Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : My Site
HunterOriginal
04-04-2005, 12:45 PM
my site is in the making as we speak, its for my clan, and im working on a portal as well as alternate skins and resolution options, my site will NOT function properly with Safari or Mozilla browsers, and i have no plans to fix this either, other than that id like to know what you think.. i did all the html by hand, safe for the news page, wich there were to many layers and i got lazy and used dreamweaver.. anywho.. heres my site: www.freewebs.com/clanhunter i have resieved comments from other clans that it is "very professionaly done" (pardon my lack of spelling skill) im interested as to what the webbsite building community thinks of it :rolleyes:
iamlucky13
04-04-2005, 01:21 PM
The coloring is somewhat chaotic, but I suspect that was your intent, so that's up to you. The navigation menu is hard to read becuase of the awkward lines around the words. It looks like it uses image rollovers for the navigation menu links, which is a clumsy way to accomplish the effect you have and they waste bandwidth. Listamatic (http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/) has some very good examples of much simpler menus that use unordered lists (ul).
Personally, I don't like pages with multiple scroll bars. Keep it to the scroll bar on the right side. Let the content in the news boxes expand and all be visible. You've got plenty of space to make it wider, as well.
Since you're running a site for gamers, you'll likely have some visitors who use Mozilla (I'm only using IE today because I'm in a computer lab). If they can't navigate your page, they won't come back. I strongly advise making it work properly in different browsers. This may mean large amounts of rewriting code.
I've given you an awful lot to think about, so I'll leave it there.
HunterOriginal
04-04-2005, 01:30 PM
The coloring is somewhat chaotic, but I suspect that rollovers for the navigation menu links, which is a clumsy way to accomplish the effect you have and they waste bandwidth. .
they use no bandwith what so ever since it is a free hosted site (photobucket)
Green-Beast
04-04-2005, 02:43 PM
they use no bandwith what so ever since it is a free hosted site (photobucket)
Of course it does. And the site is too heavy. Uses too much bandwidth whether you have freen storage. It took forever to load on my broadband connection. Thank of it this way: you have a car, and your friend fills up the gas tank for you... your car still uses gas, right? Even though you didn't have to pay for it. Same deal with bandwidth.
HunterOriginal
04-04-2005, 05:38 PM
loads fine on my computer... and my friends, and the computers at school. (wich suck) and everyone in my clan... wow.. im sorry i asked people.... im a frikin novice... gimie a break with the technicalities... and there is nothing wrong with rollover images for a navigation, it is very common.. also it is only "heavy" if you have your monitor set to a low resolution(wich is being fixed soon with the portal) and there is nothing i can do about the browser incompatability, the layers do not function with their positioning on Mozilla or Safari.. nothing can be done to fix this.. im sorry mozilla and safari suck with html.. but there is nothing i can do... at least. that im aware of.. enlighten me with a better code if you find one.. REMINDER: the site is in the begining stages, many things are being looked at.. do not complain about the things that are already in place.. i would like to hear SUGESTIONS as to something to add or something to change, you dont have to be rude with your review using words like "clumsy" is not kind.. surely you could have found a better way to say that... such as: "im not sure rollover images are the best choice because they waist bandwith...." :/
at a later date i may consider making seperate pages for differant browsers such as mozzila, but as less than 2% of the people who view my site use it.. its realy not top priority right now
Green-Beast
04-04-2005, 06:18 PM
loads fine on my computer... and my friends, and the computers at school. (wich suck) and everyone in my clan... wow.. im sorry i asked people.... im a frikin novice... gimie a break with the technicalities... and there is nothing wrong with rollover images for a navigation, it is very common.. also it is only "heavy" if you have your monitor set to a low resolution(wich is being fixed soon with the portal) and there is nothing i can do about the browser incompatability, the layers do not function with their positioning on Mozilla or Safari.. nothing can be done to fix this.. im sorry mozilla and safari suck with html.. but there is nothing i can do... at least. that im aware of.. enlighten me with a better code if you find one.. REMINDER: the site is in the begining stages, many things are being looked at.. do not complain about the things that are already in place.. i would like to hear SUGESTIONS as to something to add or something to change, you dont have to be rude with your review using words like "clumsy" is not kind.. surely you could have found a better way to say that... such as: "im not sure rollover images are the best choice because they waist bandwith...." :/
at a later date i may consider making seperate pages for differant browsers such as mozzila, but as less than 2% of the people who view my site use it.. its realy not top priority right now
Okay. We're wrong. You're right. So sorry.
HunterOriginal
04-04-2005, 06:24 PM
Okay. We're wrong. You're right. So sorry.and dont play that card -.- thats the kind of thing a parent says to send the person on a guilt trip.. you are free to make suggestions and CONSTRUCTIVE critosism.. as well as express your opinion.. im merely asking you do it in a much kinder manner, as for you green you didnt do anything, you are right.. under certain resolutions it is heavy :) i am trieng to fix this, until then increase your reslolution ;) the site is REALY crammed if veiwed in 800 x 600, it views best in 1024 x 768 or higher (32 bit)
and involving the load speed, there will later be an option in the portal where you can select a seperate navigation... (this is being added as a result of the first suggestion)
as for the bandwith they cant use much becuase:
Monthly Allowance: 500.0 Mb
Used: below 100Mb
Available: 500.0 Mb
Reset Date: 28th
iamlucky13
04-04-2005, 11:06 PM
Dangit, I just typed up a long response, and my session expired. I lost the entire thing.
I didn't intend to be offensive when I said clumsy, it was just poor word choice. What I was trying to say is that there is a better way to accomplish the effect in your menu by using Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). If you do a google search or search the forums, you find 10's of thousands of hits on about the advantages and just as many tutorials. There is a little bit of extra stuff to learn, but in the long run, it's worth it. Your site will accomplish what you want to as is, so I'm not going to harp on you, but I think it's important that you know about CSS and HTML 4 standards because it has much greater flexibility than the old HTML 3. You'll find the overwhelming majority of regular visitors on this site code for what is called standards compliency.
I didn't have any suggestions for things to add. You've got all the basic elements: purpose, content, navigation menu, and logical arrangement on the page.
spufi
04-05-2005, 09:55 AM
Read the sticky for this forum and that will get you going in terms of just some of the stuff I would take issue with, and there is a lot there. The issue with your left sided nav is basically because you use frames, which should be avoided.
HunterOriginal
04-05-2005, 11:15 AM
why should frames be avoided?.... and the navigation is in a LAYER, in a frame
mtgentry
04-05-2005, 12:07 PM
I agree CSS would help a lot. I've found this site to be helpfull:
http://csszengarden.com
Also lighten up man, you asked for feedback and you got it. Why not listen to what people suggest? It will only help your design skills improve.
spufi
04-05-2005, 07:25 PM
why should frames be avoided?.... and the navigation is in a LAYER, in a frame
Search engines don't like frames. If a person bookmarks something on your site, they bookmark the home page by default, which means a person has to search again through your site to find it. You would be hard pressed to find a valid reason to use frames that I would agree with. If you thinking being able to code something and then have it change all through your site, I say you should be using server side languages.
HunterOriginal
04-08-2005, 11:28 AM
im going to try my hand at CSS tonight, perhaps i can use it to achieve what i am working for
Sanim
04-08-2005, 11:38 AM
im sorry mozilla and safari suck with html..
Have you ever thought about the possibility that it is the designer's fault that the webpage shows up messed up, not the browser? Except with IE 5... heh
HunterOriginal
04-09-2005, 08:46 AM
im sorry but im going to stick with my suck with HTML comment...
"CSS property layer-background-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-3d-light-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-arrow-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-base-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-dark-shadow-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-face-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-highlight-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-shadow-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-track-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"The target attribute of the Frame tag is not supported.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"The border attribute of the FRAMESET tag is not supported.
Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"The frameborder attribute of the FRAMESET tag is not supported.
Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"The framespacing attribute of the FRAMESET tag is not supported.
Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
im sorry.. i realy enjoy those fetures... and if the browser doesnt support them... show me an alternate code or it aint changin :P
the tree
04-09-2005, 09:00 AM
To be honest, I don't see why any of that is a problem, those are all proprietry attributes that don't appear in the specifications, so I'm quite happy to have my browser ignore them.
Unsurprisingly, only IE lets you muck about with your scrollbar colours. It really is not a good idea to attempt anything like that.
You could explain what the "target" attribute is meant to do, I'm sure I can find an alternative.
You can change the appearance of your frames in CSS, here be a tiny example.
<frame src="page.htm" style="border: 1px solid #00f; padding: 0;">
SiteTutor
04-09-2005, 07:10 PM
at first I saw nothing but chaos and then I looked at it again - maybe it is supposed to be just the way it is :confused: I still think the buttons on the left are hard to read but who cares, the site may look just right for the visitors you will get.
HunterOriginal
04-11-2005, 11:41 AM
the issue i have with the layer background color, it seems to cuase some images to missalign themselves... in safari and mozilla, as for the CSS code.. i dont see anything entered ;)
HunterOriginal
09-14-2005, 02:09 PM
all problems with safari, mozilla and and any other non-explorer browsers should now be fixed
the problem was some <p></p> tags that were just randomly placed in.. how they got there im not sure, but the non-explorer programs accepted them as spaced and moved my images into random locations... i actualy fixed this a long time ago but yeah
hansons
09-15-2005, 07:11 AM
i have seen ur website...looking great........but colour combination is not good..
KDLA
09-15-2005, 08:36 AM
Hi -
The site took a long time to load on my PC: 5 or 6 seconds, which means it would be a lot longer for a dial-up modem user.
You might take a look at your site using my browser/screen settings. A lot of blank space that could be used for content (eliminating some of that extraneous scrolling). You might consider changing your frame sizes to relative, using percentages, rather than absolute.
BTW...
dude your browser sucks and you are unable to view this site.. :/
a non-frame version of this site is under consideration
is very rude. Not everyone will appreciate your sense of humor. The aim of your web services/entertainment should be to accommodate the user as much as possible; not ego-centric grandstanding. I suggest you, instead, provide information needed to view your site, such as IE is needed and provide a link.
KDLA
HunterOriginal
09-15-2005, 01:50 PM
been working on that ;) my primary concern at the moment is providing additional skins for view, cleaner ones as that current skin is the first i ever made and is rather chaotic
i have already planned to change that <noframes> portion to something involving links to the two important frames.
and im not sure what you mean by blank space that could be used for content.... the site is made for a standard resolution (1024x768)
5-6 seconds isnt of much concern to me since the CGI forums we are currently browsing take anywhere from 7-10 seconds to load for a broadband user.
if you still dont like the current skin, you can be happy to see what is coming:
http://www.freewebs.com/clanhunter/testframe.htm
other plans:
working with Ultimater to make a effective skin changing system
he is also making me an easier way to make news posts, wich will remove a lot of the extra posts to a differant page wich will fix that "extranious scrolling"
KDLA
09-15-2005, 02:21 PM
Hi -
Attached is a screenshot of what I mean about extra space. If you look at the right side, there is close to 200-300px of blank space.
There is no "standard" screen size. What is the default on your PC may not be the default on someone else's. For instance, my PC here is set at 1024x768. My laptop at home only has the setting of 1152x864 available, because it is a widescreen. When I look at your page using the one here, I see about 200-300px of extra space; on the home laptop, approximately 50% of the screen will be blank.
That is the difference between graphic design and web design: you can't control how the end product will appear once it reaches the recipient.
Before you continue on creating themes, images, and such, you should probably learn about the standards that help make your pages' design enjoyable to everyone.
In addition to the articles below, take a look at the sticky notes in the Accessibility forum.
well maybe you should look at the new skin, becuase it is more effective, also i think you only looked at the home page, the other pages will not have the same amount, besides that i understand your call to concern about the images being to small, but if i made them larger it would take up to much room and certain users couldnt view it. and without the images i think it looks rather.. plain
Waylander
09-18-2005, 09:09 PM
Horrible, couldnt look at the site for more than 5 seconds on first load i could see 4 scrollbars!
"your browser sucks" telling the user that they or there software sucks (yes people write thier on browsers) is generally NOT considered to be a good idea..........
"if you feel the navigation" thats got some attitude in it and is a pretty silly statement.
"coming soon" and "under construction" i would check all the pages if i could be bothered but it looks like you have more missing pages than actuall full pages the site is not finished and shouldnt be up. some of the pages dont even have under construction and the hosts entire page loads in the frame...
the menu is too long information overload, a submenu system would be usefull
doctype on the initial tiny frame page... and not on a single page after that
photobucket, freeweb.... lame.. if your building a website do it properly get some space host your own images and pages
my criticism may not sound "respectfull".... but the people who were "respectfull" have received nothing but attitude from you so i didnt feel the need quite frankly.
HunterOriginal
09-19-2005, 02:15 PM
yeah... my own space... cuz i just have money poping out of my rear
TexasWebDevelop
09-20-2005, 08:25 PM
Here's the skinny on your site...add at least 2 seconds to the fastest download time due to the two second penalty for each server connection (you have seven of them).
Server Connections
img.photobucket.com
www.centraloutpost.com
botdev.valhallalegends.com
www.gamesites200.com
counters.freewebs.com
www.freewebs.com
download.blizzard.com
Zarel
09-21-2005, 03:30 PM
im sorry but im going to stick with my suck with HTML comment...
"CSS property layer-background-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
Wait, wait, layer? Why the heck would you need layers?
"CSS property scrollbar-3d-light-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-arrow-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-base-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-dark-shadow-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-face-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-highlight-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-shadow-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
"CSS property scrollbar-track-color is not supported
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
As for the scrollbar colors, forget about it. Scrollbars are part of a GUI, not part of a web page. The person visiting the web site should be the one that chooses what the scrollbar looks like, not you.
"The target attribute of the Frame tag is not supported.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
What the heck is the target attribute of the Frame tag? MSIE doesn't support it, either, so I have no idea what browser you're using that does. NCSA Mosaic? Gopher? Lynx?
"The border attribute of the FRAMESET tag is not supported.
Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
Use CSS. A frame's border changes how it looks, not its contents. HTML is for content, CSS is for looks.
"The frameborder attribute of the FRAMESET tag is not supported.
Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
Again, use CSS.
"The framespacing attribute of the FRAMESET tag is not supported.
Mozilla 1.0, Netscape Navigator 6.0, Netscape Navigator 7.0, Safari 1.0"
Once again, use CSS. A frame's spacing changes how it looks, not its contents.
im sorry.. i realy enjoy those fetures... and if the browser doesnt support them... show me an alternate code or it aint changin :P
Well, the other browsers have these features. They're just implemented better than Internet Explorer does it. I already showed you an alternate code that works on every single browser that exists (Okay, maybe not the really old ones or the text-based ones, but you get the point).
hansons
09-22-2005, 03:26 AM
i have seen ur website......its looking nice....i appericiate it
HunterOriginal
09-22-2005, 01:46 PM
thank you hanson
as for you Zarel
i am aware of every single on of those issues, they do not NEED changing, i am currently at school browsing on safari and my site works just fine. the additional atributes work in IE, yes, but dont in safari or netscape.. big deal.. it doesnt effect anyone's ability to browse
also.. layers are the only way i am aware of with HTML to set images in spacific locations acording to pixels
pogy366
09-22-2005, 03:32 PM
Hunter - are you building and testing based on what you see in Mac-IE? If that's the case then you are asking for a world of hurt and a good deal of people not wanting to view your site in other browsers that are actually worth their salt.
IMO, Mac-IE is the ass end of browsers. With that said, if you want people to visit your site more than once, you should really try to make sure it works in as many browsers as possible. Sure i use Firefox and think that IE was spawned by a CSS-hating demon, but i still make sure my sites work in IE as well as FF, Netscape and Opera. It only makes sense.
Because why waste your time working on something that only 50% of the people can see?
i would suggest going to css zen garden (http://www.csszengarden.com/) or OSWD (http://www.oswd.org/) and checking out those designs and retro-fitting your site to one that you think would work.
Lastly, the download time is a killer.
But at the end of it, i know you did a lot of work so far, and that's cool. Good job. Just make sure all of your hard work doesn't go out the window becuase your site has flaws YOU are willign to live with. Good luck!
pogy366
09-22-2005, 03:34 PM
also.. layers are the only way i am aware of with HTML to set images in spacific locations acording to pixels
css does this quite well [hint]
HunterOriginal
10-23-2005, 08:58 AM
once again, view the testframe, that is similar to how my front page will be, i will be making all the images into one, to save download time..
as for multiple scrollbars... your all just pansies its rather simple and it works on any computer... click once in the "Blank Space" in the layer you plan to scroll it, TA DA your mouse wheel will only scroll that one....
mtgentry
10-23-2005, 01:53 PM
Everyone who gives you honest feedback is a pansy? I hope your excuse for being an A-hole is that you're just young and naive.
spufi
10-23-2005, 04:59 PM
mtgentry, one uncalled for remark doesn't deserve another.
About the frames, you are causing the user to do a lot more work than what they should be doing. Even if the frames work on all computers, you are making your site less user friendly.
Waylander
10-23-2005, 08:12 PM
Honestly, the site is still terrible.
Ive used frames before, they arent they end of the world and can be usefull in certain situations especially iFrames for web applications but i can not see a single justifyable need for a single frame on that site. I could recreate the entire site without the frames with the same images and content and have it look exactly the same. Even down to the ridiculus menu scroll bars (side scroll is wrong seriously) with overflowing divs.
I also find it ridiculus that you will not listen to all these people who are trying to give you valuable design tips.... you dont know everything, a lot of the people who post on this forum are proffesional web developers. People who have thousands of posts, people who have written heaps of sites, most of which in standards compliance....
Why dont you put your ego aside for just a few minutes and actually listen to what these people are trying to tell you because.... they are trying to help you!!
If you use more css, and get rid of the frames and tables your scripts are going to be considerably shorter in length, and more accessable to your viewing audience.
Waylander.
KDLA
10-24-2005, 07:29 AM
I agree with Waylander. Nicely written.
HunterOriginal, sometimes you have to separate yourself from the design. The comments offered in this forum aren't against you. You might read Jona's sticky note regarding website review requests. It might clear up some issues for you.
KDLA
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.