Any chance of some constructive criticism?

[John]

John wrote :



At first look, I would probably do the following....


Change this.....
#narrow_layout {
POSITION: absolute;
CLEAR: both;
RIGHT: auto;
LEFT: 50%;
MARGIN-LEFT: -390px;
WIDTH: 780px;
BOTTOM: auto;
TOP: 0px;
}



... to this....

#narrow_layout {
POSITION: absolute;
CLEAR: both;
RIGHT: auto;
BOTTOM: auto;
TOP: 0px;
}

... gives more flexability to the screen resolution factor.

I am a bit reluctant to do that since it makes the site look really bad
at high resolution. I can appreciate that the margin-left device is a
bit hacky, but can't get the same effect any other way (on IE AND FF).

Cheers for the input,

John

 

[John]

Sorry about posting more than one answer. I just found some new issues.
Using Lynx, I see the following on the "Existing Customers" page:


----
K & L Ross Ltd.

K L Ross Logo

Enterprise Systems provides all IT services for K & L Ross, with the
----

The alt-text on that logo doesn't help much. Reading the words "K L Ross
Logo" gives me no clue what that is, unless I know what the K L Ross
Logo looks like already. Besides, it's repeating the header, so I would
say the logo is only there for "show", so to speak, and can probably do
very fine with an empty alt-text. Move the link to the header instead.
Link texts are supposed to be useful, and "K L Ross Logo" as a link text
certainly isn't useful. Of course you're able to guess where you're
going, but...

On the consultancy page, there's also an uneccesary alt-text. Just see
this output:

----
Sometimes it is necessary to obtain an objective, impartial opinion on
a software project, on IT strategy, or an a specific technical problem
that has become bogged down in detail or negotiations. We can provide
consultancy and audit services at short notice and across a wide
remit.
Sequence Diagram

Our approach to providing advice is not about playing it safe and
providing non-committal advice; we examine problems and provide
----

That alt-text, "Sequence Diagram", doesn't really fit there, or what do
you say?

Last, although you probably won't care, like most people who use it, I'd
say ditch the XHTML and go with HTML 4 instead. Lot more support for it,
and there's nothing you need in XHTML that is not present in HTML anyway.

Thanks for all that. I suppose the buttons are a bit messy and the
alt-texts are unnecessary (since the images are there purely to break up
the text a bit). I'll look at switching them.

John

 

[John]

You don't need all that to be pleasing to the eye. The current problem
with (most) CSS is that the techies (most who could not design their way
out of a paper bag) know how to do i, and the really creative people are
still clinging to table layout. Slowly as these people learn, they will
bring with them good (better) design.

Agreed. You have correctly identified me as a member of the techie camp.
I would love to be dealing with customers who are willing to pay for
graphic designers to design, and techies to implement. I am the first
one to admit that I have no formal training in design, I just try to use
a bit of common sense and some influence of people who can design (the
CSS Zen Garden lot for example).

Since the status quo is for many designers to use flash, dreamweaver etc
with little/no regard for the code, I think that the Techie-designers
are currently doing a better job than the Designer-techies.

John

Cheers for your/BJ's input BTW.

 

[John]

Just a few initial comments/personal preferences:

(a) A fluid design would be better (i.e. the ability of the user to
adjust the width of the page as viewed).
(b) Right-ragged body text would be easier to read than right-justified
text
(c) Inconsistent use of <acronym>: definition on one page -- none on
other pages. (BTW. Shouldn't the <acronym>s be <abbr>s ?)
(d) A link to bypass the menu and get to the content might be
appreciated by AT users.
(e) Disable the link in the menu on each page that points to itself.
(f) Ensure that the <title></title> contents reflects the contents of
the page, not the site.
(g) Warn users (especially AT users) that a link will open a new window.
(h) Ensure that any image used as a link has suitable alternative text
to describe it
(i) Lastly, put all your text through a grammar/spell-checker to lose
the spelling and punctuation errors.

........ otherwise -- looks OK (including old Netscapes)

regards

Thanks. I'll get on to those that I haven't already done. The
acronym/abbr thing is easy to get wrong it seems. Cheers for checking on
the old netscapes.

John

 

[floele]

Unfortunately that has the side-effect of knocking out all the other useful
headers your server would have otherwise added (Content-Length, ETag,
Last-Modified, etc.).

Google for "cacheability" if you want to know why this is a Bad Thing.

Thanks for that info, I didn't think about that yet (this is the second
day I read this group and I already learned something very useful)

 

[Disco Octopus]

John wrote on 20/01/2005 :

I am a bit reluctant to do that since it makes the site look really bad at
high resolution. I can appreciate that the margin-left device is a bit hacky,
but can't get the same effect any other way (on IE AND FF).

Cheers for the input,

John

OK. I understand in high res its not that nice. How about this....
along with the stuff I originally said, also do this....

immediately after the <body> tag... put this....
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" summary="Structure
only."><tr><td style="width:47em;">


and imediately before the </body> tage... put this....
</td></tr></table>

make appropriate changes to the width as you see fit.

A bit hacky, and surrounds the whole lot in a table, but although the
code for this is not quite kosher, it will restrict less potential
visiters.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Agreed. You have correctly identified me as a member of the techie camp.
I would love to be dealing with customers who are willing to pay for
graphic designers to design, and techies to implement. I am the first

one to admit that I have no formal training in design, I just try to use
a bit of common sense and some influence of people who can design (the
CSS Zen Garden lot for example).

Zen Garden is a good start, but even most of the examples there follow
the same patern.

Since the status quo is for many designers to use flash, dreamweaver etc
with little/no regard for the code, I think that the Techie-designers

are currently doing a better job than the Designer-techies.

Better job at what? Validating? Accessibility? Absolutly. Better job
at gaining and retaining customers? No proof either way, as it
completely depends on the site, but I would guess not. If you have no
accessibility problems, (80-90% of the people out there use IE and have
no problems), then the techie-designer would lose.

YMMV

 

[Brendan Taylor]

Zen Garden is a good start, but even most of the examples there follow
the same patern.

And what pattern would that be?

 

[Phoenix]

Disco Octopus wrote:

OK. I understand in high res its not that nice. How about this....
along with the stuff I originally said, also do this....

immediately after the <body> tag... put this....
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" summary="Structure
only."><tr><td style="width:47em;">


and imediately before the </body> tage... put this....
</td></tr></table>

make appropriate changes to the width as you see fit.

A bit hacky, and surrounds the whole lot in a table, but although the
code for this is not quite kosher, it will restrict less potential
visiters.

Table?! Why not replace

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" summary="Structure

only."><tr><td style="width:47em;">

with

<div style="width: 47em;">

and

</td></tr></table>

with

</div>

and you have the very same effect, just a lot more correct? Basically he
could also add that piece of CSS to his already present container.

 

[Disco Octopus]

Phoenix wrote :

Disco Octopus wrote:



Table?! Why not replace

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" summary="Structure

with

<div style="width: 47em;">

and

</td></tr></table>

with

</div>

and you have the very same effect, just a lot more correct? Basically he
could also add that piece of CSS to his already present container.

No. It doesn't do the same thing.
As I said... this is a bit hacky.
I am not sure why, but the table method works with absolutely every
single web page browser known to man , where as the div method does
not work with IE.


Basically, this tries to emulate the CSS "max-width" property, as IE
does not know about this.

I know there are different ways to do it, but the way you suggested is
not one of those ways, where as the way I suggested is one of those
ways.... and I understand that its a way-up between "what is good
behind the page" versus "what is good as the user sees it".