...

View Full Version : Well...? :)



The Wizzard
01-15-2003, 11:57 PM
Whadda ya tink of the new site?

I am going to fix a few things, and make it a little more eye catching, but what do you think? I know its not my best work, but I was going for more simplicity for this one as opposed to a super awesome design :)

http://www.ocmotorcars.com

krycek
01-16-2003, 12:19 AM
Impressive! :cool:

Glad to see you got the drop-downs working together - works sweet in IE and Mozilla :) well done!

Oh but one thing, the Lamborghini Mercielago only came out in 2002, not 1982 :D lol I expect you will be putting the proper dates in for each car :) very good overall!

::] krycek [::

PS - I will order the Lambo later! ;)

webmarkart
01-16-2003, 04:37 AM
Looks good! The top nav is a little hard to read with the lines going through the words, but overall it looks very professional.

tommysphone
01-16-2003, 08:19 AM
When clicking the showroom link under find your dream car, I get this error message:

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14'

[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Syntax error in ORDER BY clause.

/oc/showroom.asp, line 56

- Otherwise the site is most excellent but I would say that $39,995 for a 7 year old toyota supra is a bit steep. Similar car in the UK would be 23,000 tops. But I guess the US market is different. Hey ho.

ronaldb66
01-16-2003, 08:37 AM
Very nice, straightforward, clean; great job!
Some points of criticism though:

As mentioned, see if you can improve the legibility of the nav links a bit;
The stats on the showroom page are missaligned;
I personally favour a fluid layout as opposed to a fixed width one like this.

Concerning the code: i usually get stomache cramps when i see multiply nested tables for layout uses; i counted at least four levels... tables bloat your code and are often hard to maintain, not to mention the separating-content-from-presentation issue.
Check out what you can do with CSS to create much of the graphic and layout effects you use tables for now; bonusses are easier maintenance, leaner code and faster downloads.

Having a better look, the nested-table-count rose to six; that's just awful! There must be a better way for creating the desired layout!

ivy
01-16-2003, 01:01 PM
Very smart!

Like the look of the site.

As above, I have the same reservations: the links are a little difficult to read.

Also, I get the same error messaage as mentioned above when clicking on the showroom link under Find Your Dream Car on the home page.

Otherwise excellent. I like it!

brothercake
01-16-2003, 01:13 PM
There are many common layouts which still can't be achevied without tables - 3-columns which are flexible, relatively positioned and non overlapping is literally impossible with pure CSS.

Nonetheless, you shouldn't nest tables more than three levels deep, or some browsers won't be able to render it at all.

ronaldb66
01-16-2003, 02:09 PM
flexible, relatively positioned and non overlapping is literally impossible with pure CSS
I don't agree, but suppose you have to have tables for layout, i have the strong feeling every page i've seen on that site could be done by one or two, maybe exceptionally three nested tables.

Don't get me wrong, i was doubtful over pure CSS, and of course dino browsers might very well run into trouble, but i've recently seen some strict CSS solutions for two- and three-column layouts that do implement fluid layout, that do feature fixed side columns and flexible content area and that do work in all more-or-less CSS-positioning compatible browsers.
Since that experience, my hopes for a usable, strictly CSS layout grew considerably.
Check out www.glish.com (http://www.glish.com/) and www.bluerobot.com (http://www.bluerobot.com/) for some compelling examples.

krycek
01-16-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by ronaldb66
I don't agree, but suppose you have to have tables for layout, i have the strong feeling every page i've seen on that site could be done by one or two, maybe exceptionally three nested tables.

Don't get me wrong, i was doubtful over pure CSS, and of course dino browsers might very well run into trouble, but i've recently seen some strict CSS solutions for two- and three-column layouts that do implement fluid layout, that do feature fixed side columns and flexible content area and that do work in all more-or-less CSS-positioning compatible browsers.
Since that experience, my hopes for a usable, strictly CSS layout grew considerably.
Check out www.glish.com (http://www.glish.com/) and www.bluerobot.com (http://www.bluerobot.com/) for some compelling examples.

Many things that you can do with tables ARE currently impossible with pure CSS, unfortunately :(

3-column layouts are indeed possible - yes even like brothercake described - but these columns cannot be all the same height like you can with tables. There are many pros and cons to each method - I like to try and avoid tables unless absolutely necessary :)

::] krycek [::

Vladdy
01-16-2003, 05:45 PM
Fixed font sizes is a BIG negative

cg9com
01-16-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by krycek
but these columns cannot be all the same height like you can with tables
couldnt you absolutely position divs with the same pixel height?
otherwise i do see your point though.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum