Feedback Needed for a new design (layout).

C

Chaddy2222

Umm, I don't see where you responded to the general design issues that
Jeff raised. You asked for feedback, and he mentioned the stuff that, to
me, make your attempt look far less attractive than it could be.

Regardless of browser, alignments and spacing are terrible, as is the
use of color (unless you were *trying* for something garish ;) ).
Consider getting a book on design, for example, "Design for
non-designers" by Robin Williams.

Learn something about things like balance, alignment, judicious use of
white space and color, and your stuff will look a lot better.

In the meantime, here are some suggestions...

1. Get rid of the rule: * {margin:0; padding:0}

Set explicit margins and padding only on those elements that need
something different than the defaults. In your case, that would be the
navigation menu list elements, and possibly headings.

2. Have <div id="containter"> encase the whole page, not just the
header. You can set it width:90% with margin:auto and get rid of the
widths on all the other containers. That will result in nice even edges
on the left and right sides of the page, which alone will make it look
way better.

HTH and HAND
Thanks mate.
Yes, I think by the time I read Jeff's post I had been looking at my
computer screen for to long.
Funally enough your suggestions worked, oh and I don't even need the
conditional comments for IE.
The question is though, as to why I did not just give the entire page
a container before, I believe I was / had planned to but was trying to
get the layout through other means. Hmmm, I probably need to be a bit
more switched on to those issues though.
Check it out at http://freewebedesign.cjb.cc/temp/testtemplate
 
J

Jeff

Chaddy2222 wrote:

Umm did you not READ THE PREVIOUS POST!.

No. Why would I? I'm responding to the current post and thread.
I am well aware of the issue with IE (hence why I need to get the
other CSS working for it. It's is not my problem that Microsoft do not
follow proper web standards.

If you want any clients it is? It is the number one used browser in the
world. You may not like it, but you have to write with a consideration
for it.


It's a CSS support issue, the layout
works ok in FF2 and Opera. Well a lot better then in IE anyway.
It's also only in beta form, check out my main site for a better
looking page (though it will look better in FF then IE, cause IE is a
bit shit, though IE7 is a bit less shit. In fact I don't IE7, but I
can't use it as it does not work with my screne reading software.

Are you blind? I ask that only because you mention screen reading
software and it answers a few questions.

Others have mentioned basic design elements, and silly me, I thought
you were asking a design question. I'm a programer, and even a
programmer can tell that you have basic unaddressed design issues. Not
to mention a thin skin that will get you in trouble on usenet! That
*will* happen when someone brings up your posting style (don't bottom
post for starts, particularly in a technical group).

BTW. You can make a fully compliant site that isn't butt ugly. Try this:

<URL: http://alistapart.com/ />

Or look at Toby's work.

Jeff
 
C

Chaddy2222

Thanks mate.
Yes, I think by the time I read Jeff's post I had been looking at my
computer screen for to long.
Funally enough your suggestions worked, oh and I don't even need the
conditional comments for IE.
The question is though, as to why I did not just give the entire page
a container before, I believe I was / had planned to but was trying to
get the layout through other means. Hmmm, I probably need to be a bit
more switched on to those issues though.
Check it out.
The correct URL for the template layout is, http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/temp/testtemplate
 
R

Richard Formby

Jeff said:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
[whatever]

Are you blind?

As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.

And he's been around here a lot longer than you have.
 
C

Chaddy2222

Richard said:
You change the size of the menu text on rollover, :hover. Makes the menu
text jump around.

Also on first mouseover on the menu bar the content magically shifts several
pixels to the right. Probably also to do with the font change in the menu
bar.

I find this distracting.
Thanks for that.
Though I am aware of that issue. Now that I have the dam thing working
in IE (Internet Exploader), I will take a look at the minor display
issues.
But if I look at that CSS file again this weekend i'll probly go a bit
mental, I have been working on it on and off all week.
 
C

Chaddy2222

Richard said:
Jeff said:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
[whatever]

Are you blind?

As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.

And he's been around here a lot longer than you have.
Hmmm, i'm not sure on the length part, but yes, you were spot-on with
your other points.
I think I was mainly just a bit shocked by Jeff's suggestion of useing
tables for lay-out. I have bad memoried of tables for lay-out, check
my URL on the way-back machine. Then take a look at my moddern site
for a quick comparison (I can't be stuffed useing a spelling checker
(very buggerd after staying up last night to work on the other CSS
stuff). I did not think tables were really workable for this layout I
am working on anyway.
 
J

Jeff

Chaddy2222 said:
Richard said:
Jeff wrote:

Chaddy2222 wrote:
[whatever]


Are you blind?

As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.

That explains the color choices. Less colors would be a good start.

Adding colors is kind of like adding properties to a stylesheet. When in
doubt, don't.
Maybe, maybe not. I've been around for quite a while, I'm just not a
regular.
Hmmm, i'm not sure on the length part, but yes, you were spot-on with
your other points.
I think I was mainly just a bit shocked by Jeff's suggestion of useing
tables for lay-out. I have bad memoried of tables for lay-out, check
my URL on the way-back machine. Then take a look at my moddern site
for a quick comparison (I can't be stuffed useing a spelling checker
(very buggerd after staying up last night to work on the other CSS
stuff). I did not think tables were really workable for this layout I
am working on anyway.

Why, it's dead simple. And you never have to specify heights or a host
of other things.

<table>
<tr><th colspan="2">Logo</th></tr>
<tr><td id="side_nav"><div>side nav stuff</div></td><td
id="content"><div>content stuff</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><div>footer stuff</div></td></tr>
</table>

It's hard to go wrong there. Columns are always columns and you *never*
have the weird wraps and items out of place that can happen when you
have floated content. I'm waiting for display: inline-block to be widely
implemented correctly, or to have actual columns. It'll eventually
happen...

Don't get me wrong. I like tableless or low table count layouts, but it
is not without risk in complex layouts or where you want the same look
across multiple browsers. It's really as much an art as a science.

I'd rather see a clean table layout than a tableless one which has
been coerced into a mess.

Jeff
 
C

Chaddy2222

Jeff said:
Chaddy2222 said:
Richard said:
Jeff wrote:


Chaddy2222 wrote:

[whatever]


Are you blind?

As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.

That explains the color choices. Less colors would be a good start.

Adding colors is kind of like adding properties to a stylesheet. When in
doubt, don't.
Maybe, maybe not. I've been around for quite a while, I'm just not a
regular.
Hmmm, i'm not sure on the length part, but yes, you were spot-on with
your other points.
I think I was mainly just a bit shocked by Jeff's suggestion of useing
tables for lay-out. I have bad memoried of tables for lay-out, check
my URL on the way-back machine. Then take a look at my moddern site
for a quick comparison (I can't be stuffed useing a spelling checker
(very buggerd after staying up last night to work on the other CSS
stuff). I did not think tables were really workable for this layout I
am working on anyway.

Why, it's dead simple. And you never have to specify heights or a host
of other things.
Well yeah, but you don't need to useing CSS eather. I was makeing my
layout overly complex which is the only reason why it was not working,
I was trying to get things to work by specifying widths on
everything.
<table>
<tr><th colspan="2">Logo</th></tr>
<tr><td id="side_nav"><div>side nav stuff</div></td><td
id="content"><div>content stuff</div></td></tr>
That mark-up is not really very meaningfull, you should really place
blocks of text in paragraphs, as the <div> tag does not have any
samantic meaning. You should only use div's for layout out the stuff
that adds too the page, like headers and footers, that kind of thing
and menu items should really be in a list. I am planning to do that
for my main site very shortly, which can be done in one file with the
includes.
<tr><td colspan="2"><div>footer stuff</div></td></tr>
</table>

It's hard to go wrong there. Columns are always columns and you *never*
have the weird wraps and items out of place that can happen when you
have floated content. I'm waiting for display: inline-block to be widely
implemented correctly, or to have actual columns. It'll eventually
happen...
I agree that tables can be easy to use for layout, especially with
WYSIWYMG editors, as you just need to click some buttons and bam,
there's your table. But it's not really a good way of doing things, as
an example, images placed in a talbe do not act in a fluard manner
when you re-size the window, but it depends on the target audience a
bit. But generally it's hard to say who is actually vieing your
website so target audience does not really come in to the argument as
much as it would in other media.
If you want stuff too "look identical" in all web browsers, with maybe
Linux being the exception, then use Flash, as it does not need very
much HTML to get it working and as the majority of people have it
installed. Mind you, the useual rules regarding borwser plug-ins
applie.
<rest of post snip>
 
J

Jeff

Chaddy2222 said:
Jeff said:
Chaddy2222 wrote:

Richard Formby wrote:


Jeff wrote:



Chaddy2222 wrote:

[whatever]



Are you blind?

As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.

That explains the color choices. Less colors would be a good start.

Adding colors is kind of like adding properties to a stylesheet. When in
doubt, don't.
And he's been around here a lot longer than you have.

Maybe, maybe not. I've been around for quite a while, I'm just not a
regular.
Hmmm, i'm not sure on the length part, but yes, you were spot-on with
your other points.
I think I was mainly just a bit shocked by Jeff's suggestion of useing
tables for lay-out. I have bad memoried of tables for lay-out, check
my URL on the way-back machine. Then take a look at my moddern site
for a quick comparison (I can't be stuffed useing a spelling checker
(very buggerd after staying up last night to work on the other CSS
stuff). I did not think tables were really workable for this layout I
am working on anyway.

Why, it's dead simple. And you never have to specify heights or a host
of other things.

Well yeah, but you don't need to useing CSS eather.

Well, I would disagree with that. Font tags suck. But, most people
tend to put too much in their stylesheets. Inheritance and descendants
are generally preferable to spcifying everything.

I was makeing my
layout overly complex which is the only reason why it was not working,
I was trying to get things to work by specifying widths on
everything.



That mark-up is not really very meaningfull, you should really place
blocks of text in paragraphs,

Of course. Or in a header, a list, a blockquote. Whatever is
appropriate. Even a table if it is tabular.

as the said:
samantic meaning.

Exactly, it's just a block level container. Add in whatever you like.

You should only use div's for layout out the stuff
that adds too the page, like headers and footers,

Lots of people toss all their content in a div. Depends on what you are
doing and since it is semantically neutral, what does it matter. Seems
to me your own test site was a collection of divs.

that kind of thing
and menu items should really be in a list. I am planning to do that
for my main site very shortly, which can be done in one file with the
includes.



I agree that tables can be easy to use for layout, especially with
WYSIWYMG editors,

Dunno. Who in this group uses a wysiwyg editor? I don't even have one.

as you just need to click some buttons and bam,
there's your table. But it's not really a good way of doing things, as
an example, images placed in a talbe do not act in a fluard manner
when you re-size the window,

Reflows like anything else would in that container, but it will never
intrude on another container.

Like your own test site, add some more main content and you'll see
that it flows back to the left margin. Sometimes that is fine, but
usually you don't want your content flowing around your navigaton. Your call

but it depends on the target audience a
bit. But generally it's hard to say who is actually vieing your
website so target audience does not really come in to the argument as
much as it would in other media.
If you want stuff too "look identical" in all web browsers,

Most clients do. They get upset when something is off in their
browser. Now it's one thing to tell them that NS4 is an obsolete browser
with very little market share. It's quite another to say the number one
browser in useage (IE) is not compatible with their site.

It's really up to you. How many clients do you want?

with maybe
Linux being the exception, then use Flash,

There's lot's wrong with an all flash site. You can start with search
engine invisibility. PDFs do a much better job and even they are no joy
for a complete site.

There's nothing wrong with doing a complex tableless layout. Most
people get it wrong somewhere though and for the typical commercial
site, light table useage is acceptable. I've never had a client complain
about the html, only the appearance when something is out of kilter.
That includes government and non profit organizations that should be 503
compliant.

Jeff


as it does not need very
 
C

Chaddy2222

Jeff said:
Chaddy2222 said:
Jeff said:
Chaddy2222 wrote:


Richard Formby wrote:


Jeff wrote:



Chaddy2222 wrote:

[whatever]



Are you blind?

As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.

That explains the color choices. Less colors would be a good start.

Adding colors is kind of like adding properties to a stylesheet. When in
doubt, don't.

And he's been around here a lot longer than you have.

Maybe, maybe not. I've been around for quite a while, I'm just not a
regular.

Hmmm, i'm not sure on the length part, but yes, you were spot-on with
your other points.
I think I was mainly just a bit shocked by Jeff's suggestion of useing
tables for lay-out. I have bad memoried of tables for lay-out, check
my URL on the way-back machine. Then take a look at my moddern site
for a quick comparison (I can't be stuffed useing a spelling checker
(very buggerd after staying up last night to work on the other CSS
stuff). I did not think tables were really workable for this layout I
am working on anyway.

Why, it's dead simple. And you never have to specify heights or a host
of other things.

Well yeah, but you don't need to useing CSS eather.

Well, I would disagree with that. Font tags suck. But, most people
tend to put too much in their stylesheets. Inheritance and descendants
are generally preferable to spcifying everything.

I was makeing my
layout overly complex which is the only reason why it was not working,
I was trying to get things to work by specifying widths on
everything.



That mark-up is not really very meaningfull, you should really place
blocks of text in paragraphs,

Of course. Or in a header, a list, a blockquote. Whatever is
appropriate. Even a table if it is tabular.

as the said:
samantic meaning.

Exactly, it's just a block level container. Add in whatever you like.

You should only use div's for layout out the stuff
that adds too the page, like headers and footers,

Lots of people toss all their content in a div. Depends on what you are
doing and since it is semantically neutral, what does it matter. Seems
to me your own test site was a collection of divs.

that kind of thing
and menu items should really be in a list. I am planning to do that
for my main site very shortly, which can be done in one file with the
includes.



I agree that tables can be easy to use for layout, especially with
WYSIWYMG editors,

Dunno. Who in this group uses a wysiwyg editor? I don't even have one.

as you just need to click some buttons and bam,
there's your table. But it's not really a good way of doing things, as
an example, images placed in a talbe do not act in a fluard manner
when you re-size the window,

Reflows like anything else would in that container, but it will never
intrude on another container.

Like your own test site, add some more main content and you'll see
that it flows back to the left margin. Sometimes that is fine, but
usually you don't want your content flowing around your navigaton. Your call

but it depends on the target audience a
bit. But generally it's hard to say who is actually vieing your
website so target audience does not really come in to the argument as
much as it would in other media.
If you want stuff too "look identical" in all web browsers,

Most clients do. They get upset when something is off in their
browser. Now it's one thing to tell them that NS4 is an obsolete browser
with very little market share. It's quite another to say the number one
browser in useage (IE) is not compatible with their site.

It's really up to you. How many clients do you want?

with maybe
Linux being the exception, then use Flash,

There's lot's wrong with an all flash site. You can start with search
engine invisibility. PDFs do a much better job and even they are no joy
for a complete site.
That's true on both points.
There's nothing wrong with doing a complex tableless layout. Most
people get it wrong somewhere though and for the typical commercial
site, light table useage is acceptable. I've never had a client complain
about the html, only the appearance when something is out of kilter.
That includes government and non profit organizations that should be 508
compliant.
Yes, what you say is true, however it is up to us as designers to make
sure that clients are aware of the limitations of the medium that they
are planning on useing and it seams that not many realize this. Many
clients / people in general think makeing a website is as simple as
slapping different items on a screen and laying them out (like you can
for the printed document). But this is not the case, as many users,
enough to make an overall difference too the amount of profit you
make, use a large range of browsers.
I think if the client as made aware of the baysic issue that "the web
is NOT paper) and that browsers very in the way they render / display
items, (you can go in to the W3C recomendations), while talking about
that. Then most clients would have more of an understanding.
I think that as long as your pages look similar in all major browsers,
includeing IE6 and are still functional in others, then all will be
fine.
 

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
473,770
Messages
2,569,583
Members
45,074
Latest member
StanleyFra

Latest Threads

Top