 5 on a Mac for example if I replace the inner part of it
with a <div> tag that has variable (not fixed) pixel size.

By the way, could you please tell me what browser does not support zooming
this fixed pixel sized font?
I mean, I do not get the reason, why not to specify 12px font-size. I mean
people can zoom (MSIE even with + en - on my size, altough it does not yet
remember the zoom status for the next page), and set their browser zoomed if
they need that.
So why use em (I don't know what is stands for) and not a fixed size that
should look the same in all browsers?

Quote:

Please, snip the part you do not reply to. Keep the size of your posts
down and
keep all content relavant.
ok

Wouter

#8

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:35:17 +0100, Wouter <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) mail.for.me> wrote:

Quote:

I though the center part was not fixed width, by design (HTML 100% valid
on
that part), only minimal width and I though it works (at least not in
MSIE 6
and Mozilla 1.3+ and on a Mac)?
I didn't look into it. I just noticed the scrollbar. Why would it be there
if
not because of a fixed (or min-width) design?

Probably because you have a small screen resolution?

Has nothing to do with resolution. All with size of viewport. Mine is approx
760px wide and that is a very normal size. If you set a min-width, set it
smaller, not for me, but generaly it is not a good idea to make the appearance
of a page too wide.

Quote:

And yes, it has a minimal width, that's just the fancy part; scales
infinitly but srinks only till a serten level.
Minimal logo width (765) + advertisement width (120) + 2 pixel border = 887
pixels < 1024 pixels.
So I assume you don't have a 1024x786 or larger screen.

I do. But like milions and milions of people my viewport is less wide. A site
must be very attractive or very necessary for me to make it full screen. Could
yours be? If not for me, for other people?

Quote:

If the whole site has a fixed width (so not only the menu), the site will
not use the full width while it can, so people need to scroll while they
wouldn't have. And that's a pitty right?

Liquid design, fluid desdign. What ever. Google for it.

Quote:

Why do you think so? Look again at my pages (or those of any of the
regulars
here) and you see how it's done. It is actually very easy. Use ems or
other
relative size unit to style both font-size and box sizes and you're okay.

Well.. your menu's take time before they are shown.
Some times more then 3 seconds on my XP2000+ system.

That is because the page has to load first. In the html structure, the menu is
all the way down.

Quote:

I like the <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Site
Updates" href="xml/rss_actueel.xml"> part.

Why?

Quote:

Do you know that your submenu's on:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/disclaimer.html
if you mouseover Index for example, do not work in MSIE 6?

Duh. Like I wouldn't know. IE is a damned crappy fucking lousy browser. I
provide for the web. People with IE can navigate through my entire site with
ease. It's their loss the menu doesn't work optimal.

Quote:

Notice that blind people will find your left menu on the bottom of your
page.

Like they are supposed to. Would you like to tab through the same lengthy menu
page after page after damned page before getting to any of the content?

What are you doing anyway? It is you who put your site up for a critique. Not me
for my site. Take the critique I gave and decide what to do with it.

<snipped all the rest as it is so very basic>

Read some discussions in here (and alt.html, comp.infosystems.www.authoring.*)
and then make up your mind. I am not some service that gives out summaries of
common knowledge for free. Also I hate to repeat what gets said in here over and
over again.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#9

Quote:

Has nothing to do with resolution. All with size of viewport. Mine is
approx
760px wide and that is a very normal size. If you set a min-width, set it
smaller, not for me, but generaly it is not a good idea to make the
appearance
of a page too wide.

You are right.
I just checkt, over the last 3 weeks, almost 16% of the visitors have a
smaller view width than 990 pixels on my website (I don't check screen
sizes, only view space

).

Quote:

Well.. your menu's take time before they are shown.
Some times more then 3 seconds on my XP2000+ system.
That is because the page has to load first. In the html structure, the
menu is
all the way down.
Well.. that's not very user fiendly is it?

Looking @ http://www.professional-webmaster.com/ the render time of the menu
is way faster.

Quote:

I like the <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Site
Updates" href="xml/rss_actueel.xml"> part.
Why?
Because I didn't know this way of coding.

And it makes it easy to include links on pages.

Quote:

Do you know that your submenu's on:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/disclaimer.html
if you mouseover Index for example, do not work in MSIE 6?
Duh. Like I wouldn't know. IE is a damned crappy fucking lousy browser. I
provide for the web. People with IE can navigate through my entire site
with
ease. It's their loss the menu doesn't work optimal.
Ah, so you blame over 90% of your users .. funny.

Quote:

What are you doing anyway? It is you who put your site up for a critique.
Not me
for my site. Take the critique I gave and decide what to do with it.
Sorry..

I was hoping for sugestion for improvement.
You sugested your menu, and I told you what I disliked about it, and hoping
someone has a fix for that part, so we both profit from it.
Sorry if it feels like an attack, that's not the perpose.

Quote:

snipped all the rest as it is so very basic
Hmm..

em and px are basic question things?
It's not very common, the questions I gave you (does it look the same on the
Mac if one uses em) will be answered with NO.
So that's why I asked, why not use px instead of em.
And maybe those are basic for you, not for me.
And not many sites do discuss them in detail.

Wouter

#10

Wouter wrote:

[Please don't snip attributes. Barbara wrote:]

Quote:

That is because the page has to load first. In the html
structure, the menu is all the way down.

As it should be. Providing a "jump to navigation" link (hidden by CSS)
is also a good idea.

Quote:

Well.. that's not very user fiendly is it?

Yes, it is. If I were a blind user with a reader, I would not want to
listen to the same ten or twenty links before I got to the content
every time I move to a new page.

Quote:

Looking @ http://www.professional-webmaster.com/ the render time of
the menu is way faster.

You've mentioned this page before. Why? What menu?
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna...webfirefox.png
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagna...ofwebopera.png

It doesn't work in IE either, but I think you have enough screen shots.

Quote:

Hmm.. em and px are basic question things? It's not very common,
the questions I gave you (does it look the same on the Mac if one
uses em) will be answered with NO. So that's why I asked, why not
use px instead of em. And maybe those are basic for you, not for
me. And not many sites do discuss them in detail.

If you use px (or pt or other explicit size), all of your IE visitors
will not be able to resize your text. Why penalize them? In fact, IE
(and all other browsers) works best if you define your font sizes as
percentages.

body { font-size: 100%; }

This is an extremely common topic in these authoring groups.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.