...

View Full Version : MultiSource Website



legohalflife2ma
05-01-2008, 05:52 PM
Alright, I learned a lot from the last topic and now I think I'm ready to go for another site review of another one of my websites. This website is designed much better than my other one and follows many web standards. Here it is:

http://www.multisrc.org

Please let me know what you think.

Millenia
05-01-2008, 09:07 PM
The navigation is easy and looks good, and the design is pretty cool, it's a good website. But 1 question, is it meant to function yet? Because some pages that links follow are broken, like the ones on the project page.

gnomeontherun
05-01-2008, 10:30 PM
Tables for layout...not good.
There is no ending tag for <body> or <html>, I'm not sure why its validating?
You are not an Inc. Unless you are an incorporated business this is an invalid term.
Did you really trademark that saying? If not, you can't say you did.
You really like red/black, but I still think its one of the worst color combinations out there. Its hard on the eyes and just doesn't look professional. It looks like a basic gradient that you made to cover too broad of a spectrum.
Some of your text boxes have the text align right on the edge. Pad them.
Your copy text is pretty rough, it needs a more professional approach. You can be cool and yourself with it, but its not a conversation over IM.

It is a step in the right direction compared with the other site.

Apostropartheid
05-01-2008, 11:05 PM
@ Jeremy: he’s using HTML 4.01 Transitional, which allows omission of the end tag for an uncomfortable amount of elements.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: get rid of the text justification. It just doesn’t look nice full flush (again, vast amounts of whitespace.)

To reiterate what jeremy said, you’re not an incorporated business and you shouldn’t mislead your users into thinking so. There’s also a full possibility that someone actually has trademarked “Take pride in what you make”, and you could get into some trouble for that.

You’ve passed my first couple of tests for grammar and punctuation.


Your copy text is pretty rough, it needs a more professional approach. You can be cool and yourself with it, but its [sic.] not a conversation over IM.I agree, but it’s going vaguely in the right direction. It’s fully possible to use an informal tone for copy—indeed, lots of websites have been adopting this of late, and it’s rather successful, leading to a more…‘fun’ experience—but you seem halfway in between, if you understand me. It looks unnessarily bloated, too: consider cutting down some.

PappaJohn
05-01-2008, 11:32 PM
Assuming you are not a legally formed corporation, the others are correct. But not only would the use of "Inc", "Corp", "Corporation", "Ltd", "Limited" be misleading, it would be considered 'intentionally misleading'. In addition, the use of those designators by any entity other than a legally formed corporation is illegal. Assuming you engage in interstate or international commerce, this illegality would come under the realm of the federal government.

Registration of the trademark is not required to use the 'TM' mark. This is referred to as common law trademark, the ownership of which can be established by the actual use of the trademarked phrase "in the marketplace". That said, a common law trademark can usually only be protected in the immediate geographic area of the business. Also, if the phrase has been trademarked through registration by another business, the registered trademark (the circle R) would generally take precedence over the common law trademark.


I should also mention that the improper use of the corporate designators is inviting a fair share of tax headaches as well.

Birmingham
05-02-2008, 11:41 AM
interesting. although it was a bit dull/blurry and over-in-your-face at first glance... not very clean or slick looking,... i finally found my way to "projects" and i love the feature on that page with the 4 objects...


now that your html validates, you can extend your accessibility by creating logical document outlines. heading tags would help with seo too. see: http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fcgi.w3.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Ftidy-if%3FdocAddr%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fmultisrc.org&xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F08%2Fextract-semantic.xsl

legohalflife2ma
05-02-2008, 04:04 PM
OK, I'm getting rid of the "Inc." and the "TM" because I see you are all correct about that. I am also going to change the header's background gradient to something more enjoyable.

About the copy text, I was just trying to connect with the visitors and show them what the site is all about because it's kind of hard to follow. But, unlike an IM, the grammar is there. Also, I will get rid of the justifying text and add padding to the text boxes with the dark-grey backgrounds.

Thanks again for your tips, guys. Much appreciated.

VIPStephan
05-02-2008, 04:25 PM
You really like red/black, but I still think its one of the worst color combinations out there.

Red and black is a beautiful color combination – if used wisely. If you don't use solid red and black but different shades of it you can create beautiful things. I must admit that the color combination and gradient used for the header is a little too obtrusive. Scrap that gray in the middle and go directly from red to… uhm… dark red (i.e. not 100% black). That and a non-embossed title (either a solid color or some subtle gradient, too, would be nice here) will make it look a lot more professional. It just looks too 1995 currently – as looks the source code… if you’re seriously offering website development you can’t do that! Look into semantic HTML (http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/) and only write valid (X)HTML strict.

In a nutshell: Less is more. Your gradients, shadows, glows, and embossments just look too much in-your-face. Make it lighter, less obtrusive, and you’ll get closer to current standards and practices.

BabyJack
05-02-2008, 04:32 PM
I use red and black (if anyone has seen my website in a thread) and they look awesome together :)

Look at it here: http://exitfegs.co.uk/wifee/Index.html

gnomeontherun
05-02-2008, 04:44 PM
Black/Red/White is just my opinion, as I said, but I can recognize when it is done right :thumbsup: I think often the issue is using too strong versions of the colors, which create such a stark contrast and can hurt the eyes. Maybe the gradient should be only a red/red gradient?

@Wifee, yours is a maroon or something. Not quite the brighter red he had.

I like the color choice now, its more soothing.

legohalflife2ma
05-02-2008, 04:52 PM
I like the color choice now, its more soothing.
Thanks. I changed it up a bit and added some more effects to it. I'm also thinking of using XHTML instead of HTML, just like VIPStephan had said. Thanks for the info. :)

By the way, I got rid of the "Inc." and replaced it with "Group." That way, there are no legal constrains.

Apostropartheid
05-02-2008, 07:01 PM
Stephan didn’t say to switch to XHTML (which is why he used brackets). He said to switch the Strict flavour of your language—in this case, HTML 4.01 Strict.

The new header looks awesome. I would change the font on your navigation bar, though—it looks a bit weird.

And now that you’ve got a fresh-y sort of header, try switching the content background away from that *really* light grey to white. That would make it look more light and clean.

legohalflife2ma
05-02-2008, 08:49 PM
I think the light gray looks better with the template, though. Looks a little more professional, too, don't you think?

Apostropartheid
05-02-2008, 10:06 PM
I like the grey around the sides, but having it as the normal text background reminds me very slightly of the dawn of the web. I’m just offering what I feel is good advice: if you don’t think what I say is right you’re under no obligation to acknowledge it, of course.

legohalflife2ma
05-03-2008, 04:54 PM
I like the grey around the sides, but having it as the normal text background reminds me very slightly of the dawn of the web. I’m just offering what I feel is good advice: if you don’t think what I say is right you’re under no obligation to acknowledge it, of course.

I know. I appreciate your feedback, though.

legohalflife2ma
05-04-2008, 11:01 PM
By the way, my other website General Gaming Planet is now Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional so I hope no one is mad at me anymore for saying that I am against validation, because I am not against it anymore. That's why I validated General Gaming Planet. It took a while, but it was worth it to be valid. I was going to mention that I validated General Gaming Planet in the topic I posted about it (http://codingforums.com/showthread.php?t=136357), but jeremywilken had it locked because he was pissed at me.

So, now General Gaming Planet is validated, too. The CSS on General Gaming Planet has also been validated. See, I did what you said, now please calm down about the DOCTYPE and validation issuse. :thumbsup:

gnomeontherun
05-04-2008, 11:05 PM
jeremywilken had it locked because he was pissed at me.

Oh I'm not upset at you, and I'm not a mod who can actually close a thread. I just thought most of the comments were not germane to the conversation anymore. You've done a lot of work to improve your code and validate it and I commend you for that! It seemed like people were more interested in yelling about your age than about your site, which is why I requested it to be closed.

Apostropartheid
05-04-2008, 11:13 PM
Oh I'm not upset at you, and I'm not a mod who can actually close a thread. I just thought most of the comments were not germane to the conversation anymore. You've done a lot of work to improve your code and validate it and I commend you for that! It seemed like people were more interested in yelling about your age than about your site, which is why I requested it to be closed.
You're a liar and you know it :rolleyes: And you only use germane 'cause you're moving there.

Anyway, no, he didn't lock it, and probably wasn't annoyed at you (why some would be is a mystery to me.) It did go off-topic some way through the, umm, second reply, so it's likely it would have been shut anyway.

oracleguy
05-05-2008, 01:10 AM
By the way, my other website General Gaming Planet is now Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional so I hope no one is mad at me anymore for saying that I am against validation, because I am not against it anymore. That's why I validated General Gaming Planet. It took a while, but it was worth it to be valid. I was going to mention that I validated General Gaming Planet in the topic I posted about it (http://codingforums.com/showthread.php?t=136357), but jeremywilken had it locked because he was pissed at me.

So, now General Gaming Planet is validated, too. The CSS on General Gaming Planet has also been validated. See, I did what you said, now please calm down about the DOCTYPE and validation issuse. :thumbsup:

Good work on improving your code. I'd still say on your GGP site that your introduction text needs some paragraph breaks. It just looks like a big blob of text.

And for the record, I locked the thread; it had turned into this pissing match over validation. If you would like to continue on topic discussion of that site, I can unlock the thread.

legohalflife2ma
05-07-2008, 12:16 AM
Good work on improving your code. I'd still say on your GGP site that your introduction text needs some paragraph breaks. It just looks like a big blob of text.

And for the record, I locked the thread; it had turned into this pissing match over validation. If you would like to continue on topic discussion of that site, I can unlock the thread.
I was thinking that I should break the text into paragraphs on the introduction text block and I should give more line spacing to it, too, so thank you.

Now, I have a little problem with my General Gaming Planet website. I had the HTML 4.0 Transitional DOCTYPE up on my website for a little while and everything was valid. Then, I changed the DOCTYPE to XHTML Transitional just to see how it looked. Now, when I put the HTML 4.0 Transitional DOCTYPE back on my pages, it all of a sudden started messing with my coding, which it hadn't done previously. Once I added the DOCTYPE again, all of the navbar links with CSS mouseovers became unusable in IE 8 and all of my tables had cellspacing that was not defined. In Mozilla, some width problems with tables all of a sudden came about, and this all happened right when I re-added the HTML 4.0 Transitional DOCTYPE back after some tests. How can I fix this problem - it never happened before? I thank you for your help.

woop
05-19-2008, 09:39 PM
It seems you have been highly inspired by SteamPowered as well as Counter Strike: Source and Half-Life 2 Deathmatch. It's just not working for you. You may like the font in the CSS logo, but you didn't create CSS and it probably doesn't make them so happy that others are using their font. The little plasma round logo looks like sperm wiggling in an egg, and I also wouldn't recommend using it as a glyph in your logo. It's not your work and it doesn't make sense, at least to me. I would recommend looking for a different font as a type logo.

I would work on a new element to replace the RGB link signal, get away from the liquid metal look of that embossing, and maybe even tone down the white reflection that you have on the header and several buttons.

I would recommend staying with the general color scheme, because it looks nice. I hope you find it helpful and not just a drag!

Oh. One more little thing - the gray tones in the header don't match the other grays.

logictrap
05-19-2008, 10:34 PM
I'm just commenting on the look-n-feel not the coding:

- Overall I like the design but looking at the header I don't really pick up on what the site is about so I would suggest either modifying the tag line and/or include an image that gives more of a clue to what the site is about. I can't tell if the 3 bars are a bar chart or a cell phone signal indicator.

- The menu text is too big. It looks like about 24pt - I would scale down to 16pt.

- Darker content area needs some padding (ie 10px) so the text doesn't touch the edges of the box.

- Other than to web geeks I don't think the w3c valid logo serves any purpose - most people don't know what it means.

- On the home in the right column maybe include a few thumbnails images of some portfolio items.

Cheers.

legohalflife2ma
05-26-2008, 02:40 AM
It seems you have been highly inspired by SteamPowered as well as Counter Strike: Source and Half-Life 2 Deathmatch. It's just not working for you. You may like the font in the CSS logo, but you didn't create CSS and it probably doesn't make them so happy that others are using their font.
Heh...you're kidding right? Sorry, but if you think that Steam/Valve Software invented the BankGothic fonts then you are wayyyyyy wrong. Have you seriously never seen that font used anywhere else than with Counter-Strike? I just want to know because a comment such as that makes you seem fairly oblivious to the net and the fonts that are commonly used in logos. Maybe you were joking or maybe you have only seen the BankGothic font in Counter-Strike.

Valve did not make that font and therefore it is not up to them who uses it because it is not legally theirs. If you look around you will see the BankGothic font everywhere, so I don't care if Steam likes whether I use that font or not because they did not make that font and it is not theirs.

I'm just pointing that out to you so that you don't go on in life on the internet with the wrong idea about the BankGothic font and who first created it. :thumbsup:

woop
05-26-2008, 04:49 AM
Ah, yeah, I see now. Well, the connection between the style, the font, and the ammo glyph remains.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum