View Full Version : My first site.

07-04-2008, 07:52 AM

This is my first website and any suggestions to improve it are appreciated. :)

07-04-2008, 10:27 AM
In Firefox 3 your content is below your navigation rather than next to it. Funny how you say this

Best viewed in Firefox 3, Internet Explorer 7, and Opera 9 browsers in a maximized window.

I'm using a 1280x800 resolution at full screen.

I don't like how the text moves on your navigation when you mouseover the links.

Why do you have two navigations?

And your code doesn't validate. See your errors here (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.graphic-goodies.com%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0).

07-04-2008, 02:26 PM
I use a 1280x1024 resolution and there is a massive purple space between the header and the content, both don't actually fit on my screen at the same time - I have to scroll down quite a bit to see content.

07-04-2008, 02:41 PM
It's pretty slick for a first page. My didn't look half as good as that. But then again, my first web page's layout didn't break. Was there supposed to be a huge gap between the header image and the actual content. It seems that your first navigation, to the right, prevents the actual content from following the header image. I couldn't take an image of the break, because it is so huge, but here: an image of the gap (http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm347/bwiz91/graphic-goodies-gap.png).

Your color scheme leaves a little to be desired. Sure, using shades of one color can do the job, but in your case, you have a lot of content, and all of it following this burgandy and white (plus a little green) color scheme makes the site a little visually boring. May I suggest visitng ColorSchemer (http://www.colorschemer.com/schemes/) or ColorLovers (http://www.colourlovers.com/)? Both are great tools for web designers when choosing color schemes. ColorLovers is better, as you don't have to purcahse any software to use it, and download options include the HEX value (as far as I can remember).

You have far too many advertisments in your page. They bog it down, and are complete eyesores to the rest of your site. Sure, you want to make money of your site, but you have so many adverstisments that it detracts from thr purpose of an advertisment.

I would remove the entire links section and place it on a seperate page. At first glance, they looked like mini advertisments. Still, their flashiness is slightly nauseating.

07-05-2008, 01:04 AM
Thanks for the reviews...

I added some things to my CSS which should fix the problems with other resolutions. How does it look now? I also moved the Links to a new page.

07-05-2008, 07:16 PM
And your code doesn't validate. See your errors here (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.graphic-goodies.com%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0).

Did you actually look at what the validation errors showed?!

Error Line 9, Column 84: document type does not allow element "LINK" here.
Line 10, Column 76: document type does not allow element "LINK" here.
Aren't links suppose to be between <head></head>?

Line 37, Column 6: end tag for element "HEAD" which is not open.
Interesting, because when I view source, I CLEARLY see an opening <head> tag at the top of the page.

Line 38, Column 5: document type does not allow element "BODY" here.
Oh, that's right, the body goes here... </html><body>

Line 124, Column 65: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "zs".
Line 124, Column 65: general entity "zs" not defined and no default entity.
Line 124, Column 67: reference to entity "zs" for which no system identifier could be generated.
"[...]caused by unencoded ampersands" - riiiight. It's a frigg'n src link, leave it alone!

Validation is for chumps who can't think for themselves. :thumbsup:

07-05-2008, 07:23 PM
@ArticFox Yes I looked at the errors. That first one is because of this.

<meta name="verify-v1" content="VopB68SBL9/ssg6ietju8lvu3fUV4USs/WsadAYGBcc=" />

They are using the wrong syntax to close a meta tag. They aren't using XHTML so no need for the /> part.

The rest can be solved by simply using &amp; instead of &.

07-05-2008, 07:52 PM
@AE: Do you know what that code is for?

<meta name="verify-v1" content="VopB68SBL9/ssg6ietju8lvu3fUV4USs/WsadAYGBcc=" />

07-05-2008, 07:57 PM
Yeah I do. Its for google analytics. Google is just verifying the name and content. It doesn't need the /> part.

07-05-2008, 08:02 PM
Does that /> being in the code affect the look, feel, accessibility in any browser out there?


But according to the "validator" it's an error/problem and needs to be corrected or you won't get your W3 graphic cookie. Why?

07-05-2008, 08:09 PM
Because its XHTML self closing syntax. They OP isn't using XHTML. They are using HTML.

07-05-2008, 08:13 PM
Is that really a problem for visitors? That /> would keep pages from loading, colours from showing correctly, positioning issues or text readers from pronouncing things...?

I'm not understanding what the actual problem is.

07-05-2008, 08:22 PM
He asked for a review and from a review in a "coding" forum you usually get your coding errors pointed out to you...

07-05-2008, 08:33 PM
Ah yes, the left turn at Albuquerque.

Got it.

07-05-2008, 09:23 PM
He asked for a review and from a review in a "coding" forum you usually get your coding errors pointed out to you...

@ArcticFox, Please stop trying to create a flame war. Asking about the validation errors is one thing, discussing the importance and relevance of valid code is not appropriate for a site review.

07-05-2008, 09:28 PM
Uh, huh.

07-05-2008, 11:47 PM
Best viewed in Firefox 3, Internet Explorer 7, and Opera 9 browsers.
It's a classic sign of a newcomer to tell people to view your website in a certain way.
There's a slight freedom which comes with a medium that can be viewed by anyone, anywhere. You shouldn't tell people to change their habits for you. It's just odd. Traffic colours don't suddenly invert at a specific junction, unless you've ignored the traffic lights, sailed on right by and suffered a severe accident. But anyway, drop the message. It can even be taken offensively, you know.

Onto business, although I like Tahoma, you've not specified any backup typefaces. Not all operating systems will have Tahoma installed (no Linux distributions I know of come with it preinstalled and Mac OS definitely doesn't.) You can specify a comma-separated series in the font property.

element {
font-family: tahoma, verdana, sans-serif;
See HTML Dog CSS reference (http://www.htmldog.com/reference/cssproperties/font-family/).

And the colours of the links on the sidebar are too dark. I can barely make them out, and on a less-than-well-calibrated-screen it might be illegible. Lighten them up to increase readability.

07-06-2008, 05:24 AM
It looks much better now that the content has fallen all toegther. I still think that you should vary the color scheme, but thats up to you.

Right now, your major issue is the banner advert. Because of your monochromatic web site, the first thing the viewer will see is the ad. The brugandy colors around it acts like a border, and a human's eye automatically focuses on whats in the border. It is as if your web site is selling the advertisment. Is that what you really want when the user opens up their web site? Banner adverts are notoriously eye catching. There is a reason why they are like this - because they are usually put off to the side, and they need to scream for attention. Your layout does the screaming for the adverts right now.

You also have FOUR Google AdSense text links. In my opinoin, if the user doesn't click on one, they will click on none. Don't waste content space. Put up one group of text based links, or two if they are slighty discreat.

I'm also not to fond of your header title. I think you should lessen the height a little bit, and vary the colors a little.

BTW, ArticFox, do you just like hate life? You sound real vain.

07-06-2008, 05:32 AM
No, I'm just tired of hearing about "validation" issues and DIVs versus TABLES. Every time I come here it's the same BS. :D

Which reminds me, when ever I ask for opinions on just how me site looks, I have to tell people to ignore the code - yet every time I'll have someone reply or PM me saying it doesn't validate... blah blah.

07-06-2008, 10:52 AM
Thanks CyanLight and BWiz.

BWiz: Colors have always been a weakpoint for me. :\ I'm not 100&#37; fond of them either. The overall color scheme is what I want to go with, but I'm having real trouble sprucing them up and making them look better (I've tried a bunch of different things, but I'm just not very good). Any recommendations?

Sorry, but could you clarify on the banner advert? Are you talking about the top banner or the image Adsense ad? And I'm not sure what you mean by screaming adverts.

07-06-2008, 04:02 PM
Sorry, but could you clarify on the banner advert? Are you talking about the top banner or the image Adsense ad?
The banner advert at the top, right next to the large Google AdSense links.
Screaming adverts was just my metaphor in saying that your banner advertisment detracts the user form the actual content of the web site, since it bright and colorful, and your site is monochromatic.

The overall color scheme is what I want to go with, but I'm having real trouble sprucing them up and making them look better (I've tried a bunch of different things, but I'm just not very good). Any recommendations?

I told you in my first post to head over to ColorLovers (http://colorlovers.com) or ColorSchemer (http://colorschemer.com) and choose a pallette which you think looks best. DOn't get me wrong, I like the burgandy color that you have chosen, but it is so repetitive.

Here is one I thought you may like: Vintage Wallpaper (http://www.colourlovers.com/palette/447936/vintage_wallpaper). You need to create an account (free) with ColorLovers before you can dowload the pallettes. Of course, you could just take a screenshot, import it into image editing software like PhotoShop and use the eye dropper tool.

07-11-2008, 02:03 AM
I've changed the site layout, and changed a few other things as well.

07-11-2008, 03:53 AM
Much better now. I like it a lot more. Two things, the updates panel at the top, the text is not actually in it (FF3). Also, the navigation font size (I should have mentioned this earlier) is a little too small, increase it by 1 or 2 px.

07-11-2008, 05:28 AM
Thanks. :) Both things have been fixed.

07-12-2008, 12:02 AM
- IMO the updates box is badly place, just kind of hanging at the top of the page. I would suggest putting it in one of the content bars.
- I think you designed the site well for the intended audience.

- Good coding styles
- No validation errors

Nice site!