Site Ratings & Reviews - Glutton for punishment: Please critique this site.

Author

Glutton for punishment: Please critique this site.

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-01, 11:17 pm

I am designing and developing a site for a "client".

http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/

I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation, etc.
as well as coding (CSS and HTML -- I doubt you will be able to comment on
the PHP back-end because you can't see that part). I have *NOT* yet run
the thing through a validator (CSS or HTML) and I probably never will. (I
have my own reasons to not use validators).

I have tested it in Mozilla 1.x and MSIE 6 and I know it should look
pretty close to the same in both. It may look sucky in in IE 5, however,
and I know it will not look right in any browser that does not support CSS
positioning (4.x and earlier browsers). Assume that the target audience
will be using MSIE6. (And please -- no diatribe on making assumptions and
target audiences and all that.)

I am not strictly speaking a "designer" but more of a "programmer". So
please let me know what you think, you "designers". Pull no punches; I'm
thick skinned. (Not that I figured anyone would.)

Thanks!

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2004-09-01, 11:17 pm

Quoth the raven Jeffrey Silverman:

> I am designing and developing a site for a "client".

We all say that...

> http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/
>
> I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation, etc.
> as well as coding (CSS and HTML -- ...

What's this stuff above the DOCTYPE?

 
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in
/home/headsup/public_html_dev/include/php/wse_website_functions.inc
on line 111 

> I doubt you will be able to comment on
> the PHP back-end because you can't see that part). I have *NOT* yet run
> the thing through a validator (CSS or HTML) and I probably never will. (I
> have my own reasons to not use validators).

Ok... but don't complain if others do. <g> You might want to rethink,
though, as the front page generates 171 errors, only a few are
connected with the above "warning" thingy.

> I have tested it in Mozilla 1.x and MSIE 6 and I know ...

From Moz 1.7, I think the site looks good. Coding is pretty well
done, although I see some 's in there I would replace with
's. The font in the table of Important Dates is a bit small.
If they weren't Important... A couple of the lists on other pages were
a bit too small as well. Otherwise, nice.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:08:52 +0000, Chris Beall wrote:

> Suggestion: Surely Johns Hopkins has a Human Factors department. Why not
> have them review the site? You might learn something and so might they.

Hah!

Thanks for the insightful review. "Hah" to the "Surely Johns Hopkins has a
Human Factors department". Things where I work do not work the way normal
people would expect. The shortest path to an end result is never a
straight line, at this place. (Don't get me wrong -- I like my job,
workplace, coworkers, etc.)

But I think there is an "accessibility" or "usability" person or two
employed by our library. That's probably as close as it gets to a "Human
Factors department" (something I've actually never heard of - unless it is
sometimes called something else?)

In any case, great review. Some items I had considered already and am
working on improving. Some are due to "client preference" and will thus
be hard to change (such as .doc files). And others I hadn't considered but
will now consider further.

Thanks for the help!

--
Jeffrey Silverman
jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu
** Drop "PANTS" to reply by email

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:04:44 +0000, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Your css is good, too. I see only one error: cursor: hand; I'd recommend
> changing the body font-size from 1em to 100% because of the IE bug that
> screws up rendering when visitor changes size.

I've found that putting both cursor:hand and cursor:pointer in a
stylesheet will work in IE 5, 5.5, 6, and also the mozilla
(gecko-based) and opera browsers.

--
Jeffrey Silverman
jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu
** Drop "PANTS" to reply by email

Ben Measures

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:04:44 +0000, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> I've found that putting both cursor:hand and cursor:pointer in a
> stylesheet will work in IE 5, 5.5, 6, and also the mozilla
> (gecko-based) and opera browsers.

It's in the CSS3 UI draft (and isn't likely to be removed afaik)

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#cursor

--
Ben M.

The Doormouse

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but

.... BUT ...

> a) dizziness is in the eye of the beholder

The technical term for "dizzy" is that "Your asymetrical design and
choice of colors create disorientation.".

> b) "dizzy" is not exactly a constructive criticism

Stop making me dizzy? :)

> and
> c) I implied that it would not validate in the OP. And also that I was
> not concerned with that aspect.

Since this is alt.HTML.CRITIQUE, you get that for free. Maybe you should
post in one of the design groups, since coding is not one of your
interests.

(... not to make you look completely retarded, but, if you hate coding,
this probably is not a good place to post looking for comments ...)

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

The Doormouse

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu> wrote:
> In any case, great review.

You like to "review the reviewers". How sad.

You should be grateful for all the help that you get, not just the help
that you like.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

Quoth the raven Ben Measures:

> Jeffrey Silverman wrote:
>
>
> It's in the CSS3 UI draft (and isn't likely to be removed afaik)
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#cursor

I don't see hand listed at your link. <?>

The jigsaw validator said that hand was not valid...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

The Doormouse

2004-09-02, 4:16 am

"lime" <nuthin@here.com> wrote:

> As a "programmer", you should be proud of the design you have created.
>
> From a "designer"

He said that he doesn't care if the page validates.
There is no pride in his code.

Plus, despite his claim of a "thick skin", the least criticism wound him
up.

I am not impressed.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:15 am

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:37:14 +0000, The Doormouse wrote:

> Since this is alt.HTML.CRITIQUE, you get that for free. Maybe you should
> post in one of the design groups, since coding is not one of your
> interests.
>
> (... not to make you look completely retarded, but, if you hate coding,
> this probably is not a good place to post looking for comments ...)
>
> The Doormouse

Wow. What did the doormouse eat to make her so persnickety?

And where did I say I hate coding?

Explain, please. Everyone else gave me pretty, useful, constructive
critiques. And, incidentally, you are the only one who complained of
dizziness.

Your comments don't even make sense.

--
Jeffrey Silverman
jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu
** Drop "PANTS" to reply by email

The Doormouse

2004-09-02, 7:15 am

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu> wrote:
> Wow. What did the doormouse eat to make her so persnickety?

I am having a bad day and your density is not helping.

> And where did I say I hate coding?

Quote:
"c) I implied that it would not validate in the OP. And also that I was
not concerned with that aspect."

You are unconcerned about whether the code is correct or not. Therefore,
you dislike coding or cannot be bothered to do it properly. basically,
this amounts to the same thing.

Like I said, your density is not helping my mood.

> Explain, please.

Done.

> Your comments don't even make sense.

Well, that is an honest statement. Time for me to move on.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Dave Patton

2004-09-02, 12:18 pm

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote in
news:pan.2004.09.01.17.25.55.383880@pantsjhu.edu:

> I am designing and developing a site for a "client".
>
> http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/
>
> I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation,
> etc. as well as coding (CSS and HTML -- I doubt you will be able to
> comment on the PHP back-end because you can't see that part).

Sure I can ;-)
This appears before the DOCTYPE declaration:
 
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in
/home/headsup/public_html_dev/include/php/wse_website_functions.inc
on line 111 

> I have *NOT* yet run the thing through a validator (CSS or HTML) and I
> probably never will.

Which is a stupid position to take. It can't help but improve
a reasonable person's attempts to author for the WWW, and in
your case would have shown you the above problem.

P.S.
While I wouldn't have used the word "dizzy", I do agree
that the design 'doesn't quite look right', and should be changed.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:30:46 +0000, Dave Patton wrote:

> P.S.
> While I wouldn't have used the word "dizzy", I do agree
> that the design 'doesn't quite look right', and should be changed.

Could you be more specific?

It is this lack of specificity which I was complaining about regarding the
doormouse's first response to me.

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:42:32 +0000, The Doormouse wrote:

> Plus, despite his claim of a "thick skin", the least criticism wound him
> up.

Doormouse, what you gave was not criticism -- it was opinion. The two are
not the same. Plus, it was non-specific, useless opinion which was not
helpful in the least to me.

Since you are so apt to shout the name of this newsgroup, as in
"alt.HTML.CRITIQUE", maybe a definition of critique will help you out:

Critique \Cri*tique"\, v. t. [Cf. Critic, v.]
A critical examination or estimate of a work of literature
or art; a critical dissertation or essay; a careful and
through analysis of any subject.

later, mouse
--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:39:58 +0000, The Doormouse wrote:

> Jeffrey Silverman <jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> You like to "review the reviewers". How sad.
>
> You should be grateful for all the help that you get, not just the help
> that you like.
>
> The Doormouse

I am grateful for the help I get.

You have not given any.

Thus, not grateful!

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

kchayka

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

Neal wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:38:59 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Get
>
> It's not exactly semantic markup, but it isn't terrible.

It's terrible enough, and also easily styled with CSS, using the
:first-letter pseudo-class, to be specific. If it's restricted to a
particular paragraph, he could add a class selector.

p.class:first-letter { font-weight:bold }

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:25:56 -0400, Jeffrey Silverman wrote:

> I am not strictly speaking a "designer" but more of a "programmer". So
> please let me know what you think, you "designers". Pull no punches; I'm
> thick skinned. (Not that I figured anyone would.)
>
> Thanks!

Ah!

I figured it out. Several people thought I meant that HTML was
programming by the above comment. I'm sorry about that; I meant no such
thing. The programming part of the site is really the PHP content
management backend that I made for it. Believe me, I realize that HTML is
not programming.

In any case, I have run the sucker through W3C HTML and CSS validators and
it is 98% validated now. I am not going to aim for 100% validated for
reasons beyond the scope of this thread.

I *did* learn a couple of things about HTML 4.01 strict along the way.
Such as the border element is gone for images. I guess you havta specify
border:none in CSS for HTML 4.01 strict.

Thank you everyone (except Doormouse) for your help!!!

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Frogleg

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:25:56 -0400, Jeffrey Silverman
<jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote:

>I am designing and developing a site for a "client".
>
>http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/
>
>I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation, etc.
>as well as coding

Are the addresses and phone #'s the most important parts of this
program?! The 'location' section is certainly the most prominent
information on the initial page. Tell me something about the program,
up front. I don't want to d'load a brochure (I always specfiy file
size for PDF d'loads to warn users).

C.W.

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:11:37 -0400, Jeffrey Silverman
<jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:30:46 +0000, Dave Patton wrote:
>
>
>Could you be more specific?

Bear in mind that I am not Dave or Dormouse - and that you did ask for
people to be more specific:

First off, you did a lot of work. That is apparent once it loads in.
But ... needs work and, sorry, it looks more of a site for a daycare
or preschool enrollment than a University enrollment site.

On IE v5.5:

Top left corner: white background with blue-red logo and home link;
logo and red-text//bordered rectangle shaped home link. On my side the
logo has a blue border around it [since it is linked] which clashes
and cuts through the the bordered-red text home image. Oddly, the blue
border around the image links doesn't appear on Firefox ... :/

Personal musings: May change the image alt a little as it is linked so
"headsUP logo" doesn't really "describe" the image either ;) Why not
put the headsup logo and red text home image together as one for that
section of the page since you are going around plaing one over the
other to look like one image to begin with?

Top center & right: swoopy, for the lack of a better word, bright red
'banner graphic, with itty bitty text in a white tone along the bottom
curve. The white tone text is almost too dinky for me to read [my
desktop is set to 1024 x 780 if that is of any help].

Left hand side: Dark but bright shade of green sidebar that suddenly
has other colors too: orange, red again, robin egg blue, dark blue,
orange, and a shade of green that doesn't match the rest of the
sidebar's shade of green. Directions And Parking so scrunched on it's
"button' that it looks as though there isn't even 1 pixel in line
seperation between the two lines. Imagine this is due to the left
sidebar does a slight angle in to "go narrower" but there was some
elbow room where the text didn't need to be 'condensed' - even the
internship one. Could really just use a bold white font though too
since, at first glance, looks like an arial lookin' font was used for
the text on those.

Right hand side: 1st time I looked at the page, there was this ...
well a woman's head plopped on top of a badly cartoon body drawing
attempt. Which, withOUT looking at any of the text had me also
thinking this was a site aimed for parents of young children or young
children as one of my children, at school one year, did a similar
thing for Mother's Day - took a picture of me, trimmed off everything
around my head and glued it on top of a drawing they did of me. Was
cute on my fridge but didn't seem to work for the website. The other
kid-like art work seemed better ... that poor woman though. ;)

This area shares a few repeated colors [like how it could miss not
doing that] but also manages to share colors not yet used in the top
or left yet. Then it has this funky shape. [Notation:
in IE and FireFox, you have around 120+ pixels of blank space on the
right which is also a bit weird with everything else on the page.

Center: Bright red text image, with non-transparent background so the
white background of it covers part of the gray-head background's
exclamation mark, kicks things off ... for some reason HeadsUP Home
link is shared right under that even though it is less than an inch
away in the Top Right corner. Then the background of the round head
with an exclamation mark in gray.

What shape or color is NOT on this page? Dizzy may been not an apt
word .. busy, due to all the shapes and primary/not-just-primary
colors used around the top and sides. And you are drawing, without
realizing it, the eyes all over the place with the graphic touches ...
so taking away a bit of the attention you want the center text content
to receive.

Speculative thought: maybe dropping the gray background head with
exclamation mark eye [which had the Beatles popping into my mind as I
typed that] may help lessen the business? Or maybe narrow down the
number of colors ALL over the page; for example drop the primary
color/robin egg blue link buttons and go with a dark blue or the
hunter green sidebar with the image buttons [if needed for the link
text to be shared] MATCHING the sidebar. Layout isn't a problem -
works with the content once you overlook all the swoops, dips, curves,
and color fight. But you need to ditch or rethink some of the "eye
candy attempts". The block image links on the left don't really fit
in/work with the other images swoops and odd shaping thoughts. Like
the green side bar color but maybe you could mute red swoopy one at
the top a notch to notch-and-a-half to be such a suprise to my eyes?

Then the kiddish-looking drawings to one side could more compliment
the TWO AND the center text while not competing for "let me share as
splash of color with your eyeballs while you are on the top fold of
the page" honors? Which I imagined is why you wanted to share those
kiddish looking images to begin with - to compliment the touches at
the top and left while working with the main text also.

Your navigation is split up - some links double repeated and others
shared all the way at the very bottom in tiny sized text that is the
same size as the copyright footer text. Personal musings: The second
home link may be better shared in with the other bottom links - where
it would be more handy if the person goes to that point in
reading/filling out the page. What do you think?

I agree with someone else's suggestion about sharing PDF file size,
all you would have to add is at the very end [xxxkb] or something like
that as a bit of info.

For the blue bar section of "Important Dates": do you want me to be
able to read that or not? The 1em is fine for the upper text but then,
visually on my monitor, it appears as though you cut it almost in half
for the listing of dates ... then went halfsies again for the dunky
ant-trail looking bottom links text. No titles="" on the links so, on
IE, I don't even get the tool tip thingie showing up to share with me
where those go - so have to resize just to read the links at the
bottom that are *not* all the same ones down the left hand side.

BTW, I clicked on courses link and the left sidebar on my side also
had the link image blue border - so not limited to the logo at the
tippy top on all pages? The 2nd HeadsUP home link shared is in
half-sized text on this page.

Keep the blue divider banners but you could just share the text on the
red text banners as just red text on the page versus an image needed
for them -since the right side image is set to flow with the content
anyway.

>It is this lack of specificity which I was complaining about regarding the
>doormouse's first response to me.

That was my thoughts after looking at a couple of mock up pages that
you put up so far for feedback ... and smile 'cause I didn't look at
your HTML since you said you didn't care if it was sloppy or not so
would ignore most thoughts about it.
..

Carol

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:05:06 +0000, C.W wrote:

> That was my thoughts after looking at a couple of mock up pages that
> you put up so far for feedback ... and smile 'cause I didn't look at
> your HTML since you said you didn't care if it was sloppy or not so
> would ignore most thoughts about it.
> .
>
> Carol

Hi. Thanks for the lengthy reply.

Here are some responses, in no particular order, to what you said.

The HTML is 98+% "validated" now. So is the CSS. So I'm not worried about
that. Except there is a problem with IMG borders, apparently. I took out
all border=0 references to make the thing HTML 4.01 valid and now you are
telling me that the logo image has a blue border in MSIE 5.5! Crap! The
borders don't show up in firefox because of the border:none declaration in
my CSS Stylesheet.

The site is for High School students -- NOT college students! I guess
that is not clear.

If you do download and look at the PDF brochure, you will see where I
started from and why I use all the colors and angles that I do.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I did
not design the brochure. Maybe the translation of the brochure to web was
not good? Maybe those who did not like the site will also not like the
brochure? I'm curious about that aspect. In translation, I tried to take
elements -- colors, angles, fonts, and images -- from the
brochure, but not use the actual design of the brochure on the website.

Understand that a lot of the elements are out of my control. The logo,
for example (and this is the *improved* version of the logo -- I am going
to be required to use the less-good version but I haven't put it in place
yet). The PDF brochure and all of the .doc files on the site are also out
of my control.

Oh, and one last thing -- I've already made some changes in response to
yesterday's newsgroup postings so some of the points made previously no
longer apply.

Thanks for the input -- it was helpful!

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

C.W.

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:32:06 -0400, Jeffrey Silverman
<jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:05:06 +0000, C.W wrote:
>
>
>Hi. Thanks for the lengthy reply.
>
>Here are some responses, in no particular order, to what you said.
>
>The HTML is 98+% "validated" now. So is the CSS. So I'm not worried about
>that. Except there is a problem with IMG borders, apparently. I took out
>all border=0 references to make the thing HTML 4.01 valid and now you are
>telling me that the logo image has a blue border in MSIE 5.5! Crap! The
>borders don't show up in firefox because of the border:none declaration in
>my CSS Stylesheet.

Try using border: 0px; ..? At least that is how I do it for my sites
on linked images ... isn't web site tweaking fun? :))

>The site is for High School students -- NOT college students! I guess
>that is not clear.

Heheheh... sorry, you are talking to someone with kids ranging from 21
years in age to 7 years who said *without reading* the text and just
the visual presentation ,,, ;)

>If you do download and look at the PDF brochure, you will see where I
>started from and why I use all the colors and angles that I do.
>Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I did
>not design the brochure. Maybe the translation of the brochure to web was
>not good? Maybe those who did not like the site will also not like the
>brochure? I'm curious about that aspect. In translation, I tried to take
>elements -- colors, angles, fonts, and images -- from the
>brochure, but not use the actual design of the brochure on the website.

You can adapt the brochure for web - with a little/some elbow room -
or do they want it to match "exactly" to "how it looks in a PDF/word
doc file"? There is a difference between the two thoughts.

If you have a little elbow room then maybe you can "combine" their
brochure design with mine:
Like, ok, I mentioned a one color left hand border with matching image
buttons. The brochure, which I didN'T download but will assume they
used blocks of colors for a "tabbing" thought of those colors. Now
those images, currently, have a little elbow on the right hand of the
text ... so couldn't you add a 20 to 25 px "color code tab" at the
front or at the end of the "button"? I don't know - just seems like
the 'blocks" is a bit "out of place looking" with all the other curves
and angles shared ....

And you don't have to tell me about trying to replicate a .doc file
touches to Web - someone I know thinks "anything" in word can be done
in HTML so then they gripe about how it "doesn't look the same' or the
"table of info doesn't look just their pristine perfect worddoc.
[duh!, huh? ;)] I keep telling them Word [or PDF] is one thing - web
sites are another and you can try to replicate the info and most of
the layout thoughts but "exact" not a possibility most of the time ...
especially when dropped into a site template.

>Understand that a lot of the elements are out of my control. The logo,
>for example (and this is the *improved* version of the logo -- I am going
>to be required to use the less-good version but I haven't put it in place
>yet). The PDF brochure and all of the .doc files on the site are also out
>of my control.

Oh, ok then - then that was a bit of info that I missed being shared
earlier.

[snip]
>Thanks for the input -- it was helpful!

No problem.

Carol

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-02, 7:19 pm

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:52:40 +0000, C.W wrote:

> And you don't have to tell me about trying to replicate a .doc file
> touches to Web - someone I know thinks "anything" in word can be done
> in HTML so then they gripe about how it "doesn't look the same' or the
> "table of info doesn't look just their pristine perfect worddoc.
> [duh!, huh? ;)] I keep telling them Word [or PDF] is one thing - web
> sites are another and you can try to replicate the info and most of
> the layout thoughts but "exact" not a possibility most of the time ...
> especially when dropped into a site template.

Yes. Some people have a hard time with this concept. But a lot of times,
those people are the same people who *think* that their Word doc is
"pristine perfect" when it in fact is a horribly designed piece of crap.
But they spent a lot of time on it, so it *must* look nice! :)

Thanks, later...
--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

Toby Inkster

2004-09-02, 11:15 pm

Jeffrey Silverman wrote:

> dizziness is in the eye of the beholder

No, it is in the ear.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./counting_crows/august_and_everything_after/08_sullivan_street.ogg

Toby Inkster

2004-09-03, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman wrote:

> Well, the problem with validators is that web browsers do not conform to
> W3C specifications, whereas the validators purport to do so. So trying to
> produce cross-browser code that is also 100% "validator compliant" is like
> <insert colloquial expression meaning "hard to do" here>.

It is true that there will be some code that browsers like and validators
don't, and vice versa. But I've never seen an example of a page where
browsers choke *because* the page is valid!

Besides which, even if you don't end up with a 100% valid site, the mere
process of validation can still be a valuable exercise -- it may help you
spot things that various browsers could potentially choke on -- like
unquoted attributes and incorrect nesting of elements.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./counting_crows/august_and_everything_after/08_sullivan_street.ogg

Toby Inkster

2004-09-03, 4:16 am

Ben Measures wrote:
> Jeffrey Silverman wrote:
>
>
> It's in the CSS3 UI draft (and isn't likely to be removed afaik)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#cursor

"Hand" isn't. The rest is mainly also in CSS 2.x -- not just 3.0.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./elvis_presley/heartbreak_hotel.ogg

The Doormouse

2004-09-03, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote:

> You have not given any.

In your opinion. That's ingratitude.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

The Doormouse

2004-09-03, 4:16 am

Toby Inkster <usenet200409@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> Jeffrey Silverman wrote:
>
>
> No, it is in the ear.

Certain optical effects can be unbalancing.

I remember an optical illusion that was common on computers many years
back: You stared at a rotating pattern on the screen and then at your
palm. The center of your palm would appear to rotate the opposite
direction! Needless to say, this caused some people to freak.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

The Doormouse

2004-09-03, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote:

> Thank you everyone (except Doormouse) for your help!!!

Ungrateful weasel! :)

Feh.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Neal

2004-09-03, 4:16 am

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:23:18 GMT, The Doormouse <doormouse@att.net> wrote:

> Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> In your opinion. That's ingratitude.

But you know, though, some of us don't give a XXXX. So why not decide NOT
to argue over this here, thanks? This semantic discovery won't hinge an
iota on making good web pages.

Neal

2004-09-04, 4:19 am

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:38:59 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

> although I see some 's in there I would replace with 's.

Not many. I did see

Get

as being a bit silly. It's not exactly semantic markup, but it isn't
terrible.

All the other 's are in that rogue bit at top, which should be
eliminated from the rendering. Some of them are arguably but are
better gone.

P Doh

2004-09-05, 4:16 am

Jeffrey Silverman wrote:
> I am designing and developing a site for a "client".
>
> http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/
>
> I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation, etc.
> as well as coding (CSS and HTML -- I doubt you will be able to comment on
> the PHP back-end because you can't see that part). I have *NOT* yet run
> the thing through a validator (CSS or HTML) and I probably never will. (I
> have my own reasons to not use validators).
>
> I have tested it in Mozilla 1.x and MSIE 6 and I know it should look
> pretty close to the same in both. It may look sucky in in IE 5, however,
> and I know it will not look right in any browser that does not support CSS
> positioning (4.x and earlier browsers). Assume that the target audience
> will be using MSIE6. (And please -- no diatribe on making assumptions and
> target audiences and all that.)
>
> I am not strictly speaking a "designer" but more of a "programmer". So
> please let me know what you think, you "designers". Pull no punches; I'm
> thick skinned. (Not that I figured anyone would.)
>
> Thanks!
>
I like the design direction, trying to capture that 1950's look
And all (mostly) done in CSS ! thats neat (using firebird, like most of
you do..)
Almost there, perhaps a red background would make it really shine
As for how you did it, eg did he use tables/css+div&span/flash or
gif/XXXXed up java etc I care not

Hey but hang on the last contradicts the first!

rich_

2004-09-05, 11:23 am

I like the menu on the left. It clearly devides your site into different parts. However, I think it would be better if you made the top part change colour too when you visit a different part (the part where it now says This Space Reserved for Important Announcements) Also in the top part, you need to export your graphic again, right now it's a bit fuzzy around the letters, try exporting with a higher resolution or in gif.

I hate the home button, it looks like you forgot about it and just put it on there when you were just about done. In this case, you could better remove the whole button.

Finally, I think the little cartoonlike images on the right are a bit out of place. The site seems rather professional overall, and then suddenly images that look like they were made by a 4 yearold appear.

Hope this is of any help.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey Silverman
I am designing and developing a site for a "client".

http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/

I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation, etc.
as well as coding (CSS and HTML -- I doubt you will be able to comment on
the PHP back-end because you can't see that part). I have *NOT* yet run
the thing through a validator (CSS or HTML) and I probably never will. (I
have my own reasons to not use validators).

I have tested it in Mozilla 1.x and MSIE 6 and I know it should look
pretty close to the same in both. It may look sucky in in IE 5, however,
and I know it will not look right in any browser that does not support CSS
positioning (4.x and earlier browsers). Assume that the target audience
will be using MSIE6. (And please -- no diatribe on making assumptions and
target audiences and all that.)

I am not strictly speaking a "designer" but more of a "programmer". So
please let me know what you think, you "designers". Pull no punches; I'm
thick skinned. (Not that I figured anyone would.)

Thanks!

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

2004-09-09, 7:22 pm

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@pantsjhu.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.01.17.25.55.383880@pantsjhu.edu>...
> I am designing and developing a site for a "client".
>
> http://headsup.jhu.edu:8080/
>
> I'd like comments and criticisms on the design, layout, navigation, etc.
> as well as coding (CSS and HTML -- I doubt you will be able to comment on
> the PHP back-end because you can't see that part). I have *NOT* yet run
> the thing through a validator (CSS or HTML) and I probably never will. (I
> have my own reasons to not use validators).

Hi,

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but the first thing I thought
of the big logo in the middle of the page was that I was being flipped
off.

May want to look at that again...

oj

>
> I have tested it in Mozilla 1.x and MSIE 6 and I know it should look
> pretty close to the same in both. It may look sucky in in IE 5, however,
> and I know it will not look right in any browser that does not support CSS
> positioning (4.x and earlier browsers). Assume that the target audience
> will be using MSIE6. (And please -- no diatribe on making assumptions and
> target audiences and all that.)
>
> I am not strictly speaking a "designer" but more of a "programmer". So
> please let me know what you think, you "designers". Pull no punches; I'm
> thick skinned. (Not that I figured anyone would.)
>
> Thanks!

P Doh

2004-09-09, 7:23 pm

Jeffrey Silverman

2004-09-11, 7:15 am

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:23:07 -0500, rich_ wrote:

> I like the menu on the left. It clearly devides your site into different
> parts. However, I think it would be better if you made the top part
> change colour too when you visit a different part (the part where it
> now says This Space Reserved for Important Announcements) Also in the
> top part, you need to export your graphic again, right now it's a bit
> fuzzy around the letters, try exporting with a higher resolution or in
> gif.

Using The GIMP. Sometimes, while mostly awesome, the Gimp falls far short
of Photoshop in terms of image quality. Rotating images is one example.

>
> I hate the home button, it looks like you forgot about it and just put
> it on there when you were just about done. In this case, you could
> better remove the whole button.
>
> Finally, I think the little cartoonlike images on the right are a bit
> out of place. The site seems rather professional overall, and then
> suddenly images that look like they were made by a 4 yearold appear.
>
> Hope this is of any help.

Thank you, it *is* helpful.

My question/comment regarding your last statement about "cartoonish
images": How does one incorporate the designs of complimentary, already
existing, and most importantly, already *designed* media when (a) the
media (flyers, brochures, whatever) was designed by someone else and (2)
the design is, in one's opinion, *sucky*??

(Parsing that question may be hard, I realize. A bit run-on.)

A philosophical question, more than one requiring hard factual answers.

Thanks!

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffreyPANTS@jhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)