Website Design Forum - Feedback on my web site

Author

Feedback on my web site

Charles A. Landemaine

2007-10-31, 7:18 pm

Hello guys,

I designed a web site real quick this afternoon: http://www.sharpfonts.com
- I'd like to know what you think about it. It's meant to be quick,
functional and simple. It uses a fair amount of Javascript. If
something doesn't work as expected, please let me know. Any feedback
is welcome!
Thanks,

Charles.

John Hosking

2007-11-01, 7:18 pm

Charles A. Landemaine wrote:
>
> I designed a web site real quick this afternoon: http://www.sharpfonts.com
> - I'd like to know what you think about it.

Next time take your time. ;-)
Be aware also of alt.html.critique.

> It's meant to be quick,
> functional and simple. It uses a fair amount of Javascript.

....or an unfair amount. All I see at that site is the word "Loading..."
(when, in fact, nothing really is).

Okay, I'll take a chance and turn on JS for you. Look, content! Why, it
looks like a search engine might actually find some of this. Oh, God,
it's one of those sites which are contained all in one file, with
content hidden and revealed by a script. I guess that's part of why the
"nav" links all point to the same URL. This also breaks users' Back and
Refresh buttons.

> If
> something doesn't work as expected, please let me know. Any feedback
> is welcome!

Red letters on a blue background are my default colors, so I can't
complain when that's what I see, but you've declared a white background
for some part of the page without specifying a color. Also, your nav and
header texts are colored white, but if I upsize the texts they move down
from in front of the header's BG image and in front of the white area,
rendering the texts invisible.

I don't understand the BG color concept of
black
green
white
default color,
especially what that white band is supposed to do. And why is it an
image if it's just plain white?

Page doesn't load at all in my IE6, although it loads in FF, Opera, and
Netscape. Could just be a problem on my side.

On the Contact "page" it says, "You can get in touch with me using this
form," but that's a lie. The fields don't accept any input.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

Charles A. Landemaine

2007-11-01, 7:18 pm

Thanks John. I see you turn off JS and you defined your custom style
sheet. I can't force you to have a white background if you prefer a
blue one (these are your preferences, and I should respect them). This
is a dilema...There will always be people to disable JS, sometimes
CSS, and to block Flash content. I'm sure there are users who access
from some universities where they still have old computers with
Netscape 4...On the other end, there are developers who want to push
new technologies... There will be always computers on which the page
won't work if you want to make the user interface more appealing, more
modern or with more features. For instance YouTube is a pretty cool
site but it uses Flash and Ajax, so many people who have an old
computer without Flash and with an old Netscape browser will not be
able to use YouTube... When some one disables JS, it's because he
doesn't want JS to be run on his computer so in this case, many things
stop working, for instance Ajax, field validation, etc... It's a
personal choice but at least the page validates, it's standard-
compliant code.

Charles.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-11-01, 7:18 pm

Charles A. Landemaine wrote:

> I can't force you to have a white background if you prefer a
> blue one

...but you can assign one in your CSS, which you forgot. Validate your
css, chances are you got a warning.

I see a purple background - *only* because you failed to assign whatever
color you really want.

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

John Hosking

2007-11-01, 7:18 pm

Charles A. Landemaine wrote:
> Thanks John.

For what? You didn't quote anything. Although I'm sure you're welcome.

> I see you turn off JS

Mostly to save me from Google ads, but also as some protection against
weird hack attacks, and Asian porn popups and redirections and starting
things I don't want started. Also it helps to see what sites do when JS
isn't available.

>and you defined your custom style sheet.

Helps me see where I (or other Webcrafters) forgot to specify colors by
assuming black-on-white.

> I can't force you to have a white background if you prefer a
> blue one (these are your preferences, and I should respect them).

Right, but you can make a suggestion to match your page design, which I
can then override with an !important rule in my user stylesheet. If you
pick *some* colors (as you did with the black text and a white BG image)
you ought to feel free to suggest black for the rest of the text and
white for the rest of the page's BG. Note the warnings when you validate
your CSS.

> [...] There will be always computers on which the page
> won't work if you want to make the user interface more appealing, more
> modern or with more features.

There is nothing about your "site" which benefits the visitor through
your use of JS, with the exception of the contact form (assuming it
actually worked). The use of JS to squeeze four pages of content into
one file actually hurts visitors, so the UI is hardly "more appealing."

> For instance YouTube is a pretty cool
> site but it uses Flash and Ajax, so many people who have an old
> computer without Flash and with an old Netscape browser will not be
> able to use YouTube...

Yes, you're right; they can't see videos then. But they can navigate,
read content (incl. site description, TOS, company info, user comments,
etc.), and they do see a message that informs them that they need JS and
Flash to see the rest (the videos). YouTube is not crippled by the lack
of JS the way yours is. And the JS/Flash is integral to YouTube's
content. It's not for your site.

> When some one disables JS, it's because he
> doesn't want JS to be run on his computer so in this case, many things
> stop working, for instance Ajax, field validation, etc...

.... basic navigation, the appearance of any content whatsoever...

> It's a
> personal choice but at least the page validates, it's standard-
> compliant code.

....which does nothing without JS (which makes the validation moot).

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

John Hosking

2007-11-01, 7:18 pm

John Hosking wrote:
> Charles A. Landemaine wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Be aware also of alt.html.critique.

Oh, you are; you've multi-posted. Please don't.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

Charles A. Landemaine

2007-11-01, 11:16 pm

On Nov 1, 5:17 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> I see a purple background - *only* because you failed to assign whatever
> color you really want.

But if I do this, I will override your preferences, which you will
probably not be happy about...

Charles.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-11-02, 4:19 am

Charles A. Landemaine wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> But if I do this, I will override your preferences, which you will
> probably not be happy about...

No, that is not the case. I set it to purple so I could see when authors
forgot to assign a background.

You've already overridden my preferences by giving me a site that has as
its content, nothing more than: "Loading..."

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