Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whooo.. my portfolio site is online!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Originally posted by roosevelt
    Oh well sliced design aren't really bad, and still works once in a while . Anyways I fixed the website, and now it even validates and all the pages under it. I also optimized the images so it should load faster than before.

    Site: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...oseveltrp.com/
    CSS: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...ooseveltrp.com
    Still needs work.



    W3C is very easy to validate. But it does little to explain what's wrong. As you can see above, there's 173 syntax warnings and even 1 error.

    HTML-Tidy is much more thorough and will spot mistakes unlike most other validators -- and helps you make accessible pages as well.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Scootertaj
    replied
    Just a quick little tip, I would try to edit your XHTML valid button so it looks more like your site, right now it doesn't really flow. I have the same problem on my site and was critiqued on it.

    By the way, looks nice

    Leave a comment:


  • roosevelt
    replied
    Oh well sliced design aren't really bad, and still works once in a while . Anyways I fixed the website, and now it even validates and all the pages under it. I also optimized the images so it should load faster than before.

    Site: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...oseveltrp.com/
    CSS: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...ooseveltrp.com
    Last edited by roosevelt; Thu 8 Dec '05, 3:08pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    He was happy with a sliced site. And learned sliced sites aren't good for future clients, and his own wallet, nevermind web standards (nothing is worse than a web designer getting laughed at being a amateur who doesn't know that sliced sites went out 5 years ago).

    So, yes, change is necessary here -- for $$, for easy of access, for showing he can do more than graphics. His future clients will need to know he can do more than whip out a banner (unless he specifies he's a graphic designer).

    No one says he doesn't need to like his work, but he needs to change the dependence on slices. Only way to effectively know this is ask for a review/critique and be a good sport about it.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    Originally posted by roosevelt
    Thanks chris, it will be done .
    Be careful though, don't change everything people tell you to.
    Remember, YOU need to be happy with the design too.

    Leave a comment:


  • roosevelt
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisLM2001
    Need to remove 80% of the pics, as most of what you're showing can be accomplished with CSS and good XHTML @ 1/4 the resources used.

    Chris
    Thanks chris, it will be done .

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Need to remove 80% of the pics, as most of what you're showing can be accomplished with CSS and good XHTML @ 1/4 the resources used.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • roosevelt
    replied
    I also noticed it. I need to optimize the graphics big time, and also include the images... if you notice I used full URL... so got to fix this bad boy fast . The big graphics on the main page might take a bit time to load, because one of them is 39 kb, and the other is 45 kb. Where other graphics are 222 bytes to 2 kb.
    Last edited by roosevelt; Mon 5 Dec '05, 4:00pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    <offtopic>
    Technically impossible to make the standard at DSL speeds in the US at this time. It's like claiming those Canadians living in Resolute Bay should have DSL speeds (nevermind cities planned like in Edmonton). The expense and effort would be too much. Some regions will remain on dialups into way past 2050 due to their remoteness (some areas probably still use rotary phones!).

    Besides, energy production is dismal today. There's not enough juice to justify the expense.
    </offtopic>

    The page will load slowly due to downloading so many pics. It's very inefficient on resources for his server and the visitor.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose Amaral Rego
    replied
    What I said about your icons, can still apply to that page & you should stick with 2 - 3 font styles only for front page. I have notice that your page loads slowly? That is not good for 56k modem user ( which I hope your U.S. goverment passes something to make internet speed a standard dsl ) Yes, the page loads up in areas and not at once? I do not like how it loads.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Folks gave you the most important tip: ditch the ImageReady/ImageStyler layout. The reason for that is someone needing to view the text can't increase the text size making sliced sites very non accessible; because they can break royally in various browsers (images in tables are notorious for this); and because it's very inefficient use of bandwidth and resources (takes more to serve images than a single static page).

    About web standards: If designers don't follow them then the internet will look butt ugly, be inaccessible even to 15 year-olds, and waste resources.

    So ditch the pics and only use them as elements, not the entire site.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • roosevelt
    replied
    Tthe whole point of giving critique is to give suggestions to make things better. I don't mind your critiques at all, and actually re-thinking about tables, to use them or not. So, if you also spare some of your tips to make things better, it will be really helpful and I will really appreciate it . You are also willing to help aren't you, so spare some ideas to give me a head-start you know .

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Roosevelt, if you want a honest critique you'll have to not be defensive. Being defensive about design will cause you to not only loose future clients, you wouldn't even know why you lost them. And the whole purpose of critiques is to learn from mistakes, get advice and brush up on technique -- not bellyache about the advice and only seek "that looks good" replies.

    Do you want a thorough critique or not?

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • roosevelt
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow
    Looks great man, good luck with it!
    Thanks man. By the way Lead_Weight I asked for review of the portfolio site, not the forums. ChrisLM2001 can you like give more info. Like what method I should use, instead of telling that sucks, that's not cool. Be helpfuil and provide ways to make things better just like Lead_Weight said. Because I've been making website designs for clients the same way I did this one, and so far none of them ever said anything negative. I just don't yet understand why the W3C thing is so important. As long as my design works fine in all browsers, I don't have anything to worry about. It kind of starts a debate like if you want to use IE or Firefox. Both browsers are awesome and depends on the user's choice which one he should use. So, same with the web standards crap, when everyone learns HTML, the trainning starts with <html><head></head><body></body></html> not <!DOCTYPE.XXXXX> . When I exported the image files I did gave the option to use XHTML transitional, but it messed up the design and was working fine on FF but IE crapped it up. So, I just removed that tag and it was working fine on both browsers. And I like tables. I did make website designs without tables using complete CSS, but it gave me lot of headaches to work it out nicely on Opera, so I stick with tables. Thanks all, and do keep your suggestions and comments coming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    Looks great man, good luck with it!

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X