Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > need an advice ( new site )

Reply
Thread Tools

need an advice ( new site )

 
 
uriel@spreha.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
First I would like you to check the site I need help with...

its on Croatian, but since I am concerned with the design that should
not be a problem

link: www.spreha.net


now.... the site is about nightlife in my city, and some topics for
young people... nothing fancy

my question is... is the design a bit to static or boring?

i was thinking, maybe it is a bit too static and that I should make
some changes...

would a width of 1024 pixels be to much? ( 800 now) I want to get some
space for one column on the right, so I can put some more stuff.
i was also thinking to put some suptile flash animation in it to make
it a bit less static. For example, animate the logo to burn (the
burning smiley with horns ).

Thanks in advance to anyone who helps.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Barbara de Zoete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> <http://www.spreha.net/>


That page has some problems:

1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just the text and
markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone on dial-up could have
told you so.
2. It relies heavily on javascript. An increasingly large amount of people does
not have javascript active while browsing. One of the important visitors
whithout it is Google BTW.
3. It has a fixed width design. See
<http://www.google.com/search?q=fluid+OR+liquid+design>
4. It abused tables for lay out. See
<http://www.google.com/search?q=tablesless+design>
5. When opened whithout images, all the visitor gets to see it a viewport with
many images that don't mean a thing because there is no alt text. Presuming the
visitor waited for the entire large page to load, s/he has to scroll down to
find out what it's all about.
6. It also fails to valid, but with only two exceptions that's because of all
the missing als texts.

Now, deal with these first. Only then spice up the page a bit. If you do it the
other way around, chance is that any visitors you might attract in the mean
time, will never come back because of usability problems, accessibility problems
and too long a download time.

--
,-- --<--@ -- 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 |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stimp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.spreha.net/>

>
> That page has some problems:
>
> 3. It has a fixed width design. See
><http://www.google.com/search?q=fluid+OR+liquid+design>


What's wrong with fixed-width design?!?!

Plenty of good sites use it, and some designs will only work well with a
fixed width design
--

"I hear ma train a comin'
.... hear freedom comin"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Barbara de Zoete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 3. It has a fixed width design. See
>> <http://www.google.com/search?q=fluid+OR+liquid+design>

>
> What's wrong with fixed-width design?!?!
>
> Plenty of good sites use it, and some designs will only work well with a
> fixed width design


Did you check any of the links from the Google SERP that comes with the above
search query? Read them and you'll have your answer.







(Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to browse
in is 655x436. What does that do to your design you think? It means a large part
of your page is hidden and can only be reached by using the scrollbar for
horizontal scroll. I hate that. And with me, many others will not stay with your
pages unless that _have_ to. They'll find a page that adapts to their viewport
in stead of them having to adapt their viewport to yout page.)

--
,-- --<--@ -- 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 |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 
Reply With Quote
 
Stimp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. It has a fixed width design. See
>>> <http://www.google.com/search?q=fluid+OR+liquid+design>

>>
>> What's wrong with fixed-width design?!?!
>>
>> Plenty of good sites use it, and some designs will only work well with a
>> fixed width design

>
> Did you check any of the links from the Google SERP that comes with the above
> search query? Read them and you'll have your answer.
>
> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to browse
> in is 655x436. What does that do to your design you think? It means a large part
> of your page is hidden and can only be reached by using the scrollbar for
> horizontal scroll. I hate that. And with me, many others will not stay with your
> pages unless that _have_ to. They'll find a page that adapts to their viewport
> in stead of them having to adapt their viewport to yout page.)


to be honest, you're in a tiny minority of net users.

Most people can use the 800 x 600 layouts without a problem.
--

"I hear ma train a comin'
.... hear freedom comin"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
Stimp wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3. It has a fixed width design. See
>>>> <http://www.google.com/search?q=fluid+OR+liquid+design>
>>>
>>> What's wrong with fixed-width design?!?!
>>>
>>> Plenty of good sites use it, and some designs will only work well with a
>>> fixed width design

>>
>> Did you check any of the links from the Google SERP that comes with the above
>> search query? Read them and you'll have your answer.
>>
>> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to browse
>> in is 655x436. What does that do to your design you think? It means a large part
>> of your page is hidden and can only be reached by using the scrollbar for
>> horizontal scroll. I hate that. And with me, many others will not stay with your
>> pages unless that _have_ to. They'll find a page that adapts to their viewport
>> in stead of them having to adapt their viewport to yout page.)

>
> to be honest, you're in a tiny minority of net users.
>
> Most people can use the 800 x 600 layouts without a problem.


How do you know that? Does your access log tell you how wide the
window is that people use to look at your site? Does it tell you what
it was that made the visitor give up after a short while? Do you have
a script on your page that magically tells you which of your visitors
went to visit a different site after spending a short time on yours?

Have you also thought about the people with bad eyesight who need to
increase the font size, and get really short sentences cause your page
doesn't wanna go wider than 800px, even though they have bought a
large 23inch monitor set to 1600x1200?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Blondie - Atomic
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hywel Jenkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
In article <opsvnl9sazx5vgts@zoete_b>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > <http://www.spreha.net/>

>
> That page has some problems:
>
> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just the text and
> markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone on dial-up could have
> told you so.


Hmmm. I suspect the creators of Doom 3 were thinking along similar
lines when they were working, too. "See, boyo, we've got to think about
shitty old PCs that are still running at 100mHz. Can't make use of
newer technologies because there's someone out in Back'o'beyond that
hasn't upgraded from Windows 3.0 yet."


> 2. It relies heavily on javascript. An increasingly large amount of people does
> not have javascript active while browsing.


Statistics? Lies? Evidence?


> One of the important visitors
> whithout it is Google BTW.


It uses JS for image rollovers. I tried it with Firefox, JS-disabled,
and it seemed fine.


> 4. It abused tables for lay out. See
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=tablesless+design>


Yawn.



--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hywel Jenkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
In article <opsvnnfzujx5vgts@zoete_b>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> 3. It has a fixed width design. See
> >> <http://www.google.com/search?q=fluid+OR+liquid+design>

> >
> > What's wrong with fixed-width design?!?!
> >
> > Plenty of good sites use it, and some designs will only work well with a
> > fixed width design

>
> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to browse
> in is 655x436.


That means you can't see your own site:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html


> What does that do to your design you think?


Dunno. What does it do to yours?


--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Barbara de Zoete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:31:28 +0100, Hywel Jenkins <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> In article <opsvnnfzujx5vgts@zoete_b>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to
>> browse in is 655x436.

>
> That means you can't see your own site:
> http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html
>


So? 'Sinning' against a good principle doesn't make the principle less good. It
just means I'm a 'sinner'.

--
,-- --<--@ -- 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 |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 
Reply With Quote
 
Leif K-Brooks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
Stimp wrote:
> Most people can use the 800 x 600 layouts without a problem.


Do you think I have a 1280px-wide browser window because I want to have
480px of wasted space?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advice/suggestions/recommendations needed for new PC & new flatbedscanner I need to buy soon Lee Computer Information 3 12-07-2011 05:35 AM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-21-2007 03:47 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsweb sites cyber HTML 1 12-19-2007 09:07 AM
Need advice about a new .net practice test site Mark C ASP .Net 0 01-17-2007 12:26 AM



Advertisments