Webmaster forum - Website improvement

Author

Website improvement

praveen

2007-11-17, 6:18 pm

hi,

I am developing this website http://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
suggestions for any improvement on this.

thanks,
praveen

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-11-17, 6:18 pm

On 2007-11-17, praveen wrote:
>
> I am developing this website http://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.

First, make sure that the page is valid (X)HTML.

Second, don't use a transitional doctype.

Third, don't use XHTML.

Fourth, don't use a fixed width for the page.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Rob Waaijenberg

2007-11-17, 6:18 pm

praveen schreef:
> hi,
>
> I am developing this website http://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.
>
> thanks,
> praveen

Did you validate your code?

There are errors in it.

--
Rob

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-11-17, 6:18 pm

praveen wrote:

> I am developing this website http://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.

body {
font-size:70%; <-- change this to 100% so I can read your page.

That's less than 3/4th of my default size. It appears you are looking to
get my eye business, presenting a page I can't read. Not good for
prospective clients, in your business.

font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

There is no reason to include the family (22 times) in every element in
your style sheet. Once in the body is enough. It's a /cascading/ style
sheet.

But read this before proceeding:
http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

Fixed-width is undesirable. That animated thing is distracting.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com

2007-11-17, 10:16 pm

On Nov 17, 7:19 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> Fourth, don't use a fixed width for the page.

The issue of content width is very important (and annoying
because there are conflicting preferences).
It is great to use flexible width and percentage margins, but...
what about when someone says that with screens
wider than 1000 pixels it is easier to read centered text
about 700pixels wide?

2007-11-17, 10:16 pm

<mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7c963639-1f2c-4f0f-bd21-14e18bb7291f@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 17, 7:19 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
> The issue of content width is very important (and annoying
> because there are conflicting preferences).
> It is great to use flexible width and percentage margins, but...
> what about when someone says that with screens
> wider than 1000 pixels it is easier to read centered text
> about 700pixels wide?

Then whoever is having trouble reading it that wide should adjust their
browser so it is about 700 pixels wide. The width of their screen is
irrelevant. In fact the wider the screen the more change the user of that
screen has more than one application visible on it at the same time, which
is a case for the web page being able to scale *down* to perhaps 600 pixels.

--
Richard.

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-11-17, 10:16 pm

On 2007-11-18, mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 17, 7:19 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
> The issue of content width is very important (and annoying
> because there are conflicting preferences).
> It is great to use flexible width and percentage margins, but...
> what about when someone says that with screens
> wider than 1000 pixels it is easier to read centered text
> about 700pixels wide?

The number of pixels is the least appropriate way to define an
ideal width. 700px may be far too narrow for easy reading on a
high-resolution screen or with larger-than-normal font sizes.

Arguably, the best width for reading text is between 25em and
35em; I usually use a max-width setting of 35em. For those older
browsers that do not support max-width, adequate margins and
line-height settings provide a reasonable reading experience even
on lines that many consider too wide.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Jeff

2007-11-18, 3:15 am

praveen wrote:
> hi,
>
> I am developing this website http://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.

I don't really care about the font-sizes or the messy stylesheet.
Those are your maintenance issues. And I am not concerned about the
center aligned fixed width. Others have dealt with the useability issues...

I'm not a designer, but...

Lets start with the flyout navigation. Make the links 100% width so
that when you mouseover a link that doesn't run to the end that your
menu doesn't collapse. There's other issues where some of the page shows
though the menu (IE6 windows), very annoying. It looks like a terrible
DHTML menu, usually when I have a js menu I put it in an external file
so you can update the menu without editing each page.

Index page issues:

You have uneven left margins. Be more consistant.

On the top three "columns", they should all have the top of their
content aligned horizontally.

On the sub pages. Set the left nav heading left margin the same as
the links.

Otherwise it's a nice design...

Jeff
>
> thanks,
> praveen

mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com

2007-11-18, 3:15 am

On Nov 18, 2:32 am, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> The number of pixels is the least appropriate way to define an
> ideal width. 700px may be far too narrow for easy reading on a
> high-resolution screen or with larger-than-normal font sizes.
>
> Arguably, the best width for reading text is between 25em and
> 35em; I usually use a max-width setting of 35em. For those older
> browsers that do not support max-width, adequate margins and
> line-height settings provide a reasonable reading experience even
> on lines that many consider too wide.

What I meant is that different people have different
criteria for a good content width.
Sorry, I did not realize that by not fixed width you
meant width set in em's, I thought you meant
percentage margins. It is difficult to find the percentage
margins comfortable for all screen resolutions.

Scott Bryce

2007-11-18, 3:15 am

rf wrote:
> Then whoever is having trouble reading it that wide should adjust their
> browser so it is about 700 pixels wide.

Interesting.

The argument against fixed widths is that you shouldn't have to change
your browser's window size to read the site.

But I have to change my browser's window size instead?

I'm not sure that there is a right or wrong answer to this. The nature
of the web is such that some questions are difficult to answer. When I
was doing CBT, we defined the target system. On the web you can't do
that. So we design for any system. And people who don't like the results
can just change the way they view the web to accommodate the site. But
the point of fluid design is that they shouldn't have to.

I don't think there is an easy answer that works for everybody.

2007-11-18, 3:15 am

"Scott Bryce" <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote in message
news:Fb6dneWGjZD3VqLanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> rf wrote:
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> The argument against fixed widths is that you shouldn't have to change
> your browser's window size to read the site.
>
> But I have to change my browser's window size instead?

You miss the point. My browser window IS about 700 to 800 pixels wide.
However sometimes I make it as narrow as 500 pixels of as large as 2000
pixels, depending on what I am viewing and how many browsers instances and
other applications I have open and visible on my screens (yes, screens,
three of them).

If you, the designer, try to anticipate what you think I may like as a
content width you will invariably get it wrong. What if I have a very high
DPI screen (say 2000 pixels wide) and use a large font size (say 20 pixels).
I have my browser width set to, say, 1500 pixels. The text is fine to me, I
see exactly the right number of words per line that I like to read. If you
then arbitrarily set the max-width to 800 pixels (yes, it happens), because
this is nice for you, then I end up wasting nearly half of my browser
window.

> I'm not sure that there is a right or wrong answer to this. The nature of
> the web is such that some questions are difficult to answer. When I was
> doing CBT, we defined the target system. On the web you can't do that. So
> we design for any system. And people who don't like the results can just
> change the way they view the web to accommodate the site.

Whatever you do to affect the width of some content you must, in some way,
restrict what choices the viewer has available.

Max- width removes one of the viewers choices.

Worse is a fixed width which removes all of the viewers choice regarding
browser width. It's like saying "You will view my site at this width
regardless of what sort of equipment you have". Does your television station
insist you listen to a movie with the volume set to 55?

At the very worst is fixed width coupled with, usually, flyspeck sized
fonts. I increase *my* font size so I can read the site and end up with two
or three words per line. These sort of pages invariably come with left and
right columns containing such mundane things as advertising. If I were able
to use my preferred font size and canvas width I would end up with a much
better viewing experience.

> But the point of fluid design is that they shouldn't have to.

Exactly. Leave the font size alone, leave all widths alone. That way I don't
have to change my canvas width.

> I don't think there is an easy answer that works for everybody.

The answer is do nothing. Browsers by default display content to suit their
allotted canvas and using their owners default settings. Authors continually
try to defeat this. The vast majority of questions that appear in the
newsgroups, especially from the newbies, are *not* along the lines of "how
can I improve my viewers experience", they are "How can I restrict my
viewers choices so what they see is what *I* want to see [even if that is
not at all what they really want to see]".

--
Richard.

Scott Bryce

2007-11-18, 6:17 pm

rf wrote:
> You miss the point.

No, I understand the point. My point is that the theoretical correct
answer doesn't produce the best results for everyone. While I understand
the reasons for fluid designs, fixed width designs actually work better
for me as a viewer.

> If you, the designer, try to anticipate what you think I may like as a
> content width you will invariably get it wrong.

Agreed.

> What if I have a very high
> DPI screen (say 2000 pixels wide) and use a large font size (say 20 pixels).
> I have my browser width set to, say, 1500 pixels. The text is fine to me, I
> see exactly the right number of words per line that I like to read. If you
> then arbitrarily set the max-width to 800 pixels (yes, it happens), because
> this is nice for you, then I end up wasting nearly half of my browser
> window.

I don't understand why the extra space is "wasted." It doesn't cost you
anything. I am under no obligation to fill your entire screen. If I have
very little to say, then the bottom half of your screen is "wasted." Do
I need to fill up that as well?

> Whatever you do to affect the width of some content you must, in some way,
> restrict what choices the viewer has available.

Which is my point. Even if you use fluid designs, you end up restricting
choices for some people. Probably fewer than if you don't use fluid designs

What I was trying to point out is the inconsistency of the argument that
says "I shouldn't have to change my browser width to accommodate your
site design. Make someone else change his browser width instead."

> Does your television station
> insist you listen to a movie with the volume set to 55?

No, but it broadcasts at a particular aspect ratio, no matter what the
aspect ratio of my TV. Then I might wind up with "wasted space" on the
TV screen.

This isn't a perfect argument, I know. At least the image sent by the
station will fill as much of the screen as it can, which is what you are
asking the web site to do for you. And if I don't like your site
stretching all the way across my 24 inch wide screen, I can just change
the size of my browser window. But the whole point of fluid design is
that I shouldn't have to. At least YOU shouldn't have to, and if I don't
like it, that's my problem.

I am not arguing against fluid designs. I am just pointing out that the
"best" answer doesn't always provide the best experience for all viewers
of your site.

> Leave the font size alone, leave all widths alone. That way I don't
> have to change my canvas width.

Instead, I have to change mine.

You can't please everyone, even if fluid designs are intended to please
the largest number of people.

> The answer is do nothing. Browsers by default display content to suit their
> allotted canvas and using their owners default settings. Authors continually
> try to defeat this.

The irony, for me, is that I usually prefer it that way.

Jeff

2007-11-18, 6:17 pm

rf wrote:
> "Scott Bryce" <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote in message
> news:Fb6dneWGjZD3VqLanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>

<snip>
[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
> Exactly. Leave the font size alone, leave all widths alone. That way I don't
> have to change my canvas width.
>
>
>
>
> The answer is do nothing. Browsers by default display content to suit their
> allotted canvas and using their owners default settings.

Whether you like it or not, aesthetics are important. You may be
browsing just to read content but every commercial site owner I've ever
known cared more about what the site looked like. No doubt this is why
"newbies" want to know what it takes to make their designs look better.

Not so oddly there aren't many answers as to how to do a fluid design
(over a wide width range) and maintain an aesthetic look on a complex
site. All this is pretty easy if you just have a sidebar and main
content, but... let's take a more complex and typical setup.

A header that ties across three columns of following content. The left
sidebar typically has navigation, the center the main content and the
right special features. Now add in some pictures that span the "column"
width.

That is tough to do over 1.25 to 1 width range and very difficult over
a greater range. That is without having awkward negative spacing issues.

Show me an example.

Authors continually
> try to defeat this. The vast majority of questions that appear in the
> newsgroups, especially from the newbies, are *not* along the lines of "how
> can I improve my viewers experience", they are "How can I restrict my
> viewers choices so what they see is what *I* want to see [even if that is
> not at all what they really want to see]".

I get feedback from the 60 or so sites in the current inventory and I
never get requests for fluidity. Never. Web surfers are very adept at
adapting and customer requests cover a range of other issues.

I think the most important issues are having a consistant navigation
that makes sense and not cluttering the screen. Two problems newbies
struggle with. The other is site maintenance which goes back to that key
axiom of seperating content from presentation.

There are very few in these groups that have any aesthetic design
skills, I think they have largely been driven off. That's why I often
taken the aesthetic approach, not because I'm good at it, but because
there is a vacuum.

Now, I'm a programmer so I'm receptive to your "arguments", but I'm
responsive to reality.

Jeff
>

1001 Webs

2007-11-18, 6:17 pm

On Nov 17, 7:57 pm, praveen <vpravee...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> hi,
>
> I am developing this websitehttp://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.

I personally don't like the top part at all:
- Logo in right top corner too close to edges. Make it a bit smaller.
- Tel number in left top corner links to home page for no reason.
Maybe a tel icon next to it would improve the looking of it.
- If there are two lines for one of the menu items there should be for
the rest as well.
- Duplicated images, whatever for?
- On the right of those images there's a poor looking "menu"? which
can be greatly improved in my opinion.

From there downwards not too bad. Pity it all gets spoiled by the top
part which is the first you get to see.
It would look MUCH better by getting rid of it completely and stuffing
those elements somewhere in the main body content.

Talking about LASIK and LASEK, here's some info and videos:
http://lasertherapeutic.blogspot.co...ye-surgery.html

You're welcome to link to it, we won't charge you for that :)

Chaddy2222

2007-11-19, 3:17 am

On Nov 18, 5:57 am, praveen <vpravee...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> hi,
>
> I am developing this websitehttp://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.
>
Well after having a second look at your site (I had a quick look
yesterday) I still don't think much of it.
The text is way too small for proper reading and considering your
target audience.
I think the information needs to be better broken up you have images
and stuff everyware on that site.
Oh and the top menu needs work, you would be better off getting rid of
the sub menu and just useing a page with a list of catigories.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

Andy Dingley

2007-11-19, 6:19 pm

On 17 Nov, 18:57, praveen <vpravee...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

> I am developing this website http://lasik.uic.edu, and would like your
> suggestions for any improvement on this.

I'm unimpressed. It's a site that can fairly be said to be targetted
at people with vision issues, yet it's hard to read and inaccessible.

You've gone with a too-narrow fixed-width design, and shoe-horned 3
columns into that. Now it does support some minor re-sizing of text,
but is still far from good.

* Re-size your column widths to be in ems, not in pixels.

* Leave font sizes alone. Don't set them in pixels, don't set them to
90%

* If you absolutely _must_ use a fixed-width design (and this doesn't
justify it), then make this a generous width. I'd suggest not doing it
at all. If you absolutely _must_, then limit the max-width of each
column to 50em (about the readability limit, from line-length
considerations)

This is all obvious stuff. If you didn't know all this already, then
you either weren't paying attention, or you went to the wrong web
design classes. Read Joe Clark's book (free, online). Learn modern
coding practice, not this 1999 stuff.

Overall, the coding style is poor (XHTML, invalidity, HTML 3.2,
<table> ). I wouldn't use a freelance coder who coded like this.

Phil Payne

2007-11-20, 6:18 pm

> Overall, the coding style is poor (XHTML, invalidity, HTML 3.2,
> <table> ). I wouldn't use a freelance coder who coded like this.

<title>lasik.uic.edu</title>

Says it all, really.

praveen

2007-11-20, 6:18 pm

thanks for all your suggestions. i'm just a newbie at all this, and
hope to learn a lot out of your advice.

praveen