Comments and criticisms please (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Design] >> Site Critiques



Message

RickP -> Comments and criticisms please (6/20/2005 9:55:12)

Seeing that this is my own business website - offering web design! - I guess it should be judged quite critically [:(] but nice comments are welcome too [:D]

All comments/criticisms greatly appreciated

www.onthewebnow.co.uk

Thanks, Rick



Minix -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/20/2005 15:17:26)

Based on the look, the feel, the navigation and various other factors, I would not hire your company to design a web site for my business.

Too clinical. Too elementary.



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/20/2005 15:29:21)

quote:

Too clinical. Too elementary.


oh dear! - but thanks for the feedback Minix - can you expound a little upon the two factors you mention above.

Thanks



dpf -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/20/2005 19:23:31)

lots of grammar issues throughout:
this is particularily bad :
quote:

So whether you need a website creating
on page i you say: "OUR SERVICES ~
About our Service" be consistent - service or services... also do not underline if not a link.

I would ditch this paragraph:
quote:

There are numerous ways to acquire free web hosting for a basic site these days. The two main drawbacks of free services are: 1. You cannot use your own unique domain name; and, 2. Your host plasters your site with their advertising. If neither of these points are an issue to you then you do not need to pay anything for hosting space for a hobbyist website. If this route suits your needs for the present time then we advise that you investigate the various free hosting options. If you're unsure where to start contact us and we'll be happy to point you in the right direction. But if you need something a little more serious from your website and your hosting service read on...

you are soliciting small businesses for site design, right? why waste time addressing free hosting and hobby sites?
appearance-wise, not bad although I think the script links on the left dont make it




caz -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/20/2005 20:55:23)

10 warnings on the first page
- Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute

As you are claiming to meet W3C standards perhaps you should make sure that your own site does just that. It may be just a warning, rather than an error but is easily remedied.

What does this "a bulk standard" mean on the web design page?

I would drop the Georgia typeface because it looks too cramped and close to a serif font, which is not very legible; Trebouchet looks much better. You could also consider increasing your text line height to improve legibility and lose the cramped feeling.

Logos and documents page -"No job is complete until both you and us are completely satisfied with the quality of the end product." Tortuous? How about "Quality assurance is guaranteed."

Content and layout.

"We can create for you a template letterhead, custom forms for your, or your customers, ordering and many other print format documents. If you already have a document that needs 'finishing' to produce that respectable professional touch we can do that for you."

You should make more use of lists and cut down the verbiage, in order to save the customer's time and improve your layout.For example,

"We also design:-

  • letterhead templates
  • custom forms
  • custom print documents

We can give a professional "finish" to your own documents."

You only have a short time to make an impression so you have to make every word count, use white space effectively to assist in reading - anything you can do to save the prospective customers time will make them more predisposed to use your services.

Good luck,
Carol



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/21/2005 5:49:37)

Dan

Thanks for taking the trouble to read so much on the site. Text does need some editing I agree (including bulletting more often as Carol has pointed out) . With the links... is it the font on them or the rollover effect - or the bgnd shading ? ? ?

Carol

Likewise, thanks for such detail. I was unsure about font and in fact Trebuchet is my second choise in the CSS sheet. I just wanted the site to look friendly and not 'techie' and that it why I went for Georgia but may yet change it.

Home page errors... I haven't attempted to validate the because of the use of Flash Intro and the necessary method to embed and stream it in IE - I am careful to say on all the other site pages "this page meets... standards"

Thanks a lot to both of you - any further input still welcome [;)]



Nicole -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/21/2005 6:19:38)

Hi Rick,

It's really good that you've posted your own site for critique. I agree with the other comments so far, except for those of Minix, but I won't go there.

Firstly the Flash intro, i'm not a fan and am never a fan of flash, in your case it didn't seem to match the surrounding background colour and the music, sorry i really, really dislike a computer telling me what i should listen to, thankfully though you provided a thing in the top left where i could turn it off. But again, that volume control looks out of place also.

Next pages - You have a link back to the flash intro which i don't think is necessary, and I think you could do with some padding around the text in your link buttons. I also think that font is particularly difficult to read, speaking of fonts, i found there to be too many different fonts within each page.

I also found the credit card info appearing on each page a bit unnerving. Kind of like you want their money more than you really want to help their business along.

Others have mentioned it, but grammar and spelling is really of the utmost importance i feel when appearing on a web designers site. If potential clients are going to read your site and find grammatical errors then they're probably going to wonder whether you're going to put those same errors into their site.

You also mention how much things cost within your site quite a lot. I'm not sure what others think but I'd never disclose my prices on my website, not because they're dear, but just because it (to me) it continues the illusion that the designer is money hungry rather than offering a helpful service. Another reason, and perhaps one to remember, is that the busier you get, (which i'm finding out now), the less time you have to work on your own site, so the design you settle on will have to do you for a long time, and if prices go up, they'll have to be changed.

Where is your portfolio? I know when I look at another designer's site the portfolio is the first section i look at. If you haven't got one as yet, take some time to do some templates for some invented companies, validate them and then have them ready to use on real companies if they fit.

One big thing I find when looking at another designer's site is that often they try and do everything on their site that they can do, i.e. flash, music, etc. etc. etc, perhaps if they're important, put them on a template in your portflio?

Nicole



womble -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/21/2005 8:29:01)

Well, Nicole beat me to it and covered just about everything I was going to say. [;)]

I too am not a fan of Flash intros, and though it's a good flash intro, the style doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your site somehow.

I like the blue background, but there’s just too many different font styles going on there. The font style on the nav I find particularly difficult to read. I know you’ve got the alt tags there, but given your stated emphasis on accessibility, but as has already been sad, first impressions count.

On the page banner, the ‘you need a presence on the web’ text isn’t very distinct against the background – not enough contrast, and from a SEO point of view, you’re better using a <H1> tag for your main heading and styling it with CSS. As it is, the whole of the banner is one large graphic, which makes it less assessable to search engines and for accessibility (unless you’ve done some nifty image replacement that I’ve missed).

One last final point on accessibility – you seem to be relying on tables for your layout, rather than CSS.

I do like your colour scheme though, although I’m not sure about the pink hover on your links (tends to disappear against the background).



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/22/2005 8:29:38)

Nicole / Womble - thanks

All your comments are quite right!

Re the flash intro page - maybe the midi file should go at some point but I like it for the present (?) and I realise that the audio bar doesn't match but it does at least give visitors the option of controlling the sound. It is interesting that designers here don't like flash (I agree that it won't help with SEs and can easily be overused) but from recent experience it seems to be what customers and potential customers want on their sites. My current thinking is that one (hoefully good!) flash piece as an intro keeps it on one page and strikes a good compromise by keeping the rest of the site more accessible. Also, I think most would agree that by and large things that move shouldn't be on pages where you want people to seriously read your content - such is my thinking anyhow.

Portfolio... I have a few sites and intend to put a link to some of them and maybe a small screen shot or two on the page offering design

CSS layout... just plain confess that at present I haven't looked at CSS as a layout option [:(] - I'm very at home with tables but will most certainly switch at some point to the former.

I'll be tidying the site over the next week - especially fonts and text. Nice to have the constructive feedback which I can honestly say all confirms my plans for adjustments.

Big thanks to all [;)]



Nicole -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/22/2005 17:52:02)

Hi Rick,

A few reasons why I don’t like Flash:


  • I have a dial-up connection, usually takes forever to load
  • Some people compare the internet to television and others compare it to magazines….I’m one of the latter. With Flash I just get a sense that I’m not in control of this thing.
  • Flash to me is usually used to provide a long winded sales pitch. As designers we may be in the marketing/advertising game somewhat, but how many people like to watch ads?

Being as reluctant with Flash as I am, and unless I’m extremely interested in the information I’m after on a site, I’ll leave a site using it within seconds of seeing that a site using it. To a user on a dial-up connection, to me anyway, it’s as frustrating as clicking a link to a PDF file without knowing that it’s a PDF file that’s about to open.

It’s also all about a “first impression” thing. Your Flash intro is using a black background and the rest of that page is pale blue, it’s small and in the centre with a load of space around it. The music controls are not near the actual Flash movie itself and don’t blend with the rest of the page and the options underneath to skip the Flash intro are way too small and in blue on a blue background. Just out of interest have you seen how this looks to different versions of color blindness?

Your intro page has Flash and music, 2 things I particularly don’t like on a site, the fact that you’ve provided options for me to turn both off is an admittance that the designer knows that some viewers don’t like either or both.

Have a look at how other designers use flash interactively within a site and how they blend it with other information or creative designs on a page. I know I’m being quite harsh with my comments but to me a black box showing a movie in the middle of a pale blue page isn’t very appealing to me and possibly not to other potential clients.

Nicole



womble -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/23/2005 4:07:57)

Perhaps if you really don't want to lose the flash altogether you could put a link to it elsewhere on the site? That way your potential customers get straight to what they need to know, but they can still see an example of your Flash work?



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/23/2005 4:44:32)

Hi there

You mention that accessibility is important on your sites - you should look at this site for some tips such as making your contact form accessible which it isn't currently - http://www.accessify.com/default.asp There are ways of making flash accessible that are mentioned in the forum on that site, as are ways to make tables more accessible.

As mentioned previously - you need a full doc type declaration and make sure you get the alt tags in there too.

As a web designer you really need to be looking into tableless designs and CSS and you should probably be using HTML 4.01 strict at the very least - it's less painful to make the transition sooner rather than later.



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/23/2005 18:27:25)

Thanks All for further comments - the flash thing I well understand and mainly agree with - I too skip out of pages with flash to try to get to what I am searching for quickly - however... all here are 'fast' Internet surfers but not everyone is like that and it seems that (from some fair experience) there are many non-designers who like it - and want it on their sites.

I am in the process of revamping this site but will keep the flash intro for now but will turn the midi file off and just put a "turn on" button for any who wish to try it - need a script for that - ???

I have a DTD on all my pages... but I totally agree that I should be moving on from 4.01 transitional - totally intend to - I have a book on XHTML, which I will get to studying over the next few months

Will be looking at the forms and accessibility issue too - I'd already seen that link elsewhere here and bookmarked it ready to read up - Can't do it all at once though!

Having built and maintained a personal website for some years, last year I decided to go part-time (having one or two requests to build folk a site) I've been mainly busy with swatting up on all sorts since then and fully intend to incorporate as many best practices as I can. This forum has been a highly valued source for my learning and I hope in time I can put as much back as possible.

Nearly all comments on my site have been exactly as expected but great confirmation and one or two small additional elements have been a great help too. I am already a long way into the adjustments and hope to repost the site for reappraisal in a few days and so hope the same people can comment again - it'll still be 4.01 for now (and tables!) but hopefully the general design will be much improved - this was a work in progress anyhow not the site I've had there for the last year but a new one - something different!

Thanks again - back soon![;)]

Regards to all



Nicole -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/23/2005 18:54:43)

Hi Rick,

Is the book: "HTML For The World Wide Web with XHTML and CSS 5th Edition" by Elizabeth Castro?

If so, it's a great book, I use it very often.

Also, why don't you make the jump to XHTML 1.0? It really isn't that difficult once you get the hang of it.

Nicole



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/24/2005 3:07:35)

The doc type you have now isn't a complete doc type - it'll throw IE into Quirks Mode which may cause you problems.

Nicole's right though, XHTML has a lovely logic to it and isn't hard to grasp although you'll need to be a bit disciplined.

HTML will be phased out - not necessarily tomorrow or even in the next couple of years, but it'll go. Browsers will still understand it probably for a while - but it doesn't hurt to be using the next technology up.



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/24/2005 20:35:32)

Nicole/Tailside

Totally agree - the book I have at present is entitled "Web Publishing with HTML and XHTML" - Laura Lemay.

Here's some questions I was getting round to soon, but seeing we are now on the subject...

1. Am I correct in believing that XHTML 1.0 is the most advanced option for HTML? Therefore the best one to concentrate on for the present time?

2. In FrontPage help it says that it can be XHTML compliant in the code it writes (though not offering extra XHTML features). Just check this box it says!... I tried it and straight away noticed that it didn't include end tags for breaks - it writes <br> as opposed to <br/> (I have at least read the intro in my book[;)]) - do you have any experience of using FP for writing XHTML compliant code?

3. On the above subject still... Which editor is best for XHTML? (and please don't say Notepad!)

That'll do for starters - any answers/suggestions appreciated as always

Thanks



womble -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 4:08:47)

Hi Rick,

1) Yes, XHTML Strict if you're going to go all the way.

2) Um...can't comment on this as I switched software when I switched to xhtml

3) I use TopStyle Pro. There's a lite version that's free and you can download that, or a trial version of TopStyle Pro from their site. I like it because once you've got your start tags in, it automatically puts in your end tags (useful if like me you're rather forgetful!) as well as helpfully showing a list of required and optional attributes, validating with the W3C from within the program, and previewing with multiple browsers. I've heard that Dreamweaver's supposed to be good for xhtml, and I know there are others that are supposed to be good too. I went for Topstyle though on cost grounds - very cheap for what it does.



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 4:47:31)

Hi Rick

XHTML is the bridge between HTML and XML - it's basically HTML written in an XML-type format. I use XHTML 1.0 strict because it's closer to XML than XHTML transitional but it doesn't have some of the compatibility problems that the later XHTML 1.1 has (*cough IE* ). I guess it's just a good idea to get into the disciplined XML frame of mind.

I haven't created an XHTML site from scratch in FP - I use HTML-kit for writing sites - but one of my clients uses FP to update a site I wrote without too much difficulty. I have to say though that I'd recommend moving away from FP as, once you know what you're doing with the code, FP seems to be a hindrance on occassion - changing stuff around to suit what it thinks you want etc etc. I don't use FP so I may be wrong on this one.

There are lots of good, free HTML editors out there - it's a case of which interface you prefer. TopStyle Pro gets good reviews as does HTML-Kit. Have a look on download.com at HTML editors - there are reviews of the packages too, it might help make up your mind.



Kitka -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 5:20:17)

quote:

There are lots of good, free HTML editors out there


A client recently required a free WYSIWYG editor, for his html newsletters. I searched around and found NVu, which is open-source and has versions available for Windows, Macs and Linux:

http://www.nvu.com/

They claim:
quote:

Its remarkable support of XML, CSS and JavaScript offers the best authoring platform on the market. Its architecture based on XUL makes it the most extensible editing tool ever.


I haven't played with it myself, but it looked impressive when installed on our client's computer and he seems happy with its capabilities.

Maybe this would fit the bill for you Rick?



dpf -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 8:05:31)

quote:

I'd recommend moving away from FP
bear in mind that this is an FP based forum.



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 9:15:51)

Unlike a lot of web designers, I don't want to trash FrontPage out of hand. FP is a tool and as such it's how it's used that produces good or bad results.

That said (and bearing in mind that I don't use it) it seems from an outsider's point of view that using FP has a distinct usefulness curve whereby using FP is very useful and helpful when you're starting out - the curve continues rising while your experience does. But it seems to reach a point where the usefulness of FP starts decreasing again when your experience reaches a certain level.

The pattern seems to be that people often start out on FP and once they reach a certain level they move away to HTML editors. Often they eventually move to Notepad. Presumably then, given this type of reverse technological interface move, in about 10 years time I'll be writing websites on post-its and sticking them onto the hard-drive.




dpf -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 9:19:30)

I too started out in fp and have moved away from it - however, there are a number of successful web designers on here who do very good work exclusively in fp and many beginners who are nowhere near ready to move away from fp. I was just offering a cautionary note as I too sometimes find myself discouraging the use of fp and then stop myself - reminding myself that this is an fp based forum.



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 9:24:09)

roger, wilco



womble -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 12:59:19)

quote:

The pattern seems to be that people often start out on FP and once they reach a certain level they move away to HTML editors. Often they eventually move to Notepad. Presumably then, given this type of reverse technological interface move, in about 10 years time I'll be writing websites on post-its and sticking them onto the hard-drive.

[sm=lol.gif] [sm=lol.gif] [sm=lol.gif]

I moved over to Topstyle a couple of months ago, which I really get on with. That said, I'm just so slow at hand coding, the past couple of days I've tried going back in part to FP so I can just type as normal, use the nice easy WYSIWYG FP interface, then stick it through TopStyle's HTML tidy.



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 13:30:02)

quote:

ORIGINAL: womble

I moved over to Topstyle a couple of months ago, which I really get on with. That said, I'm just so slow at hand coding, the past couple of days I've tried going back in part to FP so I can just type as normal, use the nice easy WYSIWYG FP interface, then stick it through TopStyle's HTML tidy.


This is a completely sensible way of operating. I don't think there's a professional designer out there that just uses one package.



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 19:42:12)

Useful discussion here - not at all what I expected! - I just thought most folk would come back and say "Dreamweaver"

I am busy with so much at present but my vague thinking has been that it'll be interesting to see/hear what happens when the next edition of FP and DW come out. As I think about moving on to XHTML (can someone define the different versions - i.e. 1.0 - strict etc. which is the latest?) I am wondering if the next editions of these editors will be much more compliant and will make the job easier (?)




dpf -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/25/2005 20:05:05)

in my opinion, DW writes totally compliant code. one big difference.... in fp when a novice wysiwyg user selects a font, font color and size, fp automatically (at least in 2002)used the depricated <font> tag which requires spelling out font, color size family etc. at @ usage (paragraph for example).
when the novice wysiwyg user makes the same selection in DW, it automatically treats that as an embedded css and labels it style1. both fp and dw can handle css (in-line, embedded and external) if an experienced user selects it but dw defaults to it so its code is always less bloated.
also, in my experience, fp is unable to handle the fundamental colspan and rowspan attributes whereas dw does easily and correctly



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/26/2005 4:09:47)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RickP

Useful discussion here - not at all what I expected! - I just thought most folk would come back and say "Dreamweaver"

I am busy with so much at present but my vague thinking has been that it'll be interesting to see/hear what happens when the next edition of FP and DW come out. As I think about moving on to XHTML (can someone define the different versions - i.e. 1.0 - strict etc. which is the latest?) I am wondering if the next editions of these editors will be much more compliant and will make the job easier (?)



Dreamweaver is very expensive and quite complicated to learn. I remember reading a comparison (similar to one Caz is talking about elsewhere) earlier this year about WYSIWYG editors and whether their code was bloated etc etc. All the WYSIWYG editors added "stuff" to the page that wasn't strictly speaking wanted - I think DW was the best of them - but someone still had to manually check the code. As long as you really understand the code then it doesn't matter which you choose to use - you'll be able to fix the code if necessary. Problems have arisen in these types of editors historically when people don't understand the code and always stay in the design view.

XHTML has several flavours (ignoring frameset versions):

XHTML 1.0 transitional - allows "old style" formatting - don't see any advantage of using it.
XHTML 1.0 strict - IMO the best one to aim for currently. All formatting via CSS.
XHTML 1.1 - Don't bother currently as IE chokes on it.
XHTML 2.0 - currently just in draft form as far as I know.

Edit: There's a tutorial here - sorry if it's stuff you already know! http://academ.hvcc.edu/~kantopet/xhtml/index.php
Edit again: oh here's one I forgot that's good: http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/recap/



RickP -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/26/2005 8:49:57)

"XHTML 1.0 strict..."

Does everyone here agree that the above is the best way to currently go?

Thanks for further info - will read the tutorials once I get properly under way with this. I am fine with HTML 4.01 and what I call 'general CSS'. Would I be right in generalising XHTML 1.0 as basically meaning:

1. all tags closed
2. ALL formatting is CSS and mostly (all?) in external style sheet
3. hence, smaller HTML pages

Am I on the right track here?



Tailslide -> RE: Comments and criticisms please (6/26/2005 9:07:42)

Rick

You're never going to get everyone agreeing on ANYTHING in this business!! There's a big semantics argument about whether you should bother using XHTML or stick with HTML strict as it's mostly served up as text anyway and therefore no advantage of having the extra XML-type stuff (that's a technical term). My view is it does no harm to use XHTML strict, it'll get you in the habit for when we all have to move on to more rigid XML language and it helps future-proof your sites to a certain extent (HTML will be phased out).

If you can use HTML 4.01 strict then you can use XHTML - they're very similar. Whether you go for XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional is up to you - I enjoy making my life difficult plus I'm lazy - so I felt that it was easier to learn the slightly tougher language and get it over with rather than learn one version now and another later!

XHTML summary (from "Designing with Standards" by Eric Zeldman - very good book)
quote:


1. Open with proper DOCTYPE and namespace
2. Declare your content type using the META content element
3. Write all element and attribute names in lowercase
4. Quote all attribute values
5. Assign values to all attributes
6. Close all tags
7. Close "empty" tags with a space and a slash
8. Do not put double dashes inside a comment
9. Ensure that < and ampersand are written using their encoded characters


That's it apart from yes, all formatting is CSS either External, In-line or embedded. Used correctly it should slim down file sizes enormously and make editing sites much much easier. Like everything though it's easy enough to build a huge site using CSS if you try!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1572266