www.tektonics.org

angry pankration warrior wrote:
> www.tektonics.org

Good to see that you are making an effort to use a table-less layout and
CSS.  But...

It doesn't validate.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...ektonics.org%2F

The first line of the code is:

<I></I><html">

There is no doctype.

The banner is ugly.  It also looks too narrow compared to the rest of the
page.  It looks like it has been added as an afterthough.

I like the logo at the top, but the lines on the K are wonky.

When I was looking around the site, I'd occasionally click a drop down to
see what was in it.  Then I'd decide not to click on any of the items and
close the drop down.  The focus stays on the drop down and when I go to use
my mouse wheel to scroll the page it selects an item and goes to that page.
Very disorientating.  Please don't use this navigation method.  It's
horrible, use an unordered list of links instead.

You are using a fixed width design and this will force a horizontal
scrollbar for many people.

You are using px for font sizes.

When you specify a color in your css you should always specify a background
color and vice versa.

There are other issues but I think you should fix the above first and then
come back for another critique.  If you don't understand why any of the
above are a problem, do a Google.  If you can't find an answer, ask in
alt.html.

I realise that this all sounds very critical but you are halfway to having a
decent site.  Some interesting content, but you're not about to convert this
unbeliever I'm afraid :p

Run it through the w3 validator and fix the errors.  Start by adding a
doctype and progress from there.   Ask in alt.html if you don't know what
any of the errors that you get mean.

Nik Coughin wrote:

> I realise that this all sounds very critical but you are halfway to having
> a
> decent site.  Some interesting content, but you're not about to convert
> this unbeliever I'm afraid :p

From the "Calculated Contempt" article:

"Skeptics with largo egos who complain that this site does not always link
to the articles it is addressing need to be told that their efforts --
engaging what I will call from here on "trailer park scholarship" -- do not
deserve links. "

You can put any statement into the mouth of a straw man.
You can criticize the scholarship of any straw man.
You can make any straw man as egoistic, mean spirited, evil, and perverse as
you want.

And he won't talk back!  Ever!
Isn't censorship fun!
;(
Give me a break.
I don't suppose any of the sites also have WMDs do they?
--
mbstevens

On 28 Sep 2004 13:58:52 -0700, angry pankration warrior
<bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> www.tektonics.org


Boring. Had I clicked the link in a normal way, I'd be long gone. Too many
freaking boxes. It's a mess. Looks like a porn portal, and I always get
the hell out of them.

bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca (angry pankration warrior) wrote in
news:5bf1a5a1.0409281258.141264a8@posting.google.com:

> www.tektonics.org

A front page should be much simpler and shorter, with a good
menu structure that is easy to navigate.

If you would like to re-do the site I'd be happy to discuss the
matter with you..

KH.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, angry pankration warrior wrote:

> www.tektonics.org
>
As you didn't prefix it with http://
it wasn't highlighted and doesn't open.

On 28 Sep 2004 13:58:52 -0700, angry pankration warrior
<bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> www.tektonics.org


Boring. Had I clicked the link in a normal way, I'd be long gone. Too many
freaking boxes. It's a mess. Looks like a porn portal, and I always get
the hell out of them.

bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca (angry pankration warrior) wrote in
news:5bf1a5a1.0409281258.141264a8@posting.google.com:

> www.tektonics.org

A front page should be much simpler and shorter, with a good
menu structure that is easy to navigate.

If you would like to re-do the site I'd be happy to discuss the
matter with you..

KH.

quote:
Originally posted by angry pankration warrior 
www.tektonics.org 
 

Good for Neal. The site is really boring.