Feedback on a site we have designed

[Jordan]

Hi,

We want your feedback on this website we have designed.

http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/star_site2/index.htm

see: www.designers-4-web.com

[Compguy Pete]

I would tell the logo on top to stop after 5 times of going around.

The site becomes to busy with all the regular animation.

[Vladdy]

No DOCTYPE
Number of validation errors: 41 (27 for Transitional)
Abuse of <table> tag
Too many things moving around (and that is with no Flash installed).
Menus do not work
Absolutely inaccessible for anyone without graphical browser: http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/star_site2/index.htm

Would be passable for a flier, but sucks as a web page.

[Jordan]

Yes may be your right, may be there are too many things moving without flash.

But i would like more opinions, as i want to move away from the static type of sites are develop the more dynamic sites. But then again you have to strike the right balance.

Please see

http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/hsbx_site/
http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/crs
http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/star_site2/

Your help will be appreciated

Warm Regards,
Jordan
www.designers-4-web.com

[Jona]

I agree with Compguy Pete. Rather than having the slogan (at http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/hsbx_site/) repeat, I think a runthrough animation of one time will be fine and is not necessary. The top, though, (where the logo, etc. is) does look nice...

I also agree with Vladdy (well said, by the way). Web development is more than just graphics. Having a DTD (DOCTYPE, see below link for more information and a valid DOCTYPE list) and following the standards (WCAG 1.0 and Section 508 links also below) are important for those with disabilities who browse the Internet. Blind, dyslexic, deaf and other disabled people do browse the Internet, and sites without things such as the HTML LANG attribute, a DTD, or a CHARSET are very difficult for them to understand and get information from. We should not take advantage of these people or ignore them because of their disabilities, which they were born with. A few of the links below, such as Accessify or MadeForAll, provide more information on validity of (X)HTML and such.

Edit: Also, please note that your DOCTYPE is not valid or understood as a DOCTYPE if it is not in capitalized letters (DOCTYPE not doctype).

[J]ona

[spufi]

Originally posted by Jordan

http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/crs


http://www.designers-4-web.com/clients/crs_site1/

That's the correct link because what you listed wasn't working. I already mentioned in another thread about how you need to view that site in something besides 1024X768 resolution.

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

Blind, dyslexic, deaf and other disabled people do browse the Internet, and sites without things such as the HTML LANG attribute, a DTD, or a CHARSET are very difficult for them to understand and get information from. We should not take advantage of these people or ignore them because of their disabilities, which they were born with.

Not all people are born deaf, blind, or in any other way disabled. example: my friend had a round of firecrackers go off behind his head, which blew out his hearing. he wasn't born deaf.

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

also: I have never seen a person who is deaf need any special form of internet browser. although i guess there could be a program that dictates whatever is heard into an area of the screen so he can see what he is missing... though I very much doubt it.

[Jona]

Thank you, I should have said, "which they could have been born with." The purpose in my statement, however, was to state that it is not the disabled person's fault for his disability.

[J]ona

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

my friend lit the firecrackers. it was his fault.

[Jona]

I was multitasking--too many emails! lol. I meant that it is not necessarily the disabled person's fault--although it could be, it is not always to be assumed that way.

[J]ona

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

there ya go. now just say that next time and we won't have to have this discussion again=P

[Jordan]

Ok,

Can anyone point me to some useful resources so our websites can conform to disability legislation in the UK and Europe.

www.designers-4-web.com

Thanks

[pyro]

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
there ya go. now just say that next time and we won't have to have this discussion again=P Or you could think for a second, and realize that Jona probably just meant people with disablities in a general sense... :rolleyes:

[Compguy Pete]

OR just look at what the WC3 wants and go with that...

Most country regulations are based only for making gov't sites, and not commerial sites.

Hope that helps!

[Khalid Ali]

Originally posted by Compguy Pete
Most country regulations are based only for making gov't sites, and not commerial sites!

Could not agree more.

[Jona]

I thought that they just passed a law in the UK saying that all sites had to comply with the WCAG...

Anyways, there are a lot of links for you in my signature, Jordan, which should be of use. As I mentioned, MadeForAll, Accessify, AListApart, and there are others as well including the WCAG 1.0 guildelines and Section 508 (for the U.S., not the UK, but I think it's a good resource anyways).

[J]ona

[Jordan]

For those of you who have posted your mesages websites being accessable for the disabled thank you.

I totally think that websites should conform to some type of regulation that would help people with disabilities. But sometimes, these regulations start off with good intentions and then it becomes enforcement and policing and then we find that there is a lot regulations that are unneccesary.

So, yes I am for websites that help disabled because this is an important community that has been neglected some years ago.

But keep the right balance.

Please do give your views and point us to some useful resources for conforming to such regulations.

Also about:

Originally posted by Compguy Pete
Most country regulations are based only for making gov't sites, and not commerial sites!

see the governmnt website page on: www.designers-4-web.com

[Jona]

If you cannot see my signature, go to your user control panel (http://forums.webdeveloper.com/usercp.php) and choose edit options. Then make sure that you can see people's signatures. There are a lot of links in my signature.

[J]ona

[Compguy Pete]

Dude, I have been to your site and I'm not going back.

STOP trying to shove it down, I'm not biting. Do you know how many people have messaged me commenting on your telling people to go to your site?

[Compguy Pete]

OK just to see why you sent me to your site AGAIN I went there to read your Gov't page.

WHAT A WASTE of my TIME. It told me absoutely nothing.

Let me post it here to save others the bandwidth....

Government & Non-Profit Organisations

Designers 4 Web are committed to doing there part in the community. We provide excellent rates for non-profit organisations, government organisations and agencies.

Our staff ingredient includes those with public sector experience. We have staffs that have worked within councils, NHS and educational establishments.

Our websites will be developed to meet your specific service goals. See the news column for current information.




News:

Local Government website fails to impress 'Compuware, which provides website monitoring services, looked at the performance of the home page of 20 of the most usable local authority sites identified by Socitm.

They found: " Designers did not give enough thought to performance issues " Only four of the 467 local authorities across the country have full transactional websites. "

Westminster, Camden, Tameside and Hertfordshire councils were deemed the best local authority sites. " Only 41 per cent of sites receiving queries by email actually responded compared to last year's figure of 60 per cent. "

Just 34 per cent of local authorities replied to an e-mail within 10 days, down from 53 per cent in the previous year. The research provides clear evidence that the overall rate of improvement has not yet accelerated.'

Source: (IT Week Monday 3 February)

[AdamBrill]

Jordan, your "government site" doesn't fit very well to standards. :rolleyes: Your home page has 57 errors and the "government site" doesn't even have a doctype...

EDIT: I just added a doctype to your page: 65 errors on the "government site"... :rolleyes: