murdah
08-31-2004, 02:03 AM
Please let me know what you think about this site. Any improvements or critique would be appreciated!
http://www.urbantoys.ca
M
http://www.urbantoys.ca
M
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Please Review
BuezaWebDev
08-31-2004, 03:09 AM
[1] Validate your xhtml mark-up via http://validator.w3.org
[2] Validate your css via http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
[3] Don't use tables for layout. Instead, use CSS, making it far more efficient. Efficiency would decrease the load-time dramatically.
[4] Why are the images so badly cut into transparency? :/
I'm pretty sure a lot of web developers on the forum will agree with the points I've given (mainly 1, 2, 3).
Good luck mate.
[2] Validate your css via http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
[3] Don't use tables for layout. Instead, use CSS, making it far more efficient. Efficiency would decrease the load-time dramatically.
[4] Why are the images so badly cut into transparency? :/
I'm pretty sure a lot of web developers on the forum will agree with the points I've given (mainly 1, 2, 3).
Good luck mate.
sharkey
08-31-2004, 10:31 AM
I agree with all of the above but dont have the option to use a frames or no frames site just go with the no frames one as it is more accessible.
pawky
08-31-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by sharkey
I agree with all of the above but dont have the option to use a frames or no frames site just go with the no frames one as it is more accessible.
yea, i would have to agree. Though if you really want a frames site then give that option inside the site. I think that would be better though there is no real need for a frames site
I agree with all of the above but dont have the option to use a frames or no frames site just go with the no frames one as it is more accessible.
yea, i would have to agree. Though if you really want a frames site then give that option inside the site. I think that would be better though there is no real need for a frames site
Vic_De_VALMONT
08-31-2004, 10:47 PM
It looks great after the first page. That is, once the surfer has chose whether he/she wants frames or not, we find a page that is significantly better than what we'd expect from the "intro" page so to call it.
Since what is in is better than the first page, perhaps you'd reconsider the first page: you have a good product, why not making it clear since the first step it is such? The front page suggests a site poor of contents, but what ensues is very good.
As for using tables or divs, design and css is subject to fashion like many other things. It is years that the w3c makes recommendations, but only a few of them periodically gain _popularity_ approval throughout a forum community. That's fashion.
For instance now it is popular to say that a script tag must carry the type= property. Details of no practical relevance, therefore meant for purists. A script tag that carries no property whatsoever is still correctly parsed as javascript. At times some count how many angels could sit on a pinpoint lol.
Whether a div or a table should be used depends on your layout. Normally sponsoring divs means that you have a relatively simple layout that can be accomodated with a few "cells", thenceforth one may believ all layouts can. As soon as you go beyond that, tables become unvaluable as they bhave been for 10 years. And after all they still exist even in xhtml.
Use whichever you prefer. Both approaches are right, if we don't read them under a formalist viewpoint: both achieve the goal, and if one takes 4 seconds more than the other, it depends on how much mission critical for mankinde your website is ahahaha :-)
Also, maybe you have a wrongly nested tag. Who cares. A long page is judged on its whole quality, not on one or two or three errors. You won't get crucified on a few errors. At least, that's my approach when I have to "judge" a website. I judge the result. Yours look good. Whether a tag is misplaced is of formalist relevance to my eyes. A nice leather jacket is not thrown away because a pocket inside has a loose button.
You've made a good job in my humble opinion.
Enrich a bit the single product pages. But I guess ur site is new so you have plenty of time to make it grow better and better.
Good job.
Just my opinion of course.
Since what is in is better than the first page, perhaps you'd reconsider the first page: you have a good product, why not making it clear since the first step it is such? The front page suggests a site poor of contents, but what ensues is very good.
As for using tables or divs, design and css is subject to fashion like many other things. It is years that the w3c makes recommendations, but only a few of them periodically gain _popularity_ approval throughout a forum community. That's fashion.
For instance now it is popular to say that a script tag must carry the type= property. Details of no practical relevance, therefore meant for purists. A script tag that carries no property whatsoever is still correctly parsed as javascript. At times some count how many angels could sit on a pinpoint lol.
Whether a div or a table should be used depends on your layout. Normally sponsoring divs means that you have a relatively simple layout that can be accomodated with a few "cells", thenceforth one may believ all layouts can. As soon as you go beyond that, tables become unvaluable as they bhave been for 10 years. And after all they still exist even in xhtml.
Use whichever you prefer. Both approaches are right, if we don't read them under a formalist viewpoint: both achieve the goal, and if one takes 4 seconds more than the other, it depends on how much mission critical for mankinde your website is ahahaha :-)
Also, maybe you have a wrongly nested tag. Who cares. A long page is judged on its whole quality, not on one or two or three errors. You won't get crucified on a few errors. At least, that's my approach when I have to "judge" a website. I judge the result. Yours look good. Whether a tag is misplaced is of formalist relevance to my eyes. A nice leather jacket is not thrown away because a pocket inside has a loose button.
You've made a good job in my humble opinion.
Enrich a bit the single product pages. But I guess ur site is new so you have plenty of time to make it grow better and better.
Good job.
Just my opinion of course.
BuezaWebDev
08-31-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Vic_De_VALMONT
As for using tables or divs, design and css is subject to fashion like many other things. It is years that the w3c makes recommendations, but only a few of them periodically gain _popularity_ approval throughout a forum community. That's fashion.
For instance now it is popular to say that a script tag must carry the type= property. Details of no practical relevance, therefore meant for purists. A script tag that carries no property whatsoever is still correctly parsed as javascript. At times some count how many angels could sit on a pinpoint lol.
Whether a div or a table should be used depends on your layout. Normally sponsoring divs means that you have a relatively simple layout that can be accomodated with a few "cells", thenceforth one may believ all layouts can. As soon as you go beyond that, tables become unvaluable as they bhave been for 10 years. And after all they still exist even in xhtml.
Use whichever you prefer. Both approaches are right, if we don't read them under a formalist viewpoint: both achieve the goal, and if one takes 4 seconds more than the other, it depends on how much mission critical for mankinde your website is ahahaha :-)
Also, maybe you have a wrongly nested tag. Who cares. A long page is judged on its whole quality, not on one or two or three errors. You won't get crucified on a few errors. At least, that's my approach when I have to "judge" a website. I judge the result. Yours look good. Whether a tag is misplaced is of formalist relevance to my eyes. A nice leather jacket is not thrown away because a pocket inside has a loose button.
You've made a good job in my humble opinion.
Enrich a bit the single product pages. But I guess ur site is new so you have plenty of time to make it grow better and better.
Good job.
Just my opinion of course.
Brutal. Tables are NOT meant for layout. W3C does not create new webstandards just to make them little popular things for us web developers to do--It's for the sake of accessibility and efficiency.
It's too early in the morning to start argueing about tables vs css. I'll let someone else tell you how web development is supposed to be done.
As for using tables or divs, design and css is subject to fashion like many other things. It is years that the w3c makes recommendations, but only a few of them periodically gain _popularity_ approval throughout a forum community. That's fashion.
For instance now it is popular to say that a script tag must carry the type= property. Details of no practical relevance, therefore meant for purists. A script tag that carries no property whatsoever is still correctly parsed as javascript. At times some count how many angels could sit on a pinpoint lol.
Whether a div or a table should be used depends on your layout. Normally sponsoring divs means that you have a relatively simple layout that can be accomodated with a few "cells", thenceforth one may believ all layouts can. As soon as you go beyond that, tables become unvaluable as they bhave been for 10 years. And after all they still exist even in xhtml.
Use whichever you prefer. Both approaches are right, if we don't read them under a formalist viewpoint: both achieve the goal, and if one takes 4 seconds more than the other, it depends on how much mission critical for mankinde your website is ahahaha :-)
Also, maybe you have a wrongly nested tag. Who cares. A long page is judged on its whole quality, not on one or two or three errors. You won't get crucified on a few errors. At least, that's my approach when I have to "judge" a website. I judge the result. Yours look good. Whether a tag is misplaced is of formalist relevance to my eyes. A nice leather jacket is not thrown away because a pocket inside has a loose button.
You've made a good job in my humble opinion.
Enrich a bit the single product pages. But I guess ur site is new so you have plenty of time to make it grow better and better.
Good job.
Just my opinion of course.
Brutal. Tables are NOT meant for layout. W3C does not create new webstandards just to make them little popular things for us web developers to do--It's for the sake of accessibility and efficiency.
It's too early in the morning to start argueing about tables vs css. I'll let someone else tell you how web development is supposed to be done.
Vic_De_VALMONT
08-31-2004, 11:05 PM
I am stating my opinion, which is just my opinion, neither better or worst than yours. Youb qualify it as "brutal" but it is your comment which is "brutal" lol.
Instance:
quote
I'll let someone else tell you how web development is supposed to be done
unquote
You don't have to wait for anybody doing that. It is my personal opinion not to take webstandards as a totem. Also, it is my personal approach not to use terms like "accessibility and efficiency" as totems of uncertain semantic payload, flexible enough to accommodate whatever we may be pleased to fit in them, and yet regarded as mantras that as soon as they get uttered they would summon and cajole the spirit of the web.
You can use div or tables for your layouts. I don't find much difference in the approaches. Also, I do NOT attach any ideological streak to this issue. Some have a coding preference and they make a totem out of it.
The website I was answering with a review to, is a good one in my opinion. If he wants to use divs and float them or tables and arranfe the layout with them, it is in BOTH cases fair to me. The result is identical, and all the browsers landing on it would find the page "accessible", and all the modems would find it "efficient".
You remember me those times when using Netscape or Explorer was an ideological matter: you could not use any of them, yuou had to take stances.
The cold war is over, and I use both floating divs and tables with the utmost indifference, and with no qualms. I ammone of those who believe that it is the html which was made for men and not men to worship html lol
ciao, and relax: we're not at war.
By the way you have a nice website. Andc this though you use floating divs, which did not prevent me from observing thenoutcome rather than raising ideological fences.
Ah, purism :-)
Instance:
quote
I'll let someone else tell you how web development is supposed to be done
unquote
You don't have to wait for anybody doing that. It is my personal opinion not to take webstandards as a totem. Also, it is my personal approach not to use terms like "accessibility and efficiency" as totems of uncertain semantic payload, flexible enough to accommodate whatever we may be pleased to fit in them, and yet regarded as mantras that as soon as they get uttered they would summon and cajole the spirit of the web.
You can use div or tables for your layouts. I don't find much difference in the approaches. Also, I do NOT attach any ideological streak to this issue. Some have a coding preference and they make a totem out of it.
The website I was answering with a review to, is a good one in my opinion. If he wants to use divs and float them or tables and arranfe the layout with them, it is in BOTH cases fair to me. The result is identical, and all the browsers landing on it would find the page "accessible", and all the modems would find it "efficient".
You remember me those times when using Netscape or Explorer was an ideological matter: you could not use any of them, yuou had to take stances.
The cold war is over, and I use both floating divs and tables with the utmost indifference, and with no qualms. I ammone of those who believe that it is the html which was made for men and not men to worship html lol
ciao, and relax: we're not at war.
By the way you have a nice website. Andc this though you use floating divs, which did not prevent me from observing thenoutcome rather than raising ideological fences.
Ah, purism :-)
Vic_De_VALMONT
08-31-2004, 11:07 PM
quote
BuezaWebDev
Supreme Master of the Web
unquote
Oh sorry, i didn't notice that. Spyware, or you really really wrote that lol
BuezaWebDev
Supreme Master of the Web
unquote
Oh sorry, i didn't notice that. Spyware, or you really really wrote that lol
BuezaWebDev
08-31-2004, 11:15 PM
Supreme master of the web is a rank for having over a number of posts (something like 150)
Vic_De_VALMONT
08-31-2004, 11:23 PM
Ah ah ok, don't take it so seriously. Have a laugh at times :-)
We're not at war. We just have different opinions, and in my view both are legitimate and have their reasons. One follows the guidelines strictly, another is more pragmatic. Both make webpages, and both webpages work.
I respect your opinion, don't take a more pragmatic oputlook like an insult :-)
Ps but why who has over 900 posts is then a "dial up hater"? Is a dial up hater a higher rank than supreme web master of the universe then? :-)
We're not at war. We just have different opinions, and in my view both are legitimate and have their reasons. One follows the guidelines strictly, another is more pragmatic. Both make webpages, and both webpages work.
I respect your opinion, don't take a more pragmatic oputlook like an insult :-)
Ps but why who has over 900 posts is then a "dial up hater"? Is a dial up hater a higher rank than supreme web master of the universe then? :-)
BuezaWebDev
08-31-2004, 11:25 PM
You can customize your title in the user control panel. Currently, mine's on default, so I get these lame titles, "Supreme Master of the Web."
Vic_De_VALMONT
08-31-2004, 11:29 PM
That's ok, I like you and your website all the same :-)
ciao, with sympathy
Alberto
ciao, with sympathy
Alberto
tbailey1027
09-01-2004, 02:47 PM
I think the header is too large. It took me awhile to find the actual content. Also looks like you are having some transperency issues.
I disagree with the tables/CSS version. Do which ever is easier for you - It does not really slow down load times
I disagree with the tables/CSS version. Do which ever is easier for you - It does not really slow down load times
tbailey1027
09-01-2004, 02:48 PM
sorry, forgot to give you compliments as well. I love the flash navigation and the color scheme. Great Job!
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.