Critique request: x01

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003.

  1. Hi guys,

    Could you please check out < http://x01.co.uk/frontend/ > and tell me what
    you think? Contrary to what the site says, it's not actually "launched"
    yet, it's just text for testing purposes. There's two "articles" up there
    that I have written and a friend of mine is going to write some stuff for
    it, too. The code validates and so does the CSS, it works in every browser
    I've tried and is even readable in all but the "show images and links only"
    mode in Opera. I reckon that the site's going to be aimed at web developers
    anyway, so most people are going to be viewing with a more modern browser,
    but it still has to be "good".

    Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    please)! *hides* :eek:)

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Cameron wrote:

    > Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    > please)! *hides* :eek:)


    Div.spacer shouldn't be there, use CSS margins instead.

    Stop using deprecated <i> and <b>.

    div#banner should be h1#banner.

    div.heading should be h2.heading.

    <link ...></link should be <link ... />.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Sep 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew Cameron

    picayunish Guest

    Without quill or qualm, Andrew Cameron quothed:
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > Could you please check out < http://x01.co.uk/frontend/ > and tell me
    > what you think? Contrary to what the site says, it's not actually
    > "launched" yet, it's just text for testing purposes. There's two
    > "articles" up there that I have written and a friend of mine is going to
    > write some stuff for it, too. The code validates and so does the CSS,
    > it works in every browser I've tried and is even readable in all but the
    > "show images and links only" mode in Opera. I reckon that the site's
    > going to be aimed at web developers anyway, so most people are going to
    > be viewing with a more modern browser, but it still has to be "good".
    >
    > Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    > please)! *hides* :eek:)


    * The blue links are almost difficult to read with a light blue background,
    so change the link colour or the background.

    * Don't use mailto, make a formmail instead. Because there're a lot of
    people how hasn't a proper integrated messenger with there browsers.
    A article about mailto myth.
    http://www.isolani.co.uk/newbie/mailto.html
    If your hosting support server side scripting than make your own formmail.
    If your hosting doesn't support server side scripting than use for free
    http://www.response-o-matic.com/ or go to an other webhosting.

    Other than that, the site has a simple lay-out.
    --
    Edwin van der Vaart (Geen familie van....)
    http://www.semi-conductors.nl/ PHP Redirect to semi-conductor.nl
    http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
    http://members.chello.nl/e.vandervaart/ Experimental site
    http://host.deluxnetwork.com/~evdvaart/ Experimental PHP site
     
    picayunish, Sep 14, 2003
    #3
  4. "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:bk2j0k$ohp97$-berlin.de...
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > Could you please check out < http://x01.co.uk/frontend/ > and tell me what
    > you think? Contrary to what the site says, it's not actually "launched"
    > yet, it's just text for testing purposes. There's two "articles" up there
    > that I have written and a friend of mine is going to write some stuff for
    > it, too. The code validates and so does the CSS, it works in every

    browser
    > I've tried and is even readable in all but the "show images and links

    only"
    > mode in Opera. I reckon that the site's going to be aimed at web

    developers
    > anyway, so most people are going to be viewing with a more modern browser,
    > but it still has to be "good".
    >
    > Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    > please)! *hides* :eek:)
    >
    > --


    Too much lavender for me. Your domain is easily forgettable. Consider
    purchasing one that has more meaning.

    Also, "a continual work in progress" is redundant, and "work in progress"
    should be hyphenated.

    Lastly, put some interesting content on your home page instead of boring
    housekeeping items that nobody wants to read about.
    --
    ___________________________
    Bonnie Granat
    Granat Editorial Services
    http://www.editors-writers.info
    Fast | Accurate | Affordable
     
    Bonnie Granat, Sep 14, 2003
    #4
  5. Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >
    > Stop using deprecated <i> and <b>.
    >


    Sorry: in what recommendation are <i> and <b> deprecated again?

    (Hint: it's not HTML 4 Strict.)

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, Sep 14, 2003
    #5
  6. "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    message news:yl49b.397$2.webusenet.com...
    > Andrew Cameron wrote:
    >
    > > Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    > > please)! *hides* :eek:)

    >
    > Div.spacer shouldn't be there, use CSS margins instead.


    Very good point, fixed now.

    > Stop using deprecated <i> and <b>.


    As I understood it, "align" is the true definition of deprecated and won't
    validate, but my markup validates and I'm not using any kind of transitional
    DTD - for tiny bits of text where I know I want bold, why is "<b></b>" not
    better (from a size perspective, mainly) than "<span style="font-weight:
    bold;"></span>"?

    > div#banner should be h1#banner.
    > div.heading should be h2.heading.


    I don't see any benefit to this, really. They're divs, they validate, they
    make sense... it's not like I get confused as to what they are. What is the
    real benefit to doing this?

    > <link ...></link should be <link ... />.


    Also fixed now; I must have been half asleep when I typed that.

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Andrew Cameron

    Allen Guest

    Re[2]: Critique request: x01

    Hello Joel,

    Sunday, September 14, 2003, 5:12:33 PM, you wrote:

    JS> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >>
    >> Stop using deprecated <i> and <b>.
    >>


    JS> Sorry: in what recommendation are <i> and <b> deprecated again?

    JS> (Hint: it's not HTML 4 Strict.)

    Joel is right -- HTML 4 Strict does deprecate <font>, however <i> and
    <b> are both valid markup until you move over to XHTML.

    --
    Best regards,
    Allen mailto:
     
    Allen, Sep 14, 2003
    #7
  8. "Bonnie Granat" <> wrote in message
    news:3f64d2fa@andromeda.5sc.net...
    > Too much lavender for me. Your domain is easily forgettable. Consider
    > purchasing one that has more meaning.


    Three letters is too much for you to remember? Seriously? Personally, I'm
    quite happy with the name.

    > Also, "a continual work in progress" is redundant, and "work in progress"
    > should be hyphenated.


    It's not redundant - "a work in progress" says "I've not finished it yet"
    while "a continual work in progress" says "it's never meant to be finished -
    I'm always working on it".

    > Lastly, put some interesting content on your home page instead of boring
    > housekeeping items that nobody wants to read about.


    The "boring housekeeping items" are simply updates of the latest content so
    people know what they can view on the site. If it's not of interest to you
    then that is fine, but half the subject of the site is the subject of this
    group so I have no idea what you are doing here.

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Re: Re[2]: Critique request: x01

    "Allen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Joel is right -- HTML 4 Strict does deprecate <font>, however <i> and
    > <b> are both valid markup until you move over to XHTML.


    I don't understand this - it's still valid markup; the page validates as
    XHTML 1.0 Strict. Why so down on <i> and <b>? :eek:)

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Andrew Cameron wrote:

    > As I understood it, "align" is the true definition of deprecated and won't
    > validate, but my markup validates and I'm not using any kind of transitional
    > DTD - for tiny bits of text where I know I want bold, why is "<b></b>" not
    > better (from a size perspective, mainly) than "<span style="font-weight:
    > bold;"></span>"?


    None. However, using a proper semantic element (probably <h#>) will
    look/sound different in a speach or text-only browser.

    >>div#banner should be h1#banner.
    >>div.heading should be h2.heading.

    >
    > I don't see any benefit to this, really. They're divs, they validate, they
    > make sense... it's not like I get confused as to what they are. What is the
    > real benefit to doing this?


    They'll sound like headings in speach browsers, and look like headings
    in text-only (no CSS) browsers.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Sep 14, 2003
    #10
  11. "picayunish" <> wrote in message
    news:ty49b.4063$P51.6180@amstwist00...
    > * The blue links are almost difficult to read with a light blue

    background,
    > so change the link colour or the background.


    Fair enough. I reckon I have my monitor pretty bright so I'm not sure about
    these things. I'll make the links darker, or bold, or both.

    > * Don't use mailto, make a formmail instead. Because there're a lot of
    > people how hasn't a proper integrated messenger with there browsers.


    I thought about this, and I could implement formmail in a heartbeat, but it
    seems like a box in which you can enter any data into anonymously these days
    gets data entered into it regardless - or am I too cynical? :eek:)

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #11
  12. What's anonymous about it? You have access to log files on your server,
    don't you? You can use form validation, can't you?

    Seth

    Andrew Cameron wrote:

    >
    > I thought about this, and I could implement formmail in a heartbeat, but it
    > seems like a box in which you can enter any data into anonymously these days
    > gets data entered into it regardless - or am I too cynical? :eek:)
    >
     
    Seth Honeywell, Sep 14, 2003
    #12
  13. "Seth Honeywell" <> wrote in message
    news:z659b.437$2.webusenet.com...
    > What's anonymous about it? You have access to log files on your server,
    > don't you? You can use form validation, can't you?


    An IP address of the culprit (and like those can't be faked) isn't going to
    help me much when my mailbox is full and my bandwidth limit is used up.
    Form validation is useless other than checking that the domain they have
    entered for their email actually exists. I suppose I could only allow one
    click of the form per IP address, but then some people use a proxy so I have
    an entire ISP or twenty all with the same IP. I could limit it on the email
    address but it's so easy to just make up more email addresses. I've never
    loved form mail, simply because it invites abuse.

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #13
  14. "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    message news:1_49b.433$2.webusenet.com...
    > Andrew Cameron wrote:
    >
    > > As I understood it, "align" is the true definition of deprecated and

    won't
    > > validate, but my markup validates and I'm not using any kind of

    transitional
    > > DTD - for tiny bits of text where I know I want bold, why is "<b></b>"

    not
    > > better (from a size perspective, mainly) than "<span style="font-weight:
    > > bold;"></span>"?

    >
    > None. However, using a proper semantic element (probably <h#>) will
    > look/sound different in a speach or text-only browser.
    >
    > >>div#banner should be h1#banner.
    > >>div.heading should be h2.heading.

    > >
    > > I don't see any benefit to this, really. They're divs, they validate,

    they
    > > make sense... it's not like I get confused as to what they are. What is

    the
    > > real benefit to doing this?

    >
    > They'll sound like headings in speach browsers, and look like headings
    > in text-only (no CSS) browsers.


    Ahh, speech browsers, never thought of that! I'll look into the differences
    in text browsers when using <h#> as well. Thanks!

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
    #14
  15. Andrew Cameron wrote:

    > http://x01.co.uk/frontend/


    This site suffers from a bad case of I've-heard-that-the-font-tag-is-bad-
    and-div-and-span-are-good-so-I'll-only-use-div-and-span-from-now-on
    syndrome. Although the problem is not fatal it should be treated swiftly.

    Once upon a time in HTML land we used <h1> to indicate the main heading on
    a page, <h2> for subheading, etc.

    And then came the <font> tag. So people started using <font color=red
    size=7> instead of <h1>.

    This was bad, because it meant that it was harder to convey *meaning* from
    the document -- it no longer had headings, just big text.

    And then came the <div> and <span> tags plus CSS. In some cases these are
    even *worse* than the <font> tag in that they still don't add any meaning
    to the document, but they are also not as backwards-compatible.

    Mark up your headings properly. <h1> for the one main heading on the page.
    <h2> for subheadings, etc. Then use CSS to style the heading elements how
    you'd like.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Sep 14, 2003
    #15
  16. Andrew Cameron wrote:

    > "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    > message news:yl49b.397$2.webusenet.com...
    >
    >> div#banner should be h1#banner.
    >> div.heading should be h2.heading.

    >
    > I don't see any benefit to this, really. They're divs, they validate, they
    > make sense... it's not like I get confused as to what they are. What is the
    > real benefit to doing this?


    Because heading elements should be used for headings. Intelligent browsers
    can then generate document summaries from them, or allow the user to jump
    backwards and forwards from one heading to another.

    e.g.
    http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/headings-in-dillo.png

    Lastly, because it is the *right* *thing* *to* *do*! It obeys the spirit,
    not just the letter, of the XHTML specs.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Sep 14, 2003
    #16
  17. Andrew Cameron

    m Guest

    Andrew Cameron wrote:
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > Could you please check out < http://x01.co.uk/frontend/ > and tell me what
    > you think? Contrary to what the site says, it's not actually "launched"
    > yet, it's just text for testing purposes. There's two "articles" up there
    > that I have written and a friend of mine is going to write some stuff for
    > it, too. The code validates and so does the CSS, it works in every browser
    > I've tried and is even readable in all but the "show images and links only"
    > mode in Opera. I reckon that the site's going to be aimed at web developers
    > anyway, so most people are going to be viewing with a more modern browser,
    > but it still has to be "good".
    >
    > Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    > please)! *hides* :eek:)
    >

    http://bobby.watchfire.com:80/bobby/html/en/gls/g35.html
    which explains why links should be seperated with more than whitespace.

    Entire report for your page:
    http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bo...t&line=line&an_errs=an_errs&stealth=Bobby/3.3

    And Bonnie's right about the lavinder. You could add just the tiniest touch
    of a contrasting color in a couple of places and make the page pop visually.
     
    m, Sep 14, 2003
    #17
  18. "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:bk2lvl$okvqk$-berlin.de...
    > "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in
    > message news:yl49b.397$2.webusenet.com...
    > > Andrew Cameron wrote:
    > >
    > > > Just looking for nitpicks, really. Do your worst (oh, but be gentle,
    > > > please)! *hides* :eek:)

    > >
    > > Div.spacer shouldn't be there, use CSS margins instead.

    >
    > Very good point, fixed now.
    >
    > > Stop using deprecated <i> and <b>.

    >
    > As I understood it, "align" is the true definition of deprecated and won't
    > validate, but my markup validates and I'm not using any kind of

    transitional
    > DTD - for tiny bits of text where I know I want bold, why is "<b></b>" not
    > better (from a size perspective, mainly) than "<span style="font-weight:
    > bold;"></span>"?
    >


    Use <strong> instead of <b> and if you use italics, use <em> instead of <i>.

    > > div#banner should be h1#banner.
    > > div.heading should be h2.heading.

    >
    > I don't see any benefit to this, really. They're divs, they validate,

    they
    > make sense... it's not like I get confused as to what they are. What is

    the
    > real benefit to doing this?


    For text-reading programs, having the proper hierarchy is important to
    people.


    >
    > > <link ...></link should be <link ... />.

    >
    > Also fixed now; I must have been half asleep when I typed that.
    >
    > --
    > Andrew Cameron
    > "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
    >
    >
     
    Bonnie Granat, Sep 14, 2003
    #18
  19. "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote in message
    news:bk2meq$nsee2$-berlin.de...
    > "Bonnie Granat" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f64d2fa@andromeda.5sc.net...
    > > Too much lavender for me. Your domain is easily forgettable. Consider
    > > purchasing one that has more meaning.

    >
    > Three letters is too much for you to remember? Seriously? Personally,

    I'm
    > quite happy with the name.


    So many x's and o's on the Internet is what I meant. It's very generic, but
    hey, if you like it -- enjoy!


    >
    > > Also, "a continual work in progress" is redundant, and "work in

    progress"
    > > should be hyphenated.

    >
    > It's not redundant - "a work in progress" says "I've not finished it yet"
    > while "a continual work in progress" says "it's never meant to be

    finished -
    > I'm always working on it".
    >


    A "work-in-progress" is continual by definition. What do you think "in
    progress" means?


    > > Lastly, put some interesting content on your home page instead of boring
    > > housekeeping items that nobody wants to read about.

    >
    > The "boring housekeeping items" are simply updates of the latest content

    so
    > people know what they can view on the site. If it's not of interest to

    you
    > then that is fine, but half the subject of the site is the subject of this
    > group so I have no idea what you are doing here.
    >
    > --


    I was trying to help you, but I've lost interest. ; ) LOL.


    --
    ___________________________
    Bonnie Granat
    Granat Editorial Services
    http://www.editors-writers.info
    Fast | Accurate | Affordable
     
    Bonnie Granat, Sep 14, 2003
    #19
  20. Andrew Cameron wrote:
    > "Bonnie Granat" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f64d2fa@andromeda.5sc.net...
    >> ...
    >> Lastly, put some interesting content on your home page instead of
    >> boring housekeeping items that nobody wants to read about.

    >
    > If it's not
    > of interest to you then that is fine, but half the subject of the
    > site is the subject of this group so I have no idea what you are
    > doing here.


    Hey, play nicely with Bonnie. You asked for a critique and you got one - no
    need to be so sensitive.

    --
    William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
     
    William Tasso, Sep 15, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fao, Sean

    Critique Request: CheckBoxColumn

    Fao, Sean, Feb 15, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    526
    Fao, Sean
    Feb 15, 2006
  2. Cynthia Turcotte

    critique request

    Cynthia Turcotte, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    490
    Chris Leonard
    Sep 13, 2003
  3. Andrew Cameron

    x01 - Improved!

    Andrew Cameron, Sep 15, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    762
    Seth Honeywell
    Sep 16, 2003
  4. zxo102
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    632
    John Machin
    May 25, 2008
  5. kuaile xu

    unpack('>f', b'\x00\x01\x00\x00')

    kuaile xu, Nov 30, 2011, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    553
    Mark Dickinson
    Dec 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page