Critique sites?

[TC]

Are there any good sites or forums for a web critique? I went to
alt.html.critique and it's pretty dead.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

TC wrote:

Are there any good sites or forums for a web critique? I went to
alt.html.critique and it's pretty dead.

Is this the Florida hunters site? You've gotten lots of responses on
what to do to make it better - in several groups. There are a lot of
people that read alt.html.critique

A quick glance at the site now, and it looks as if you haven't followed
much of the advice you were given yet... :-(

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[TC]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

TC wrote:

Are there any good sites or forums for a web critique? I went to
alt.html.critique and it's pretty dead.
Is this the Florida hunters site? You've gotten lots of responses on
what to do to make it better - in several groups. There are a lot of
people that read alt.html.critique

Yes it is. Several groups? I only posted to two groups: this one and
alt.html.critique. What are the others? I made most of the changes
suggested by this group and only received two comments from
alt.html.critique.

A quick glance at the site now, and it looks as if you haven't
followed much of the advice you were given yet... :-(

Hmmm. I previously made the changes for most of the comments. Are you
caching the web site?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

TC wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

TC wrote:

Are there any good sites or forums for a web critique? I went to
alt.html.critique and it's pretty dead.
Is this the Florida hunters site? You've gotten lots of responses on
what to do to make it better - in several groups. There are a lot of
people that read alt.html.critique

Yes it is. Several groups? I only posted to two groups: this one and
alt.html.critique. What are the others?

Ok, so I can't count. More than one? <g>
I made most of the changes suggested by this group and only received
two comments from alt.html.critique.

I still see the heavy background image that hinders reading. I still see
the graphic (those guys in orange gear) being resized in the HTML height
and width attributes.

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without warning.
Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site links. I use a
little graphic next to the link.

There are still a few CSS errors and warnings:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unitedhunters.org%2 Findex.html>

A quick glance at the site now, and it looks as if you haven't
followed much of the advice you were given yet... :-(

Hmmm. I previously made the changes for most of the comments. Are you
caching the web site?

No.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:53:00 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

Are there any good sites or forums for a web critique? I went to
alt.html.critique and it's pretty dead.

It's not dead. Problem is people who put up their sites for a critique could
almost write all of that critique all by themselves had they taken previous
critiques (for other sites) in consideration before posting their sites
address[1].

So, if you want a critique, read what is already there[1]. If there are parts of
your site design and use of markup uncovered, identify them and ask for some
specific comments on that.

[1]usually:
- not checking for coding errors in markup and styles (with validators freely
available on-line);
- overall design without a view, lacking consistensy et cetera;
- not setting all the colours there are (both foreground and background; set one
colour, set them all);
- bad contrast;
- abusing tables for layout;
- missing the point of proper markup;
- no doctype, wrong doctype (still using transitional), a quirks mode doctype,
or a doctype that is over the top (like with XHTML);
- 'un-smart' choice of names for class and id selectors in the stylesheet (like
#LargeOrange, which you might want to change into #HeavyUnderlinedLightblue
somewhere in the future; using something like #vipname is better, in that you
can recycle it over and over again, fully undependent from the choice you make
for your design);
- font size, either fixed or small, usually both;
- bad choice of font family, usually Verdana;
- fixed width design in stead of liquid;
- sizing images with markup or styles in stead of in an image editor;
- using obsolete markup like <font>;
- relying on client side techniques for very important parts of the page or of
the site (like javascript of (worse) java applets for site navigation);
- not providing alternatives for people/browsers/search engines without:
' frames capability,
' images display,
' javascript capability,
' running plug-ins for java or flash and the like,
' running media players for sound or video;
- enforcing the visitor to hear unsollicitated music/see unsollicitated video,
preferrably without providing the easy [STOP THIS AT ONCE!] button;
- using elements or styles that shout 'AMATEUR!', like blinking or scrolling
objects or text, or refreshing to a new page every ten seconds or so using a
meta element, just to change some funny picture that is somewhere down the fold
twenty times or more, or flashing their knowledge with 'valid HTML of some sort!
Yeahhh!' images (like the visitor cares, doh);
- enforcing a new window as a punishment for those visitors who dare to click on
a hyperlink that leads them away from your site.

There is probably more, but this covers the average first critique for a site
that is posted to alt.html.critique. Any of it you recognize (didn't see your
site, yet)?

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[TC]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I still see the heavy background image that hinders reading. I still
see the graphic (those guys in orange gear) being resized in the HTML
height and width attributes.
I'm leaving the background for now until I can get the directors to
vote it out.

I fixed the image, just forgot to remove the width and height. Those
are no longer there.

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without warning.
Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site links. I use
a little graphic next to the link.
Do you have an example of this?

There are still a few CSS errors and warnings:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...A%2F%2Fwww.uni
tedhunters.org%2Findex.html>

I posted a question to the warnings but have not rec'd a reply so I'm
unclear on background-color:transparent; for a color.

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:44:03 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

I fixed the image, just forgot to remove the width and height. Those
are no longer there.
Are these other dimensions than those you use in your style sheet?
I'm
unclear on background-color:transparent; for a color.

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/colors.html#propdef-background-color> As I
read that explanation you can either choose to set a color, or set the value to
transparent (which is its original value anyway, _and_ which is _not_a_colour_;
it is the lack of a colour that makes it transparent.).

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[TC]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:44:03 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

I fixed the image, just forgot to remove the width and height. Those
are no longer there.
Are these other dimensions than those you use in your style sheet?

Yes. I moved them but forgot to remove them from the html.

I'm
unclear on background-color:transparent; for a color.

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/colors...ackground-colo
r> As I read that explanation you can either choose to set a color,
or set the value to transparent (which is its original value anyway,
and which is _not_a_colour_; it is the lack of a colour that makes
it transparent.).

That's exactly what I read. Seems to contradict. First it tells you
it's ok, and then complains. Go figure.

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:26:09 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:44:03 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I fixed the image, just forgot to remove the width and height. Those
> are no longer there.

Are these other dimensions than those you use in your style sheet?

Yes. I moved them but forgot to remove them from the html.

Is the image you serve out smaller or larger than the dimensions you set in your
style sheet? If larger: do resize the image in an image editor in stead of
resizing it as it appears on screen. Size does matter (traffic, loading time).

I'm unclear on background-color:transparent; for a color.

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/colors...ackground-colo
r> As I read that explanation you can either choose to set a color,
or set the value to transparent (which is its original value anyway,
and which is _not_a_colour_; it is the lack of a colour that makes
it transparent.).

That's exactly what I read. Seems to contradict. First it tells you
it's ok, and then complains. Go figure.

It is just a warning, not an error.

And it warns with reason. If you set one colour, only one, you really need to
set _all_. You don't know what colours I've set for default display in my
browser.
I might have a navy background with white for the textual elements. If you
set one textual element to navy and not set any other colours, I wil not see
that one element. So, if you set that one element to navy, you better set a
proper background colour to go with it.
Hope I am a bit clear on this. Do you understand what I mean?
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

TC wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I still see the heavy background image that hinders reading. I still
see the graphic (those guys in orange gear) being resized in the
HTML height and width attributes.
I'm leaving the background for now until I can get the directors to
vote it out.

Are the directors experienced web designers?

Have a look at this iteration; now just 6KB instead of 22KB and I
lightened it up a bit.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/camo-light4.jpg
I fixed the image, just forgot to remove the width and height. Those
are no longer there.

Ok. Though that was one of the suggestions in the past.

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without
warning. Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site
links. I use a little graphic next to the link.

Do you have an example of this?

Sure. Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well. Feel free to grab
the graphic if you wish; I found it somewhere else.

There are still a few CSS errors and warnings:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...A%2F%2Fwww.uni
tedhunters.org%2Findex.html>

I posted a question to the warnings but have not rec'd a reply so I'm
unclear on background-color:transparent; for a color.

background-color:transparent; is a valid choice (and sometimes
necessary) but I've read that the validator has a bug. You may ignore
that one warning. <g>

Not sure why you are mixing serif and sans-serif in the same
declaration:
font-family : "Times New Roman", arial, sans-serif;
If you want it to be serifed, use:
font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
though I would probably choose Georgia.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Michael Stemper]

In article <a7*****************************@40tude.net>, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writes:

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without warning.
Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site links.

I'm curious. Why do you make this recommenation? Why would I, as a user,
care whether a link takes me to another page in the same site as opposed
to a page in a different site? Generally, when I'm browsing, I'm much
more interested in the content of a page than its location.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Michael Stemper wrote:

In article <a7*****************************@40tude.net>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty writes:

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without
warning. Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site
links.

I'm curious. Why do you make this recommenation? Why would I, as a
user, care whether a link takes me to another page in the same site
as opposed to a page in a different site? Generally, when I'm
browsing, I'm much more interested in the content of a page than its
location.

Because I think it is a good idea to let the visitor know up front what
is my content, and what is provided by someone else.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[TC]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Is the image you serve out smaller or larger than the dimensions you
set in your style sheet? If larger: do resize the image in an image
editor in stead of resizing it as it appears on screen. Size does
matter (traffic, loading time).
Same size.

I'm unclear on background-color:transparent; for a color.

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/colors...ackground-colo r> As I read that explanation you can either choose to set a

color, >> or set the value to transparent (which is its original
value anyway, >> and which is _not_a_colour_; it is the lack of a
colour that makes >> it transparent.).

That's exactly what I read. Seems to contradict. First it tells you
it's ok, and then complains. Go figure.

It is just a warning, not an error.

And it warns with reason. If you set one colour, only one, you really
need to set all. You don't know what colours I've set for default
display in my browser. I might have a navy background with white
for the textual elements. If you set one textual element to navy and
not set any other colours, I wil not see that one element. So, if
you set that one element to navy, you better set a proper background
colour to go with it. Hope I am a bit clear on this. Do you
understand what I mean?

Uh, I believe so. I think. Ok, maybe not. ;) The lines it gives me a
warning on have both colors set. It just does not seem to like
Transparent as a color.

[TC]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I'm leaving the background for now until I can get the directors to
vote it out.
Are the directors experienced web designers?

No. But I suppose you already know that :)

Have a look at this iteration; now just 6KB instead of 22KB and I
lightened it up a bit.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/camo-light4.jpg

How did you reduce the image (stored) size?

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without
warning. Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site
links. I use a little graphic next to the link.
Do you have an example of this?

Sure. Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well. Feel free to grab
the graphic if you wish; I found it somewhere else.

To be honest, this is the first time I have seen or heard of links of
this type. Without hovering over them, I would not have a clue for what
they were for. How many would know to hover over them? Is this
something new? I have been in technology for a number of years - 15+ in
programming.

Not sure why you are mixing serif and sans-serif in the same
declaration:
font-family : "Times New Roman", arial, sans-serif;
If you want it to be serifed, use:
font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
though I would probably choose Georgia.

Well, neither am I LOL. I'm still learning the different types of
fonts. I went with your suggestion and made the change.

BTW, thanks for your help! It's helping me learn quite a bit.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

TC wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I'm leaving the background for now until I can get the directors to
vote it out.
Are the directors experienced web designers?

No. But I suppose you already know that :)

"But of course."

Recently, I was assisting a new web author with design and coding of a
site for an historical society. The "directors" want this .. um .. ugly
logo to be at the top of every page. So you sigh and move on. Maybe
remove it in six months when they have all lost interest in reading the
site.

Have a look at this iteration; now just 6KB instead of 22KB and I
lightened it up a bit.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/camo-light4.jpg

How did you reduce the image (stored) size?

Downloaded it, stored it, opened it in Paint Shop Pro, clicked Save.
Nothing else. It just compressed it more.

Then, I experimented with the colors to lighten it up a bit.

I see sets of mixed links, that in no particular order, take me to
another page on your site, or to some external site, without
warning. Group them, and let your visitor know which are off-site
links. I use a little graphic next to the link.

Do you have an example of this?

Sure. Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well. Feel free to grab
the graphic if you wish; I found it somewhere else.

To be honest, this is the first time I have seen or heard of links of
this type.

They aren't links, just images.
Without hovering over them, I would not have a clue for
what they were for.
Well, they are little arrows pointing up and to the right. <g> "Jump?"
How many would know to hover over them?
No guess. But people are curious.
Is this something new? I have been in technology for a number of years
- 15+ in programming.
New? No. Rare? Yes. But I saw it elsewhere and copied it; I am not the
originator.

The famous Wikipedia.org uses a two-headed arrow graphic to indicate a
link that is to a page outside the wiki. It's placed there via the CSS.
Read their css file and look for "external.png" nearly half-way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css

There aren't a huge lot of external links at wikipedia; you'll have to
browse for them. <g> Well, here; scroll down to the link in the caption
under the picture of the spider mite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology

Their CSS method may not work in old browsers.

Not sure why you are mixing serif and sans-serif in the same
declaration:
font-family : "Times New Roman", arial, sans-serif;
If you want it to be serifed, use:
font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
though I would probably choose Georgia.

Well, neither am I LOL. I'm still learning the different types of
fonts. I went with your suggestion and made the change.

Serifs have little fins and sans ... oh ... <g>
BTW, thanks for your help! It's helping me learn quite a bit.

I'm havin' fun; hope we all are.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[TC]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Recently, I was assisting a new web author with design and coding of a
site for an historical society. The "directors" want this .. um ..
ugly logo to be at the top of every page. So you sigh and move on.
Maybe remove it in six months when they have all lost interest in
reading the site.
You know, as a programmer, sometimes you know what's best. But others,
higher up in the food chain, want something different and even bigger
fish make you do something you know is not best. Most of the time this
is changed later on. Which brings me to this question:

"Why isn't there enough time to do it right, but there's enough time to
do it again?"

Have a look at this iteration; now just 6KB instead of 22KB and I
lightened it up a bit.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/camo-light4.jpg

How did you reduce the image (stored) size?

Downloaded it, stored it, opened it in Paint Shop Pro, clicked Save.
Nothing else. It just compressed it more.

Ah yes. I need to look into the compression setting with my image
software.

Sure. Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well. Feel free to grab >> the graphic if you wish; I found it somewhere else.

To be honest, this is the first time I have seen or heard of links
of this type.

They aren't links, just images.

Without hovering over them, I would not have a clue for
what they were for.

Well, they are little arrows pointing up and to the right. <g>
"Jump?"

15+ years in technology and still, I don't think I've ever seen them.
Is this something new? I have been in technology for a number of
years - 15+ in programming.

New? No. Rare? Yes. But I saw it elsewhere and copied it; I am not the
originator.

The famous Wikipedia.org uses a two-headed arrow graphic to indicate a
link that is to a page outside the wiki. It's placed there via the
CSS. Read their css file and look for "external.png" nearly half-way
down. http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css

There aren't a huge lot of external links at wikipedia; you'll have to
browse for them. <g> Well, here; scroll down to the link in the
caption under the picture of the spider mite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology

Their CSS method may not work in old browsers.

I think I'll hold out for opinions on this one.

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:21:16 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Well, they are little arrows pointing up and to the right. <g>
"Jump?"

15+ years in technology and still, I don't think I've ever seen them.

If you are a Windows user, you _must_ have seen them. They are the small
arrows in the bottom left corner of the icons of shortcuts (on your
desktop for example). My guess is someone cut it out of an icon and used
it on its own. Not saying s/he has the right to do that btw ;-)

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

TC wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
<bunchasnippage>

You know, as a programmer, sometimes you know what's best. But others,
higher up in the food chain, want something different and even bigger
fish make you do something you know is not best. Most of the time this
is changed later on. Which brings me to this question:

"Why isn't there enough time to do it right, but there's enough time to
do it again?"

The last place I worked before retiring (in the IT department of a
marketing firm) did that all the time. Frequently, projects were only
done once, and never fixed.

Downloaded it, stored it, opened it in Paint Shop Pro, clicked Save.
Nothing else. It just compressed it more.

Ah yes. I need to look into the compression setting with my image
software.

Most images on the web do not need to be of "printable" quality.

Well, they are little arrows pointing up and to the right. <g>
"Jump?"

15+ years in technology and still, I don't think I've ever seen them.

Well, 15 years ago .. what kind of WWW did we have? :-)

The famous Wikipedia.org uses a two-headed arrow graphic ...
Their CSS method may not work in old browsers.

I think I'll hold out for opinions on this one.

Opinions on the use of an "off-site" indicator, or of the CSS method to
display them?

I use the simpler call to a php function with standard code that inserts
the <img ...> line. Takes just a second to add it with the <a ..>
element.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[TC]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:21:16 +0100, TC <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Well, they are little arrows pointing up and to the right. <g>
"Jump?"

15+ years in technology and still, I don't think I've ever seen
them.

If you are a Windows user, you must have seen them. They are the
small arrows in the bottom left corner of the icons of shortcuts (on
your desktop for example). My guess is someone cut it out of an icon
and used it on its own. Not saying s/he has the right to do that btw
;-)

Yes used as short cuts. Not sure about the logic leap that implies they
jump you to another page from some web site.

[TC]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Well, they are little arrows pointing up and to the right. <g>
"Jump?"
15+ years in technology and still, I don't think I've ever seen
them.

Well, 15 years ago .. what kind of WWW did we have? :-)

One of the things about technology I hate. If you fall asleep too long,
then you're really behind the curve. :(

The famous Wikipedia.org uses a two-headed arrow graphic ...
Their CSS method may not work in old browsers.
I think I'll hold out for opinions on this one.

Opinions on the use of an "off-site" indicator, or of the CSS method
to display them?

Usage. But I'm interested in the code for displaying.

I use the simpler call to a php function with standard code that
inserts the <img ...> line. Takes just a second to add it with the <a
..> element.