Critique request: x01

A

Andrew Cameron

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:)
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Andrew said:
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 ... />.
 
P

picayunish

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
 
B

Bonnie Granat

Andrew Cameron said:
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
 
A

Andrew Cameron

Leif K-Brooks said:
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;"> said:
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.
 
A

Allen

Hello Joel,

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


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.
 
A

Andrew Cameron

Bonnie Granat said:
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.
 
A

Andrew Cameron

Allen said:
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:)
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Andrew said:
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>"?


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.
 
A

Andrew Cameron

picayunish said:
* 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:)
 
S

Seth Honeywell

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
 
A

Andrew Cameron

Seth Honeywell said:
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.
 
A

Andrew Cameron

Leif K-Brooks said:
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!
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Andrew said:

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.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Andrew said:
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.
 
M

m

Andrew said:
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.
 
B

Bonnie Granat

Andrew Cameron said:
Very good point, fixed now.


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>"?



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.
 
B

Bonnie Granat

Andrew Cameron said:
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!

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?

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
 
W

William Tasso

Andrew said:
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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,731
Messages
2,569,432
Members
44,835
Latest member
KetoRushACVBuy

Latest Threads

Top