Menu

  • Thread starter Luigi Donatello Asero
  • Start date
A

Animesh Kumar

Luigi said:
That has probably partly to do with you
1) do not understand Swedish or Italian ( most of the pages are in Swedish
so far)
2) do not try to give general advice about how to build a sitemap. In fact,
a site map should help follow the links and not viceversa

1) everyone was put off. If you think Swedish puts us off, then show it
to Swedish people for frank opinion. Compare your design with say
www.stopdesign.com and you would see how much "structure" lacks in your
webpage.

2) I hardly use sitemap for seeking pages. I think the links on front
page should act as leading anchors. But yeah, u can think the way you want.
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

Animesh Kumar said:
1) everyone was put off. If you think Swedish puts us off, then show it
to Swedish people for frank opinion. Compare your design with say
www.stopdesign.com and you would see how much "structure" lacks in your
webpage.

www.stopdesign.com does not have any fluid design.
I do not like it.

2) I hardly use sitemap for seeking pages. I think the links on front
page should act as leading anchors. But yeah, u can think the way you
want.


A site map is also useful in my opinion.
 
O

Oli Filth

Luigi Donatello Asero said the following on 06/06/2005 23:59:
Much more. The website contains over 1500 files and over 800 pictures.

In which case it would be sheer insanity not to use a centralised system
for managing and maintaining the structure of your pages. Lets say it
takes 15 seconds to open each HTML file in an editor, delete the old
navigation section, paste in the new version, save it and close. 1500 *
15 = 22500 seconds = 6.25 hours (non-stop)!!! And that's *every* time
you want to change something.

I would say that it is physically impossible for one person to manage
1500 pages and keep them up to date and consistent, unless you some sort
of automated/dynamic system.
Yes, it does. But does it not have any disadvantages?

None that I can think of, unless you specifically want very different
menus on different pages (and even that you can cope with if you get
clever with your PHP).

The only disadvantage is that you'll have to go through all your pages
initially to put in the necessary include() statements. But you only
ever have to do that once! Then you're free to alter your menu file as
many times as you like.

But this is where it comes back to re-thinking the back-end design of
your site. If you go ahead and do what I've suggested, that's great,
because you'll have an easily-maintainable navigation system. But what
happens a month down the line, when you realise that you also want a
section on every page that displays the user's log-in details, for
example? You'll have to go and add another include() line to each of
your 1500 pages. What happens if you decide that you want your search
bar at the top of the page? That's another 1500 changes.

Once you get to a site of this proportion, if you are just adding bits
here and there as you think of them, it gets you nowhere (I realised
this once my site reached 10 pages!!). You need to sit down and work out
exactly the sort of changes that you might want to make to your pages in
the future, and design a template (or some other automated/dynamic)
system in PHP that will allow you to make changes with ease, without it
taking you 6 hours each time.

Another example would be your product pages. Rather than having a
separate HTML page for each make of shoe, for instance, you'd be better
off storing all the information about prices, sizes, manufacturers and
images in a database. Then design a PHP-driven system so that when a
user clicks on the link for a particular shoe, the correct details are
automatically pulled out of the database, and placed into a page
template (e.g. shoe.php). This way, you can add, edit and remove new
shoes without having to change any HTML. Equally, if you want to
re-design the shoe page, you only have to do it once.

That's what PHP is there for! To make your life easier.

What about bookmarking the pages?

PHP has no affect on this. To the user's browser, a page that came from
a static HTML file and a page that was generated by PHP look identical
in every respect.

Basically, the only thing that screws up bookmarking is frame-based
websites.
 
A

Animesh Kumar

Luigi said:
www.stopdesign.com does not have any fluid design.
I do not like it.

It flows till you get to 800 pixels. After that the image doesn't scales
(rightly so). Imagery used right impresses the viewers.

Finally, as if fluidity makes the best website. The way his font etc are
used/rendered/organized don't even require a sitemap.
 
O

Oli Filth

Animesh Kumar said the following on 07/06/2005 01:28:
It flows till you get to 800 pixels.

It does?

Looks the same to me regardless of how wide my window is (other than the
whole thing centralises once the window is wide enough).

But in terms of structure and aesthetic merit, it's great (at a cursory
glance - I didn't spend too long looking round).
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

Oli Filth said:
Luigi Donatello Asero said the following on 06/06/2005 23:59:
Much more. The website contains over 1500 files and over 800 pictures.
[cut]
None that I can think of, unless you specifically want very different
menus on different pages (and even that you can cope with if you get
clever with your PHP).


If it does not really have any disadvantage I have nothing against to use
it.
But may-be it is better to wait for other opinions.
May-be there are other people in this NG who know of possible disadvantages.
The only disadvantage is that you'll have to go through all your pages
initially to put in the necessary include() statements. But you only
ever have to do that once! Then you're free to alter your menu file as
many times as you like.


That is no real disadvantage because I am already doing it anyway.
But
1) I still want to have both the html and the php version.
2) I still have reasons (which I do not want to explain here now) why I need
test the links which disappear in one of these versions

But this is where it comes back to re-thinking the back-end design of
your site. If you go ahead and do what I've suggested, that's great,
because you'll have an easily-maintainable navigation system. But what
happens a month down the line, when you realise that you also want a
section on every page that displays the user's log-in details, for
example? You'll have to go and add another include() line to each of
your 1500 pages. What happens if you decide that you want your search
bar at the top of the page? That's another 1500 changes.

Once you get to a site of this proportion, if you are just adding bits
here and there as you think of them, it gets you nowhere (I realised
this once my site reached 10 pages!!). You need to sit down and work out
exactly the sort of changes that you might want to make to your pages in
the future, and design a template (or some other automated/dynamic)
system in PHP that will allow you to make changes with ease, without it
taking you 6 hours each time.

Another example would be your product pages. Rather than having a
separate HTML page for each make of shoe, for instance, you'd be better
off storing all the information about prices, sizes, manufacturers and
images in a database. Then design a PHP-driven system so that when a
user clicks on the link for a particular shoe, the correct details are
automatically pulled out of the database, and placed into a page
template (e.g. shoe.php). This way, you can add, edit and remove new
shoes without having to change any HTML. Equally, if you want to
re-design the shoe page, you only have to do it once.

That's what PHP is there for! To make your life easier.

I had already thought about creating a database. But I cannot do everything
at the same time.
PHP has no affect on this. To the user's browser, a page that came from
a static HTML file and a page that was generated by PHP look identical
in every respect.

Basically, the only thing that screws up bookmarking is frame-based
websites.


What about the site map?
I want to build one. It can help both users and robots.
Would you rather build one as an image, as a html document or a php
document?
Would you use CSS for the layout?
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

It flows till you get to 800 pixels. After that the image doesn't scales
(rightly so). Imagery used right impresses the viewers.

Finally, as if fluidity makes the best website. The way his font etc are
used/rendered/organized don't even require a sitemap.

I had rather wanted to see a site map.
Please do not forget that it is probably easier for you to understand the
structure of a page which is written in a language which you understand..
 
A

Animesh Kumar

Oli said:
Animesh Kumar said the following on 07/06/2005 01:28:



It does?

It depends what you mean by "flow". My meaning of flow was "consistent
middle alignment". Since there is nothing far on the edges, there will
be no "restructuring", isn't it?"

Stopdesign guy seems to be a bigtime CSS fan and developes pages/tricks
etc with CSS. I like their knowledge application and also hacks etc
around web-design,

Best
A
 
O

Oli Filth

Animesh Kumar said the following on 07/06/2005 01:43:
It depends what you mean by "flow". My meaning of flow was "consistent
middle alignment".

It's normally taken to mean that the contents of the page will
automatically re-size/re-arrange to fill the width of the window. As
opposed to fixed-width (which is what this site is), where you have to
do horizontal scrolling once the window gets too narrow.
 
A

Animesh Kumar

Luigi said:
I had rather wanted to see a site map.
Please do not forget that it is probably easier for you to understand the
structure of a page which is written in a language which you understand..

What language? If someone doesn't know english -- then that site will be
useless even with a sitemap.

And why do u need a sitemap if you have everything accessible in a
proper way? You are making "design guidelines" as "verdict" even though
it displeases the eye and browsing.

https, php, site map, contact us, certificates etc all are needed after
a proper layout. They only assist the layout, not rule it.
 
D

dorayme

From: Oli Filth said:
... sheer insanity not to use a centralised system
for managing and maintaining the structure of your pages. Lets say it
takes 15 seconds to open each HTML file in an editor, delete the old
navigation section, paste in the new version, save it and close. 1500 *
15 = 22500 seconds = 6.25 hours (non-stop)!!! And that's *every* time
you want to change something.

I would say that it is physically impossible for one person to manage
1500 pages and keep them up to date and consistent, unless you some sort
of automated/dynamic system.
All this and other advice to OP sounds very solid. May I just add that I am
yet to graduate to includes but this has encouraged me to look into it. So
far, my automatic system has been grep pattern changes over "all the files"
in some folder. One drawback of this is in complicated changes, meaning some
effort to get the patterns right (there being many ways to go wrong). But it
is fun and satisfying to get it right. Do one thing right and thousands of
things are changed right... I'd miss this.

I assume that includes are *as* rock-solid as the full html on all servers?

dorayme
 
W

Wÿrm

If it does not really have any disadvantage I have nothing against to use
it.
But may-be it is better to wait for other opinions.
May-be there are other people in this NG who know of possible
disadvantages.

I'd be VERY surprised if there are any disadvantages from using include().

1) I still want to have both the html and the php version.

There is no point having both. Besides, have you considered that you might
trigger Google (or other searchengines) duplicate filters and get penalties
for your page SERPs with same contents on .php and .html ?


What about the site map?
I want to build one. It can help both users and robots.
Would you rather build one as an image, as a html document or a php
document?

I'd have site driven from database and php automatically building sitemap
from data.

Would you use CSS for the layout?

Yes.
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

Animesh Kumar said:
What language? If someone doesn't know english -- then that site will be
useless even with a sitemap.


Swedish in this case, in fact most pages have been written in Swedish so
far because my one-man business is in Sweden.
And why do u need a sitemap if you have everything accessible in a
proper way? You are making "design guidelines" as "verdict" even though
it displeases the eye and browsing.


You do not seem to be willing to help about sitemaps....
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

Wÿrm said:
disadvantages.

I'd be VERY surprised if there are any disadvantages from using include().



There is no point having both.
There is and

Besides, have you considered that you might
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

Luigi Donatello Asero said:
There is and
as I previously wrote
in order to legitimately protect the interests of my one-man business I
cannot always say what I am planning to do
Besides, have you considered that you might


It could happen but in this case I have other priorities-
Google has not shown to appreciate content anyway.
And, by the way, it does not show my pages with subsubdirectories.

How do you do that?
 
W

Wÿrm

There is and as I previously wrote
in order to legitimately protect the interests of my one-man business I
cannot always say what I am planning to do

You can send .html files that contain PHP and it's all the same for the
user, so point of having .html and .php (both) is kinda silly :) I doubt
that there are any reason why using exactly same pages in .php and .html
would protect anything, still, it's your choise if you are willing to live
with possible penalties with searchengines and you really think there's any
reason to do so.


It could happen but in this case I have other priorities-
Google has not shown to appreciate content anyway.
And, by the way, it does not show my pages with subsubdirectories.

Have you considered possibility that maybe it hasn't properly crawled your
site because OF duplication for all pages on .html and .php? There are
claims that google crawls site slower when it's HTTPS and then if there's
even duplicate content besides that...


How do you do that?

Depends from what kinda database I'd be running my site from, but most
likely there would be table of URLS in site, with anchor texts (maybe even
small text description of page content if there would be reason for that),
and I'd run SQL query, feed data from it to PHP script and let it build
sitemap...
 
D

dorayme

From: "Luigi Donatello Asero said:
as I previously wrote
in order to legitimately protect the interests of my one-man business I
cannot always say what I am planning to do
Luigi, I am getting desperate now. What would you accept? I want full
disclosure of everything. When a man has something to hide, I want to know
what it is and am prepared to pay...

dorayme
 

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

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,777
Messages
2,569,604
Members
45,229
Latest member
GloryAngul

Latest Threads

Top