Please help me decide (Full Version)

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



Message

TravelswCharlie -> Please help me decide (3/3/2007 15:20:33)

Please help me decide...

1. Whether to change from FrontPage 2003 to Expression Web.

and

2. Whether to keep my basic design or change to one with only a few top level menu choices (which I've read here is recommended).

I've already spent the money for Expression Web, so that's not a consideration. The time to do the changeover when that time might be better spent on developing and improving content is the question.

My website is:

http://www.campingandrving.com/

While it does not pass W3C validation, it displays properly in as many different browsers as I could find people willing to test and is pretty well indexed by the search engines.

I’ve downloaded various tools, including “HTML Tidy” to clean up FrontPage, but have not yet tried to use them, because they look to be about as much work as upgrading to Expression Web.

I haven’t yet started on “Accessibility” (being in the US, where it is not yet a requirement), but from what I can see, it looks like FrontPage will handle that OK.

I was just about to take the plunge and go ahead with Expression Web, then read the thread started by RemodelingGuy, who said that his “non-compliant” FrontPage site indexes “like a well-oiled machine”, and no one fussed at him about it. So I began to wonder if I should just dig in and work on content and general improvement instead of taking on such a major task.

Now about the second question, the design:

I'm not a programmer (I’m a writer). I program only for my own stuff, and until I found FrontPage, I did very little of that.

My many years as a writer of user manuals shows in my web design, and is the reason I'm happy with a navigation menu that looks more like a table of contents than a website menu.

I started with a professionally-built template, so I feel reasonably confident about the professional “look and feel” of my basic design, but, after reading comments here, I wonder if I’ve added too many menu items.

I knew that a “technical” website should be organized more tightly… but my thinking was that a website for an informal topic should be more informal.

I wanted it to look more like a book where subjects are in clear view, so the reader could browse without having to open menu items to see what else was there.

For example, my readers would, typically, be interested in knowing more about RVing, but would not know which subjects should be included, as they would with a technical subject.

They would find out about different subjects only by browsing… so I’ve tried to make browsing as easy as possible.

But… while those considerations represent my thinking, and are valid in the print world, I recognize the fact that the web is different… so I’ve come here to ask for your advice.

Thanks for your help,

CJ
http://www.campingandrving.com/






RickP -> RE: Please help me decide (3/3/2007 16:31:53)

Hi CJ

As for FP2003 & EW: I'm just trialing EW now myself. I rarely use the wysiwyg features these days but I'm sure when I do need help with the code EW will prove much more useful to me. I also like the way it color codes style sheets which FP didn't do. If you're aiming at 'standards' then it will be a more helpful tool to use all round I think - such is my thinking after a week or two of trying it so far.

I've just had a v. quick overview of your site. It doesn't look bad or garish in any way IMO but it does lack images! - too much text, text, text to read and not enough imagery to break it up and make the site look more friendly.

The nav is a little inconsistent too. Some pages are hightlighted when being visited others aren't and the text above the nav on some pages make the whole nav bob up and down when changing pages.

I've not read content so can't comment on that. Hope this little input helps for a starters.




jaybee -> RE: Please help me decide (3/3/2007 17:29:36)

quote:

I haven’t yet started on “Accessibility” (being in the US, where it is not yet a requirement),
Not quite true. It's not a law set in stone, "Your web site must comply" as it is in the UK but beware of the ADA which although it doesn't explicitly say web sites, implies that they must be accessible in the same way that premises must be. They currently have the Target DIY chain in Court for an inaccessible web site.

Basically if your country has a disability act then unless it specifically says "does not include......." then it can be used to cover just about anything.

We didn't jump on Remodelling Guy because it's taken about a year to get where he is and we'd all like a few months off. [;)]

No seriously, he's done a lot of work on that site to get it where it is now, we'll give him a few months respite and then ..................................

If your site is found to be inaccessible by a visitor you should get a request to fix it, as long as you do that within a decent timescale then you'll be OK. Target are in trouble because they refused, then gave the legal people the run around and generally got up everybody's nose, so now they're gonna get 'em.

If you have EW then I think it's daft not to give it a go. Yes it's work but you will end up with a site that is reasonably futureproofed and you get to keep coming on here to talk to the lovely people. [:D]



TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/3/2007 18:33:49)

Thanks, Rick.

I knew I have a problem with the nav bars... I just hadn't tackled it yet because I needed to make the larger decisions about which editor to use.

And... I knew I need more photos, but I didn't know I had too much text... I thought I had solved that problem by keeping my articles short.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Photos are a real problem for me. They can't be just "pretty pictures"... they need to tie into my text, and then I have to get written permission to use them, and that hasn't been easy.

I've always been scared to use photos that I didn't take myself, but even more so after Jaybee and others were talking about some legal action that is being taken recently.

Maybe if (WHEN???) my website becomes better known, I'll have better luck getting people to answer and give me permission.

Thanks again!

CJ




Tailslide -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 5:33:01)

Hi CJ

I'd say that if you have the time then it's a good idea to try to get to grips with EW as it will help build your site on firm foundations for the future and, if as I assume it does, it builds your site using CSS layouts rather than tables - it will make the site much much easier to maintain, update and completely change around if you so choose!

As far as your current site goes - well frankly I've seen professional sites that are a lot worse!

I think that you could do with making your headings "real" headings (i.e. h1, h2, h3 etc tags) rather than just make the text bigger/bolder. That should help you with Search Engine rankings and it will make the site more accessible as screenreaders can navigate the site using headings. You can style the heading tags to look however you like so you're not stuck with the default h1 styling for instance.

I'd give your links a greater contrast with the background on hover as they're a little pale at the moment when you put the mouse on them.

Apart from that, the only criticism I have is that it took me a while to figure out that the links down the left are the same as the links down the right - at first glance it was a bit overwhelming as it looks like there are dozens of links! (that might just be me though - it's Sunday morning after all!).

Far as the photo thing goes - you can always buy stock photos - have a look here: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=rv&x=0&y=0 They cost from $2 each and it's a reputable company (well, it's Getty!).



d a v e -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 11:56:43)

hey! how did you get a scrolling favicon???



Tailslide -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 12:14:57)

You can get them here: http://www.chami.com/html-kit/services/favicon/



jaybee -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 12:15:33)

Create an animated gif 16x16

upload it to the host along with your static favicon

put this in the head

<link rel="shortcut icon" href="img/favicon.ico" >
<link rel="icon" href="img/animated_favicon1.gif" type="image/gif" >

I think that's the way but I'm told it also works if you just upload an animated gif file and then rename it to favicon.ico

Only works in Firefox though so make sure the first frame of the gif is something that makes sense.

[edit]looking at CJ's code, he's done it the first way.



d a v e -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 12:35:08)

thanks you guys - i'm such a noob ;)



jaybee -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 12:47:21)

You'd be amazed what you can do with animated gifs. One site I used one as the hover image on a menu button, it made a little helicopter fly across it, the kids loved it.



TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 14:32:59)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

quote:

I haven’t yet started on “Accessibility” (being in the US, where it is not yet a requirement),
Not quite true. It's not a law set in stone, "Your web site must comply" as it is in the UK but beware of the ADA which although it doesn't explicitly say web sites, implies that they must be accessible in the same way that premises must be. They currently have the Target DIY chain in Court for an inaccessible web site.

Basically if your country has a disability act then unless it specifically says "does not include......." then it can be used to cover just about anything.

We didn't jump on Remodelling Guy because it's taken about a year to get where he is and we'd all like a few months off. [;)]

No seriously, he's done a lot of work on that site to get it where it is now, we'll give him a few months respite and then ..................................

If your site is found to be inaccessible by a visitor you should get a request to fix it, as long as you do that within a decent timescale then you'll be OK. Target are in trouble because they refused, then gave the legal people the run around and generally got up everybody's nose, so now they're gonna get 'em.

If you have EW then I think it's daft not to give it a go. Yes it's work but you will end up with a site that is reasonably futureproofed and you get to keep coming on here to talk to the lovely people. [:D]



Thanks, Jaybee.

It had not even occurred to me that my site might get cited as inaccessible. I thought they’d go after only the big guys. But I wouldn’t try to get out of doing it… I just meant to say why I hadn’t started it yet.

I didn’t start it on day one because… guess what?… I didn’t even know about those special requirements until I started reading here.

I don’t know why I hadn’t heard about it, but them’s the facts.

I even (a couple of years ago) asked a fellow Rver to show me his reading machine and how it works, thinking I’d do a story on it. But he didn’t say anything about special requirments of the web site, and may not even have known, himself.

OK… so that’s one reason to change… FrontPage can do it… but maybe not as well as Expression Web… and that’s one less thing I’d have to re-do when I finally do upgrade.

Oh… now I see why you were not fussing at RemodelingGuy! And no one even beat up on him for being from Texas! That’s two gold stars for the forum!

Another is for the way you all were so good to that teacher a few days ago who was saddled with a job for which he or she had no training... and no help from "administration". I was cheering for you!

Thanks very much!

CJ





TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 14:40:34)

OK, that’s three votes to go ahead and bite the bullet now and go to Expression Web.

Another is that there are so many “beginner” errors that need to be fixed and if I have to spend that time, it would be better spent fixing them right.

I still admire FrontPage a lot. When I go back to fix something, I’m often amazed to see that it wasn’t caused by FrontPage, it was me, trying to do it myself in code.

My headers are “real” headers… H1, H1, etc. I wonder why they look otherwise?

At first I was using a lot of larger and more “decorative” fonts… mostly just italics and some colored blue to add interest to the pages where I have no photos. Then I started to worry that it may look amateurish, so I cut back to more plain vanilla.

MY GOODNESS! How did you do that photos search??

I had looked at istockphotos before and couldn’t find my way around. Obviously, I need to go study the help files.

Thanks for getting me started there!

The little pictures/menu items down the right side of the screen are dear to my heart, but I see your point. It’s confusing to have the same items down both sides.

Originally, I had a small photo plus a short little paragraph to describe each menu item (section), but I did not make enough room for words so some of the descriptions made no sense. So I eventually had to delete the descriptions.

What about this???

What if I were to make more space so I could put in a real description, remove the menu that’s now on the left side, and have picture/menu items down both sides? (One each… not the same items on both sides as it is now)

Thanks very much!

CJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailslide

Hi CJ

I'd say that if you have the time then it's a good idea to try to get to grips with EW as it will help build your site on firm foundations for the future and, if as I assume it does, it builds your site using CSS layouts rather than tables - it will make the site much much easier to maintain, update and completely change around if you so choose!

As far as your current site goes - well frankly I've seen professional sites that are a lot worse!

I think that you could do with making your headings "real" headings (i.e. h1, h2, h3 etc tags) rather than just make the text bigger/bolder. That should help you with Search Engine rankings and it will make the site more accessible as screenreaders can navigate the site using headings. You can style the heading tags to look however you like so you're not stuck with the default h1 styling for instance.

I'd give your links a greater contrast with the background on hover as they're a little pale at the moment when you put the mouse on them.

Apart from that, the only criticism I have is that it took me a while to figure out that the links down the left are the same as the links down the right - at first glance it was a bit overwhelming as it looks like there are dozens of links! (that might just be me though - it's Sunday morning after all!).

Far as the photo thing goes - you can always buy stock photos - have a look here: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=rv&x=0&y=0 They cost from $2 each and it's a reputable company (well, it's Getty!).




Tailslide -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 15:02:03)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

My headers are “real” headers… H1, H1, etc. I wonder why they look otherwise?



Aha! I see - some are, some aren't (i only looked at the top of the page!). Your top "camping and RVing" isn't a proper heading - and that should be a H1 as it's the most important one on your page. Not a major issue but it should help with Search Engines etc.



TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 15:13:22)

I bet the kids would love that!

And I'd love to have a little RV heading up a road, but after reading the comments to the guy who has the little machine digging dirt and scrolling text saying "we dig what we do", I'm not so sure.

Another thing I'd like to do would be have an RV heading up a mountainside with a lot of sky showing... and have the sky change from bright blue to sunset to stars to autumn leaves falling, to snow flakes falling.

Would that be possible?

I saw a site for a guy who makes things like Tiffanny glass lampshades. At first you see just a dull color lamp in the dark, then you click a button to turn on the light... and it turns on and brightes up the page just like turning on a Tiffanny lamp.

What would it take to do something like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

You'd be amazed what you can do with animated gifs. One site I used one as the hover image on a menu button, it made a little helicopter fly across it, the kids loved it.




TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 16:20:29)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailslide

quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

My headers are “real” headers… H1, H1, etc. I wonder why they look otherwise?



Aha! I see - some are, some aren't (i only looked at the top of the page!). Your top "camping and RVing" isn't a proper heading - and that should be a H1 as it's the most important one on your page. Not a major issue but it should help with Search Engines etc.


OK... I see.

Here's what I don't understand...

Why isn't there a "special" heading for the name or "banner" of the website?

I kept thinking it must have a header of its own and I just couldn't figure out what it was.

If I just give it "H1", then it carries the same weight as my other "chapter" titles (top level menu items).

Or should I have just that one H1... which is the name of the web site and then each top level menu item is H2?

Should I put this header -- the banner or web site name -- at the top of each page?

Thanks,

CJ


Or should they all b



jaybee -> RE: Please help me decide (3/4/2007 16:58:23)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

I bet the kids would love that!

And I'd love to have a little RV heading up a road, but after reading the comments to the guy who has the little machine digging dirt and scrolling text saying "we dig what we do", I'm not so sure.

Another thing I'd like to do would be have an RV heading up a mountainside with a lot of sky showing... and have the sky change from bright blue to sunset to stars to autumn leaves falling, to snow flakes falling.

Would that be possible?

I saw a site for a guy who makes things like Tiffanny glass lampshades. At first you see just a dull color lamp in the dark, then you click a button to turn on the light... and it turns on and brightes up the page just like turning on a Tiffanny lamp.

What would it take to do something like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

You'd be amazed what you can do with animated gifs. One site I used one as the hover image on a menu button, it made a little helicopter fly across it, the kids loved it.



Ahh but the difference with my helicopters is that it only happened when you put your mouse over the particular button on the menu, and even then it was subtle. It flew to the other end of the button and stopped. The problem with the digger was it was digging away relentlessly in the middle of the screen. You kind of hoped it might dig its way right through and disappear. [:D]

You could have what you want but your best bet is in a header and use Flash.



Tailslide -> RE: Please help me decide (3/5/2007 3:05:46)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

If I just give it "H1", then it carries the same weight as my other "chapter" titles (top level menu items).

Or should I have just that one H1... which is the name of the web site and then each top level menu item is H2?




To do it "properly" you should have one H1 per page with H2, H3 etc etc for headings of lesser importance. Search Engines really like H1 tags and they lend importance to whatever's inside them. However, if you have more than one per page it will dilute their importance.

As far as whether it should be the page heading or the site heading (if you see what I mean by the difference) in the H1... well that tends to lead to long arguments. Semantically it should be the page heading rather than the site heading in the H1.

That said, I often put the site heading in the H1 tag (mainly because I employ sneaky CSS image replacement techniques) which can mean the same information in H1 tags on each page. That's not ideal but it's not disastrous either.

Looking at your site though I think you could easily do it "properly" with the "Camping and RVing" in the H1 tag on the homepage, "Is RVing right for you" on the next page etc etc. That would fit in fine with your current content.

There is a special heading for the name of the site - it's the title tag which goes in the page header (not visible on the actual page itself). Far as I know, Search Engines pay special attention to that too!.



TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/6/2007 11:43:30)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
Ahh but the difference with my helicopters is that it only happened when you put your mouse over the particular button on the menu, and even then it was subtle. It flew to the other end of the button and stopped. The problem with the digger was it was digging away relentlessly in the middle of the screen. You kind of hoped it might dig its way right through and disappear. [:D]

You could have what you want but your best bet is in a header and use Flash.



[giggle] at the digger comment... here, the kids would say he was in danger of digging all the way to China.

Being a kid at heart, I must say I understand why the boss likes it... but heck, I like those where a butterfly flies around the page. [smile]

OK... I promise not to whine for a little RV zipping around all over my page.

Actually, I was thinking only of adding motion to a photo in the header, but I don't have time for that now, anyway, as I need to get on the content and Expression upgrade.

For now, I'll settle on finding a great photo for the header.

Thanks much,

CJ





TravelswCharlie -> RE: Please help me decide (3/6/2007 11:56:11)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailslide


quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

If I just give it "H1", then it carries the same weight as my other "chapter" titles (top level menu items).

Or should I have just that one H1... which is the name of the web site and then each top level menu item is H2?




To do it "properly" you should have one H1 per page with H2, H3 etc etc for headings of lesser importance. Search Engines really like H1 tags and they lend importance to whatever's inside them. However, if you have more than one per page it will dilute their importance.

As far as whether it should be the page heading or the site heading (if you see what I mean by the difference) in the H1... well that tends to lead to long arguments. Semantically it should be the page heading rather than the site heading in the H1.

That said, I often put the site heading in the H1 tag (mainly because I employ sneaky CSS image replacement techniques) which can mean the same information in H1 tags on each page. That's not ideal but it's not disastrous either.

Looking at your site though I think you could easily do it "properly" with the "Camping and RVing" in the H1 tag on the homepage, "Is RVing right for you" on the next page etc etc. That would fit in fine with your current content.

There is a special heading for the name of the site - it's the title tag which goes in the page header (not visible on the actual page itself). Far as I know, Search Engines pay special attention to that too!.


Well, at least I know now that I'm not the only one to be puzzled by the lack of a specific tag for the actual name of the site. That's a help in itself.

I just wonder why Microsoft didn't do something to clarify it in Expression Web?

OK... I'll get busy on Expression Web.

I think what I'll do is create a couple of template pages and come back here to let you all approve them before I start moving over content.

Thanks to all who've been helping me!

CJ



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125