website

[lopvin]

hey ppl
please visit my site and email me at irvine_@hotmail.com
and tell me what u think of it
http://www.lopvin.tk
thanks.. help me with some of it plz and all suggestions are welcome... thx!!!

[Nevermore]

You posted on a forum. I will reply on a forum. If you want replies by email, you should email people. Part of the point of posting here is to help other people to learn.
1) It took 27 seconds to load on broadband - I just don't expect that sort of wait now that I have broadband. Reduce the file sizes - present total = 161.91 kB
2) Some people would have capitalized lopvin. (top of main div)
3) How many <br> tags?!?
4) Using tables to lay out squares of pictures - BAD!
5)JavaScript based menus are not very accessible. You should provide an HTML alternative.


On the plus side, I like the site and I think some of your jokes are very funny.

[havik]

Not bad, but I'd use a different method to layout your page
Try this to find a better method:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html

Havik

[AdamGundry]

Validate your HTML (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww21.brinkster.com%2Fcutelopvin%2F) - the index page has 87 errors. Then read the WCAG (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/).

Adam

[lopvin]

thanks for ure replies and all..
well u sadid it took 27 secs to load on broad band.. well how do i make it smaller? im tried uswing gif crunchers and shat lke that but they dont do a good job and i gotta pay to get them smaller..
and i never capilize lopvin... *shrugs* lol i just dont
and i had to use the stupid BR tags cos i couldnt get the lopvin tk and the brinkster bit down the bottom of the coloums..
and u said validate my html.. what the hell does that mean (yes.. im a noob and a bit of a try hard)
i went to that site but it was all gibberish to me..
and also how can i get the picture to move down without having to use the br tags?

and the java script menu that i got to appear from the side, lol i am soo getting rid of that.. it was just for sumthig to d... and havik.. i wernt to that site thing.. but i dont get it... :(
thx.. i hope us can help me make it better cos this i like my first real website and all...

[C0nR0cks]

Originally posted by havik
Not bad, but I'd use a different method to layout your page
Try this to find a better method:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html

Havik

^ that ^ link ^ rocks ^ thanx

[spufi]

One of the ways to cut down on load time is to get rid of any extra pics. You use an image to seperate your entries when using something like a <hr> tag does the same thing basically. Having a pic on the right that links back to your home page seems kind of pointless. You could drop that image and just use your banner image to do the same thing. You really don't need that search image either. I would also think about getting rid of the images you have for links to other sites. Try to keep the look of your links consistant. I would work on your colors. The creme and green are ok, but they don't match up with the banner image at all. I agree about the JavaScript menu. I had a hard time finding it, and it looks completely out of place. This may be due to my screen size.

[lopvin]

hmm..
well u have a good point about that pic pointing back to my page lol but i didnt know what to put there.. but ill get ride of it and put it in the hr tags.. and also the stupid 9 pics on the left of it are just taking up space.. and i know the colours arent the best.. and they dont go with shat-all.. and ill change the links to just text like u said.
and i made th site in 1024 x 768
and also i had the dividers as the same pic so if it lods its once wont it just load it once and thats it?
and im so killing that menu.. its 28kb to load i think.. ill go do it now and i gotta change the pages that are like different and all.. u know the one wit the white b'ground.. yeh.. that was how the whole thing was gunna be.. scary huh? hehe thax.. il go do the stuff and upload it..

edited about 30 scs later: on my comp it looks brown and creme but on other ppls comp it looks green.. a yuk green.. i dunno why though
another edit: dont laugh at this but how do i specify a hr length.. ?

[havik]

You might have a non-web safe color.

http://www.visibone.com/colorlab/
These point you out to the web safe colors.

Havik

[UTGLLC]

I would definitely work on the load time. Also, many of the links posted on your site were either not accesible or bad links. You may want to check into that. Other than that, good start!

[spufi]

Originally posted by lopvin
and i made th site in 1024 x 768

Most people have a resolution of 800X600. A well made site doesn't care what resolution a person has.

Originally posted by lopvin dont laugh at this but how do i specify a hr length.. ?

Within your style tag add something like...

hr { width:30%px; }

Then just add your <hr> tags where you want them.

[Nevermore]

Originally posted by spufi
Most people have a resolution of 800X600.

Nope. Most people use 1024*1068. http://www.thecounter.com

[UTGLLC]

Agreed, but wouldn't you also agree that the site needs to be compatible with the lower resolutions as well? If he/anybody designs the site for the higher res, than the visitors with the lower res are going to be doing lots of scrolling just to view your site.

Not to mention the the reduction in "weight" your going to receive from the search engines/directories due to most of the information being below the fold at the standard resolution they base the weighted points on, 800 x 600.

For instance, a view of your website looks great at the higher resolutions. But viewed at 800 x 600, your lower links in your menu aren't accesible due to the W3C images being placed over your menu. It makes those link un-navigable.

[Nevermore]

Regulars to this forum will know that I try to make my pages accessible. My latest site is different because it is made in collaboration with other people. And they keep changing things. For instance, the way it was designed the z-index of the different items [b]should[/b[ have made the W3C links go underneath, because they are less important. But when they changed the content slightly, they changed the classes and the stylesheets. So now it doesn't.

I didn't mean that you shouldn't design for low res, just that more people do use 1024*1068. Just facts, plain and simple.

[spufi]

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/res.php

And I still support the idea that you should make your site in a way that resolution should not matter because it will look good anyway.

[UTGLLC]

I went to the site that you posted for the stats on the resolution and here's what is posted:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/January/res.php

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/April/res.php

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/March/res.php

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/February/res.php

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/January/res.php

All of these, for the months of 2003, show that 800 x 600 is the dominating resolution. Further, a landslide victory over 1024 x 1068.

Please note that I am not trying to start an argument or discredit you in any way, just trying to figure out where you got these facts from.

[spufi]

As my post shows the difference is down to 2% and most likely 800X600 will not be the most used resolution for long, but as of May 1st it still was.

[jeffmott]

You should also note that there is no 1024 x 1068 resolution. You probably mean 1024 X 768.

[Nevermore]

Originally posted by jeffmott
You should also note that there is no 1024 x 1068 resolution. You probably mean 1024 X 768.

Ah yes...