Website Test

[Borrox]

Hi
Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised for
good or bad? if not and this is my best shot then here is my site
www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.
Thanks for your time.
Nig

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

[ X-posted: ahc; F'up: ahc ]

Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised for
good or bad?

It's right next door at alt.html.critique.

www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.

Technically this thing is a nightmare. Besides the errors in markup
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm>
it has valid stuff onboard like <strong><img src="Images/top_trumps_ref.gif"
width="443" height="165"></strong></font></p><p></p></div></td> which is a
simple case of bad coding. The tables are no good for layout, the script for
menus mean that visitors without javascript cannot use that specific menu (and
one of them is Google, which will not be able to index what is behind a
javascript menu).

To top all that, the looks as I first arive, are bad too.
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_test/ttr.png> Hint: You don't know the size
of my viewport, you don't know if your visitor can see your images, you don't
know what the default background color of the browser of your visitor is.

Done hinting. Good luck,


--
,-- --<--@ -- 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 |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Borrox]

[ X-posted: ahc; F'up: ahc ]

Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised for
good or bad?

It's right next door at alt.html.critique.

www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.

Technically this thing is a nightmare. Besides the errors in markup
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm>
it has valid stuff onboard like <strong><img
src="Images/top_trumps_ref.gif" width="443"
height="165"></strong></font></p><p></p></div></td> which is a simple
case of bad coding. The tables are no good for layout, the script for
menus mean that visitors without javascript cannot use that specific menu
(and one of them is Google, which will not be able to index what is
behind a javascript menu).

To top all that, the looks as I first arive, are bad too.
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_test/ttr.png> Hint: You don't know the
size of my viewport, you don't know if your visitor can see your images,
you don't know what the default background color of the browser of your
visitor is.

Done hinting. Good luck,

Ouch!
Thanks for that. I can only blame dreamweaver for the poor code. I will now
go back and fix this.
Do you have any advice about the tables, javascript and how to make it all
work and viewable to most?
The background is tiled a pale blue I don't understand how you see a bright
sickly horrid purple, any ideas how I can get browsers like your to view
correctly?
Thanks for the criticism and well needed I think
Nig

 

[Borrox]

Hi
Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised for
good or bad? if not and this is my best shot then here is my site
www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.
Thanks for your time.
Nig

I have just done a Validation and most of the 'errors' that I am left with I
do not understand. I always thought that this < tag had be ended (closed)
with this > tag. (Excuse me if I am not using the correct terminology but I
am onlt a novice as is evident). Can someone please explaion to me why these
are coming up as errors. The biggest proportion of what I have done are the
Alt which I should have done anyway.
Any help appreciated
Nig

 

[Arne]

I have just done a Validation and most of the 'errors' that I am left with I
do not understand. I always thought that this < tag had be ended (closed)
with this > tag. (Excuse me if I am not using the correct terminology but I
am onlt a novice as is evident). Can someone please explaion to me why these
are coming up as errors. The biggest proportion of what I have done are the
Alt which I should have done anyway.
Any help appreciated

The validator is not complaining about the "<" sign. Most time when
"pointing" at that "spot", is where the error is detected because of
something is missing in the tag or somewhere before that. If you read
the expanation under the error, you will get a hint what's wrong.

E.g. this:
Line 268 column 7: end tag for element "DIV" which is not open.
</div> (the ">" in read and underlinded)

Explanation: The Validator found an end tag for the above element (the
"element" is the whole div tag), but that element is not currently
open. This is often caused by a leftover end tag from an element that
was removed during editing, or by an implicitly closed element (if you
have an error related to an element being used where it is not allowed.

On line 61 you have a META tag for keywords within the body part of
the page, that's not allowed. All META must be within the <head> and
</head> part.

BTW, what's the idea with using imagemaps to all images that is only
one single link? Why isn't a simple <a href="....">image</a> good enough?

--
/Arne
Now killing all top posters and posters who don't quote
* How to post: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
* From Google: http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[rf]

I have just done a Validation and most of the 'errors' that I am left with I
do not understand.

Fix the obvious ones that you "sort of" understand. Many errors cause a
cascade of further errors.

For example you are missing a > on your <script tag. Put that in and quite
a few subsequent errors will disappear.

Others:

Remove the cargo cult <!-- comments from within your script element.

<script> elements *require* a type attribute. The language attribute is
deprecated. Refer to the specification:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

There is no attribute "height" for the table element. Pretty clear, it's
not defined in the specifications.

Ditto bordercolour.

As to the form and p end tags missing, I havn't looked but you are probably
nesting a form element inside a paragraph. This is not allowed. The <form>
tag will close the existing <p> element. An implied </p> is inserted by the
validator. Your </p> is an orphan, so in error.

Last:
Fire up settings>control panel>add/remove programs. Navigate to
Dreamweaver. Choose "remove".

Learn how to code using a vanilla text editor and a browser to test with.

Once you can produce your page all by your self you will be experienced
enough to reinstall DW and be savvy enough to not let it insert all the
rubbish into your page that it *will* insert if you let it.

 

[rf]

BTW, what's the idea with using imagemaps to all images that is only
one single link?
Dreamweaver.

Why isn't a simple <a href="....">image</a> good enough?

Indeed

 

[PeterMcC]

Borrox wrote in

Hi
Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised
for good or bad? if not and this is my best shot then here is my site
www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.
Thanks for your time.

Just a quick mention that your home page, in case you hadn't noticed, is now
cached by Google so the site's on its way to being fully indexed.

 

[Arne]

[ X-posted: ahc; F'up: ahc ]

Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised for
good or bad?

It's right next door at alt.html.critique.

www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.

Technically this thing is a nightmare. Besides the errors in markup
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm>
it has valid stuff onboard like <strong><img
src="Images/top_trumps_ref.gif" width="443"
height="165"></strong></font></p><p></p></div></td> which is a simple
case of bad coding. The tables are no good for layout, the script for
menus mean that visitors without javascript cannot use that specific menu
(and one of them is Google, which will not be able to index what is
behind a javascript menu).

To top all that, the looks as I first arive, are bad too.
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_test/ttr.png> Hint: You don't know the
size of my viewport, you don't know if your visitor can see your images,
you don't know what the default background color of the browser of your
visitor is.

Done hinting. Good luck,

Ouch!
Thanks for that. I can only blame dreamweaver for the poor code. I will now
go back and fix this.

Do you blame the car who hits you on the road, or the driver holding
the steering wheel in it?

--
/Arne
Now killing all top posters and posters who don't quote
* How to post: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
* From Google: http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I have just done a Validation and most of the 'errors' that I am left with I
do not understand. I always thought that this < tag had be ended (closed)
with this > tag. (Excuse me if I am not using the correct terminology but I
am onlt a novice as is evident). Can someone please explaion to me why these
are coming up as errors. The biggest proportion of what I have done are the
Alt which I should have done anyway.
Any help appreciated
Nig

I'll give you an example of an error that on the page that can cause
warning down the page. In the head your script opening tag

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScriptfunction
mmLoadMenus() { ...

Looks like a bad cut'n paste job, and I find no closing tag...

My advice, dump the Dreamweaver for now, fire up Notepad and layout your
page and learn html. Once you know how it works then use Dreamweaver to
speed up the process if you wish, but you will know what you are doing
and can fix the screw ups that WYSIWYG editors can introduce while
developing a page.

 

[Borrox]

Well, it is what I wanted and I have got what I deserved, not that I am
miffed with it. I knew that there would be something would be wrong.

1. I will remove the hotspots.
2. I will remove all javascript.
3. I will play around with the site in Textpad and get my old HTML books
out again.
4. Peter McC, thanks for your help, it is much appreciated.

For everyone that has helped. Thank you. No-one has caused offence as I did
ask for what I got, help.

Many thanks

Nig

 

[rockradio2000]

Well, it is what I wanted and I have got what I deserved, not that I am
miffed with it. I knew that there would be something would be wrong.

That's Ok......
I had a look at your site before and it was not to bad.
If you want a better WYSIWYG editor maybe try. http://www.nvu.com
that's what I use and without to much re-coding my site validates
without a problem.
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

 

[Borrox]

That's Ok......
I had a look at your site before and it was not to bad.
If you want a better WYSIWYG editor maybe try. http://www.nvu.com
that's what I use and without to much re-coding my site validates
without a problem.
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Hi Chad
The messing about altering the code etc is no big bother as I am not doing
it to make money (fortunately) but it is all a learning curve. Seeing as I
have had no tuition of any description I don't think I do too bad.

I have put the Index page back on and fully validated as per recommendations
from everyone.

Nig

 

[Travis Newbury]

Thanks for that. I can only blame dreamweaver for the poor code.

No YOU are responsible for the poor code. Dreamweaver only did what
you told it to.

I will now go back and fix this.

Damn right you will...

 

[Travis Newbury]

...but I am onlt a novice as is
evident..

Google the group for "good HTML tutorial" then take a look at a few
of the turtotials (maybe take a few hous in the afternoon.) You will
find Dreamweaver making much fewer mistakes. 0_o

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Borrox quothed:

Hi Chad
The messing about altering the code etc is no big bother as I am not doing
it to make money (fortunately) but it is all a learning curve. Seeing as I
have had no tuition of any description I don't think I do too bad.

I have put the Index page back on and fully validated as per recommendations
from everyone.

It takes time to learn html (etc.) well. Believe me, everybody starts
out wrong. Everybody. Even if their markup is more-or-less correct, it
is misused/misapplied/inefficient or otherwise turkeyish (-
Thanksgiving's coming). We all look back on our early efforts and
chuckle ironically.

 

[Borrox]

OK, so I have now validated the site.

I would like if you have the time to give it another whirl to see what you
about layout, colours etc etc

www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm

Many thanks for all your help.

Nig

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Line 268 column 7: end tag for element "DIV" which is not open. [...]
Explanation: The Validator found an end tag for the above element

and apparently tried to explain:

(the "element" is the whole div tag),

Er, no: an "element", in a properly formed document, would be
everything from the start tag (in this case <div>) to the end tag (in
this case </div>), inclusive.

In this case, however, the report is saying that the end tag doesn't
match with with a corresponding start tag, so there isn't really a div

This is often caused by a leftover end tag from an element that
was removed during editing, or by an implicitly closed element (if you
have an error related to an element being used where it is not allowed.

Quite so. I was only picking up your IMHO misleading gloss on the
term "element".

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.1

On a lighter note, see "Not the SGML FAQ", Part 5, at:
http://www.flightlab.com/~joe/sgml/faq-not.txt

have fun

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

OK, so I have now validated the site.

OK, but that doesn't fix any of the problems. :-(

I would like if you have the time to give it another whirl to see what
you about layout, colours etc etc

www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm

Go here:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/
and enter the link to:
http://www.nigs1000.f2s.com/waddingtons_super_top_trumps_s2.htm

1,279,259 bytes ???

You need to break that up into a separate page for each category. Users
going back to the main page, and clicking on another category get to
download the whole 1.3 megabytes all over again. Those on dialup will be
gone soon.

The main page: you have small bold justified text, very hard to read.
You have antiquated HTML markup. Look up CSS
http://htmldog.com/

The graphic "buttons" in the center of the page seem to duplicate the
links just below them. Use one or the other.

Validating with Traditional (~1995 markup) isn't anything to brag about,
and your visitors won't care about the W3C logo, so remove it. Better
you switch to 4.01 Strict and validate with that. Use the full doctype
as well, see: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Pages with everything centered always say to me: Amateur.
Sorry, but it's true.

 

[dorayme]

Hi
Is there a specific NG where I can post to to have my site criticised for
good or bad? if not and this is my best shot then here is my site
www.nigs1000.f2s.com/index.htm.
Thanks for your time.
Nig

Hi Nig, looked at your site. Just a few remarks, you may or may
not find them helpful:

The tag <FONT> is deprecated and should no longer be used. It is
suggested CSS be used instead. (To use a well known phrase).

The main text is a bit hard to read against the speckly blue
background. Frankly I did not like the background (but I am a
bit severe on these things, I prefer plain white mainly or
simple colours, they look better to me mostly. But your black on
this is almost certainly a mistake and especially since for no
reason i can see chose a smaller than normal font. Why would
anyone who has set their machines to read normal font want to
read your main spiel at less than normal?)

A little bit slow on loading on dialup but perhaps just
acceptable (it would be somehow nice if you could get the top
banner to load first rather than last as on my connection, I was
dying to see it!)

I know it is tempting but there is not much reason for tables
for layout on your site.

About layout, I do think the info is unnecessarily spread out.
You might consider using the width of the area available better
and make the whole thing more compact.

Lose the W3C logo, anyone that knows what it is will not be
impressed and those who don't won't have a clue anyway. Make a
nice big print of it and have it on your own wall in front of
your desk...

I offer this before I look - with mixed feelings - at what other
members of this shark club say.

Boy or boy did I tremble for you when I saw your invitation...
There is something wrong with me I think, I feel like a ring
attendant at a Roman gladiator contest (where the lions are
about to be let in...).

dorayme