Posted by ken [send private reply] at April 26, 2003, 05:14:19 PM

I realize that TPU.org isn't a webdesign site, but I have recieved complaints from a good number of TPU members about my site. Why, I don't know. It's pure architecture!

So, any suggestions to help improve my unworthy site?


Besides start all-over...

Posted by gian [send private reply] at April 26, 2003, 05:34:05 PM

I don't agree to the terms and conditions, and thusly won't enter the site.

My main grievance (I stopped reading after this one) is "2. I, the viewer of this site will agree not to take any legal action against the writer, webmaster or anyone associated with this site not including viewers or members of the forum". That's very ambiguous, and suggests that I cannot take legal action against you at any stage, for any reason whether or not it relates to your website. Fix you terms and conditions and then I'll look at you website.

Posted by ItinitI [send private reply] at April 26, 2003, 06:14:07 PM

I went in your site...I also thought the terms and conditions a bit over done [Do you really need them for a personal page? :p ].
Since we're on the topic, tell me what you think of my site
http://www.shiningbluesun.tk (^_^)

Posted by ken [send private reply] at April 26, 2003, 07:59:26 PM

I like your background. I'm quite into Astronomy :). Mainly though, I like how you seperated the text and links into a section that's over the Star background so the stars don't make your text hard to read.

No offense, but don't you think that's a tinge too much Gel (or moose) in your hair?

I can't stand Gel... ;)

Posted by ItinitI [send private reply] at April 26, 2003, 08:13:19 PM

ThanX! I got the idea for the sites theme from the BBS theme [That's where the background came from].

Huh? Haha, I don't use hair care products [not yet anyway], it was just water! LOL (^_^)

Posted by ken [send private reply] at April 29, 2003, 09:33:27 PM

I got a few more sugesstions for my site. Like get rid of the chat. I might get rid of the chat and install a JIRC applet sense I doubt my friends will figure out IRC before giving up.

I might also switch my navigation to invisible frames, sense it would be easier to maintain. Plus everybody complains about my drop-downs :(

Also, if I don't use frames I might change the background to clouds.

I mean...it can't get worse right?

Posted by CViper [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 04:12:21 AM

Be careful with background images: for modem users they usually are really slow, and it's really easy to make stuff really hard to read with background images...

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 10:40:23 AM

I'd go for plain light color on the background then black small arial writing. Use tables to lay out the page rather than frames - frames are awful.

Posted by Neumann [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 11:21:23 AM

Your website suck. My suggestion is that you take it of the net >o

Posted by ItinitI [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 01:25:42 PM

But if he takes it off, then he'll never learn much about design will he??
But, yeah, don't mess with frames [I have seen a few desent uses of them, but only a few].

Posted by Neumann [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 03:22:45 PM

Okay okay, let's say I pushed a bit too far with my last suggestion.

Here is a BIG suggestion. I suggest you make your site VALID HTML 3.2 or HTML 4.01. This is the least a designer should do when making page for the Internet.

Here are the links. I run your little http://kenikov.tripod.com/article1.html through W3C validator and here are the results:

HTML 3.2 (155 errors)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkenikov.tripod.com%2Farticle1.htm...

HTML 4.01 Transitionnal (117 errors)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkenikov.tripod.com%2Farticle1.htm...

XHTML 1.0 Transitionnal (328 errors)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkenikov.tripod.com%2Farticle1.htm...

I won't bother pasting Strict version of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 because I don't want to scare you with the number of errors (althought HTML 4.01 Strict was quite forgiving)

Posted by CViper [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 03:58:05 PM

Some of the "errors" specified by the 4.01 checker are no errors afterall, just the parser fluking up. So don't let those 117 errors scare you.

Line 15, column 56: general entity "LHIG" not defined and no default entity (explain...). 
  ..."http://hb.lycos.com/header?VID=5905&LHIG=1" height="1" width="1"></noscript>

LHIG is inside the url, so that's a valid thing after all (it shouldn't be parsed with the html stuff). Didn't bother browsing more, usually those "validators" are pretty good at generating a mess, but that's about it.

Posted by ItinitI [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 03:58:11 PM

Yeah, HTML compliant is good [But you probly used like Geocities or Tripod's WYSIWYG editor, so that would account for dirty code], but for now my suggestion would be to try to get it looking nice and then try to find out how to implment that with clean HTML code.
My Suggestions:
-Add some graphics [Like a banner or somekinda logo, you don't have to be a graphic designer to make them, The GIMP's Script Fu can generate some nice graphics itself.]

Posted by ken [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 04:07:17 PM

I think I'll just start all over...


"Be careful with background images: for modem users they usually are really slow, and it's really easy to make stuff really hard to read with background images..."

I would only use background colour if my text were in boxes so it would be easier to view. Images as well.

"I'd go for plain light color on the background then black small arial writing. Use tables to lay out the page rather than frames - frames are awful. "

How about tables at the top of the site going across?

Posted by Neumann [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 04:54:02 PM

CViper, I don't believe W3C HTML Validator is wrong. This is obviously not the right way to write URLs with "&". The thing is that I don't know or remember what is the right way.

I'm digging this little problem right now.

Of course, that kind of error _could_ be ignored, but many others of the 117 shouldn't.

Posted by Neumann [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 05:03:01 PM

Here you go. You have to use '&'

My test page at:

http://www-edu.gel.usherb.ca/99832774/test.html

"tentatively" validates:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-edu.gel.usherbrooke.ca%2F9983...

Posted by ItinitI [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 05:06:02 PM

You could try using Dreamweaver [if you can find it for OSX-- it does exist, right?]. Dreamweaver creates reasonably clean code, right?
[I do reccomend you leanr the basics of HTML beforeu fully using WYSIWYG editors, but dreamweaver lets you edit in HTML aswell as graphicaly]

Posted by Neumann [send private reply] at April 30, 2003, 05:21:45 PM

Dreamweaver produces clean code yes. But not strictly valid HTML code.

On the other hand, you can hand-edit your code easily with Dreamweaver so somebody with a little willpower should have no problem producing a valid HTML page with it.

Posted by CViper [send private reply] at May 01, 2003, 06:59:39 AM

Heh, didn't realize that urls get parsed for those &XXX codes. One learns new stuff every day =)