need an advice ( new site )

Discussion in 'HTML' started by uriel@spreha.net, Aug 17, 2005.

  1. Guest

    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.
     
    , Aug 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <> 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Aug 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stimp Guest

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> wrote:
    > On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <> 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"
     
    Stimp, Aug 17, 2005
    #3
  4. On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Aug 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Stimp Guest

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> wrote:
    > On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> 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"
     
    Stimp, Aug 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Els Guest

    Stimp wrote:

    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> wrote:
    >> On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> 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 vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Blondie - Atomic
     
    Els, Aug 17, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <opsvnl9sazx5vgts@zoete_b>, says...
    > On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <> 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/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Aug 17, 2005
    #7
  8. In article <opsvnnfzujx5vgts@zoete_b>, says...
    > On 17 Aug 2005 13:40:10 GMT, Stimp <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 Barbara de Zoete <> 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/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Aug 17, 2005
    #8
  9. On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:31:28 +0100, Hywel Jenkins <>
    wrote:

    > In article <opsvnnfzujx5vgts@zoete_b>, 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Aug 17, 2005
    #9
  10. 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?
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Aug 17, 2005
    #10
  11. Arne Guest

    Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:

    > On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <> 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.


    Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
    (10741 bytes) but the total of images is 107kB and that makes the
    total for the page way to much. :)


    > 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.


    Works just fine with JS disabled (as I could see) and that makes me
    wonder why all that JS is there? I could not see anything change when
    I enabled JS. Apparently the page is done with Dremviewer that seams
    to put in the "mouseover" script, whenever it's needed or not.

    --
    /Arne
    My "widget" site: http://hem.bredband.net/arnel/
    Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
    are replying to, and don't quote signatures!
     
    Arne, Aug 17, 2005
    #11
  12. Arne Guest

    Once upon a time *Hywel Jenkins* wrote:
    >
    > It uses JS for image rollovers. I tried it with Firefox, JS-disabled,
    > and it seemed fine.


    Did you see any rollovers on the page? I don't and I wonder what the
    JS is there for? Dremviewer seams to put in a lot of script, whenever
    it's needed or not.

    --
    /Arne
    My "widget" site: http://hem.bredband.net/arnel/
    Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
    are replying to, and don't quote signatures!
     
    Arne, Aug 17, 2005
    #12
  13. On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:57:53 +0200, Arne <> wrote:

    > Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
    > (10741 bytes) but the total of images is 107kB and that makes the
    > total for the page way to much. :)
    >
    >


    Really? Makes me wounder. I get a page that is 91901kB on its own.

    >> 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.

    >
    > Works just fine with JS disabled (as I could see)


    Hmm. Perhaps only if the images are there. I browse without them too. Without js
    or images enabled, it's anyones guess where the links or the menu are at.


    --
    ,-- --<--@ -- 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Aug 17, 2005
    #13
  14. "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:

    > Hywel Jenkins <> wrote:
    >
    > > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> (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'.


    It also tends to make both you and the principle seem less
    authoritative. Why should a newbie think they have a decent chance of
    pulling off a truly fluid design -- or think that it's even of value to
    do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?

    Something is amiss. Maybe fluid design is not as easy as just saying
    "make your design fluid", in which case people having discouraged from
    it deserve a bit of sympathy.

    Incidentally, that page has some real width problems when viewed in
    Safari: fully half the page is off the right edge of my browser window
    (which is roughly 700px wide at the moment). It appears the search
    (Zoek?) box may be responsible, as it's hanging out by its lonesome on
    the right, floating in a rather wide sea of blue.

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, Aug 17, 2005
    #14
  15. On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:

    > Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:


    [snip]

    >> 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.


    As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
    everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. Of
    course, that's only if the document renders incrementally. Sitting
    there, seeing only the start of a header for thirty seconds isn't
    acceptable to me.

    > Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
    > (10741 bytes) [...]


    Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
    it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.

    [snip]

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Aug 17, 2005
    #15
  16. On 17/08/2005 16:25, Hywel Jenkins wrote:

    > In article <opsvnl9sazx5vgts@zoete_b>, says...
    >
    >> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. [...]

    >
    > Hmmm. I suspect the creators of Doom 3 were thinking along similar
    > lines when they were working, too.


    What is the OP using that justifies that file size, though?

    It's Dreamweaver code bloat. Nothing more.

    [snip]

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Aug 17, 2005
    #16
  17. On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:14:55 GMT, Joel Shepherd <> wrote:

    > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hywel Jenkins <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> (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'.

    >
    > It also tends to make both you and the principle seem less
    > authoritative.


    Well, I wasn't the one bringing that page up. I merely pointed to a Google SERP
    on the subject, because over there the whys and do's and don'ts can be found.

    > Why should a newbie think they have a decent chance of
    > pulling off a truly fluid design


    What is a truly fluid design? You mean no restrictions (max or min width) what
    so ever?
    Mine flows between a min and a max width. The max is there because I don't want
    the lines with text to get too long in a wide viewport (or should I say: some of
    my visitors like it better this way; at least this is what they asked for when
    it wasn't there). The min is there because, hmm. I don't know. Because I
    experimented with it. My site is always an ongoing experiment. At least, the
    styles are.

    > -- or think that it's even of value to
    > do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?
    >


    Well, 'can't'? It's not that I can't, although my pages don't show that at the
    moment. It's something I didn't. Besides that: I didn't refer to my site. I
    referred to a less involved party: Google. Through a search query I intended to
    let others speak.

    > Something is amiss. Maybe fluid design is not as easy as just saying
    > "make your design fluid",
    >


    I agree if it involves more than (almost) pure text as content. If some
    eleborate graphical content is prominently in the viewport and needs to be shown
    in one explicite and exclusive way, well... That's a whole different world
    alltogether. Probably best resolve to broadcasting it on TV in that case, or
    print a book.

    > in which case people having discouraged from
    > it deserve a bit of sympathy.
    >


    No, not really. All depends on the whys, hows. I really believe that creating
    liquid pages should be the goal, especially if text is the main content and
    graphics are just there for decoration and looks. In experimenting I created a
    design for my private homepage that is only partially fluid, mainly because some
    users asked me to do so (at least the max width). It isn't said I agree with
    this or that I'll stick to it. :)

    I always get some responses to my site and to the design too, not just the
    content. Not from here, but from actual visitors.
    Before I had the response: The text is running too wide (in my full screen
    >100px wide viewport, which never got mentioned). When I got that twice, I

    responded by setting a max width. Since then I got no user complaints.

    > Incidentally, that page has some real width problems when viewed in
    > Safari:


    Thanks for mentioning that. I'll look into it. You're probably right about that
    search box. When I get some real complaints from real visitors that come there
    for the content, I'll act on it too. :)

    No, really. It's likely I will create some new look pretty soon (because I like
    to do that every once in a while). Then this problem is (hopefully) resolved.
    Also some new problems are likely to emerge with that new design. They always
    do. Isn't life fun :)

    --
    ,-- --<--@ -- 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Aug 17, 2005
    #17
  18. Arne Guest

    Once upon a time *Michael Winter* wrote:

    > On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:
    >
    >> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
    > everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. Of
    > course, that's only if the document renders incrementally. Sitting
    > there, seeing only the start of a header for thirty seconds isn't
    > acceptable to me.
    >
    >> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
    >> (10741 bytes) [...]

    >
    > Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
    > it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.
    >


    You are absolutely right! Strange, not even the Web Page Analyzer
    report correctly and Mozilla report the same size as WPA. What's
    causing this?

    --
    /Arne
    My "widget" site: http://hem.bredband.net/arnel/
    Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
    are replying to, and don't quote signatures!
     
    Arne, Aug 17, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <>, lid
    says...
    > Once upon a time *Hywel Jenkins* wrote:
    > >
    > > It uses JS for image rollovers. I tried it with Firefox, JS-disabled,
    > > and it seemed fine.

    >
    > Did you see any rollovers on the page?


    Yup - left-hand side, under "Submenu".

    --
    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Aug 17, 2005
    #19
  20. Michael Winter wrote:
    > On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:
    >
    >> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:

    > [snip]
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
    > everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. ...
    >
    >> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
    >> (10741 bytes) [...]

    >
    > Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
    > it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.


    This should settle it, eh? <g>

    http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

    Global Statistics
    Total HTTP Requests: 61
    Total Size: 118613 bytes

    Object Size Totals
    Object type Size (bytes)
    HTML: 10740
    HTML Images: 107873
    CSS Images: 0
    Total Images: 107873

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Aug 17, 2005
    #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. Genghis Kahn

    New site code advice.

    Genghis Kahn, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    alt255
    Oct 20, 2003
  2. Asun Friere
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    525
    Paul Boddie
    Aug 27, 2003
  3. Peter Hansen
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    907
    Anton Vredegoor
    Sep 5, 2003
  4. Mark C
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    293
    Mark C
    Jan 17, 2007
  5. Mark C
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    304
    Karl Seguin [MVP]
    Jan 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page