Site review [Archive] - WebDeveloper.com

zyex

11-12-2003, 05:56 PM

i would consider this a site designed by a non-designer...offering design services...

the the icons are huge and look very much like clip art -

the graphics design section has no content...there isnt much of a portfolio either....

it looks like there has been more focus on ensuring that the coding of the site is correct....i'd suggest going back to the drawing board...and put some effort into the design of the site....if thats what you are trying to offer....

saying that, it seems like the companies skills lie in other areas not really focused on web design...maybe the company should concentrate on these areas and get a professional design company to design the site....and then sell the services they can offer....

would you ask a mechanic to build your house?

Paul Jr

11-12-2003, 06:00 PM

Whoa, dude, HARSH!!! Take it down a notch, sheesh.

It seems a lot of people around here only know how to insult other peoples' sites, when it seems the point of offering up your site for review is to gather constructive criticism; which the above does not seem to be.

Zyex, I'm sure it would kill you to say something nice about Vladdy's site. It is a nice site, in my opinion, and deserves some props.

My 2 cents.

Vladdy

11-12-2003, 06:04 PM

Web design IS first and formost the design of data organization and content delivery. That is the message and that is what sets us apart from all the "graphics designers" with FrontPage, who can deliver the looks but not the substance.

Original post states: "pretty much done" so, yes, there are some pages which are being worked on.

BTW: I'd like to see some sites that you consider "professionaly designed"...

zyex

11-12-2003, 06:39 PM

a little harsh...mmmm

i was simply stating that i don't think the site sells itself as the site of a web design company....with all of the IT certification that the company has, i would of thought that these where the areas that the company would be better focusing on....i've looked at thousands of websites, designed by designers and non-designers, coders, teachers, everyone....basically anyone who can sit in front of a computer.....and it is obvious out of those sites which have been designed professionally and obvious, those that havent...

the BEST thing about the internet is that anyone can design a website and post it.....

the WORST thing about the internet is that anyone can design a website and post it....

could you imagine what it would be like if anyone could design and build their own car, or house?

the only way that K & L Productions sets themselves apart from the rest of the web design community is their design skills....

what about the designers who can deliver the looks and deliver the substance? Also, its not a valid argument to say that all graphics designers use front page...the only people who use front page are inexperienced users, producing probably their first website.....

web design companies employ both designers and developers...designers for designing sites and developers for making sure that the coding of the site is correct...

you will find that most designers don't give a "britney spears song" about code..... and developers don't try and get involved with design....

i am simply giving my opinion of the design of the site.....it was posted as a site review...so i'm simply giving my opinion on my review of the site....

don't take it personnally - your company should be used to criticism of your work with over 20 years experience in the it field....

zyex

11-12-2003, 06:43 PM

professionally designed?

you could try...

2advancedStudios,Gmunk,whoswe,hugeinc,fantasyinterfaces,joshuadavies,flight404,australianINfront.... .try checking sites such as favouritewebsiteawards.com

Paul Jr

11-12-2003, 06:47 PM

So you can honestly say that you found nothing at all good about that site? After all, if you had, you would have stated it in your "opinion" of it.

Paul Jr

11-12-2003, 06:48 PM

2advanced.com is a completely flash based site. I hardly think that is applicable here. We're not talking about Vladdy's Flash skills, after all.

zyex

11-12-2003, 06:48 PM

"it looks like there has been more focus on ensuring that the coding of the site is correct"

Paul Jr

11-12-2003, 06:50 PM

So that's a bad thing? The site just needs to be visually appealing, and that's basically it?

zyex

11-12-2003, 06:53 PM

we are talking about design.....the website that has been posted is that of a design company.....

zyex

11-12-2003, 06:58 PM

when i stated that there has been more focus on the coding of the site than the design, i was saying that there has obviously been some effort in the coding of the site....thats not a bad thing....its good to see that people are dedicated in what they DO...it just seems that this site looks very amateurish...

Paul Jr

11-12-2003, 07:35 PM

I don't see how you can think that Vladdy's site is amaturish. It might be a bit plain, but it does not carry the mark of an amateur. Trust me, as an amateur, I would know these things.

Vladdy

11-12-2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by zyex
professionally designed?

you could try...

2advancedStudios,Gmunk,whoswe,hugeinc,fantasyinterfaces,joshuadavies,flight404,australianINfront.... .try checking sites such as favouritewebsiteawards.com
No substance in any of them:
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http://fantasyinterfaces.com/fi-corporate/index.html
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http://favouritewebsiteawards.com/
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm

Neither of your "professional" websites have any idea about what is the specific of the web medium is. They are sure nice looking and would do good in cartoon industry :rolleyes:

Cute graphics and effects may keep those visitors who can see them a minute or two longer, content is what makes them come back.

zyex

11-13-2003, 05:30 AM

lol...how many people browse the web using lynx?

i just don't think you understand the concept of design...

content is what makes them come back?

i think you are confusing the idea of what your website is trying to promote....a web design companys site is not about content...it is about advertising and marketing your skills and services....the bbc site(www.bbc.co.uk) is about content....

your inexperience of the web design industry is truly showing.....

have a look at http://www.manutd.com/access/firstTime/default.sps

now that is a well designed site produced by professional designers, and coded by professional developers....it just goes to show that you can design a site with all users in mind...not just the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000001 % of people using lynx, or people with disabilities

....chamown mofo

Vladdy

11-13-2003, 09:49 AM

It's not just people who browse the internet nowadays... :rolleyes: ... seems like the world had gone by you while your are "awaiting inspiration"

zyex

11-13-2003, 10:03 AM

so who else browses the internet then? monkeys?

anarchist

11-13-2003, 10:30 AM

Vladdy

I've looked at the site and it looks fine to me, but there is something missing, maybe it just needs white space around it rather than filling the full screen width and maybe a little above your banner.
also I'm all for balence in a website, and the image links on the right seem to throw things off a little, maybe if the images are just a little smaller

I know what you meen about not gettin constructive critisism, its really unhelpful when someone just says its rubbish, make it better

hope my suggestion are helpful as I'm not really a designer

spufi

11-13-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by zyex
lol...how many people browse the web using lynx?

i just don't think you understand the concept of design...

content is what makes them come back?

i think you are confusing the idea of what your website is trying to promote....a web design companys site is not about content...it is about advertising and marketing your skills and services....the bbc site(www.bbc.co.uk) is about content....

your inexperience of the web design industry is truly showing.....

have a look at http://www.manutd.com/access/firstTime/default.sps

now that is a well designed site produced by professional designers, and coded by professional developers....it just goes to show that you can design a site with all users in mind...not just the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000001 % of people using lynx, or people with disabilities

....chamown mofo

In terms of web design, content is still important, but what is defined as content is different for a web design comapny. While yes, neat little picutres are nice and an important part of it, I would want somebody who actually knew what they were doing in terms of markup and that's something Vladdy obviously has over the other sites you listed. And by the way, Vladdy's site has a graphics section, but none of the graphics are up yet. Why don't you wait and see just how plain Vladdy's graphics are.

Another thing, Lynx is a text browser and how it views a site is pretty much how a search engine is going to view the site. Plus, a person can view a site on more than just a computer you know. Add to the fact that your apparent view point of people with disabilities is way off, your posts have come across as being VERY ignorant.

DaveSW

11-13-2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by spufi
your posts have come across as being VERY ignorant.

And so say all of us! LOL.

Personally, I think the site has a clean layout, attractive colors, and was obviously designed by a professional. There's no stupid motion effects, it downloads quickly, and it's far cleaner and better in my view than any of those sites you've suggested. As for going to a web awards place for good web sites, most of those should have awards for 'what not to do with your website'.

Only things I'd do would be to thin the borders on the content part, and the hover border, and maybe round the bottom right hand corner of the main menu (on the left side of the screen). Or maybe fade KL into the background of the hover, for the left menu.

Rounding would probably be best achieved using the css background property, so nothing appears on older browsers etc.

My 2p.

Dave

Robert Wellock

11-14-2003, 07:01 AM

The Man United site shows a lack of understand regarding web accessibility although they do provide a more accessible version, however they do not clearly state where the version is to be found on the front page.

Even the more accessible page is riddled with basic accessibility faults; I could give you a long list though nobody seemed interested in an accessibility sub-forum. That kind of accessibility solution they have used is pathetic to say the least

It shows a clear misunderstanding of web accessibility and semantic use of HTML what use are the images that have alt text saying image – when they are used for navigation - far better they use null alt if they are trying to take that approach.

(Whoever they paid for the so called "accessible site" they paid too much)

I would rather visit Vladdy's site even though it doesn't jump out like a glossy colourful magazine cover, neither am I a big fan of those type of blue and white sites, but at least it is more functional.

Zyex: I would also like to thank you for insulting me on the fact that I have dyslexia, which is a disability that approximately affects 10% of the population.

Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Lord Churchill, Sir Richard Branson, Hans Christian Andersen, Thomas Alva Edison, the list goes on... and they are just famous dyslexics.

Vladdy

11-14-2003, 08:49 AM

Thanks for suggestions everyone, I did take them into account and made some style adjustments.

Dave: the bottom right corner of the left side navigation is rounded in Gecko (using CSS border properties).

DaveSW

11-14-2003, 10:16 AM

I thought it might be when I wrote it LOL.

Sux0rZh@jc0rz

11-14-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by DaveSW
And so say all of us! LOL.

Please speak for yourself.

Vladdy, your site is very accessible. a blind man with a stick could go to it. for that, yes, there is merit.

But if I were looking to get a website designed, i would not buy from you. your site is accessible, but it just... isn't appealing. I am glad that your site is accessible... but without good looks, people won't wanna stick around. your site is accessible, but it looks like old pages from 1995. I'm sorry to say.

If I were looking for a goodlooking site, and was reallly striving for accessibility, i'd probly ask pyro if he could make me a site. cause his site is frankly, appealing and in most ways accessible. it may not be perfect, but then again, what is? i think pyro takes the right balance when it comes to this situation and you are just a little to far to the accessible side. (www.ryanbrill.com)

PeOfEo

11-14-2003, 05:26 PM

His site will look good on all browsers though. Not just ie. What if the person is viewing his site from an older version of ie or ns or opera. It will look the same. Accessability means that his site is not going to look nice on the newest browser even though most people use it, it means that his site is going to work and be able to adapt for most situations and look good and that if their is no hope of his site looking good atleast the content is accessable. Sux0rZh@jc0rz pyro is talented no doubt there, but vladdy created this thread so he could know how to improve his site and if we see any problems. His site works on multible platforms and he obviously spent time hacking his code so it would be that way. Just because it does not appeal to you aestetically as it does to another person does not mean it is wrong because the code works and it works the same for all of us because he puts a lot of stock in accessability. Accessability should be more important then how a site looks. I am getting repetative now but, why have a catchy layout if no one can even get to the content.

Sux0rZh@jc0rz

11-14-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
it means that his site is going to work and be able to adapt for most situations and look good and that if their is no hope of his site looking good atleast the content is accessable.

You are correct. I agree 100%. BUT what I said was If I was getting a webpage, I'd rather lure more people from the popular browser than lure less people from the popular browser by using a crappy looky webpage and then MAYBY draw a small percentage of the people interested in what my site is about from the small percentage of people that use those old crappy browsers. so if you tell me, "well 2% of the web users use netscape 4.0" I'll say, yes. and i'll sacrifice the 20% of those 2% to gain to favorability of 20% of the 98% of people who use the popular browser.

It's a matter of numbers. a nice looking site in IE 6.0 and mozilla is worth more than a crappy looking site that works for everyone.

pyro

11-14-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
a nice looking site in IE 6.0 and mozilla is worth more than a crappy looking site that works for everyone. But you can have both, as can be seen through my personal site or sites such as Zen Garden (http://www.csszengarden.com/) (content is still delivered sans styles).

Sux0rZh@jc0rz

11-14-2003, 11:11 PM

yes pyro, we can have our cake and eat it too. just not vladdy's cake. that's a bitter, bitter, hard german chocolate cake with no sprinkles and no icing. just the bare nutrients needed to survive.

Lol i'm just playing vladdy. calm down. :D

PeOfEo

11-14-2003, 11:16 PM

Back to the actual critiquing of vladdy's site. I sort of aggree with pyro about thin boarders. I like boarders, cant get enough of them but the one on your site accross the top is a little on the thick side. Also the boarders aroune the images are a bit thick. One more thing the background image in ie6 does not extend to the bottom of the page, that purpleish thing gets down to just past the left nav menu and then cuts off.

zyex

11-15-2003, 04:39 AM

at what point did i insult anyone for having disabilities?

i think everyone has taken the points i made the wrong way....at no point have i said that accesssibility is not important....i was trying to state good design is also important...

you will probably take offence at anything that i say bad about your site.....does it really matter what i say or think?

i have had a lot of my work slated by clients....they come in and give you and idea for what they want in their site....so you go away and design something...then when they see it they are like "what the &*^% is that doing there?"...so as a professional, you go away and work on the things that they like and that they didn't like...until the client is happy with what you have designed for them.....the first few times someone said anything about my work, i took it personally and reacted in the wrong way....then as you gain experience, you know that its not personal....people are people......but they pay your wages...

what if i had come on here and posted "oh vladdy, your site is superb....its one of the best sites i've ever seen...the colours you have chose are phenominal, the graphics are way cool....what package did you use....."..."the way the site is coded is second to none.....it is an accessibility dream...."

i'm sure that your reaction would of been completely different....but this isnt fantasy land...its the real world....if you take offence at what someone who you don't know says...some guy on a forum, then how will you react when a client says that he doesn't like what you've done....

you can say "oh but it works on netscape 2" they will say "what is netscape 2? I don't have netscape 2 on my brand new laptop running windows xp."

you should take what i say, and anyone else, in your stride....you guys are too serious...

i had a look at ryanbrill.com....thats a nice clean site....he is not trying to come accross as something he is not....

then i went and took a look at infinity web design...what a contrast....the first thing that i noticed was the flash header in the main site.....that is clearly badly ripped from 2advanced v3...i dont think that whoever designed the site would disagree.....that is copyright theft and 2advanced have a legal right to take you to court....so why dont you go and post that site on cool sites on flashkit.....i'm sure that 2advanced wouldnt take too long to get their lawyers on the case.....on second thoughts....infinity arent problably a big enough company to even bother with.....

and before anyone starts saying that i am now ripping someone elses site apart....your wrong....that is copyright theft....if you know anything about the design business, you would know that you just cant take someone elses work and claim it as your own...

are my points not valid? why? because i am not saying that all sites should be 100% accessible on anything that can attempt to read html? because i won't flatter anyones ego by not telling them what i think about a "site review". because i'm starting a sentence with because....

chill out guys....maybe i'll post a site on here that i've created for you to all rip apart.....see i can be a nice guy.....everyone say "nice guy zyex"..

lol....

Khalid Ali

11-15-2003, 08:54 AM

I agree with zyex on most accounts.
I do respect all of these standards around,I try to adopt them as much as I can ,but in real life, its no argument to convince some one that how their site may look like.
My personal exp,
I worked on a project where we developed a huge web ap using J2EE. The site would be used to manage a huge corporations every single business from this web site. Now I once( and mind you only once) brought up the fact that their pages, the way they were coded, work mostly in IE5.5, and I was given a serious lecture from project manager about how hard it was usually to get a job like that...lol...next I was like to hell with browser compatibility and the rest...I wanted to keep my job.

My opinion,again, we must try to adhere to the standards the best we can, however, it must not stop us from creating good work.
See if we create a site for some one and use the best practices to achieve what a client requires,I think that will be and is best approach.

I think judjing other peoples code when its not standard compliant has become a fashion on these forums.

Lets see what kind of can of worms I have opened...

To zyex, please provide us with links to whatever places you referred that ryan has gottern his images,otherwise its not an exceptable atitude to blame some one with no proof

DaveSW

11-15-2003, 09:33 AM

Actually there is an argument for standards compliance.

The customer or boss may not want you to spend time making it standards compliant and accessible, but at the end of the day a customer's going to come along in a browser their page looks rubbish in, and the the site owner is going to lose business. If your site looks rubbish, they won't blame their browsers and say, well, I should have used IE, or I should update my 20yr old browser. If your site looks rubbish they'll blame YOU. And they may not bother to tell you that either, you just won't get their custom.

And, which is easier:
1) To have two copies of every page, like the bbc does. Or
2) Spend an extra 15 minutes writing standards compliant code and testing in various browsers?

Maybe Vladdy's site doesn't look as slick as a flash one. But whatever browser the potential customer is using, he/she will get the message.

pyro

11-15-2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Khalid Ali
To zyex, please provide us with links to whatever places you referred that ryan has gottern his images,otherwise its not an exceptable atitude to blame some one with no proofThat ought to be good. I can gaurentee it was not taken from 2advanced (don't even know what their old site might have looked like). I still have all the .flas...

zyex

11-15-2003, 10:37 AM

http://www.2advanced.com/archive/v3/

go into services or exploratory.....mmmm....high rise buildings...subtle ligjht effects going up and down the building....i wonder where you got that idea from....i bet its just a coincidence....

"don't even know what their old site might have looked like" ....yeah...right....

the bbc has 2 copies of every page? are you referring to their text-only version?

Spend an extra 15 minutes writing standards compliant code and testing in various browsers?

and to what extreme of different browsers do we test in?

i test in the latest versions of browsers and the latest versions only....why should i waste my time testing in browsers that are extinct?

if you design a site, then there is a certain stage in the design process called "testing"....the time taken for testing is then built into the cost for the design and implementation of the website.....i can just see a clients face when we tell them we need a week for testing.....why? cos we need to test the site in every possible browser that there might be, and if one browser doesnt support a certain element, so matter how small or irrelivant, we cannot use that....

of course there is an argument for standards compliance...is there an argument for bad design or copyright theft?

is this a test?

AdamBrill

11-15-2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by zyex
then i went and took a look at infinity web design...what a contrast....the first thing that i noticed was the flash header in the main site.....that is clearly badly ripped from 2advanced v3...i dont think that whoever designed the site would disagree.....that is copyright theft and 2advanced have a legal right to take you to court....so why dont you go and post that site on cool sites on flashkit.....i'm sure that 2advanced wouldnt take too long to get their lawyers on the case.....on second thoughts....infinity arent problably a big enough company to even bother with.....

chill out guys....maybe i'll post a site on here that i've created for you to all rip apart.....see i can be a nice guy.....everyone say "nice guy zyex"..First you blame someone of copyright theft(without ANY proof whatsoever) and then you want us to say "nice guy zyex"???? I think not. All I can say is you better have some pretty good proof against Infinity Web Design, because I certainly didn't see any image theft when I went to 2advanced.

pyro

11-15-2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by zyex
http://www.2advanced.com/archive/v3/

go into services or exploratory.....mmmm....high rise buildings...subtle ligjht effects going up and down the building....i wonder where you got that idea from....i bet its just a coincidence....Lol.... You are making such a fool out of yourself. A slight resemblance does not constitute "copyright fraud." Perhaps you haven't noticed this, but go to http://www.google.com/ and then to http://www.alltheweb.com/, two very popular search engines. Now, I don't know about you, but I see a close resemblance there (much closer than anything I made resembles 2advanced). Why did Google not sue alltheweb? You're going to lose a lot of respect if you go around accusing people of "copyright fraud" on the basis that something vaguely resembles something else. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

zyex

11-15-2003, 11:05 AM

lol...you really think that you can get away with replicating someone elses work....and you say that i'll lose respect for pointing it out....

the first thing i thought when i saw that site was 2ad....

all the web is owned by overture who have been aquired by yahoo, who in turn work with google....i dont think that they would take up any legal battle...do you?

you think that copyright is simply about using someone elses image? do you have licenses for all of the fonts that you use? if you don't, thats copyright theft....you should learn a few things about the design business before you start copying other peoples work.....

i think its you who is making a fool of yourself.....

DaveSW

11-15-2003, 11:19 AM

Now you really are talking bull zyex.

1) Infinity's light effects follow the building lines. 2a's follow a grid on exploratory, and simply light up windows on services. The basic idea may be similar, but then more than one manufacturer makes cars. Or hadn't you noticed?
2) Yes I am refering to text only, which will hopefully become a legal requirement where you live soon.
3) You really do need to get your act together. You should test in popular browsers. go to thecounter.com, examine global stats. If you only design for latest versions you're cutting out up to 50% of your target audience. Now you really have to have a good business to be able to afford that sort of loss.

YOU are the one making a fool of yourself. See how your arguments about not making sites accessible stand up in Court. Look what happened to Tescos. They had to build an accessible version of their online supermarket. Enter the real world Zyex.

AdamBrill

11-15-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by zyex
lol...you really think that you can get away with replicating someone elses work....and you say that i'll lose respect for pointing it out....
Well, your losing a lot of respect in my book...
Originally posted by zyex
i think its you who is making a fool of yourself..... You are blaming someone else for copyright theft when you really have absolutely no proof of it(besides a conspiracy theory, that is). Since that is your only proof, please keep your theories to yourself... We really don't want to hear them anyway.

pyro

11-15-2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by zyex
you really think that you can get away with replicating someone elses work....As I've already pointed out (and others seem to agree with me) the resemblance is minor. Nothing that constitutes copyright fraud, and nothing that negates my artistry. You appear to be some sort of zealot as far as 2advanced goes, and you think that anything that bears any resemblance to their work is fraud. :rolleyes:

zyex

11-15-2003, 11:40 AM

enter the real world....this is the real world...

the bbc do not have 2 versions of their site....the text-only version uses a perl script to parse the html content of the pages....http://sourceforge.net/projects/betsie/ - i'm the one talking bull?

infinitys light effects are a clear rip of the 2advanced effect....theres more than one manufacture makes cars....yes but there are different models of cars....it is clearly ripped....and you are defending him....

i really need to get my act together.....do simple things like coloured scrollbars matter.....if you code a website correctly, then all of the html that is produced will be valid....hence compatible with most browsers....

50% of the target audience...do you know who my clients target audience are.....

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." quoted by Mark Twain

arguments about accessible sites stand up in court?....again...where have i stated that sites should not be accessible?

i'm talking bull and making a fool of myself....really....

Khalid Ali

11-15-2003, 11:47 AM

This thread is just wasting space...
I don't think it should continue....

For zyex,
people do get inspirations for their surroundings and what they see,tell me you are never inspired by anything to create your designe work.Can you design anything at all if you had always been locked up in a dark room???
No we as humans learn and adopt..cmon now...be reasonable.
I do agree with you on the standards compliance issues but pointing fingers on a respectable member (or on any other member for that matter) is really rude and un-civilised.
We welcome a fair judgement but please be reasonable.
Thanks..

Guys let me know if this thread is worth allowing to continue...

DaveSW

11-15-2003, 11:51 AM

Talk about going round in circles... It might help if he read more carefully and stopped attempting Libel.

zyex

11-15-2003, 12:03 PM

i can't believe you, or anyone else is trying to defend this...

enough to constitute copyright fraud.....so what you are saying is that it looks similar and i got my ideas from there...but cos the image is different, and the effect is slightly different then its nothing like the original so its ok...its a clear rip....is this the first time someone has mentioned it....did you think that no one would notice?

you don't want to hear my theories here? or opinions....sorry i didn't realise that this was a public forum.

i take your point khaled - if people cant take criticism of their work, they shouldnt post it. i believe every point that i have made is reasonable....i make a few points and everyone takes it personally....

of course i take inspiration from other websites...and everything and anything, but i don't blatently copy from other peoples work....first of all, i know the law and secondly, i have enough respect for other designers....

attempting libel....if someone was to copy my work, of course i would take action....wouldnt you?

EOF

DaveSW

11-15-2003, 12:13 PM

1) Nobody other than you has said it looks similar
2) He hasn't said he got his ideas from there. He said he'd never seen it. Stop inventing things.
3) Pyro didn't post his work for your opinion. You gave your opinion unasked.

So lets leave it at that. OK? And stop posting comments which constitute libel, or you might really learn something about the law.

zyex

11-15-2003, 12:43 PM

i'm inventing things....why would i want to do that?

you state that i should stop posting comments that constitute libel or I really might learn something about the law....is this is a threat? if so i would be glad to pass any details to my solicitor and have him deal with it? email me and i will provide you with any contact details necessary....

Dave...you have no privacy statement on your website.....and you are asking people to send you personal information...you should read up on the data protection act...thats against the law.....probably the most basic of laws when it comes to dealing with the handling of electronic data....

PeOfEo

11-15-2003, 12:49 PM

Why would he need one on his site? He is not asking people to send him information, they contact him volantarily.

DaveSW

11-15-2003, 12:57 PM

I don't know why you'd want to invent things but you are. You

posted by Zyex
what you are saying is that it looks similar and i got my ideas from there

at no point has Pyro said this.
In fact
Posted by Pyro
I can gaurentee it was not taken from 2advanced (don't even know what their old site might have looked like).
Conclusion: You invented it.

I have no cause of action to threaten legal action - Pyro has that, as he is the one you are libelling. I was simply pointing that out to you.

As PeOfEo said, asking questions is not covered by the data protection act - as it is not sending personal data.

I repeat: let's leave it at that.

zyex

11-15-2003, 01:00 PM

if you store information of any kind on anyone, tben you are required by law to provide information on what data you hold on that individual and what you intend to do with that data....

anyone has a right to know what data is help on them....by someone sending personal inforamation through a contact form, you will then store and process that information....this falls under the data protection act....

if you live in the uk, then visit http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk

if outside of the uk, there will be information on data protection on a government website....

PeOfEo

11-15-2003, 01:01 PM

he is not storeing data on those people. It is feed back or questions, not personal information. There is a difference.

DaveSW

11-15-2003, 01:03 PM

What data do I hold? none.

Now I really can't be bothered to prolong this useless discussion any further. Finally: Leave it.

zyex

11-15-2003, 01:23 PM

ok dave, you have taken what i said out of context....if pyro is saying that he has never seen the 2a site - then he is the one making things up....what i state here is in reponse to your post and no other...

talking about the law? on what grounds does what i said give grounds for libel?

if you process data on anyone, then it falls within the data protection act....it is the law....carry on disobeying it and you will realise....are you saying that people can send a request but you don't answer it?...the naivety...

(i think this post has gone way off the original site review post:-) ) but....

why can't you be bothered prolonging this discussion....is it because you don't have a leg to stand on?