Yay! I have a website...

[Jpec07]

Well, it's not much right now, just a layout and a welcome page, but it's a layout. I wanted to show people and find out what they thought of it, so here is a link:
The Website of Me...
So what do you think?

 

[Matrixhasu77]

It looks fairly decent. My only suggestion is to change the word "Menu" to a darker color other than White. It is a little difficult to read clearily (Especially the E).

I do like the double underline CSS trick.

I'll leave the criticism to someone else... like Sage or Shannon.

 

[Jpec07]

Originally posted by Matrixhasu77
My only suggestion is to change the word "Menu" to a darker color other than White. It is a little difficult to read clearily (Especially the E).

The thing about that was if I had it a dark color, you wouldn't be able to see it at all (the dark part of that button thing is really sharply contrasted to the light part; so if I made it dark you'd only be able to see the part on the white, which would be worse off than the way it is now).

 

[the_cobbinator]

Hmm, none of your pages besides the index are showing up. Nice layout, but it's a bit too busy for my tastes. I like the scroll bars, but I predict that some idiot won't know what to do, so you might want to make the arrow a light gray so it's visible.

 

[Jpec07]

lol, yes I know that the index is the only page that's working right now. The reason the srcollbars are all one color is because they don't do anything (when more content is added to the middle iframe, you'll see what they're supposed to look like). In reality, the arrows are supposed to be "perfect gray" (#808080), but because they don't do anything they don't show up. One more thing I think I'll add; the banner on top with the buttons is in its own iframe, so if after I have everything else done, I'll make another banner that you can click a link to see, and then you hit a checkbox, and it sends a cookie to your computer telling my site what banner you chose...

 

[sUn]

Couple of notes:

• The text is blurry.(Atleast with Mozilla FireFox).
• Also your font's are abit blury.

Hey, but it's pretty decent for a first try!

What did you use to code it? Hand coding, or automated programs like Frontpage, or Dreamweaver, etc.

 

[Jpec07]

mostly hand-coding (although I was assisted by a program that beats Frontpage to a bloody pulp, can be found at http://www.chami.com). The font is Arial Narrow, so I have no idea how it works in Mozilla...

 

[donbenni]

I like the way it's all confined to the box, definitley my prefered web layout. The font is a bit blurry (IE6).

What's the contest bit going to be?

Have to cut down on the ' ... ', looks very annoying.

 

[Klostrophobic]

I don't like the colors, the graphics or the font. It doesn't make me want to go back and read it. White text on black usually looks like crap.

It would look better if you got rid of all the graphics, changed the black to something lighter like white or a light gray, and changed the font color to a dark gray or black.

I don't like the scroll feature you have going on there.

You should get rid of the tables and stick to CSS.

Overall, it looks slapped together; nothing flows.

 

[Jpec07]

Thank you for your honesty, Klos, but have you ever made a webpage without tables? I just use what I know, and what I know is Photoshop, limited CSS, HTML tables, and iFrames. Quite frankly, this layout is very slapped together (I didn't really have an inspiration behind the website, I just had been planning on putting one together for a while and figured I'd act on it). Really, all the graphics are simple to make, but once I get it going in Flash it should flow alot better. Thanks for your input...

@donbenni, it's going to be a photoshop contest. I have no idea which car I'm going to use, but if you have any suggestions email them to me (there's a link on the homepage).

 

[Klostrophobic]

I'm in the process of making a website without tables right now. I basically nicked the css (with their permission, of course) from http://bluerobot.com and edited it a lot. When I get the hang of CSS, I'll rework it so it doesn't look just like I ripped off bluerobot.

 

[sUn]

Same here Klostrophobic, I'm too lazy to have tons of information on my website, so it's been in devolopment for about a month extra. CSS, overall does deliver a cleaner website like Sage and Shannon always say.

The hard part for me is to make it a validate website. I've got about 2 errors, that I think are impossible to fix.

 

[donbenni]

Nice easy layouts they have a bluerobot, might contemplate taking one of those.

 

[Shannon]

Read Klos's post. I'm too lazy to just say the same thing over again.

Originally posted by sUn
Same here Klostrophobic, I'm too lazy to have tons of information on my website, so it's been in devolopment for about a month extra. CSS, overall does deliver a cleaner website like Sage and Shannon always say.

The hard part for me is to make it a validate website. I've got about 2 errors, that I think are impossible to fix.

What? CSS is easy to validate. XHTML is the beast. Well, 1.1/1.0 Strict is anyway. 1.0 Transitional is piss easy to validate.

CSS makes your load time a million times faster as well, as the browser only has to cache a 3kb .css file and it can display all the presentational data. If you use tables and font tags, the browser had to reload them everytime.

 

[Jpec07]

So you're all telling me that it's bad that I'm not lazy? tough, guys. If I can get a better layout than you just because I do more work then you have no right to be complaining. I don't know what the deal is about this anti-tables movement, but it's not cool. Tables are the only way to go when making a layout (unless you want to spend 80 years working on some javascript CSS crap). I'm not trying to impress people with the coding, I'm going for looks with the public (which you "elite" people don't count as). Sheesh, I but my butt getting this layout to run smoothely and some know-it-alls come in here to tell me that it looks like crap. And personally, I'd rather have a slow site that looks good than have some fast-loading piece of ****. Thank you for your time, but unless you're going to offer constructive criticism please leave my thread (and telling me to change everything about the layout does not count as constructive). Thank you very much.

Also, I must ask what in God's name is the point of validation? It serves no purpose that I can see...

 

[sUn]

Your getting carried away Jpec, there's no point in saying things like " your fast-loading peice of ****".

Nobody said it was bad, they only told you what they didn't like, so maybe you could use it and make your site " better ".

Whether you take that as constructive critism or not is upto you.

 

[ALPHA]

Originally posted by Shannon
CSS makes your load time a million times faster as well, as the browser only has to cache a 3kb .css file and it can display all the presentational data.

Heh, my screen.css is 5kb, pah! All five of my style sheets are 6.22kb - got love them file sizes. I suppose if you took took out all the vectical line spacing out you could make the file size even smaller?

Now for an opinion. The website I know it was a first but hey I can still comment on it, can't I?

Why have you got two hideous menus? There is one down the left hand side and the one up the top. Take the top one and combine it with the one down the side. The buttons are absolute filth and to make it worse they are different colours and fonts. A basic secret to webdesign is keep everything simple and the same to keep confusion to a minimal level and to mke it easier on the eyes.
I see table borders, now that is absolutely disgusting - standard formatting of tables are the pits, to make it worse tables fullstop are the pits.
That blinking eye appears to have no significant use, throw it away!
I'm not sure about the rollover effect on links and why do you have something say 'MENU'. Like du'h what else is it going to be.

The good thing about the site is that the content can be viewed easily. Its a start.

 

[Shannon]

Originally posted by Jpec07
So you're all telling me that it's bad that I'm not lazy? tough, guys. If I can get a better layout than you just because I do more work then you have no right to be complaining. I don't know what the deal is about this anti-tables movement, but it's not cool. Tables are the only way to go when making a layout (unless you want to spend 80 years working on some javascript CSS crap). I'm not trying to impress people with the coding, I'm going for looks with the public (which you "elite" people don't count as). Sheesh, I but my butt getting this layout to run smoothely and some know-it-alls come in here to tell me that it looks like crap. And personally, I'd rather have a slow site that looks good than have some fast-loading piece of ****. Thank you for your time, but unless you're going to offer constructive criticism please leave my thread (and telling me to change everything about the layout does not count as constructive). Thank you very much.

Also, I must ask what in God's name is the point of validation? It serves no purpose that I can see...

Eh? I said I was too lazy to repeat was Klos said.

Jeebus. You post up a website for criticism and you expect it to be all good? Tables aren't how to design layouts. Tables are for tabular data, like graphs. Not for nesting images and compex navigation systems. Javascript and CSS are two totally different things. CSS layouts refer to positiong layers using CSS, which is how you should design a website. And it doesn't take 80 years. Sit down, read a few CSS tutorials and you'll have a simple, tabeless layout in a few days.

Validation means you've coded your website correctly. If you've coded it right, it means that some poor disabled person using a screen reader won't be screaming their head off when it can't read your page (that's another reason not to use tables).

And I'm with Sunny. You want constructive critcism? What do you think we're giving you. If no-one says anything about what they dislike about the page, then how are you know what to change so it's more appealing?

 

[sUn]

My .css layout is only 1kb.

 

[Shannon]

Originally posted by sUn
My .css layout is only 1kb.

My whole site was only 2mb including images. Well, until my host decided to **** itself and I deleted all the files in a fit of rage.

 

[ALPHA]

Originally posted by sUn
My .css layout is only 1kb.

Hah, must be one heck of a website! Simplicity = 👍

 

[Jpec07]

Sorry, I kinda blew my head right then. Umm, as far as I know CSS only determines the style of the text on the page (unless I am totally mistaken, CSS stands for "Custom Style Sheet). I dunno, I'm going to look it up, but I don't feel like messing with the graphics again, so I think I'll leave it in tables (screw the poor people; they don't need to hear what my site has to say; none of it really applies to them). I'm not really a master at codng, nor am I trying to be; I'm just trying to throw together a decent site. Once again, sorry for blowing my cap, hope I haven't offended anyone (BTW, what's so wrong about black and white? in my opinion it becomes easier to read with a high-amount of contrast; and black and white's as high as it gets). After I read up on CSS, I might just remake the layout using it (although I prefer tables as of right now). Thanks for the help guys, and for the last time, I'm sorry...

 

[Shannon]

Originally posted by Jpec07
Sorry, I kinda blew my head right then. Umm, as far as I know CSS only determines the style of the text on the page (unless I am totally mistaken, CSS stands for "Custom Style Sheet). I dunno, I'm going to look it up, but I don't feel like messing with the graphics again, so I think I'll leave it in tables (screw the poor people; they don't need to hear what my site has to say; none of it really applies to them). I'm not really a master at codng, nor am I trying to be; I'm just trying to throw together a decent site. Once again, sorry for blowing my cap, hope I haven't offended anyone (BTW, what's so wrong about black and white? in my opinion it becomes easier to read with a high-amount of contrast; and black and white's as high as it gets). After I read up on CSS, I might just remake the layout using it (although I prefer tables as of right now). Thanks for the help guys, and for the last time, I'm sorry...

CSS stands for "Cascading Style Sheets". They are used to define everything on a page, from the size and colour of text to the width and height of a table cell. Layers (<div></div>) can be positioned, sized, background-imaged, etc using CSS.

I heard something about them making it illegal to purposely not compensate for disabled people in the UK. They say websites fall under the "Disability Discrimenation" act.

Black isn't a very good background colour. Want dark? Go with a very dark grey (#333333+).

 

[Jpec07]

Originally posted by Shannon
CSS stands for "Cascading Style Sheets". They are used to define everything on a page, from the size and colour of text to the width and height of a table cell. Layers (<div></div>) can be positioned, sized, background-imaged, etc using CSS.

I heard something about them making it illegal to purposely not compensate for disabled people in the UK. They say websites fall under the "Disability Discrimenation" act.

Black isn't a very good background colour. Want dark? Go with a very dark grey (#333333+).

Well, thanks for informing me of that. I just had a look at a tutorial for CSS and have decided that if I ever do switch over to CSS it will be after I've already mastered HTML. Besides, I think I'll have learned flash before I ever come close to mastering HTML (flash is so much easier than most languages because it's all drag and drop; and it looks pretty good too...).

As for the blind people, I was kidding. But it's not like I offer things that blind people can use (the biggest part of my site is about photoshopping, and that requires sight to the best of my knowledge). Also, I don't think the British law would apply to me, or on the internet because the internet is like outer space; no-one can claim it and no-one can govern it (yet). It's just so big...

Point taken about the color scheme (I guess it's just that contrast thing again). Maybe if I remake the layout I'll use a different color scheme (with a different-color background; although making it look good color-wise is going to be a hastle).

 

[SS2]

It's a nice site, it'll be better when it has all of it's links finished totally.👍

 

[Sage]

Um, I hate to be so rude after what everyone's already said, but I'll sum up what I have to say (and I'll note in advance that many of them have probably already been noted):

- Two navigation bars never works well for a website (unless you have footer info or blogmarks, but obviously you don't). Make one, well-formed navigation bar. While you're at it, take out "Menu"... one test of good web design is that your visitors should be able to instantly tell the functions of every element of the site without "helper" information, which that Menu image falls under.

- I realize art is subjective, but personally the menu buttons say "bad Photoshop job" to me. There are way too many colors going on there (color schemes, in general, should constitute 2-3 colors, including the entire website itself), the glow effect is over done, and there's a bit of inconsistency in that the top-row buttons change text color on rollover, but the sidebar ones don't.

- The blinking eyes A) don't serve a purpose (superfluous elements = no no in web design), and B) don't even match the general style of the rest of the site's theme. Ditch 'em.

- You have a 2-3 pixel divider between posts, but you also have a 2-3 pixel divider to indicate the bottom of the iframe, and both are solid and white. Confusing.

- And of course, XHTML/CSS would be cool, but I realize you're not up to that level of coding yet (and that's not even touching on semantics yet, by golly!), so I'll leave that be.

- The streaky things coming out to touch the top buttons are kinda cool, but they're poorly rendered and rather superfluous.

 

[Jpec07]

Originally posted by Sage
Um, I hate to be so rude after what everyone's already said, but I'll sum up what I have to say (and I'll note in advance that many of them have probably already been noted):

Rude? I didn't think so at all...

- Two navigation bars never works well for a website (unless you have footer info or blogmarks, but obviously you don't). Make one, well-formed navigation bar. While you're at it, take out "Menu"... one test of good web design is that your visitors should be able to instantly tell the functions of every element of the site without "helper" information, which that Menu image falls under.

I don't know why on earth I have 2 nav bars. It's completely impractical, but that's the way most of my designs are...

- I realize art is subjective, but personally the menu buttons say "bad Photoshop job" to me. There are way too many colors going on there (color schemes, in general, should constitute 2-3 colors, including the entire website itself), the glow effect is over done, and there's a bit of inconsistency in that the top-row buttons change text color on rollover, but the sidebar ones don't.

Like I've said before; I wasn't really trying with the graphics here (if I had been, it would've come out nicer). Next time around, I'll make things a little bit neater. I don't know what you mean when you refer to the buttons on the top (they all change color exactly the same; it's just that the one in the middle is longer, so you can't see the text as well).

- The blinking eyes A) don't serve a purpose (superfluous elements = no no in web design), and B) don't even match the general style of the rest of the site's theme. Ditch 'em.

mehr, that's just my avatar (although I was thinking of changing it so something less out-of-place). You're right in that it doesn't go at all; I was just using it as something to make sure it was me who was updating (then again, who else wouldbe updating my webpage?)

- You have a 2-3 pixel divider between posts, but you also have a 2-3 pixel divider to indicate the bottom of the iframe, and both are solid and white. Confusing.

well, the fact of the matter is that the middle part is an iframe, and the white line on the bottom is just the border of that iframe. The lines in the middle I thought made a good separator (I didn't want to go drastic and create another monstrosity to separate the posts).

- And of course, XHTML/CSS would be cool, but I realize you're not up to that level of coding yet (and that's not even touching on semantics yet, by golly!), so I'll leave that be.

yay! finally someone realizes how basic my skills really are!

- The streaky things coming out to touch the top buttons are kinda cool, but they're poorly rendered and rather superfluous.

Again with the graphics. Had I had the time, I would've made them look alot sweeter than the ones you see, because I agree that they came out like total crap (maybe I can fix that a little...). Anyway, look forward to the optinon of a new banner that you can use on the site, and also look for the buttons to become a bit more believable. That is all for now; good night!

Before I go I must ask if the streak-things would look better if they were more like the green things in this:

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Jpec07
Rude? I didn't think so at all...

Okey dokey.

I don't know what you mean when you refer to the buttons on the top (they all change color exactly the same; it's just that the one in the middle is longer, so you can't see the text as well).

The text on the top row buttons changes color when you hover over them; however, the sidebar buttons don't have any change at all when you hover, thus not making it obvious that they're clickable.

Before I go I must ask if the streak-things would look better if they were more like the green things in this:
<snip>

Much. 👍

 

[Jpec07]

Originally posted by Sage
The text on the top row buttons changes color when you hover over them; however, the sidebar buttons don't have any change at all when you hover, thus not making it obvious that they're clickable.

yeah, the font in the ones on the side is one I found online, and if that font doesn't exist on other machines I wouldn't want it showing up in arial. Maybe when I get a bit more aquainted with javascript I can have them both the same font and both change color...

Much. 👍

Alright, I'll see if I can make it happen like that (I agree in that it would make it look alot better...)

 

[Jpec07]

I'm not sure if this is an improvement (seeing as how I don't exactly remember how I made those green things). Have a look: