At 10:49 PM -0400 10/14/98, E. P. Walker wrote:
> >I have received from this list for quite a while and do not recall seeing
> >a request for a site check posted called "review". However, pursuant to
> >that, please check the following site:
> >http://www.fatfannieworks.com/KCIC-Ornaments . I know it does not work
> >well with Netscape, and am working on that. Thanks in advance.
We came up with an informal mechanism awhile back called "RFF" (Request
for Feedback), with which we preface posts asking for critiques on sites...
not cast in stone or anything, just a convention that has been generally
adopted on the list. Anyway...
Your site has a number of problems, not least of which is the fact that it
was created in FrontPage. Personally, I don't think anyone creating sites
for a living should use such products for anything more than initial
WYSIWYG mock-up, if that. It produces browser/OS-specific code which
doesn't translate well outside the Win95/MSIE environment. It also
produces abominable HTML such as:
<p align="center"><br><font face="Arial"><br></font><br><br><br></p>
and
<big><big><big><big>KCIC
Collectible </big></big></big></big>
... both of which I took from your code. Eeeww.
The navigation scheme on the first page is inconsistent:
(a) you have three buttons reading "Ornaments", "Christian Business
Opportunities" and "Christmas Links";
(b) immediately below that, you have text links to "Order Form",
"Warranty", "Shipping", "Calendar", "Biz Opp", "Encourage Someone", and
"Christmas Links".
The text links should either mirror the graphical links (for the benefit of
non-graphical browsers), or complement them (by listing subsidiary links
beneath the "main" ones.) But they should not be a mix of both, as are
now. Confusing.
Then on the inside pages the text links have migrated to the left margin,
and two new ones have appeared, "Return Policy" and "The Ornaments".
Again, confusing and inconsistent.
The main page also has much unnecessary whitespace, and is generally
too "big" -- at 640x480 the entire screen is filled with just the title and
the three buttons, and also scrolls horizontally past the right margin.
The buttons themselves should be GIFs, not JPEGs. GIF is preferable for
graphics with blocks of solid colour and text, while JPEG should be
reserved for complex images such as photos. The buttons have
unpleasant dithering all around the text, an artifact created by some
graphics software when adding text to JPEG files (notably PaintShop Pro.)
The buttons should also have "border=0" set for the <img> tags, unless for
some reason you want the browser-generated borders to display.
Furthermore, the height and width attributes set for the graphics do not
match their actual dimensions, which distorts them further.
I would also move the lengthy block of contact/site/copyright information
elsewhere. Where it is now takes up a lot of real estate to little purpose.
Better as a separate page reached through a "Contact Us" link on each
page.
As well, there is not much point in specifying fonts such as "Lucida
Calligraphy", which very few users indeed are likely to have on their
systems. And the (needless) stylesheet declaration at the beginning
rather bizarrely stipulates Arial as first font choice and Garamond as
second -- these are two *utterly* different faces. The point of listing
more than one font is to offer similar fonts of different names that users
on different platforms are likely to have.
-----------
Brent Eades, Almonte, Ontario
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Town of Almonte site: http://www.almonte.com/
Business site: http://www.federalweb.com
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
