The 'What do you think of my website' thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

deaks

www.safesoccer.org.uk

Tell me what you think........

Reply 41

Baron

deaks

www.safesoccer.org.uk

Tell me what you think........

I don't think it looks very professional :redface:

Reply 42

deaks

Baron

I don't think it looks very professional :redface:

Why not? Which bits need improving?

Reply 43

PeterH

POST VOLUNTARILY DELETED BY MYSELF

Reply 44

rahmed

PeterH

http://www.iomesus.com

- Designed in Photoshop, coded in CSS and XHTML (havn't made it valid yet :rolleyes:

)
- Used Textpattern for the CMS, mainly because of the flexability of tags

Looks nice, one thing that caught my eye was that the main box and the background are similar (dark) colours - little contrast there. But other than that it looks very nice.

Reply 45

Baron

deaks

Why not? Which bits need improving?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it just looks a bit amaturish in general.

I would focus on making the layout and the colour scheme look at bit more professional. Look around at the layouts that good sites use to help get ideas.

Did you use the BT Site Builder like the source suggests?

I would get a better tool or even better start learning HTML and CSS.

Reply 46

tommorris

PeterH

http://www.iomesus.com

- Designed in Photoshop, coded in CSS and XHTML (havn't made it valid yet :rolleyes:

)
- Used Textpattern for the CMS, mainly because of the flexability of tags

Validation seems easy enough - here's the results. Only 5 errors.
You just need to escape the ampersands, properly close some elements and use this method for inserting the Flash.

As for the RSS feed, here is the validator results. You just gotta add a description element as a child node of element. Even if you leave it blank, it is required by the RSS 2.0 specification. You might want to put it through FeedBurner which should turn out valid RSS 2.0 and make it compatible with other formats.

In the RSS 2.0 feed, you need to remove the xmlns:content attribute, since it is pointing to the specification for RSS 1.0 not RSS 2.0. Most people don't declare a namespace for RSS 2.0 - I'm not sure why, but I suspect it may have something to do with politics (I've looked for an XSD or DTD specifying the RSS 2.0 format, but none of them are quite satisfactory

If you do, I'd recommend using the following instead:

<rss xmlns="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">

Reply 47

tommorris

w00tt

HERES MINE!!! :biggrin:

Made for my sisters wedding photography business using flash.

www.justmarried-photography.co.uk

I havn't have any real crit from anyone other than 'yeah its nice', so if anyones got anything for me, give me a shout :biggrin:

w00tttttt

Please, please, please - make a non-flash version. Flash takes too long to load, and prevents people from accessing your site. The only benefit gained from it in this instance is flashy animation.

At the very least make sure your contact details are available for non-Flash users, preferably in an hCard for convenience.

Flash looks nice, but I'm not sure what purpose it is serving here.

Reply 48

tommorris

w00tt

Does it really take that long to load? mine only takes like 10-20 secs, which I thought was quite reasonable for it.

If I want to decrease this time for loading... How would I go about doing it?
I was going to implement a non flash version, but just haven't got round to doing so.

How would I make the non flash website load the images beforehand? I really don't want to have wait times while pictures load.

Cheers.

You can use JavaScript to do image preloading - this article has a guide.

The advantage of doing it with JavaScript is that people who haven't got JavaScript turned on can still look at the images without preloading.

I'm not sure why you need image preloading though - just put some thumbnails on the images page and let people browse through them.

The Flash took about 20-30 seconds to load on the (shared) 2Mb DSL connection I'm on.

Reply 49

tinnttintin

w00tt

HERES MINE!!! :biggrin:

w00tttttt

You have about 10 seconds max to get a viewrs attention on a website other wise they go somewhere else.

Flash ..... its one of the big no no's in web design. Its ok in small doses but not as a whole site solution.
1)Its slow
2)Requires Flash player 6, like me most people will have recieved the page requesting the installation of flash. By now users will be fed up and left the page you should always have a non flash version so users who do not have/want flash can view your site.
3) Google cant index flash sites very well
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enGB177&q=site%3Awww.justmarried-photography.co.uk
so you cant be found in any searches

Im installing the latest version of flash which also requires my browser to be closed .. so im now as a potential viewer to your site im peed off and wishing i didnt bother ... back soon after a browser restart

Reply 50

estel

Yep, me the potential user just went on, was told my Flash version was insufficient, and came straight back here to gripe.

Reply 51

NaN

It took FOREVER to load, if I wasn't looking to see how the website was I would hav eleft. It took about 30-40 seconds to load on my 2mbps connection. On 56k it must take about 10 minutes.

Reply 52

tommorris

You were asking how to do image prefetching. Turns out it's reasonably easy to do in Mozilla browsers - see this guide for more information. You just add a <link /> element with a rel='prefetch' attribute to the /html/body.

This is also far cleaner than manipulating the DOM to do the job.

Reply 53

Ourkid

Wow, that bad eh! lol

Alrighty cool cool thanks guys.

*goes to make a non flash version*
Shall I get rid of flash altogether? Any way I can make it load faster? The images are causing the loading time to be slow.

Be back soon for some more crit! :biggrin:

Thanks
w00tt

Reply 54

tomkent

my site

The link above links to my actual site even though it redirects through free hosting.

I made it so i had somewhere to add my subject notes, and so others could read and add their own

what do you think?

That's very nice; there are some very beautiful sites in that portfolio and your site is good too... but I think that the company site could be better. The Flash stuff at the top is very good, but I don't think that the HTML content quite has the same polished look as the rest.
The gradients behind the sections of text look a bit amateurish; pale is better. Even better is proper grammer - please capitalise your sentences.

I'd like to moan about your excessive use of Flash too. Whilst, yes, I can see that a Flash portfolio befits a company which specialises in Flash sites; it would be very good to have a decent HTML one too. How accessible are your sites to screenreaders? On general principles, how accessible is your Stamner Park page to those with visual impairments?

http://www.********.com/smf/

Meh, it's a bit generic; the picture at the top is a bit blurry; but it's functional, and the colour scheme works :smile:

Reply 57

c9679

H20Media, very cool, be carefull of having the email address displayed like that though very easy for spider bots to harvest and you will end up on thousands of spam lists like me :biggrin:

This weeks email for me to sort through...