Ok So I Went Crazy - Review My Design Site

[Baz]

Hi Guys,
I have finally designed a site I am fairly happy with. Keep in mind I am a student, I am still learning, but I do try, the site is of much higher standard (code wise) than what I have cherned out before and I just kinda want to get some rung on the ladder. I don't really want big corporate clients, I just want the website to be different and creative as well as accessible. In other words please don't be too brutal.

As Forbairt will see I have decided to leave the CMS backing aside and go back to getting basics right.

The site is Things2do Ireland - Innovative Solutions For Innovative People - New Age Digital Media Firm which has gone through a few lifes but now has a name with my few clients and I'm happy to keep the oddly named domain.

Basically I want the site to be:
1. Different, unique, a bit odd, visually captivating.

2. Valid to W3C standards, most of the site seems to be.

3. Appeal to a younger audience, aim at doing artists, bands, etc websites. (That is what interests me more).

4. Preforms well in search engines. A lot of work has to be done, the old website is still appearing, so I'll be taking that down soon.

5. Not be too professional / off putting to target market above (I like dealing with people like myself a lot and hope to attract them to it).

6. Obviously be a site which creates work for myself in some minor part-time form, I'm a bit wedged for time as it is, but always worth being too busy.

Things I know aren't the best:
1. The homepage is dodgy, very OTT and in general will be smoothed out with time, I might even do things with it over the next day or two.

2. Is pink a good colour to use given the photo contrast, any suggestions.

3. DW templating, does it work well for SEO?


Any creative critism is welcomed, as I said before I want it to be very odd and different, I'm a one man enterprise outside of my contracted work and I'd like to reflect my madness in the site

Thanks,
Baz

 

[Baz]

BTW, sorry for falling asleep on the forums for the last while, I've been very very busy... also the background image loading time is a pain but can't do an awful lot about it...

 

[StephenM]

I have to say that as soon as I went on the site it shouted "Channel 4". The theme with bold colours seems to be quite similar.

 

[Baz]

I'd love to say that doesn't occur to me in retrospect... but yea actually... God maybe a bit too much 4 on demand.

 

[Baz]

Stephen just noticed you fly, Knock Airport? I fly at Weston, get in contract sometime.

 

[StephenM]

Its amazing where you run into people again! Yes I do fly, at Sligo generally. Coming up on the 30hr mark towards the PPL.

The Channel 4/4OD is quite effective, but I think its a hard one to pull off, and harder again to remain distinctive.

 

[Baz]

Yea thats probably true... god I'll have to keep slaving.

I'm finally in double figures, 17hrs to PPL at NFC. When will a website pay out!

I'm just trying to think, don't know a lot of lads over there. I'm the culprit behind helping Mark do something with the current Flying In Ireland website... it will take a while to get everything working smoothly! I run the HASOI site also if you have ever stumbled on it... have a lot of upgrade work to do on it.

 

[gav240z]

Good attempt so far.

A nice attempt, I noticed this in your source code.

<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Try using margin-top:100px; instead . You won't need all those line breaks.

I find the text difficult to read.

I'm not sure about the purple myself, especially for links. I'd keep links with underlines instead of a block of purple.

Also you logo isn't clickable to return home. This is a usability issue if you ask me. I know its part of your background, so might be a bit of work for you.

Other than that, I'd say a good attempt for a student .

 

[Baz]

Hi gav240z
Thanks for that. I was actually just thinking... god Why didn't I think of the linebreaks! - I used % heights for the left and right divs! Will cut down a few bytes too I guess.

Yes I think it might be better to limit the usage of the pink/purple... It's funny I showed it to my GF and she gave me a kind of look like you have been spending too much time with my friends!

I'll try and work out the clickable image. On my previous site it was clickable and I agree it is important, I'm just trying to figure out a way to make it work. Image maps won't be the best though... could work I suppose! I am thinking maybe a transparent GIF located in the DIV, but I will have to position it - I have plenty of time

I see what you mean about the text, certainly the semi-opacic DIVs. I'll look into it. I just really like the idea of the blocked text, but I think in retrospect it could do with some work. Maybe go a bit more comfortable. Everyone I have asked so far has give or take perfect eyesight, maybe steal my friends glasses and tell him to have a look!

I have decided the purple/pink links must go

What do you think of the transparent DIVs, good idea or not? - They are murder for W3C standards, the CSS file won't validate, as apparently CSS 3.x isn't the normal for them at the moment, oh well!

Regards
Baz

 

[n3tFl0w]

Site is broken in IE6. Hilariously broken. Index page looks like it has a fixed background.

See attached... Unless of course Im missing somthing and its supposed to look like that?

 

[Goodshape]

I'd add a bit of padding around the .maintextlines

Not much, just 2 or 3 pixels so the text isn't hugging the corners of the black background. Make it a bit easier to read.

 

[cgarvey]

It's a whole lot worse in FF3b4/Win. Also you have 2 hosting issues. CSS and the maing BG image timed out on me (about 3 mintues before I posted this). Your deep-linking of the W3C image cost your load time over 15 seconds ("waiting for www.w3.org..."). So as it stands the site is muck, but once you sort it out, I can kinda see that it might be OK (but the text, even with it's black background, is going to be hard to read against that background image, I fear)

 

[louie]

The site look terrible in IE7 & FF2.0 as well.
My 2 cents? I don't like it.
Too many colours, the layout is totally out of shape and doesn't render properly.
The background image will put anyone off. What exactly is the meaning of it?
Do you drill holes for a leaving?

The website might validate (W3C - didn't check it) but what's the point if it doesn't look right?

 

[Cormac]

I quite like the style and approach you have taken.
But yeah, there are some layout problems. Once you have them sorted out, the design should be fine.

 

[Goodshape]

Just realised it doesn't support variable widths at all. Things get seriously messed up if you go too wide or too narrow.

You'd want to wrap the whole thing in a fixed width div to sort that.

It does concern me a little bit that you're offering web design services when your own mark-up is so poor..

Basically the better implemented a website is, the more responsive it will be to visitors. Poorly coded websites can be slow, sloppy or even fail

Indeed.

But aside from that, and with a bit of extra work, I don't think there's anything wrong with the design itself. It's bold and different and there's probably a market for it.

 

[Baz]

I'm just happy everyone sees potential in it....

Site is broken in IE6. Hilariously broken. Index page looks like it has a fixed background.

See attached... Unless of course Im missing somthing and its supposed to look like that? Attached Images

things.JPG (136.9 KB, 4 views)

things2.JPG (168.3 KB, 3 views)

My god I should really install a copy of IE6 on my other computer

I'll try to work around things and see how it all goes!

I'm really trying to step away from tables and eventually I will get it right. The whole opacic CSS validation is really killing me though

Basically the better implemented a website is, the more responsive it will be to visitors. Poorly coded websites can be slow, sloppy or even fail Indeed.

- Once I get the coding right atleast that won't hapen


Regards,
Baz

 

[louie]

The whole opacic CSS validation is really killing me though

the same thing can be achieved with a small image set as background in your CSS file for that particular div and it will validate.

 

[Baz]

Hi Louie,
Thanks I think I know what you mean. But if the actual opacity property doesn't exist in CSS 2.x then if you employ it on an image would it not also fail. If I use a solid image I won't have the transparent effect I really want.

If you know of a site off hand that uses this, I'll research into it, it seems all the sites out there at the moment are telling people to use the opacity property. I've looked around a good bit and havent seen this method used to effect.

I really do appreciate it, I'm more or less entirely self thought, and in secondary school so it's not like I don't listen in lectures, I love learning new things so well.. yes it would be very much appreciated.

Regards,
Baz

 

[Goodshape]

Thanks I think I know what you mean. But if the actual opacity property doesn't exist in CSS 2.x then if you employ it on an image would it not also fail. If I use a solid image I won't have the transparent effect I really want.

You can create a semi-transparent 1px PNG image. Although IE6 doesn't support transparent PNG, so you might run into additional problems there.

You could always use IE conditional statements to load a less-than-IE6 specific style sheet, which sets the transparent PNG to a solid black colour on those browsers.

 

[louie]

I was just about to say what "Goodshape" mentioned.
Related to the IE6 issue with png file, I think there is a way around that.
Actually just found something:

PNG in Internet Explorer: How to Use