new webbuilding tool

[marcgriffen]

hello,

I must say i don't know much about programming, but I still wanted to make a decent site. I've used Dreamweaver and frontpage, they could never satisfy me completely because I don't know html.

Look at my website and give comments, I've build it with a new web-building tool, ezgenerator, easy and professional looks, based on free downloadable webtemplates.

The English part of the site isn't that elaborated as the Dutch part, anyway, you'll see that for yourself

http://users.pandora.be/thooft

the program

http://www.ezgenerator.com

any other good suggestions for a good prog I could use???

[ronaldb66]

A zillion nested frames is not what I would call "professional"...

Alternatives? Depends on what your knowledge about web page basics is. By the way, HTML has nothing to do with programming, it's a markup language.

[marcgriffen]

hey dude,

i don't mind that you criticize my website, but give solutions, ezgenerato works fine for me

I can't be (read: do not want to be) a programmer... )

marc

[ronaldb66]

I know DreamWeaver, and I think it can create pages ten times "better", coding-wise, then your frame-heavy tool; then again, DW has a lot of possibilities, and since you seem adamant about not wanting to learn anything about the underlying technologies of web pages, it probably offers as much possibilites to mess things up.

At the chance of doing it in vain, I'd still recommend learning at least the basics behind web pages, what they're made of, what they can and can't do, even if all you ever do is use some sort of generator.

[ionsurge]

It just seems pretty plain, and the colours do not actually compliment each other. I totally agree with Ronald, although I must say it is hard not to. :D

Also, you do not actually need to know much about HTML if you are using FrontPage, or Dreamweaver. They do actually produce the majority of the basics that you need relatively easily.

Further, your site does not actually even require frames in anyway whatsoever. Also, your code is actually pretty unclean, as is much of the automatically generated code made by wysiwyg (What You See Is What You Get) browsers.

Have a look at www.w3schools.com to learn more about Html, and coding standards.

[raf]

calm down ;).

these forums are mainly meant for coders or people that wan't to learn coding. most of us don't use codegenerators, because we know there weaknesses and we know how to write better code then they ever will. The (ab)use of frames, tables, font and other layout tags is one of these. The difficult to alter and overuse of code is another.

You say it has a professional look. I only need to look at your source to know you've used a codegenrator. And every coder sees this instantly.
+ there are some other non-professional thingys. Lets take the images --> no borders around them + no alternatif text supplied + bad quality --> not professional + not accesible. The javascript clock thingy --> not very professional (in the dutch part, it uses english day-abbreviations + months + in Belgium, we don't use PM and AM). No professional site will have such a feature on (what's the use?).

Not all links are meaningful (like the link home on the homepage --> shouldn't be a link there. Link "over ons" --> doesn't display any content, cause i need to pick a link from the enfolding list --> but then the home-page should stay on or an alternative page should be shown in the left frame) You sometimes have scrollbars where they aren't need (like on the "fietsen"-page) Some of the links on that page don't show anything. There just loading a blank page --> should be a message or there shouldn't be a link.
etc etc.

You know, all small things, and you might find me picky, but they are all sign that your site wasn't made by a professional.

So just don't think of it (or call it) professional. If it's good enough for you, then enjoy it and use it. I've seen a lott worse and i think it's great that someone without any HTML skills can build a site like that (which surely wasn't possible a few years ago).

I'm not sure what you expect of us. "sollutions" ? --> just put up borders, alternative text, take the clock of, remove unused links etc.
<edit> reaction to your second mail </edit>

[marcgriffen]

ok , yes

there can be too many frames indeed

and i'm stil working on the fotos (testing different compressions etc)

and yes, you have seen it right, there are some pages blank,

maybe because, i'm still working on the texts ;-)

I'e made this site in a few days, that's a lot faster than any other html editor i must say

the clock, yes the clock, it was an extra, it is indeed not available in the dutch version, if you think it disturbs you that much i can remove it :o

let the critique come ...

gr m

[marcgriffen]

ok, the clock will disapear

any links broken?


where shoul i put borders?

tx m

[whackaxe]

looks like a FP generated page to me. acceptable though

[marcgriffen]

You sometimes have scrollbars where they aren't need (like on the "fietsen"-page) ====>


hey dude, look in 1024x768 then there are no scroll bars,


:rolleyes: where is the time i used a 800x600 crt screen :p

[ronaldb66]

Yet another misconception:
firstly, many people still do own or use a moderately sized monitor, on which a 800x600 resolution is the best choice (I'm behind a 15" company one right now);
secondly, more and more people start using devices like PDAs, laptops, etc. to access the web, and these devices often are limited in their screen size and hence resolution;
thirdly, people with impaired vision may choose a lower resolution simply because they can't see anything on higher ones.

If your site were a personal one, I wouldn't even have bothered reponding: on personal sites, the owner is free to approach the design in whichever way he or she prefers.
It looks however that your site is to be the storefront of a real business, be it a small one, and no business gains any benefit from a site that starts out by discluding groups of potential visitors.

The following article may be of interest in this respect: Message: Why websites look different in different browsers (http://www.message.uk.com/articles/display.php)

[marcgriffen]

yes indeed,

there still are many people with 800x600 res or less,

and pda's and so on

the purpose of the site is only to inform customers and supplyers about thooft.

I can't build a dynamic php site, that a fact

there you can't deny that there are a lot of people using a 17" screen :thumbsup: this will be the standard in a few years

what are we arguing about the damn res!! i made that site in a few days. ezgenerator rules :cool:

[MotherNatrsSon]

I use Dreamweaver and could make that in a couple of hours. With or without the frames. You do not have to have a dynamic php site.

I too have a small business, and the way I see it is that your site is an "image" representing your business to potential customers either retail or wholesale. If I went into your "real" store and couldn't see what I was looking for or it was unecessarily cluttered and not "well kept" it may leave the impression on me that your products made by you would be made in the same manner. You should keep your "virtual" store like you would your "real" store, neat and with your customers best interest first.

I am not a "professional" coder by any means, but the people that are giving you thier opinions are and it may be of benefit to you and your business to be a little more flexible and make some adjustments that are being suggested.

If you look at web stats or have them for your site in the future, you will see a majority of people use 800 x 600 resolution and it is almost a "standard" target resolution for now. Mnay people design their sites for that resolution because it is the most widely used by people visiting your site. Again putting the user/customer first.

It is your business and your site, but it seems like you might want to take the time to think about your options.

As far as broken links go, doesn't the code generator have a link checker? Dreamweaver does.

MNS

[raf]

marcgriffin,

Yes, yes. All right. It's to hot to get excited
hey dude, look in 1024x768 then there are no scroll bars
Haaah ! It's that sort a site ! Where the startpage looks like :
This site is build for Internet Explorer 5.5+
Please enable javascript
Minimum resolution = 1024x768
Minimum screensize = 17 inch
(Soon to come -->Get your flash-plugin here !)

Accesability and dynamic layout are big topics in professional webdesign ;) (maybe cause the two most important things for a site are that everyone can view it and that it looks nice on smaller monitors (like me compagnies notebook) or screens with a lower resolution.) Thats professional design --> sites that look good on any machine in any browser.

You're not forced to follow (our) standards. But its valid feedback, IMO, and if you can (i mean, it's not like there is so much content on your pages) you should try to keep it all on one page. But feel free to just ignore my comments.
The images (border and alternative text), i think you should add that. I'm sure your 'ezgenerator' has some sort of 'insert image'-wizzard where you can specify the border(style?, thickness?, color?) and alternative text. Cause when i still used a dialup-connection, i usually had "show pictures" turned off. And the "ban-ad's" module of the firewall i got at my homemachine will probably kill a few of your images.

[marcgriffen]

hey, the more the replies the better,

i'm working no, and i will change some thing this evening

but it is and will be a 1024x768 site.

the purpose is indeed to give an impression of what we do, i don't want to sell anything online. The site will mainly be used to give information to our suppliers.

Ok, there are soms gaps, but it is a good start or NOT?? :confused:

[ronaldb66]

"Links - Varia - Naaktfoto's (nude pictures)";

Yeah, that should get their attention!

[ionsurge]

Yes, it is a good start, but there is so much more that needs doing for it to be anywhere near finished to a professional manner.

Mind you, quite a lot of our clients use 15" monitors - which operate at 800 x 600. Further, almost all of our corporate clients, including Sony, use 15" TFT's, and not 17" TFT's. If all your suppliers user 1024 x 768 or above, feel free to design it at 1024 x 768 resolutions or above. However, you cannot guarantee that they all do, and all future clients will do.

Regarding Ronald's words, they are correct, and well his points represent flaws, and ignoring them will mean that they will just stay.

[ionsurge]

Originally posted by ronaldb66
"Links - Varia - Naaktfoto's (nude pictures)";

I don't actually think that a professional site should have that...

http://dev.mudsplat.net/forum/html/emoticons/blink.gif

[marcgriffen]

dude,

when you click on "nude pictures" the message appears ::: u bent aan het afdwalen : transl : you're wandering off...

so that's not a url :cool: :cool:

[ionsurge]

You should remove that, it is not exactly comical.

:)

[raf]

"Links - Varia - Naaktfoto's (nude pictures)";

Yeah, that should get their attention!

LOL. I was afraid to hit that one.

Ok, there are soms gaps, but it is a good start or NOT??
Like I said; I've seen a lott worse.
But we're a tough crowd and we like to get it right. Not just getting it up on the screen and make it to look 'nice' on certain screens at certain resolutions in a certain browser, but under 'any' condition and for everyone.
And we know that most/all/free/cheap codegenerators can't completely make the jump to that (i never use one and probably there are some nice composer-tools that can deliver but not the more common codegenerators).
Like you're probably wanna ride a Gazelle or something like that, instead of some piece a cheap junk (no offence intended).
Are they worth the big pricediffernce ? Is your site worth the timinvestment to be top?
If your site is good enough for you as it is now --> fine. If you want to invest some time and make it better --> stick around and ask why and how you can change it. (but don't get us arguing with you cause it'll divert us from coding issues and it'll and up wasted time for all)

[marcgriffen]

hey,

I made a choice not to learn any computer languages. I'm into economics, math and investing (in Belgium)
I'm making the site for my parents

but i will stick around to get some advice from professionals :)

changes will be made in the near future

gr :thumbsup:

[bradyj]

Off subject: Let me first point out that the word 'Dude' has been highly abused in this thread. :D

Moving on -- most things have been covered here. I have never seen so many frames in my life, and there are reasons why it is not useful as you can imagine. The colors could use tweaking, there are some errors in the layout when I view it through any of my Mac browsers, and the design needs tweaking -- but you are onto the right design, you just need to clean it a little bit. But again, that's all been covered.

As for your editor, I don't see it as much different than DreamWeaver. In fact, I think DreamWeaver MX has some great improvements over it's elder version that you may want to look into. While your code is 'somewhat' ok, it has quite a bit of clutter that DreamWeaver MX has done large things to step away from.

Again though, as a designer who was at first aggressively fighting to learn HTML myself, I would recommend sucking it up and learning the basics. It will make things go faster for you in the long run, and make your designs look much more professional and of good quality. Even to someone who is not a designer or in any way affiliated with the web, they would not last too long viewing your site -- it is not visually appealing, difficult to read or find anything, and the whole frame structure adds to quite a confusion indeed. If you want to be a designer -- learn your medium. Learn your audience. Then break the rules.

[Nightfire]

It's not bad a bad site, a few bits needing touching up or changing here and there and html isn't really that hard to learn :) Just stick around these forums and w3schools.com and within no time you'll be fixing your site up and coding in xhtml strict :thumbsup:

[bradyj]

I agree -- don't let this bombardment hinder you -- I need ongoing learning just like the next, and stick around, ask questions, peruse ideas -- it just takes some time and some willingness to learn is all.:thumbsup:

[marcgriffen]

dudes !

thanx for the advice

yesterday i have removed much-discussed english clock on the dutch part. And soms scroll bar problems.

Today i'm planning to change the color of the scroll bar.

that will be a good day's work :D


I've checked the site in 800x600 and indeed, it isn't practical at all. So I've added the 1024x768res indication on the main page.
Ok not a solution, but an instruction. I've checked the target groups resolution, that are mainly well-off clients, and in Belgium they have for 70% a 1024x768 res. In contrary what the dutch dude says, in Belgium the 17" screens are allready commonplace.

thanx 4 the advice :thumbsup:

bye
j :cool:

[ronaldb66]

Okay, let's skip the resolution issue; the document structure simply contains way to much framesets! The main frameset document consists of no less then five (!) nested framesets, containing a total of ten (!) frames, two of which contain nothing more then a blank document with a dark red background (using a deprecated attribute, of course, but who cares).

Supposing you definitely want to do this with frames, as it works now that can easily be reduced to two nested framesets containing no more then five frames.

The current setup, besides being a maintenance nightmare - which you probably don't care about since the generator takes care of that, contains too much code and downloads too many, partially unnecessary documents.
If you have any control over this in the generator I'd seriously recommend putting your site on a diet; your users will thank you for reduced download times.

The basic layout has lots of possibilities, it just needs a lot of work on the implementation side.