crh3675
06-28-2005, 01:30 PM
Do you want to review a good and clean website?
http://www.standardscompliance.com/
http://www.standardscompliance.com/
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Review a good website
Rabidus_lupus
06-28-2005, 03:37 PM
Your background doesn't say standards and compliance to me. Perhaps something interlocking would be better. Perhaps with VTC you can go nation wide.
I really don't like the fact that my address bar and other options disappear after clicking your links.
Your hosting partner is expensive.
Lastly you need examples of your work. I would go to someone with examples of their work available on their site simply because it's easier. I don't have time to waste, talking to you and then finding out you don't have examples.
Couple grammer errors I noticed.
-Discounts are be applied for fixed price projects.
-Many developers incorporate proprietary Internet browser features that do are not accessible to all viewers through the use of WYSIWYG editors (Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Homesite).
I really don't like the fact that my address bar and other options disappear after clicking your links.
Your hosting partner is expensive.
Lastly you need examples of your work. I would go to someone with examples of their work available on their site simply because it's easier. I don't have time to waste, talking to you and then finding out you don't have examples.
Couple grammer errors I noticed.
-Discounts are be applied for fixed price projects.
-Many developers incorporate proprietary Internet browser features that do are not accessible to all viewers through the use of WYSIWYG editors (Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Homesite).
crh3675
06-28-2005, 06:11 PM
Your background doesn't say standards and compliance to me.
Thanks for those notes, I got hooked on this horse logo for some reason. But does a Penguin say "Operating System" or does a "Red Hat" really identify with Linux? It's just branding. A Horse=Strength, Stability and gets you where you need to go.
I would go to someone with examples of their work
Also, haven't had a chance to put up examples with my full-time job taking up most of my time.
Your hosting partner is expensive.
Yeah I know (that's what happens when you make deals with friends)
Thanks for those notes, I got hooked on this horse logo for some reason. But does a Penguin say "Operating System" or does a "Red Hat" really identify with Linux? It's just branding. A Horse=Strength, Stability and gets you where you need to go.
I would go to someone with examples of their work
Also, haven't had a chance to put up examples with my full-time job taking up most of my time.
Your hosting partner is expensive.
Yeah I know (that's what happens when you make deals with friends)
LJK
06-29-2005, 12:23 AM
Hi -
The only problem with all the Compliance stuff is that we're
bound to find several coding errors! Check your site pages
with the w3c validator to see what I mean.
Yeah, why don't you just get ONE decent logo image instead
of two different ones that are just 'okay' and use it as a bkgnd.
image [maybe behind a transparent, white div - with no-repeat,
of course] - or a different header. [Besides tiled bkgnds., I feel
that centered pages seem a bit amaturish as well.]
Clean, but too squeaky, if 'ya know what I mean. The green and
blue are a good couple but too much gets tiresome, esp. on bright white.
Check the hover color on your nav links - they tend to really wash out.
Felt the 'filmstrip' look to the navbar didn't quite mesh, like
it was for a film studio, or something.
It's a really strong start, but a few tweaks will make it look
even more professional and well-planned.
El
The only problem with all the Compliance stuff is that we're
bound to find several coding errors! Check your site pages
with the w3c validator to see what I mean.
Yeah, why don't you just get ONE decent logo image instead
of two different ones that are just 'okay' and use it as a bkgnd.
image [maybe behind a transparent, white div - with no-repeat,
of course] - or a different header. [Besides tiled bkgnds., I feel
that centered pages seem a bit amaturish as well.]
Clean, but too squeaky, if 'ya know what I mean. The green and
blue are a good couple but too much gets tiresome, esp. on bright white.
Check the hover color on your nav links - they tend to really wash out.
Felt the 'filmstrip' look to the navbar didn't quite mesh, like
it was for a film studio, or something.
It's a really strong start, but a few tweaks will make it look
even more professional and well-planned.
El
dera
06-29-2005, 03:38 AM
i think you should get rid of the backround, it looks to empty, i know you want to achieve the clean look but it can be achieved with contetn aswell, a few pictures will liven the site up.. good luck:)
the tree
06-29-2005, 04:08 AM
Your homepage validates alright but I wouldn't call that standards compliance because your markup is not semantic.
You're using dividers where headers are wanted (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/headings) and "Standards Compliance" is horrific alternate text when it's followed by those words again so a screen reader, or text browser would just get the words repeated.
As that image is purely presentational and isn't content, a background image should be used instead.
Hovering over your links, and visiting them makes them unreadable. No infomation is given as to who the w3 are so to the lay-person those resources could be worthless.
No-one cares what a document type declaration is, they just want to know that you can make thier site accessable. (WCAG 14.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-simple-and-straightforward)) Oh, and you can't program with HTML and CSS so that bit's misleading.
You've used a lot of abreviations about the place but no <abbr> elements, why not?
Your class names (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/goodclassnames) are somewhat presentational.
Why is it that your brouchure is only avaliable in pdf format? Doesn't that defiey the message of your company?
It is really unclear how to get back to the homepage, (WCAG 13 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#context-and-orientation)).
In short, you've validated a few documents, but that just isn't enough.
You're using dividers where headers are wanted (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/headings) and "Standards Compliance" is horrific alternate text when it's followed by those words again so a screen reader, or text browser would just get the words repeated.
As that image is purely presentational and isn't content, a background image should be used instead.
Hovering over your links, and visiting them makes them unreadable. No infomation is given as to who the w3 are so to the lay-person those resources could be worthless.
No-one cares what a document type declaration is, they just want to know that you can make thier site accessable. (WCAG 14.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-simple-and-straightforward)) Oh, and you can't program with HTML and CSS so that bit's misleading.
You've used a lot of abreviations about the place but no <abbr> elements, why not?
Your class names (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/goodclassnames) are somewhat presentational.
Why is it that your brouchure is only avaliable in pdf format? Doesn't that defiey the message of your company?
It is really unclear how to get back to the homepage, (WCAG 13 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#context-and-orientation)).
In short, you've validated a few documents, but that just isn't enough.
buntine
06-29-2005, 04:28 AM
Just a quick note. It's best to add a leading forward slash to the end of your URL's. URL's void of this need to make two trips to the server. I forget to do it all the time, though.
Overall, the site is nice. Get rid of the repeating background, however. It reminds me of the mid-ninties. Your Markup is clean.
Regards.
Overall, the site is nice. Get rid of the repeating background, however. It reminds me of the mid-ninties. Your Markup is clean.
Regards.
dera
06-29-2005, 05:41 AM
Just a quick note. It's best to add a leading forward slash to the end of your URL's. URL's void of this need to make two trips to the server. I forget to do it all the time, though.
Overall, the site is nice. Get rid of the repeating background, however. It reminds me of the mid-ninties. Your Markup is clean.
Regards.
what do u mean, do u mean <a href="/" is better then <a href="www.webdeveloper.com" ?
Overall, the site is nice. Get rid of the repeating background, however. It reminds me of the mid-ninties. Your Markup is clean.
Regards.
what do u mean, do u mean <a href="/" is better then <a href="www.webdeveloper.com" ?
buntine
06-29-2005, 06:19 AM
I believe so. But more like: <a href="http://www.webdeveloper.com/"
crh3675
06-29-2005, 07:48 AM
Your homepage validates alright but I wouldn't call that standards compliance because your markup is not semantic.
You're using dividers where headers are wanted (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/headings)
The validator does not give this message on the site at all
and "Standards Compliance" is horrific alternate text when it's followed by those words again so a screen reader, or text browser would just get the words repeated.
What do you recommend for the image then?
As that image is purely presentational and isn't content, a background image should be used instead.
I disagree. In some cases maybe, but web spiders do not pick up background images
Hovering over your links, and visiting them makes them unreadable. No infomation is given as to who the w3 are so to the lay-person those resources could be worthless.
This I could care less about. If they want to click the links, they can.
No-one cares what a document type declaration is, they just want to know that you can make thier site accessable.
Some developers do. Where you seem me "emphasize" the DTD is to educate the client on what practices I use.
(WCAG 14.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-simple-and-straightforward)) Oh, and you can't program with HTML and CSS so that bit's misleading.
I assume you mean that "HTML and CSS" are not programming, not that "I" can't program with HTML and CSS. To a client, all website work is considered programming.
You've used a lot of abreviations about the place but no <abbr> elements, why not?
They are not abbreviations, they are acronyms.
Your class names (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/goodclassnames) are somewhat presentational.
Did you even look at the style sheet? (logo,logotext,pageHeader,navigation,companyname,tagline). You are a bit confused
Why is it that your brouchure is only avaliable in pdf format? Doesn't that defy the message of your company?
It is created through a different program and just haven't converted it to HTML.
It is really unclear how to get back to the homepage, (WCAG 13 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#context-and-orientation)).
For many years, even the simple user knows that a logo is the first place to check to get to the home page
In short, you've validated a few documents, but that just isn't enough.
The minor errors have been fixed
You're using dividers where headers are wanted (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/headings)
The validator does not give this message on the site at all
and "Standards Compliance" is horrific alternate text when it's followed by those words again so a screen reader, or text browser would just get the words repeated.
What do you recommend for the image then?
As that image is purely presentational and isn't content, a background image should be used instead.
I disagree. In some cases maybe, but web spiders do not pick up background images
Hovering over your links, and visiting them makes them unreadable. No infomation is given as to who the w3 are so to the lay-person those resources could be worthless.
This I could care less about. If they want to click the links, they can.
No-one cares what a document type declaration is, they just want to know that you can make thier site accessable.
Some developers do. Where you seem me "emphasize" the DTD is to educate the client on what practices I use.
(WCAG 14.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-simple-and-straightforward)) Oh, and you can't program with HTML and CSS so that bit's misleading.
I assume you mean that "HTML and CSS" are not programming, not that "I" can't program with HTML and CSS. To a client, all website work is considered programming.
You've used a lot of abreviations about the place but no <abbr> elements, why not?
They are not abbreviations, they are acronyms.
Your class names (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/goodclassnames) are somewhat presentational.
Did you even look at the style sheet? (logo,logotext,pageHeader,navigation,companyname,tagline). You are a bit confused
Why is it that your brouchure is only avaliable in pdf format? Doesn't that defy the message of your company?
It is created through a different program and just haven't converted it to HTML.
It is really unclear how to get back to the homepage, (WCAG 13 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#context-and-orientation)).
For many years, even the simple user knows that a logo is the first place to check to get to the home page
In short, you've validated a few documents, but that just isn't enough.
The minor errors have been fixed
the tree
06-29-2005, 08:06 AM
The validator does not give this message on the site at allWhat's your point? The validator doesn't tell you wether a page is well marked up, just if it's marked up correctly.
What do you recommend for the image then?Like I said, set it as a background.
I disagree. In some cases maybe, but web spiders do not pick up background imagesAnd why would it? Web spiders are only interested in content, which that image isn't.
This I could care less about. If they want to click the links, they can.So you don't want a clear and legible site where people trust your resources? Fair enough.
Some developers do. Where you seem me "emphasize" the DTD is to educate the client on what practices I use.I don't care what type of hinge holds my door, or why it's better than all the other hinges, I just want to know that it is.
I assume you mean that "HTML and CSS" are not programming, not that "I" can't program with HTML and CSS. To a client, all website work is considered programming.Well you can't, and niether can I, because they aren't programming languages like you said. I don't think that it's fair to assume you're visitors are niave.
They are not abbreviations, they are acronyms.An acronym is a set of initials that forms something pronounceable, like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) but either way you haven't marked them up.
Did you even look at the style sheet? (logo,logotext,pageHeader,navigation,companyname,tagline). You are a bit confused.dots, .floatBlockLeft, .floatBlock, .floatContent, .floatNum
For many years, even the simple user knows that a logo is the first place to check to get to the home page.Considering that the header text doesn't link back, there's not much reason to assume the less prominent logo does.
What do you recommend for the image then?Like I said, set it as a background.
I disagree. In some cases maybe, but web spiders do not pick up background imagesAnd why would it? Web spiders are only interested in content, which that image isn't.
This I could care less about. If they want to click the links, they can.So you don't want a clear and legible site where people trust your resources? Fair enough.
Some developers do. Where you seem me "emphasize" the DTD is to educate the client on what practices I use.I don't care what type of hinge holds my door, or why it's better than all the other hinges, I just want to know that it is.
I assume you mean that "HTML and CSS" are not programming, not that "I" can't program with HTML and CSS. To a client, all website work is considered programming.Well you can't, and niether can I, because they aren't programming languages like you said. I don't think that it's fair to assume you're visitors are niave.
They are not abbreviations, they are acronyms.An acronym is a set of initials that forms something pronounceable, like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) but either way you haven't marked them up.
Did you even look at the style sheet? (logo,logotext,pageHeader,navigation,companyname,tagline). You are a bit confused.dots, .floatBlockLeft, .floatBlock, .floatContent, .floatNum
For many years, even the simple user knows that a logo is the first place to check to get to the home page.Considering that the header text doesn't link back, there's not much reason to assume the less prominent logo does.
crh3675
06-29-2005, 08:37 AM
What's your point? The validator doesn't tell you wether a page is well marked up, just if it's marked up correctly.
I use H1 and H2 tags in the site so I don't understand the link you sent me
Like I said, set it as a background.
Ok then, disable Javascript and CSS and then where does my link back to the home page go?
And why would it? Web spiders are only interested in content, which that image isn't.
I disagree with that: "Google – arguably the best search engine around – includes in its powerful suite of tools an image search."
So you don't want a clear and legible site where people trust your resources? Fair enough.
I didn't say that. Those links are for reference for people who want to learn more about standards and I have read the references
I don't care what type of hinge holds my door, or why it's better than all the other hinges, I just want to know that it is.
Educating my clients is the most important part of the work I do. I empower them to learn more so when they want to make a decision of who to choose for a project, they undecidedly choose me over others. This has been a very good marketing tool and has gotten me many projects. You are basically saying that I could sell you a box of rusted nails and tell you that despite their appearance, they work better than any others.
Well you can't, and niether can I, because they aren't programming languages like you said. I don't think that it's fair to assume you're visitors are niave.
The projects that I work on are mainly application level where HTML and CSS are just the layout control. When I do projects with clients, they are mainly PHP, Javascript, MySQL, and XML. Instead of trying to differentiate between what is programming and what is markup, programming is what they understand for the project in it's entirety.
An acronym is a set of initials that forms something pronounceable, like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) but either way you haven't marked them up.
I think I know the definition of the term. I just marked them up but why would I "assume my visitors are niave" and don't know what they are? You contradict yourself.
.dots, .floatBlockLeft, .floatBlock, .floatContent, .floatNum
I will change those to something else
Considering that the header text doesn't link back, there's not much reason to assume the less prominent logo does.
Again, in your words "I don't think that it's fair to assume you're visitors are niave." You contradict your own thoughts. Thanks for all of the input and I will make some of the changes.
I use H1 and H2 tags in the site so I don't understand the link you sent me
Like I said, set it as a background.
Ok then, disable Javascript and CSS and then where does my link back to the home page go?
And why would it? Web spiders are only interested in content, which that image isn't.
I disagree with that: "Google – arguably the best search engine around – includes in its powerful suite of tools an image search."
So you don't want a clear and legible site where people trust your resources? Fair enough.
I didn't say that. Those links are for reference for people who want to learn more about standards and I have read the references
I don't care what type of hinge holds my door, or why it's better than all the other hinges, I just want to know that it is.
Educating my clients is the most important part of the work I do. I empower them to learn more so when they want to make a decision of who to choose for a project, they undecidedly choose me over others. This has been a very good marketing tool and has gotten me many projects. You are basically saying that I could sell you a box of rusted nails and tell you that despite their appearance, they work better than any others.
Well you can't, and niether can I, because they aren't programming languages like you said. I don't think that it's fair to assume you're visitors are niave.
The projects that I work on are mainly application level where HTML and CSS are just the layout control. When I do projects with clients, they are mainly PHP, Javascript, MySQL, and XML. Instead of trying to differentiate between what is programming and what is markup, programming is what they understand for the project in it's entirety.
An acronym is a set of initials that forms something pronounceable, like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) but either way you haven't marked them up.
I think I know the definition of the term. I just marked them up but why would I "assume my visitors are niave" and don't know what they are? You contradict yourself.
.dots, .floatBlockLeft, .floatBlock, .floatContent, .floatNum
I will change those to something else
Considering that the header text doesn't link back, there's not much reason to assume the less prominent logo does.
Again, in your words "I don't think that it's fair to assume you're visitors are niave." You contradict your own thoughts. Thanks for all of the input and I will make some of the changes.
jmaresca2005
06-29-2005, 11:56 AM
you need more content. ur copy needs to be built upon
buntine
06-29-2005, 04:40 PM
Looks much better now. Allow for customers to contact you easier. A contact form would do the trick.
Regards.
Regards.
LJK
07-04-2005, 11:59 PM
Hi -
Gotta agree with that.
You have the layout nailed-down pretty well [thanks for losing
the centering] & it's starting to look more professional.
But to be honest, it's time to work more with design.
Still looks rather 1994 in many ways - and
the bright colors with black on white is harsh for
the eyes - gets tiring after a bit. Consider selecting
some areas for a light background color.
[Or make the body / container bkgnd. darker and put a
white bkgnd. on the p's or div's.]
I'd really re-think the navigation and maybe give the logo
a background shape on some type of header bkgnd. so it seems
meshed with the rest of the page.
Just opinion, of course. Have fun with it,
El
Gotta agree with that.
You have the layout nailed-down pretty well [thanks for losing
the centering] & it's starting to look more professional.
But to be honest, it's time to work more with design.
Still looks rather 1994 in many ways - and
the bright colors with black on white is harsh for
the eyes - gets tiring after a bit. Consider selecting
some areas for a light background color.
[Or make the body / container bkgnd. darker and put a
white bkgnd. on the p's or div's.]
I'd really re-think the navigation and maybe give the logo
a background shape on some type of header bkgnd. so it seems
meshed with the rest of the page.
Just opinion, of course. Have fun with it,
El
Ness_du_Frat
07-05-2005, 04:46 AM
Mm...
As usual, I don't want to look at the code, because I'm not good enough to see if you have some errors in it, most of all if you say it's standard complient...
But...
The design, OMG, it's soooo... soooo... empty ! Cold !
I don't like cold colors, but that's not the point.
The general layout is fine.
MY problem with this website is :
it might be standard complient, it doesn't make me want to stay and investigate.
The layout is really old-fashioned. Sorry to say that, but it reminds me of the yahoo page you find if you navigate with Netscape 4.0
But then, again, it's very clear, and professional looking. But try softer colors !!!
As usual, I don't want to look at the code, because I'm not good enough to see if you have some errors in it, most of all if you say it's standard complient...
But...
The design, OMG, it's soooo... soooo... empty ! Cold !
I don't like cold colors, but that's not the point.
The general layout is fine.
MY problem with this website is :
it might be standard complient, it doesn't make me want to stay and investigate.
The layout is really old-fashioned. Sorry to say that, but it reminds me of the yahoo page you find if you navigate with Netscape 4.0
But then, again, it's very clear, and professional looking. But try softer colors !!!
crh3675
07-05-2005, 08:47 AM
The layout is really old-fashioned. Sorry to say that, but it reminds me of the yahoo page you find if you navigate with Netscape 4.0
But then, again, it's very clear, and professional looking. But try softer colors !!!
That unfortunately is what I like, easy to read, simple and older fashioned looking. I like colors that scream at people but I appreciate the comments.
it's time to work more with design.
Yeah, I'm more of a programmer than a designer
But then, again, it's very clear, and professional looking. But try softer colors !!!
That unfortunately is what I like, easy to read, simple and older fashioned looking. I like colors that scream at people but I appreciate the comments.
it's time to work more with design.
Yeah, I'm more of a programmer than a designer
Ness_du_Frat
07-06-2005, 04:09 AM
you know what ?
I think if you tried very dark gray instead of black ( not for the black squares, but for the text ), it would be better. That's, of course, just my opinion.
And you know what again ? ( yes, I don't have a lot of vocabulary ) I'm rather glad you wish to keep your website like that. I'm tired of seeing all new pro websites looking the same. At least, yours is different. Even if I don't like the colors ! ;)
I think if you tried very dark gray instead of black ( not for the black squares, but for the text ), it would be better. That's, of course, just my opinion.
And you know what again ? ( yes, I don't have a lot of vocabulary ) I'm rather glad you wish to keep your website like that. I'm tired of seeing all new pro websites looking the same. At least, yours is different. Even if I don't like the colors ! ;)
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.