This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > September 2005 > Site critique please
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Site critique please
|
|
|
|
I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
http://www.dotnet-hosting.com. I would like to receive some feedback on the
general look and user experience. Also web host features that are missing.
Thanks.
I am *not* looking for a list of errors from html or css validators.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-26, 6:51 pm |
| And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
> http://www.dotnet-hosting.com. I would like to receive some feedback on
> the general look and user experience. Also web host features that are
> missing.
Honestly, it seems very poorly planned, unbalanced, and cobbled together
with no overarching theme. Also, I can tell you the kind of customer
service *I* would expect for the price being offered. How much does a CSR
get paid per hour? $40? Maybe $20 if you outsource? If the latter, if I
use up just 15 minutes of a tech's time per month (doing *anything*), my
hosting is free.
> Thanks.
NP.
> I am *not* looking for a list of errors from html or css validators.
Then why are you using a quirks-mode DOCTYPE? For shits and giggles?
Too bad, I'm giving it to you anyway: - 77 Errors
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...et-hosting.com/>
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#ring - Orca Ringmaker: Host a webring
from your website!
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2005-09-26, 6:51 pm |
| Karim wrote:
> I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
You already have answers in the critique newsgroup. Please don't
multi-post.
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-26, 6:51 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:14xp758882j3e$.1q0pssaehfyba$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>
> I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
> http://www.dotnet-hosting.com. I would like to receive some feedback on
> the
> general look and user experience. Also web host features that are missing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I am *not* looking for a list of errors from html or css validators.
>
Well, generally speaking, it doesnt look too bad in IE here. It is very
similar to lots of other web hosting services though.
It may be worth you looking for a list of errors and correcting them
though - for example "<td padding-left:20px;>" is unusual markup to say the
least.
One thing to bear in mind, is you are providing a service to people who you
can assume are fairly web savvy - to maintain credibility you need to ensure
your pages are technically sound in addition to well designed.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-26, 6:51 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
> I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
So you appear to have said in several places - please don't do that.
> http://www.dotnet-hosting.com. I would like to receive some feedback on
> the general look and user experience.
Muddled and at the same time looking just like a whole host of other
sites. Unfortunately, it achieves this without delivering a USP.
Not keen on the dancing navigation.
> Also web host features that are missing.
Customer service, integrity, dedication, honesty - all these are
pre-requisites.
> Thanks.
>
> I am *not* looking for a list of errors from html or css validators.
alt.screw-the-web.this-is-marketing is just down the hall --->
--
William Tasso
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-26, 10:20 pm |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote
> Karim wrote:
>
>
> You already have answers in the critique newsgroup. Please don't
> multi-post.
He/she/it is spamming. He/she/it assumes that everyone here is as dense as
he/she/it is.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-26, 10:20 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
> Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
>
> alt.screw-the-web.this-is-marketing is just down the hall --->
Just two doors down from alt.screw-the-web.this-is-thinly-vieled-marketing.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Karim 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:26:35 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> Honestly, it seems very poorly planned, unbalanced, and cobbled together
> with no overarching theme.
How about being more specific? Where you looking for something and couldn't
find it? Is the text not clear? Is it difficult to navigate? ..?
Also, I can tell you the kind of customer
> service *I* would expect for the price being offered. How much does a CSR
> get paid per hour? $40? Maybe $20 if you outsource? If the latter, if I
> use up just 15 minutes of a tech's time per month (doing *anything*), my
> hosting is free.
There are thousands of hosts who offer hosting for less than $10 and less
than $5. Do you have the same opinion about pagezone and themooseisloose,
hosts that are mentioned here frquently?
Why do you care how much I pay for support? If things just work and
everything is out in the clear, there's very little support needed. The
reason the fee is less than others is because we don't have to hire a
support army. You have no idea what my overhead is so your calculations and
logic are worthless.
> Too bad, I'm giving it to you anyway: - 77 Errors
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...et-hosting.com/>
Thanks for taking the time. Now pass Yahoo, CNN, eBay and your favorite
sites and see if they don't give errors and come back and tell us why
people visit these sites if they don't validate properly.
Side Note: Whenever you have something negative to say about me or a
related service, you'll jump in.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| Karim 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:02:33 +0100, T Wake wrote:
> "Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
> news:14xp758882j3e$.1q0pssaehfyba$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Well, generally speaking, it doesnt look too bad in IE here. It is very
> similar to lots of other web hosting services though.
>
> It may be worth you looking for a list of errors and correcting them
> though - for example "<td padding-left:20px;>" is unusual markup to say the
> least.
>
> One thing to bear in mind, is you are providing a service to people who you
> can assume are fairly web savvy - to maintain credibility you need to ensure
> your pages are technically sound in addition to well designed.
Thanks. I am a technical person and when I get service from a site, like
shop from an online store, I *NEVER* first see if the site passes html
validators properly. If the site has what I need, works and looks properly,
I am happy.
Do some people do this.. check a site's html validity before using it?
Because this is a very interesting human behavior.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| Karim 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:09:23 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
> Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
>
>
> So you appear to have said in several places - please don't do that.
Here because I frequent the group and it's related and alt.html.critque.
It's perfectly legit. if you happen to visit both, you can ignore one of
them. I wouldn't count two as several, btw.
Actually now I think of it 'alt.html.critque' is the wrong place because
the html guys will pick on the html part.
I think I need a 'web design' group more specifically.
>
>
> Muddled and at the same time looking just like a whole host of other
> sites. Unfortunately, it achieves this without delivering a USP.
Well.. there's little one can do when hosts basically offer the same
features. Anyone shopping for a host is looking basically for the same
requirements. Maybe you can share with us on how you would go about doing
it.
>
> Not keen on the dancing navigation.
>
>
> Customer service, integrity, dedication, honesty - all these are
> pre-requisites.
It's all there. But then how would you know before you use a host.
>
> alt.screw-the-web.this-is-marketing is just down the hall --->
I never said I don't care about html validity. I don't want to get a
laundry list by doing a copy and paste from a validator.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| Karim 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:09:23 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
>
>
> Customer service, integrity, dedication, honesty - all these are
> pre-requisites.
Of course. Now how about technical issues that actually go on a webpage?
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| Karim wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:09:23 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Here because I frequent the group and it's related and
> alt.html.critque.
Did you never read...
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
> It's perfectly legit. if you happen to visit both, you can ignore one
> of them. I wouldn't count two as several, btw.
You don't understand the difference between cross-posting and
multi-posting, it seems. And the ramifications of both.
> Actually now I think of it 'alt.html.critque' is the wrong place because
> the html guys will pick on the html part.
When you have all those errors, why not?
> I think I need a 'web design' group more specifically.
If your page didn't have errors, it might display differently.
--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:26:35 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
>
>
> How about being more specific? Where you looking for something and
> couldn't
> find it? Is the text not clear? Is it difficult to navigate? ..?
That's not specific enough for you? How about : it took me three visual
scans of the page before I figured out you were only offering one "plan"
and that there was no link showing me your hosting plans. The "Plans"
link is what I always look for first at a web host.
> Also, I can tell you the kind of customer
>
> There are thousands of hosts who offer hosting for less than $10 and less
> than $5. Do you have the same opinion about pagezone and themooseisloose,
> hosts that are mentioned here frquently?
Yesh. I don't host with them. What is your point?
>
> Thanks for taking the time. Now pass Yahoo, CNN, eBay and your favorite
> sites and see if they don't give errors and come back and tell us why
> people visit these sites if they don't validate properly.
Did I ever say that validation directly translates to profitability?
Validation should be your check on code that has the greatest chance of
functioning correctly in all browsers. The corporate websites you mention
have *large* development teams who spend tedious hours making sure the
site works for all visitors despite the errors they may have to include
because of poor support for standards in old browsers like MSIE.
Do *you* have a large development team also?
> Side Note: Whenever you have something negative to say about me or a
> related service, you'll jump in.
*You* asked for it. Sheesh.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search - PHP/MySQL site
search engine
| |
| Ben Jamieson 2005-09-27, 3:30 am |
| On 2005-09-26 15:57:31 -0400, Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
> I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
> http://www.dotnet-hosting.com. I would like to receive some feedback on the
> general look and user experience. Also web host features that are missing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I am *not* looking for a list of errors from html or css validators.
General Look:
Like something designed by a colourblind schoolboy who failed first
year art classes. No sense of design balance or grid structure.
Spelling errors. No thought to colour. No thought to layout, No focus
whatsoever, apart from the hideous font and colour used for the nearly
illegible 4.75.
As for user experience, if I was looking for a hosting company, I would
leave. this one looks like its run by highschool kids! Not where I'd
want my data housed!
If, as has been suggested, your post is simply a marketing attempt, the
design of your site pretty much guarantees no one will look at this as
a serious hosting company.
Sorry, but you *did* ask!
(and I didn't even mention the code!)
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:11:15 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> That's not specific enough for you? How about : it took me three visual
> scans of the page before I figured out you were only offering one "plan"
> and that there was no link showing me your hosting plans. The "Plans"
> link is what I always look for first at a web host.
The tag line under the logo says "one plan". The intro plurp says "A single
all inclusive...". There's a HUGE $4.75 right infront of you. The features
page says one plan. I would think after all these, you would conclude there
are no other plans. I am offering a single plan that has everything you
need for one price. No confusin other plans. We don't nickle and dime for
extra features. No need to upgrade. I guess some people are "trained" to
look for other plans. And to Mr Tasso, that's how I am different than
others.
But if people seriously look for "other" plans just because they're used,
maybe I should offer more plans.
You still didn't elaborate on the unabalanced and overarching theme.
>
>
> Yesh. I don't host with them. What is your point?
My point is why are you sitting down trying to figure out how I can afford
to offer $4.75 when you have no idea what anything is costing me. Plus why
is this an issue with you? If you think a price is always indicative of
service quality, that you'r prerogative.
Plus I wanted opinions about a website user experince. You're going the
wrong direction :)
Looking at whois for your site, it seems hosting-advantage.com is your
host? If this your company, a friend's? Tell them that the main page has
spelling mistakes. My eyes quickly saw web-hsoting at the bottom and the
main link links to hosting-advantage.com.com.
>
>
> Did I ever say that validation directly translates to profitability?
> Validation should be your check on code that has the greatest chance of
> functioning correctly in all browsers. The corporate websites you mention
> have *large* development teams who spend tedious hours making sure the
> site works for all visitors despite the errors they may have to include
> because of poor support for standards in old browsers like MSIE.
>
> Do *you* have a large development team also?
What's your point? Whether you're a one person team or a large team, your
pages should validate or because they are a big team and big company, we
forgive them? A large team means they have the resources to do it right.
A webpage that has some html errors has no bearing whether the site make
money or not. Maybe you can quote some sites you did personally.
>
>
> *You* asked for it. Sheesh.
I asked for opinions on the user experience. Nothing you mentioned was
relevant other than "I can't find the other plans" where the site *clearly*
states there's only one. Plus illogical comments about why you're not happy
with the low price!!
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:21:38 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Karim wrote:
>
>
>
> Did you never read...
> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
>
>
> You don't understand the difference between cross-posting and
> multi-posting, it seems. And the ramifications of both.
I know very well the difference. I decided first to post in the critique
group but then I remembered it wasn't the group I favored plus it gets
little traffic. And it's the same exact message. Sometimes I don't like the
cross-posting idea because it produces too many duplicates.
>
>
> When you have all those errors, why not?
>
> If your page didn't have errors, it might display differently.
It displays the way I intended it to display. It might have some errors but
they are not glaring. I will look at them when I have some time. What
matters now is the funtionality and look of the site. Nothing is perfect in
this world. You might live in a house that has cracks in the foundation but
you like your house the way it is and it functions the way you want it to
and you might know about the cracks but you don't have the time nor money
to fix them.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-27, 3:31 am |
| And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:11:15 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
>
>
> The tag line under the logo says "one plan". The intro plurp says "A
> single
> all inclusive...". There's a HUGE $4.75 right infront of you. The
> features
> page says one plan. I would think after all these, you would conclude
> there
> are no other plans.
You would think. I didn't. Next time write down what you want me to tell
you on a piece of paper; these games of yours are hard.
> You still didn't elaborate on the unabalanced and overarching theme.
Is it not obvious? For one thing the site is just a bunch of boxes with
no common colour, plus the footer at the bottom is skewed to the right
because it doesn't take into account the thin column on the left. I could
go on...
> Looking at whois for your site, it seems hosting-advantage.com is your
> host? If this your company, a friend's? Tell them that the main page has
> spelling mistakes. My eyes quickly saw web-hsoting at the bottom and the
> main link links to hosting-advantage.com.com.
Hosting-advantage.com is an old domain owned by my webhost, their main
commercial site is http://www.netfronts.com Despite it not being a real
web hosting site, if you had bothered to glance at it for longer than the
few seconds took you to hungrily find the first spelling error, you would
have noticed that the "misspelled" link *actually* leads to the
http://web-hsoting.com/ domain. It seems to hold an older version of the
Netfronts website.
But all's fair in love and war, eh? Couldn't defend your own webhost so
you had to attack mine. Pathetic.
>
> I asked for opinions on the user experience. Nothing you mentioned was
> relevant other than "I can't find the other plans" where the site
> *clearly* states there's only one.
I told you what I honestly thought of it. Many webhosts prominently
display the price for their lowest priced plan as a way to entice
customers. It's not much of a stretch to realize that's what I first
thought it was. I don't read the marketing mumbo-jumbo on these sites, I
look for the plan comparison and price-list.
That's okay, you don't have to believe me. I was just giving you what you
were asking for: a site critique. But next time make it a point to ask
for what you *really* want: "Tell me my site is good please".
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search - PHP/MySQL site
search engine
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2005-09-27, 3:31 am |
| Karim wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:21:38 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> I know very well the difference. I decided first to post in the critique
> group but then I remembered it wasn't the group I favored plus it gets
> little traffic. And it's the same exact message.
Yes, it is the same message, twice.
> Sometimes I don't like the
> cross-posting idea because it produces too many duplicates.
Aha. You DON'T understand cross-posting!
>
> It displays the way I intended it to display. ...
So, if that's the case, why are you asking for critiques?
--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-27, 3:31 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
[Multi-posting]
> ...
> It's perfectly legit.
No it isn't. At best it displays ignorance.
> ...
> Actually now I think of it 'alt.html.critque' is the wrong place because
> the html guys will pick on the html part.
Really? well, d'uh!
> I think I need a 'web design' group more specifically.
What is Usenet? http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
> ...
> Well.. there's little one can do when hosts basically offer the same
> features.
Do they?
> Anyone shopping for a host is looking basically for the same
> requirements.
Are you sure?
> Maybe you can share with us on how you would go about doing
> it.
Who is your market?
> ...
> I never said I don't care about html validity.
Maybe so, but publishing a critique request for a site that contains so
many errors certainly implies that the author has not considered the
benefits.
--
William Tasso
Lovely are recruiting citizens - http://citizensrequired.com/
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-27, 6:31 am |
| Karim wrote
> Do you have the same opinion about pagezone and
> themooseisloose, hosts that are mentioned here frquently?
They have integrity, intelligence, wisdom. They do not employ your
underhand, crooked tactics.
You've got a cheek to mention them in the same breath as yourself.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:20:28 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> You would think. I didn't. Next time write down what you want me to tell
> you on a piece of paper; these games of yours are hard.
I guess I have to add more plans. Some users are "brain washed" to look for
more plans even though a site clearly states there's only one.
>
>
> Is it not obvious? For one thing the site is just a bunch of boxes with
> no common colour, plus the footer at the bottom is skewed to the right
> because it doesn't take into account the thin column on the left. I could
> go on...
>
>
> Hosting-advantage.com is an old domain owned by my webhost, their main
> commercial site is http://www.netfronts.com Despite it not being a real
> web hosting site, if you had bothered to glance at it for longer than the
> few seconds took you to hungrily find the first spelling error, you would
> have noticed that the "misspelled" link *actually* leads to the
> http://web-hsoting.com/ domain. It seems to hold an older version of the
> Netfronts website.
That's funny. It's an intentional mispelling that looks very wrong. I bet
everyone is going to think it's mispelled before figuring out it was
intentional. It serves no purpose other than confuse people.
What about the link next to it (web-hosting.to) that goes nowhere.
Even though it might not be the real hosting page, other people, just like
I did, will hit it and find all these problems right away. What will be
your first impression when you see mispellings and broken links, will you
trust such a site.
So it's an old page which means it has been online for a very long time? Am
I the only one who noticed the main link is wrong after all these years?
>
> But all's fair in love and war, eh? Couldn't defend your own webhost so
> you had to attack mine. Pathetic.
>
>
> I told you what I honestly thought of it. Many webhosts prominently
> display the price for their lowest priced plan as a way to entice
> customers. It's not much of a stretch to realize that's what I first
> thought it was. I don't read the marketing mumbo-jumbo on these sites, I
> look for the plan comparison and price-list.
And I thought a single-flat-rate-get-everything plan would make it easier
for a visitor. No confusing plans. I don't even use mumbo-jumbo marketing
plots. There's no 'for a limited time..' junk. There are no promotional
codes. There are no cross-out prices. There are no "get free months" stuff.
There's every day low prices.
>
> That's okay, you don't have to believe me. I was just giving you what you
> were asking for: a site critique. But next time make it a point to ask
> for what you *really* want: "Tell me my site is good please".
I thought I was very specific. I *specifically* asked for no html
validating stuff because I *knew* what was coming ahead. Yet all the
comments were about why there were some html errors.
Why does "site critique" quickly mean looking at the html? Most web users
do not care about the backend html.
I asked for "user experience". This means stuff about colors, the
navigation bar, links and their location ease of navigation, text
visibility, clear information, good contact information. I received zippo
about this. You however went ahead and tried disparaging the low price. Why
does it bother you that some hosts offer less than what you think they
should? You should be glad that you can pay less now.
There's fierce competition in the web hosting business. Everyday I notice
new hosting companies poping up. It's crazy. It feels like everyone is
doing it. Naturally prices go down.
But there was a good thing I learned from our little heated discussion. It
seems people want choice even if one offers them something that has
everything.. and I thought I was making it easier.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:10:51 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Karim wrote:
>
>
> Yes, it is the same message, twice.
I just explained to you what happened and it wasn't the same exact message.
The request was the same. You talk as if my message caused you distress. Is
this a big issue really?
>
> Aha. You DON'T understand cross-posting!
Sometimes I want to have two different threads going on. Sometimes I want
to maximize users partipication. Sometimes I don't want to "cross-pollute".
I have my reasons and you can agree with me or not. Cross-posting is the
preferred way. It's not a law.
>
>
> So, if that's the case, why are you asking for critiques?
One more colorful example. You bought a new house and painted the inside
with different colors and put your own decor. You invited your friends and
asked them to critique your changes. Do you expect them to give you their
opinions about what they see or do you expect them to go in the crawl space
under the house and tell you about their findings about the foundation.
I am asking about usability critiques, not html combing.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-27, 7:13 pm |
| And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> I guess I have to add more plans. Some users are "brain washed" to look
> for more plans even though a site clearly states there's only one.
Hmmm, reaching critical density here, Captain.
> Even though it might not be the real hosting page, other people, just
> like
> I did, will hit it and find all these problems right away. What will be
> your first impression when you see mispellings and broken links, will you
> trust such a site.
Tell me, how did you find that site? Now tell me how many *normal* users
would find a webhost that way.
> So it's an old page which means it has been online for a very long time?
> Am
> I the only one who noticed the main link is wrong after all these years?
Because they don't use it anymore. They don't update it anymore. Listen,
I thought this discussion was about *your* web host, not mine.
> And I thought a single-flat-rate-get-everything plan would make it easier
> for a visitor. No confusing plans.
I never disagreed with that. However, the two places on that page where
it mentions you only have one plan are in small print. Why not make it as
obvious as the huge price?
> I thought I was very specific. I *specifically* asked for no html
> validating stuff because I *knew* what was coming ahead.
Yet you still posted here for a "critique".
> Yet all the comments were about why there were some html errors.
> Why does "site critique" quickly mean looking at the html? Most web users
> do not care about the backend html.
If you wanted *that* type of critique, you should be asking in a group
like alt.looking-for-hosting.The majority of contributors here are *not*
users. We are trained to look at the webmaster angle, which means good
code, good semantics and good SEO. This is the foundation of a website
that is easy to maintain and ensures forward compatibility.
> I asked for "user experience". This means stuff about colors, the
> navigation bar, links and their location ease of navigation, text
> visibility, clear information, good contact information. I received zippo
> about this.
In all seriousness, why not ask in the MS frontpage groups? They love
commenting on how web pages "look" while turning a blind eye to the what's
lurking beneath.
> But there was a good thing I learned from our little heated discussion.
> It seems people want choice even if one offers them something that has
> everything.. and I thought I was making it easier.
Well, there you go.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#ring - Orca Ringmaker: Host a webring
from your website!
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:11:23 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
> Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
>
>
> [Multi-posting]
>
>
> No it isn't. At best it displays ignorance.
Please do not erase my message and add words out of context.
>
>
> Really? well, d'uh!
You're trolling now.
>
> What is Usenet? http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
>
>
> Do they?
Pick up a bunch of hosts and look at the features. They all basically offer
the same features. Disk space, traffic, php, mysql,webmail, blah blah.. Do
you really think there's a big diffferentation among them? They variables
they work on are disk space, traffic and price. Many of them can't go
beyond what their control panel and packages like fantastico offer. This is
evedent in Linux hosting.
>
>
> Are you sure?
>
>
> Who is your market?
Casual user.
>
> Maybe so, but publishing a critique request for a site that contains so
> many errors certainly implies that the author has not considered the
> benefits.
Critique based on usability, not critique based on html validity. Sites
with some html error do not necessarily hinder you from using them. Most
popular sites fall under this. You wouldn't know if a site has html error
unless you pass it through an html validator. That's specifically what I
had asked not to. If you can't critique a site in terms of usability
without having the site having 0 errors, please don't bother.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:20:28 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> Is it not obvious? For one thing the site is just a bunch of boxes with
> no common colour, plus the footer at the bottom is skewed to the right
> because it doesn't take into account the thin column on the left. I could
> go on...
The common color is blue and grey. The boxes should not be a problem. It's
a common design practice. It's better than floating text with no
boundaries floating all over the place. I decided to have the footer not to
go below the left nav bar. It's still using most of the page width.
Please go on. I don't mind at all. That's what I am looking for.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-27, 7:13 pm |
| And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> The boxes should not be a problem. It's a common design
> practice.
>
> I decided to have the footer not to go below the left nav bar.
> It's still using most of the page width.
>
> Please go on. I don't mind at all. That's what I am looking for.
Why should I? Looks like you've already made your mind up.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#ring - Orca Ringmaker: Host a webring
from your website!
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-27, 7:13 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
> ...
> I thought I was very specific. I *specifically* asked for no html
> validating stuff because I *knew* what was coming ahead. Yet all the
> comments were about why there were some html errors.
This is usenet - you get what you're given and be grateful for it.
> Why does "site critique" quickly mean looking at the html?
Beacuse it's integral to the performance (or otherwise) of your web
documents.
> Most web users
> do not care about the backend html.
'Most web users' do not subscribe to news:alt.www.webmaster
HTML is not a 'backend' technology in the context of this news group.
> I asked for "user experience". This means stuff about colors, the
> navigation bar, links and their location ease of navigation, text
> visibility, clear information, good contact information. I received zippo
> about this.
This is usenet ... etc.
> ...
> There's fierce competition in the web hosting business.
In which market?
> Everyday I notice
> new hosting companies poping up.
There's a directory/service?
> It's crazy. It feels like everyone is
> doing it. Naturally prices go down.
Is only one business model tailored for one market segment.
> ...
> and I thought I was making it easier.
For whom?
--
William Tasso
Lovely are recruiting citizens - http://citizensrequired.com/
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-27, 7:13 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:11:23 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
>
>
> Please do not erase my message and add words out of context.
This is usenet - you get what you're given and be grateful for it. Can
you show where your words were taken out of context?
>
> You're trolling now.
hrmm - there are fundamental issues that really should be researched (and
understood) before embarking on a usenet adventure.
>
> Pick up a bunch of hosts and look at the features. They all basically
> offer
> the same features. Disk space, traffic, php, mysql,webmail, blah blah..
In some markets.
> Do
> you really think there's a big diffferentation among them?
No idea, I'm not in the market for a host - except that I'm still in the
market to buy out any that want an easier life.
> They variables
> they work on are disk space, traffic and price.
In some markets.
>
> Casual user.
What does that mean?
> ...
> You wouldn't know if a site has html error
> unless you pass it through an html validator.
or a browser
> That's specifically what I
> had asked not to. If you can't critique a site in terms of usability
> without having the site having 0 errors, please don't bother.
oh - I didn't. I was more than happy to take the word of those whose
opinions I respect. There goes that honesty/integrity/respect thing again.
btw: since you failed to respond to (or act on) the usability feedback I
gave you earlier (in fact you skipped right over it in your reply) I find
myself compelled to conclude that Charles Sweeney and Grey Wyvern have
made accurate assessments wrt your motivation(s) for posting.
--
William Tasso
Lovely are recruiting citizens - http://citizensrequired.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-27, 7:13 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Karim scraped:
> Cross-posting is the preferred way. It's not a law.
That might be your opinion. My opinion might be different. Freedom of
speech is very important. You may think what you want.
Thank you for your answer. Have a nice week.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
"People ask for criticism, but they only want praise" - W. Somerset Maugham
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-27, 7:14 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:wawiqq04oz4l.y7f2160klivf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:02:33 +0100, T Wake wrote:
>
> Thanks. I am a technical person and when I get service from a site, like
> shop from an online store, I *NEVER* first see if the site passes html
> validators properly. If the site has what I need, works and looks
> properly,
> I am happy.
>
> Do some people do this.. check a site's html validity before using it?
> Because this is a very interesting human behavior.
No need to get defensive over it. I was simply pointing out that some of the
validation errors are very easy to correct.
I am not for one second saying people validate your pages before they use
your service, but you are a web host and as such there is always the chance
that people will expect slightly more from the technical side of your site
than the local pizza delivery site. Depending on the firefox add-ons, as an
example, your site has a little red X mark at the bottom of my browser
window to alert me to the fact you are using "odd" code. People who are
interested in you for your technical competency will look "under the hood"
as it were.
While I agree with you that most of this is irrelevant (for you) you have to
remember that not all browsers will be forgiving of your code. In the
example I showed, would the page layout be "broken" if the user-agent
decided that as padding-left:20px was not a valid attribute of the TD tag it
would ignore it? Even worse, if Microsoft ever produce a standards compliant
version of IE are you going to go round and re-code all your pages to
account for the "little mistakes" you cant be bothered correcting now.
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-27, 7:14 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:1pr5nrsnulr8i.1l8hqk0cpora2$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> It displays the way I intended it to display.
How did you intend the site to display on Lynx? Or on WebTV? Or on Nokia
Mobile Phones?
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-27, 7:14 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:jy6q7lqnr2bu.1f1tcoop14c4p.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:09:23 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
>
>
> I think I need a 'web design' group more specifically.
>
You could try news://comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design but they
pick on the HTML as well.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:24:49 +0100, T Wake wrote:
> "Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
> news:1pr5nrsnulr8i.1l8hqk0cpora2$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> How did you intend the site to display on Lynx? Or on WebTV? Or on Nokia
> Mobile Phones?
I don't have access to WebTV. Lynx maybe later for text readers. I don't
have resources to support every single device out there. If I am going to
lose some sales due to Nokia users, I am ok with it. I am sure it's a very
tiny market. These devices are not popular for casual browsing in the US.
My question is why go through a painful process of filling an order form on
a tiny device and not wait till you go home or work or school to do it
comfortably?
If you think about it. The amount of time, money and resources to support
all these devices compared with the ROI from them, it's not worth it.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:26:38 +0100, T Wake wrote:
> "Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
> news:jy6q7lqnr2bu.1f1tcoop14c4p.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> You could try news://comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design but they
> pick on the HTML as well.
People love to pick on your html before looking at the user interface.
It's frustrating. You get like 20 messages of the type "your html blah blah
sucks.." before getting a good nugget in the area you're interested in.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:22:42 +0100, T Wake wrote:
> "Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
> news:wawiqq04oz4l.y7f2160klivf$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> No need to get defensive over it. I was simply pointing out that some of the
> validation errors are very easy to correct.
>
> I am not for one second saying people validate your pages before they use
> your service, but you are a web host and as such there is always the chance
> that people will expect slightly more from the technical side of your site
> than the local pizza delivery site. Depending on the firefox add-ons, as an
> example, your site has a little red X mark at the bottom of my browser
> window to alert me to the fact you are using "odd" code. People who are
> interested in you for your technical competency will look "under the hood"
> as it were.
Which extension does this?
>
> While I agree with you that most of this is irrelevant (for you) you have to
> remember that not all browsers will be forgiving of your code. In the
> example I showed, would the page layout be "broken" if the user-agent
> decided that as padding-left:20px was not a valid attribute of the TD tag it
> would ignore it? Even worse, if Microsoft ever produce a standards compliant
> version of IE are you going to go round and re-code all your pages to
> account for the "little mistakes" you cant be bothered correcting now.
w3.org's html validator doesn't error on something like <td
style="padding-left:23px">. Is this what you're referring to?
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-27, 7:14 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:bebj0mfu3bfa$.7tdof7h8ro1q.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> I don't have access to WebTV. Lynx maybe later for text readers. I don't
> have resources to support every single device out there. If I am going to
> lose some sales due to Nokia users, I am ok with it. I am sure it's a very
> tiny market. These devices are not popular for casual browsing in the US.
>
> My question is why go through a painful process of filling an order form
> on
> a tiny device and not wait till you go home or work or school to do it
> comfortably?
>
> If you think about it. The amount of time, money and resources to support
> all these devices compared with the ROI from them, it's not worth it.
I am not suggesting you should have all these platforms for your user
tests - however ensuring your code is valid means you can have slightly more
confidence that it will display (maybe even display as intended) on a wider
array of platforms than if you simply say you don't care about the invalid
HTML - your site "works." You don't know it "works" unless you have
painfully tested it on every combination of platform out there.
I very much doubt anyone would go through the painful process of actually
ordering your service on a Phone/PDA/WebTV etc - however the important thing
is people DO carry out research while they are sitting on the train etc and
as such they may visit your site on one of these non-standard platforms and
decide to never return.
I am glad your business is good enough that you can arbitrarily turn away
potential customers - not every one has that option. For most websites, the
idea is to attract as many viewers as possible (and turn them into
customers!) - it is analogous to a shop refusing to serve people who are
wearing glasses (or some other trivial aspect).
As to the last point - if the site is coded with valid HTML you would be
surprised how little effort it takes to make it render adequately on a
massive variety of platforms. Only you know how much it costs to re-code
your site to make it (X)HTML compliant, but I would suggest it is something
you need to do someday - so why not now?
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-27, 7:14 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:k3yu4bitahzj$.1krqygj5nilmo.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:26:38 +0100, T Wake wrote:
>
>
> People love to pick on your html before looking at the user interface.
> It's frustrating. You get like 20 messages of the type "your html blah
> blah
> sucks.." before getting a good nugget in the area you're interested in.
True - but it is still important to get the code right first.
To use an analogy you used earlier - if you built your own house and asked a
dozen builders round to tell you what you thought of it, they wouldn't
debate your colour schemes or interior decor - they would inspect the
foundations and brickwork.
If the foundations are solid, the house will stand up in different
circumstances - if the foundations are shaky, all the nice decor in the
world wont help it.
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-27, 7:14 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:qvu99xwl7p8i$.8h93q5a3wlln.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Which extension does this?
>
My Firefox has an HTML Validator (based on tidy) installed. It came from
http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/
>
> w3.org's html validator doesn't error on something like <td
> style="padding-left:23px">. Is this what you're referring to?
>
No. I was refering to the following on line 86 -
<td padding-left:20px;><img src="images/img1.jpg" width="5" height="5"></td>
Similar on lines 95, 104, 113, 122, 131, 140, 149, 158, 167, 191.
I assume it is simply a missing "syle=" however on non-forgiving browsers
this can cause problems.
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2005-09-27, 10:21 pm |
| Karim wrote:
> I don't have access to WebTV.
Yes, you do.
http://developer.msntv.com/
...and no, your site does not work. Not at all.
--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-27, 10:21 pm |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote
> Karim wrote:
>
>
> Yes, you do.
>
> http://developer.msntv.com/
I thought this was quite good:
"Our receivers support most of HTML version 4.0"
Do many people use WebTV? I have never used it, and don't know anyone
who does.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2005-09-27, 10:21 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote
>
> I thought this was quite good:
>
> "Our receivers support most of HTML version 4.0"
It's a hoot to look at sites with it.
> Do many people use WebTV? I have never used it, and don't know anyone
> who does.
Microsloth renamed it MSNTV some while ago, but the technology is still
the same. The service is particular to the US, I imagine. I've seen
subscriber numbers, but don't remember. Less than a million, I'd guess.
--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-28, 6:35 pm |
| Karim wrote
> Charles Sweeney is the last person in this list I take seriously.
Would that be your mailing *list*? Or your spamming *list*? Or your
marketing *list*?
> We have no mutual liking of
> each other.
I think you're a gas, I get great amusement from you!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-28, 6:35 pm |
| wrote
> Yeah. You may not be. But they are a vital factor when designing
> websites.. If people can not access your site because of non valid
> code then it is posible that you will loose money.
Using <font> is not "valid" but it won't stop anyone accessing a site.
Did you mean "lose" money?
I'm not picking on the spelling btw. I see many people use the wrong word
here.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-28, 6:35 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:11q6y16zrtlg0.114whiy9klysa.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:58:38 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> It's ok. When I have some time, I will look into the part of the audience
> that represent 0.005% of my target. My logs doesn't even mention WebTV
> unless they use a different user agent.
If your code was valid, a WebTV user would get to see the plain text - same
principle with Lynx, Amaya, Screen readers, Search Engines etc.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:30:40 +0100, T Wake wrote:
> "Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
> news:bebj0mfu3bfa$.7tdof7h8ro1q.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>
> I am not suggesting you should have all these platforms for your user
> tests - however ensuring your code is valid means you can have slightly more
> confidence that it will display (maybe even display as intended) on a wider
> array of platforms than if you simply say you don't care about the invalid
> HTML - your site "works." You don't know it "works" unless you have
> painfully tested it on every combination of platform out there.
>
> I very much doubt anyone would go through the painful process of actually
> ordering your service on a Phone/PDA/WebTV etc - however the important thing
> is people DO carry out research while they are sitting on the train etc and
> as such they may visit your site on one of these non-standard platforms and
> decide to never return.
>
> I am glad your business is good enough that you can arbitrarily turn away
> potential customers - not every one has that option. For most websites, the
> idea is to attract as many viewers as possible (and turn them into
> customers!) - it is analogous to a shop refusing to serve people who are
> wearing glasses (or some other trivial aspect).
>
> As to the last point - if the site is coded with valid HTML you would be
> surprised how little effort it takes to make it render adequately on a
> massive variety of platforms. Only you know how much it costs to re-code
> your site to make it (X)HTML compliant, but I would suggest it is something
> you need to do someday - so why not now?
I am going to redesign the site. First to add more plans because it seems
some people are still getting confused and still looking for other plans
when there aren't any. If someone like ..ahem.. Grey didn't get it, what
about less detailed people. Add more expensive plans so that even people
who are suspecious about low prices can still feel a bit at home. This way
I widen my target. I am working on adding more features too.
I guess putting out a webpage that has some "invisible" html issues and
asking for a visual critique will still put you in a crossfire. The
website was still work in progress. Next time, make sure page is html is
more valid. Some people are very finicky.
Thanks for the input. I hope next version is much better.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:02:43 +0100, William Tasso wrote:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the karim3412@yahoo.moc cafeteria
> Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> said:
>
>
> I don't care what other hosts offer. I have my own market and I'm happy
> with it.
>
>
> Not really - there are thousands already. Just wondering how/why you
> 'noticed'.
Because whenever I do a search, I find a ton that I never heard before and
I have been in the hosting environment for many years.
>
>
> I'll look at any hosting operation that appears (to me) to be a viable
> business.
>
>
> You misunderstand, I have bought several and I'm still in the market for
> more.
You bought several hosts? Care to mention some or is it a secret?
[stuff deleted]
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
|
| T Wake 2005-09-28, 6:36 pm |
|
"Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
news:xkin56y7al5k$.1o2gswa1u6xlw$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:30:40 +0100, T Wake wrote:
>
>
> I am going to redesign the site. First to add more plans because it seems
> some people are still getting confused and still looking for other plans
> when there aren't any. If someone like ..ahem.. Grey didn't get it, what
> about less detailed people. Add more expensive plans so that even people
> who are suspecious about low prices can still feel a bit at home. This way
> I widen my target. I am working on adding more features too.
>
> I guess putting out a webpage that has some "invisible" html issues and
> asking for a visual critique will still put you in a crossfire. The
> website was still work in progress. Next time, make sure page is html is
> more valid. Some people are very finicky.
>
> Thanks for the input. I hope next version is much better.
>
I am sure it will be. If you make full use of templates and data driven
pages, it is really easy to make sitewide changes and correct the simple
mistakes everyone makes.
By the way, I never thought there was a problem with only having one hosting
package ;-)
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-28, 6:36 pm |
| And lo, T Wake didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> By the way, I never thought there was a problem with only having one
> hosting package ;-)
Neither did I, I just did not think it was obvious enough. Just "one
plan" is a gimmick, make sure people know about it right away, or else
they will start assuming things based on other webhosts they've screened.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#ring - Orca Ringmaker: Host a webring
from your website!
| |
| T Wake 2005-09-28, 6:36 pm |
|
"GreyWyvern" <spam@greywyvern.com> wrote in message
news:op.sxto65hmsl6xfd@news.nas.net...
> And lo, T Wake didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> Neither did I, I just did not think it was obvious enough. Just "one
> plan" is a gimmick, make sure people know about it right away, or else
> they will start assuming things based on other webhosts they've screened.
>
> Grey
Very true. And thinking about it, when I first went to the site I did have a
look for what other plans there were.
I don't think this needs "other" plans to solve it - just making it clearer
that there is "only" one plan might help?
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:29:01 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> Hmmm, reaching critical density here, Captain.
>
>
> Tell me, how did you find that site? Now tell me how many *normal* users
> would find a webhost that way.
You would be surprised how many users know about whois. Many users register
their own domain names and many hosts have a whois function on their home
page. I would bet that a lot more users know about whois than people using
WebTV. Why are you being defensive that your host has spelling mistakes??
>
>
> Because they don't use it anymore. They don't update it anymore. Listen,
> I thought this discussion was about *your* web host, not mine.
But the point is that it *wasn't* right in the first place. Do you know how
long it was online before it went into being "old"? It could have been
online for a long time.
>
>
> I never disagreed with that. However, the two places on that page where
> it mentions you only have one plan are in small print. Why not make it as
> obvious as the huge price?
12px bold is hardly small print. The phrase about one plan is the very
phrase in the only box that's above the features. The whole home page has
very little text.
>
>
> Yet you still posted here for a "critique".
>
>
> If you wanted *that* type of critique, you should be asking in a group
> like alt.looking-for-hosting.The majority of contributors here are *not*
> users. We are trained to look at the webmaster angle, which means good
> code, good semantics and good SEO. This is the foundation of a website
> that is easy to maintain and ensures forward compatibility.
You got it wrong. It doesn't matter what the "topic" of the site is. We're
talking about layout, design, html and stuff about webmaster issues
"regardless" of what the site is about. The big problem is that a few same
regulars, and you're one of them, are peeved because my site is about web
hosting. If the site was about say "The Beatles", there would be less flak.
>
> In all seriousness, why not ask in the MS frontpage groups? They love
> commenting on how web pages "look" while turning a blind eye to the what's
> lurking beneath.
In all seriousness, most people who use MS frontpage are amateurs in web
design. Plus I hate frontpage and I have mentioned this fact here several
times before.
>
>
> Well, there you go.
Coming your way soon.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:50:41 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> Why should I? Looks like you've already made your mind up.
I wouldn't be asking for a critique. However it needs to be a two way
dialog. You say something is wrong without being specific, I tell you be
more specific and maybe I'll tell you why it was done that way. People have
different approaches. In the end we might differ and not agree. You chose
to give up and it's your decision.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-28, 6:36 pm |
| And lo, Karim didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> Why are you being defensive that your host has spelling mistakes??
You're really off in your own little world, aren't you.
> But the point is that it *wasn't* right in the first place. Do you know
> how
> long it was online before it went into being "old"? It could have been
> online for a long time.
How do you know they even *used* that site for selling hosting? How do
you know they didn't just post it as a test design which never made the
grade?
Why exactly are you ripping my webhost anyway? I don't own a stake in
them and I know the owners and tech support people only through support
emails. They live half a continent away from me.
> 12px bold is hardly small print. The phrase about one plan is the very
> phrase in the only box that's above the features. The whole home page has
> very little text.
For the gimmick on which your site hinges, 12px is TINY.
> If the site was about say "The Beatles", there would be less flak.
If you were trying to sell all The Beatles albums in a single package set
only, but put that fact in 12px bold text below a huge image
representation of the price, on a site which looks quite plain and
unco-ordinated... There would definitely be what you call "flak".
I call it my honest opinion, and I was willing to give you the benefit of
the doubt since you've been behaving yourself for the past few months.
But because I've rattled you in the past, my motives were immediately
suspect, and this whole donnybrook began.
> In all seriousness, most people who use MS frontpage are amateurs in web
> design.
I rest my case.
> Plus I hate frontpage and I have mentioned this fact here several
> times before.
Okay then. Would you believe: Dreamweaver? [1]
Grey
[1]with deepest respect to Don Adams, who passed away last Sunday.
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#ring - Orca Ringmaker: Host a webring
from your website!
| |
|
| On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:58:00 +0100, T Wake wrote:
> "Karim" <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote in message
> news:xkin56y7al5k$.1o2gswa1u6xlw$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> I am sure it will be. If you make full use of templates and data driven
> pages, it is really easy to make sitewide changes and correct the simple
> mistakes everyone makes.
>
> By the way, I never thought there was a problem with only having one hosting
> package ;-)
Well.. it seems it's not working for everyone. I got an email the other day
from someone saying they can only see the 'basic' plan. I decided to just
add another package and not go through the explanations over and over. This
is a society that lives in having choice and options even if some options
are really the same, just packaged differently.
The other thing I find frustating is that while it seems many hosts seem to
have reached a plateau in their offers, they are competing in disk space
and now you see offers like 2G disk space. You get people who want to host
a site that has just a few pages and keeping it that small. The whole site
takes about 1M. They come and say your competition is offering 1G. Can you
beat that? I tell someone... my price is already very low and you're
getting a ton of features and your site is very small. You don't need all
that space. My 300M is is still way too much for tiny sites.
But they are offering 1G, he says.
So now you see this "Google Mail" trend where hosts are trying to compete
by offering gobbles of disk space which most users do not have a need for.
Now I am wondering if these companies are using non redundant 'cheap'
drives to be able to offer that much space for such a low price.
--
Karim
http://dotNet-Hosting.com - Super low $4.75/month.
Single all inclusive features plan with MS SQL Server, mysql 4.0 & 5.0,
ASP.NET, PHP 5.0 & webmail support.
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-28, 10:33 pm |
| Karim wrote
> I am going to redesign the site. First to add more plans because it
> seems some people are still getting confused and still looking for
> other plans when there aren't any. If someone like ..ahem.. Grey
> didn't get it, what about less detailed people. Add more expensive
> plans so that even people who are suspecious about low prices can
> still feel a bit at home. This way I widen my target. I am working on
> adding more features too.
Your first idea was better. At least that way, there was something to
distinguish you from a million other hosts.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
| Blinky the Shark 2005-09-28, 10:33 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote
>
>
> I have only seen the lose/loose one since coming online. I wonder if
> it's an American thing?
I don't limit myself to only reading posts from USans. I don't do any
US-specific groups. And God knows I see tons of loose/lose lusers. :)
> 5287
>
> Hoot!
There's some good stuff there. :) There's a dropdown that lists four
different "Propaganda Contests", if you didn't catch that. Lotsa
images.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-28, 10:33 pm |
| Blinky the Shark wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
wrong[color=darkred]
>
> I don't limit myself to only reading posts from USans. I don't do any
> US-specific groups. And God knows I see tons of loose/lose lusers.
Yes, I'm wondering if people perhaps picked it up from USans. Having
said that, it might be just coincidence that I have noticed this over
the time I have been online.
Speaking of time, it's 2.25am, I'm outta here!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au 2005-09-29, 3:25 am |
| Yes.. I did mean "lose money"..
I was not on about specific tags. Just the fact that with "Valid" code
his site would be more accessable...
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-29, 6:27 pm |
| wrote
> Yes.. I did mean "lose money"..
> I was not on about specific tags. Just the fact that with "Valid" code
> his site would be more accessable...
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Hi Chad.
I would say "correct" code over "valid" code, but's that's another debate!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-29, 6:28 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:57:31 -0700, Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote:
>
>
> I have redesigned the webpages for this site:
> http://www.dotnet-hosting.com. I would like to receive some feedback on the
> general look and user experience. Also web host features that are missing.
Eg, serious business-like feedback ? I would, but NTL currently have
port 80 access blocked! What a nice company they are.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I am *not* looking for a list of errors from html or css validators.
>
<BG>
Matt
--
Evangeline Lilly naked?
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-29, 6:28 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
> I would, but NTL currently have port 80 access blocked! What a nice
> company they are.
Are you being serious? I always thought they were a bunch of cowboys,
but if you are serious then this really does take the biscuit!
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-09-29, 6:28 pm |
| And lo, Dylan Parry didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> if you are serious then this really does take the biscuit!
With butter or jam?
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#ring - Orca Ringmaker: Host a webring
from your website!
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-29, 6:28 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, GreyWyvern scraped:
>
> With butter or jam?
Heh! (I've started so many posts like that today) I did think after
posting that, that the number of British-isms was quite confusing.
Cowboys taking biscuits... whatever next :D
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-30, 6:42 am |
| On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:09:40 +0100, Dylan Parry
<usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
> Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
>
>
> Are you being serious? I always thought they were a bunch of cowboys,
> but if you are serious then this really does take the biscuit!
>
Oh yeah, everything works fine EXCEPT port 80, NTL being the world
renowned experts they are, deduce the problem is due to my cable
modem.
NB: I can use telnet, ftp, smtp, https, ping and nntp, just not http.
Matt
--
You should be so lucky!
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-30, 6:28 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
> Oh yeah, everything works fine EXCEPT port 80, NTL being the world
> renowned experts they are, deduce the problem is due to my cable
> modem.
So what are the eejits going to do about it? Have any other NTL
customers, that you know of, experiences this problem, or indeed are
experiencing this now? I think my brothers use NTL, so I'll enquire with
them today.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-30, 6:28 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:16:48 +0100, Dylan Parry
<usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
> Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
>
>
> So what are the eejits going to do about it? Have any other NTL
> customers, that you know of, experiences this problem, or indeed are
> experiencing this now? I think my brothers use NTL, so I'll enquire with
> them today.
I found another user having similar problems, it seems to have sorted
itself out now. In any event, I await another enginer coming
tommorrow. Better put the kettle on!
Matt
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-30, 6:28 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
> I found another user having similar problems, it seems to have sorted
> itself out now. In any event, I await another enginer coming
> tommorrow. Better put the kettle on!
Well make sure he has a good cup of tea, otherwise he won't work
properly, but don't under any circumstances let him have any biscuits.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|