Webmaster forum - My new website...

Author

My new website...

ejc.cryptography

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

I have just updated my website at http://www.ejc-crypto.co.uk/. I
would be grateful if you could take a look and give any feedback/
suggestions.

Thanks,

EJC Cryptography

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

"ejc.cryptography" <ejc.cryptography@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1193051494.855201.236400@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I have just updated my website at http://www.ejc-crypto.co.uk/. I
> would be grateful if you could take a look and give any feedback/
> suggestions.

Why this:
body {font-size: 62.5%}

Stupidly small.

Even when you then specify

p [etc] {font-size: 1.2em}
the font size is still only 75% of my preferred font size. Still stupidly
small. I simply cannot read this and forced to Ctrl mousewheel *my* font
larger.

Leave the font size alone. Let your viewer choose what font size suits her.
[Why do web dreziners do this?]

And what is this:
"This web site is best viewed..."

I choose the screen real estate I allow your web site to occupy. I don't
want to be told how big my browser canvas should be. This is so last
century.

Ah, I see why, your navagiation bar escapes from its box with a smaller
canvas width (and larger font sizes). Simply bad design :-)

"... clicking here" - What if I don't use a mouse?

IMHO the old site is the more usable one of the two, even if it is fixed
width.

On the about us page, one hundred and seventy eight odd kilobytes for an
image of "ejc cryptograhpy" is way over the top. A well engineered gif would
be one or two K.

--
Richard.

Secret Agent X

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

"ejc.cryptography" <ejc.cryptography@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I have just updated my website at http://www.ejc-crypto.co.uk/. I
>would be grateful if you could take a look and give any feedback/
>suggestions.

Rather than use image titles in the image alt text, us a null string
(alt=""), then people using character-based browsers will not be
presented with nonsense such as:

[release.png]

Which has neither meaning nor relevance to a blind user.

As others have said. DON'T use a BMP image for a logo! I saved the
logo from your about page as a default GIF and it came out at 4,367
bytes rather than 182,838 bytes in the original BMP image, and with no
perceptable loss of quality.

Why PHP ? Why use server time to process static HTML text? It doesn't
make sense.

And finally, I assume from the .co.uk domain that you are a UK
business? Then why give a flying fishcake about American trade
restrictions? Just because Americans are not free to trade, does not
mean that us Brits can not!

X

Jim Moe

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

On 10/22/07 04:11 am, ejc.cryptography wrote:
> I have just updated my website at http://www.ejc-crypto.co.uk/. I
> would be grateful if you could take a look and give any feedback/
> suggestions.
>
72 validation errors.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...crypto.co.uk%2F>
No charset defined.
Why are you using XHTML? IE6 and earlier only guess that the file is
HTML-ish; they do not support XHTML. Use HTML Strict.
Even though you claim XHTML, some of the validation errors are due to a
mix of XHTML and HTML syntax. Some HTML elements are no longer valid in
XHTML, for instance, <u>.
The right column overlaps the big image on the left. Perhaps give the
right column a background color so it hides whatever it overlays.
The site looks better with images disabled.

You provide a quote from someone. Where is the attribution?
"Caesar Cipher"? "Substitution Cipher"? Surely that is a joke?
"512 Mb" = 512 megaBIT. I think you meant MB = megaBYTE.
When is "at the time of writing"?

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

ejc.cryptography

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

On Oct 22, 7:31 pm, Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPA...@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/07 04:11 am, ejc.cryptography wrote:> I have just updated my website athttp://www.ejc-crypto.co.uk/. I
>
> 72 validation errors.
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...www.ejc-cryp...>
> No charset defined.
> Why are you using XHTML? IE6 and earlier only guess that the file is
> HTML-ish; they do not support XHTML. Use HTML Strict.
> Even though you claim XHTML, some of the validation errors are due to a
> mix of XHTML and HTML syntax. Some HTML elements are no longer valid in
> XHTML, for instance, <u>.
> The right column overlaps the big image on the left. Perhaps give the
> right column a background color so it hides whatever it overlays.
> The site looks better with images disabled.
>
> You provide a quote from someone. Where is the attribution?
> "Caesar Cipher"? "Substitution Cipher"? Surely that is a joke?
> "512 Mb" = 512 megaBIT. I think you meant MB = megaBYTE.
> When is "at the time of writing"?
>
> --
> jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
> (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Ok, I realise the website isn't correct, but it seems to work so to me
thats the main thing. Thanks for the advice anyway :)

@Jim Moe: No, the Caeser Cipher and Substitution cipher are no joke;
if you read the About section you'd see that ...

"EJC Cryptography ... specialises in both classical encryption methods
and modern day algorithms, making them available for use by computer
users and cryptography enthusiasts around the world for free."

CryptoLab doesn't offer better encryption than the rest of the
encryption programs out there - its just for fun.

Bergamot

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

rf wrote:
> "ejc.cryptography" <ejc.cryptography@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193051494.855201.236400@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why this:
> body {font-size: 62.5%}
>
> Stupidly small.
>
> Even when you then specify
>
> p [etc] {font-size: 1.2em}
> the font size is still only 75% of my preferred font size.

It's even worse if you have a minimum font size set in your browser
prefs. The size ends up 1.2em of the minimum, which in my case is
annoyingly *larger* than 100%.

Really stupid.

--
Berg

Jim Moe

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

On 10/22/07 01:31 pm, ejc.cryptography wrote:
> Ok, I realise the website isn't correct, but it seems to work so to me
> thats the main thing. Thanks for the advice anyway :)
>
> @Jim Moe: No, the Caeser Cipher and Substitution cipher are no joke;
> if you read the About section you'd see that ...
>
I would consider DES a classical cipher. Caeser and Substitution ciphers
are historical curiosities.
>
> CryptoLab doesn't offer better encryption than the rest of the
> encryption programs out there - its just for fun.
>
You seem to approach your product with the same odd lack of
professionalism that you apply to the site. "It works for me in one
instance. Close enough."
All of those ciphers are both generally and freely available in a number
of products. You purport to offer a trustworthy security product
("military grade" encryption for the masses). It may be. But your attitude
would indicate otherwise.

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