Site Ratings & Reviews - Critique of my updated website

Author

Critique of my updated website

paradox

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

My site has undergone a complete over-haul since I posted a couple of
months ago. Thanks again to everyone who took the time to review it
before.

I'm not a web-developer and the learning curve has been been very
steep.

There *are* still errors in this website and I am going to give it
another go now that I have an increased my knowledge about it
somewhat. But before I do, I wondered if anyone would mind taking a
look and giving me their opinion on the look and feel of it.

I am not looking so much for technical feedback, although any received
would be gratefully noted. I'm really more concerned about the way
the website comes across. Would it encourage people to contact me? Do
I need more information? Do I need more pages?

I'd appreciate if you would be as detailed as possible in your
reviews. Like last time, I don't mind if my ego is bruised on my way
to making a website that does its job.

It's www.paradoxofreality.com

Thanks.

Paul Watt

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

"paradox" <paradoxofreality@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171136483.166066.296300@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> My site has undergone a complete over-haul since I posted a couple of
> months ago. Thanks again to everyone who took the time to review it
> before.
>
> I'm not a web-developer and the learning curve has been been very
> steep.
>
> There *are* still errors in this website and I am going to give it
> another go now that I have an increased my knowledge about it
> somewhat. But before I do, I wondered if anyone would mind taking a
> look and giving me their opinion on the look and feel of it.
>
> I am not looking so much for technical feedback, although any received
> would be gratefully noted. I'm really more concerned about the way
> the website comes across. Would it encourage people to contact me? Do
> I need more information? Do I need more pages?
>
> I'd appreciate if you would be as detailed as possible in your
> reviews. Like last time, I don't mind if my ego is bruised on my way
> to making a website that does its job.
>
> It's www.paradoxofreality.com
>
> Thanks.
>

The first thing that springs to mind is the tiny font used on the menu, keep
things at 100% or higher and everyones happy.
The second thing that hits the eye is your padding. There should be the same
amount of padding between the picture of the lake and the "ad/hd" panel.
Just neatens things up and looks "finished". I would also add a bit between
the menu and the left hand margin.

Why are you using tables? This layout would be simple in css.

Also fails falidation with 11 errors

HTH
--
Cheers

Paul watt
http://www.paulwattdesigns.com
http://www.amnesty.org

Jim Moe

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

paradox wrote:
>
> It's www.paradoxofreality.com
>
On the search option at the top of the page, wouldn't it be more
sensible to default to searching your site rather than the Web?
The block of text on the right, starting with "Volunteers are invited
to....," overlays the two sections below it.
Nav menu: There is no need to add the underline to each link on :hover.
The change of color is enough. The underline just makes it harder to read.

Why are you using XHTML Transitional? This is new work. Use XHTML Strict.
You have a lot of inline presentational attributes: font, nowrap,
bgcolor, etc. Some of it is deprecated, all of it should be done with CSS.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

John Hosking

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

paradox wrote:
> My site has undergone a complete over-haul since I posted a couple of
> months ago. Thanks again to everyone who took the time to review it
> before.

> It's www.paradoxofreality.com

It's nice, clean and bright. I'd like to see the text start out larger,
though. It's not comfortable for me. The nav menu text looks especially
small, although a quick glance at your CSS suggests it's no smaller than
the body text. Rather than font-size: 10px, how about 100%? At the
*very* least, avoid sizing in px so that IE users can resize your text
so they can read it.

I think the pages would look better with the nav menu shifted down, so
that the top of Paradox of Reality HOME lines up with the top photo and
the "Conditions & Symptoms Treated" block.

Some of your pages could use more spacing after the heading and before
the text it introduces; see e.g., "The Programmes" before "Coaching
works well both on an ad-hoc and regular basis..." on details.html.

The Conditions look like they ought to be links, but they're not. (I
know they aren't blue and underlined, but then neither are your links.)
I don't know what you should do about this, if anything. Maybe just me.

The first thing I noticed, though, was the overlapping texts on the
first page. See http://mypage.bluewin.ch/jlh/ParadoxTextJam.JPG . (All
tested in FF; I notice in IE6 this overlap doesn't happen.)

Your Google search thingy is too prominent, being in the upper left
corner of the page. Plus, it's smashed right up into the corner without
much padding. It looks like it's the most important thing on each page,
but that you didn't give it space. Can you move it down somewhere
(giving focus to your logo)?

Most of your images appear to have alt attributes; how about title too?

The landscapes are lovely. But where are the people? (Did we talk about
this in a previous critique?) There should be at least one picture of
*you*, preferably pictures of people being helped, preferably multiple
photos. (For all the software and ISP-type Websites I've seen with
dubious photos of business people smiling at the camera and each other,
I think there ought to be at least *some* human presence on a site where
the people are truly the centerpoint of the business.) I'm not too sure
about the bluebird. Is that your logo? A mascot? Nice image, but does it
match your site? I'm not convinced.

As you say, it still needs work. In future, I recommend that you get
your page to validate (some of the errors showing now are trivial)
before you ask for critique. You're more likely to get relevant help
that way.

Keep going, it's looking good.

paradox

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

On 10 Feb, 19:54, "Paul Watt" <pau...@NOSPAMwattio.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> The first thing that springs to mind is the tiny font used on the menu, keep
> things at 100% or higher and everyones happy.
> The second thing that hits the eye is your padding. There should be the same
> amount of padding between the picture of the lake and the "ad/hd" panel.
> Just neatens things up and looks "finished". I would also add a bit between
> the menu and the left hand margin.
>
> Why are you using tables? This layout would be simple in css.
>
> Also fails falidation with 11 errors
>
> HTH
> --
> Cheers
>
> Paul watthttp://www.paulwattdesigns.comhttp://www.amnesty.org

I'll do the 100% thing with the text on my next revision, luckily that
is just a simple change on my stylesheet.

I've used tables because my css knowledge was very scratchy. It's
improved a little now so the whole techie side of the site will be
better next time.

Thanks for your time!

paradox

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

On 10 Feb, 20:11, Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPA...@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
> paradox wrote:
>
>
> On the search option at the top of the page, wouldn't it be more
> sensible to default to searching your site rather than the Web?
> The block of text on the right, starting with "Volunteers are invited
> to....," overlays the two sections below it.
> Nav menu: There is no need to add the underline to each link on :hover.
> The change of color is enough. The underline just makes it harder to read.
>
> Why are you using XHTML Transitional? This is new work. Use XHTML Strict.
> You have a lot of inline presentational attributes: font, nowrap,
> bgcolor, etc. Some of it is deprecated, all of it should be done with CSS.
>
> --
> jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
> (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

The google search box has been frustrating me. I tried to make my site
the default and played with amending the code that google provide, but
to no avail so far. I'll keep trying though because I would prefer my
site to be the default.

The overlay error together with the inline presentational stuff will
be sorted in the next revision. I've brought "Build Your Own Website
The Right Way Using HTML & CSS" and that will hopefully fill the gaps
in my knowledge!

paradox

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

On 10 Feb, 20:27, John Hosking <J...@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID>
wrote:
> paradox wrote:
>
> It's nice, clean and bright. I'd like to see the text start out larger,
> though. It's not comfortable for me. The nav menu text looks especially
> small, although a quick glance at your CSS suggests it's no smaller than
> the body text. Rather than font-size: 10px, how about 100%? At the
> *very* least, avoid sizing in px so that IE users can resize your text
> so they can read it.
>
> I think the pages would look better with the nav menu shifted down, so
> that the top of Paradox of Reality HOME lines up with the top photo and
> the "Conditions & Symptoms Treated" block.
>
> Some of your pages could use more spacing after the heading and before
> the text it introduces; see e.g., "The Programmes" before "Coaching
> works well both on an ad-hoc and regular basis..." on details.html.
>
> The Conditions look like they ought to be links, but they're not. (I
> know they aren't blue and underlined, but then neither are your links.)
> I don't know what you should do about this, if anything. Maybe just me.
>
> The first thing I noticed, though, was the overlapping texts on the
> first page. Seehttp://mypage.bluewin.ch/jlh/ParadoxTextJam.JPG. (All
> tested in FF; I notice in IE6 this overlap doesn't happen.)
>
> Your Google search thingy is too prominent, being in the upper left
> corner of the page. Plus, it's smashed right up into the corner without
> much padding. It looks like it's the most important thing on each page,
> but that you didn't give it space. Can you move it down somewhere
> (giving focus to your logo)?
>
> Most of your images appear to have alt attributes; how about title too?
>
> The landscapes are lovely. But where are the people? (Did we talk about
> this in a previous critique?) There should be at least one picture of
> *you*, preferably pictures of people being helped, preferably multiple
> photos. (For all the software and ISP-type Websites I've seen with
> dubious photos of business people smiling at the camera and each other,
> I think there ought to be at least *some* human presence on a site where
> the people are truly the centerpoint of the business.) I'm not too sure
> about the bluebird. Is that your logo? A mascot? Nice image, but does it
> match your site? I'm not convinced.
>
> As you say, it still needs work. In future, I recommend that you get
> your page to validate (some of the errors showing now are trivial)
> before you ask for critique. You're more likely to get relevant help
> that way.
>
> Keep going, it's looking good.

The text size is number one on my list of things to sort out! I was
advised by reviewers last time to keep it at 100%, but to be honest,
my adventures with css kind of took me off the right track - I learnt
by analysing stylesheets on websites that I liked, but I have
obviously picked up their bad habits.

I understand what you mean by the google box being too big and
prominent. I'll have to play around with where else to put it.

Thanks for all your other pointers too about the spacing and pics etc
- most appreciated :-)

Bergamot

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

paradox wrote:
> On 10 Feb, 20:11, Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPA...@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
>
> The google search box has been frustrating me. I tried to make my site
> the default and played with amending the code that google provide, but
> to no avail so far.

<input type="radio" name="sitesearch" value="" checked id="ss0"></input>
^^^^^^^

Put the "checked" attribute on the other radio input.

--
Berg

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

On 2007-02-10, paradox wrote:
> My site has undergone a complete over-haul since I posted a couple of
> months ago. Thanks again to everyone who took the time to review it
> before.
>
> I'm not a web-developer and the learning curve has been been very
> steep.
>
> There *are* still errors in this website and I am going to give it
> another go now that I have an increased my knowledge about it
> somewhat. But before I do, I wondered if anyone would mind taking a
> look and giving me their opinion on the look and feel of it.
>
> I am not looking so much for technical feedback, although any received
> would be gratefully noted. I'm really more concerned about the way
> the website comes across. Would it encourage people to contact me? Do
> I need more information? Do I need more pages?
>
> I'd appreciate if you would be as detailed as possible in your
> reviews. Like last time, I don't mind if my ego is bruised on my way
> to making a website that does its job.
>
> It's www.paradoxofreality.com

The page doesn't adjust to the width of the browser window, and
there is text over text in the middle (i.e., on the right in a
smaller window). See <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/paradox.jpg>.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Ed Seedhouse

2007-02-10, 10:15 pm

On 10 Feb 2007 11:41:23 -0800, "paradox" <paradoxofreality@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I'd appreciate if you would be as detailed as possible in your
>reviews. Like last time, I don't mind if my ego is bruised on my way
>to making a website that does its job.
>
>It's www.paradoxofreality.com

Throws away half my screen real-estate for no apparant reason. Uses
absurdly tiny fonts that I can't read, but when I increase font size the
layout just breaks and becomes unreadable in a different way.

Even at normal size some text overlaps other text.

Still uses 1995 layout techniques like tables and empty paragraphs with
a non-breaking space for layout. Works properly even within these
paramaters only for an ancient and obsolete web broswer, Internet
Explorer 6.

In other words, obsolete and outdated, and would have been obsolete and
outdated five years ago. Totally unprofessional.

Decent color scheme overall, but for anyone with less than perfect
vision a virtually unuseable site. Apparantly you don't want to coach
old folks like me, is our money tainted for you?

the red dot

2007-02-13, 10:16 pm