www.webdeveloper.com
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Please review www.dreamstatecreations.com

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6

    Please review www.dreamstatecreations.com

    Hi guys,

    Please can you all review my latest project, any feedback is welcome...

    The site is almost complete, just a few changes in the text content. Ive got it all valid HTML and CSS. Its only a small site but id like to know if it looks good and also professional enough?

    Anyway here is the site: www.dreamstatecreations.com ( SOFTWARE IS NOT LIVE AS YET )

    Thanks, Mike

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    327
    The layout is good, but I have a few quibbles.

    #1: I don't really consider Transitional fully validated, because it isn't guaranteed to be valid in the (near) future .
    #2: Using tables for layouts are horribly inefficient. The same layout you have can be accomplished with MUCH less code using CSS, which means faster access to your website. Visit this site: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
    #3: The text elements in your graphics need antialiasing, bad. What software are you doing the graphics in?

    If you clean up the graphics a bit, I would say it looks professional - however, looking professional isn't always the best case scenario.
    Administrator of The Engine Network
    http://www.the-engine.org
    "We are drunk of borg. Resistance is floor-tile."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2

    "real" CSS

    I think most of what Panda said about your site is correct. The one thing I take issue with is his take on your "transitional" CSS. It validates perfectly with W3 and I wouldn't worry about it. Your not doing anything spetacular with your CSS code that should be effected by changes in the future. Nice layout.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for your replies,

    invertedpanda - I have changed the text graphics as you suggested. I am using Fireworks MX and just didnt have that option set on.

    I totally understand that using tables is a 'bad' thing but its only a little site and im not totally familiar with CSS layout design as yet (something else on the list to learn fully). Did you consider the site to load up slow?

    When you say "looking professional isn't always the best case scenario", what do you think i would need to consider more than the site looking professional?

    jfeth - thank you for your comments


    I look forward to other comments on the site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    327
    Professional sites, in my opinion, need to focus not only looking good, but acting as a working example of proper usage of standardizations, as well as useability/accessability. The site should have the least amount of code possible, should be easy to maintain/modify in case someone new takes over the website (or in case you deside to tweak it), etc - CSS can do that.
    Administrator of The Engine Network
    http://www.the-engine.org
    "We are drunk of borg. Resistance is floor-tile."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6
    I sort of agree and disagree but thanks for the extra feedback....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Warning: main(location.php): failed open stream
    Posts
    1,119
    Quote Originally Posted by invertedpanda
    The layout is good, but I have a few quibbles.

    #1: I don't really consider Transitional fully validated, because it isn't guaranteed to be valid in the (near) future .
    #2: Using tables for layouts are horribly inefficient. The same layout you have can be accomplished with MUCH less code using CSS, which means faster access to your website. Visit this site: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
    #3: The text elements in your graphics need antialiasing, bad. What software are you doing the graphics in?

    If you clean up the graphics a bit, I would say it looks professional - however, looking professional isn't always the best case scenario.
    it will always be valid but not current. eg like 3.2 html is valid if u chuck it in the validator it is just not a w3 recommendation any more.
    fabioDRN.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles