...

View Full Version : My first site - Please some Feedback



Edge330
08-26-2011, 12:51 PM
Hi,before month ago I didn't know anything about web developing,bit I worked hard and I made my first website.
On webpage you can get usefull informations about Croatia.
Site is on English language, also I will translate it on German language.
I know that design isn't perfect,but please post your feedback.

visit: http://www.cro-info.net :)

Thanks!

statix
08-26-2011, 10:12 PM
I think it looks pretty good for a first site... Not bad at all.

DSSeattle
08-27-2011, 12:52 AM
For a first site, this is nicely designed. However, I would suggest having someone whose first language is English edit the text, as some of the grammar is a little off.

Edge330
08-27-2011, 03:32 AM
Thanks on feedback,I will correct a grammar mistakes. :)

DACSprings
08-27-2011, 04:28 AM
Very nice looking for a first site. I like the map at the top of the page, and the images on the site make me wish to go travelling ;)

Edge330
08-27-2011, 02:19 PM
hehehe, tnx on feedback, believe me,croatia is beautiful country. :)

jonbey
08-28-2011, 02:12 AM
Much better than my first site!

I think that the home page is too busy though. Use this page to highlight the best content.

The weather page has broken links on.

Do not like the Did You Know? page font / image. Not accessible and you are going to lose out on search engine indexing for that page as all the written content is hidden in images.

UCIIndianapolis
08-28-2011, 02:53 AM
Generally I like the look of this site, but I agree about the Did You Know? page. It would be a lot easier to read perhaps as dot points and a few images through the page, instead of the text over the images. Additionally, if possible I think that the National Parks page should have the information in a drop down box under the heading instead of each link going to a new page.

Edge330
08-29-2011, 01:04 AM
Yes I know,but I have some problems...:P
I will correct this.

Tnx on feedback. :)

dotnetmind
08-29-2011, 02:07 AM
It is useful , did you take care of width across browsers?

JohnMayer86
08-29-2011, 02:12 AM
Like statix say for first web site it's good. I was in Croatia, but long time. Beautiful country and beautiful sea

LDermatologists
08-29-2011, 11:06 AM
I really love your site. I have wanted to visit Croatia for a long time and the photos you have provided show me just how beautiful the country is.

bestdeveloper
08-29-2011, 03:00 PM
Will agree with others, your website makes quite good impression.
Straight away will focus on the suggestions. As concerns the chosen color scheme, I think it's too bluish, and some lighter gradients would do no harm. Aslo will recommend to change the font used in your website header, as well as in the footer, try to make it more readable and strict. Will repeat that Did You Know page leaves much to be desired. It's really far from perfect. So drive away at this concern.
Overall, I liked your website because of its informativeness

Rowsdower!
08-29-2011, 03:20 PM
You should validate your HTML code:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cro-info.net%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&ss=1&verbose=1

Currently there are 49 errors and 22 warnings that need to be cleaned up. Take care of that before you try to fine-tune your page layout because HTML errors will play havoc with your CSS.

As for layout...

I think you need to add padding to your main body div (the div with class="Text").

There is a gap (about 25px?) between the navigation and the main body text div where the page body's background shows through. I think that needs to get pushed together to avoid seeing main background there.

I have js disabled so I can't see your menu hover effects. Since CSS alone can do everything you have in your menu effects you should make those effects based on CSS only. A general rule of thumb is that if don't need javascript to do something, then don't use javascript to do it.

You might want to implement the "universal reset" for CSS to put all margins, padding, and borders on equal footing for all browsers. You really just add this to the very top of your CSS file: * {border:0;margin:0;padding:0;}

The cro-info.net text in the top left of your header image is not very attractive or easy to read. I would suggest all-white text with a dark outline to maximize readability.

I would get rid of the borders on your facebook and twitter images and make those into smaller icons in the top banner somewhere (right-hand side, near the top probably).

Other than that I think this is a solid product for a first try.

justjoshhere
08-29-2011, 04:01 PM
Very nice site for your first attempt - Google must like it too as I see you've got adsense enabled lol...

Rowsdower came through with some excellent feedback kudos to you mate, just goes to show what a great resource this forum can be, always a lot of people ready to help!

Definitely always goes without saying... "Validate, validate, validate"

embeebutterly
08-30-2011, 05:43 AM
You should validate your HTML code:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cro-info.net%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&ss=1&verbose=1

Currently there are 49 errors and 22 warnings that need to be cleaned up. Take care of that before you try to fine-tune your page layout because HTML errors will play havoc with your CSS.



you will always find errors there, this forum has 31 errors and 3 warnings

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codingforums.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&group=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

Rowsdower!
08-30-2011, 03:33 PM
you will always find errors there...

No, you will only find the errors there that you put there. If you don't bother to fix them then don't bother to ask for any help with layout issues (not that anyone here has done so but without valid HTML it is inevitable that something will go wrong with some part of the CSS on one of the invalid pages eventually).

To clarify, are you saying that validating HTML is a bad idea or are you saying that it is a waste of time? I'm not sure which you mean to imply with this post, but I disagree with both concepts.

Take a spin around the HTML/CSS forum and see what the first mistake is that most new coders are making there. Do you honestly disagree with the notion that invalid HTML makes CSS style more difficult to control cross-browser/cross-platform?

Heck, you'll see HTML validation errors causing javascript problems, too, if you pay enough attention.


...this forum has 31 errors and 3 warnings

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codingforums.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&group=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

Sure, but you're arguing against what I propose to be a "best practice" here. vBulletin's shortcomings and some crappy google social networking code are causing errors on the CF page, so your argument is that people should intentionally code new content without any regard for standards because of this? The CF page layout is also table-based. Do you support that as a best practice as well? If so (on either account) please explain why.

In my opinion - which is always correct ;) - there is no excuse for hand-coding messy and invalid code as a regular practice. Hence my suggestion to the OP that the validator be checked and appeased.

This lesson is easier to learn early on so that you develop GOOD coding habits rather than BAD ones. I have never seen a page render incorrectly simply because valid HTML was being used. On the other hand, I have seen countless pages render incorrectly due ONLY to the presence of invalid HTML. From my own experience I just can't see how writing "clean" code is a bad idea or a waste of time.

Edge330
08-30-2011, 08:52 PM
Guys tnx on answers and advices. :D

embeebutterly
08-31-2011, 02:35 PM
Woooowww!! Calm yourself down there Rowsdower! I never said it was bad practice! I just suggested that any website containing a decent but of html, css, php, and javascript etc as apposed to just plain html, will deffo produce errors, some of which In my opinion (which is always right too!) are wrong!

I have tried to clear my 58 errors only to discover by fixing one, created more. ALL WEBSITES WORTH THEIR SALT WILL SHOW ERRORS. I will give you another example or two of BIG, well known websites.

Youtube.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&group=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

Google.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&group=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

Rowsdower!
09-01-2011, 12:08 AM
Woooowww!! Calm yourself down there Rowsdower!

No, I absolutely will not calm down. My unbound rage must flow on! Pfft! :rolleyes:


...I never said it was bad practice!...

Well, for one thing, if page validation is a "best practice" (i.e. if it is not a "bad" practice) then why tell the OP not to worry about validation? It seems contradictory to tell the OP not to bother while telling me that you aren't saying validation isn't best practice. They can't both be true statements unless you're intentionally giving the OP bad advice. So what's the story?


...I just suggested that any website containing a decent but of html, css, php, and javascript etc as apposed to just plain html, will deffo produce errors, some of which In my opinion (which is always right too!) are wrong!

I have tried to clear my 58 errors only to discover by fixing one, created more...

OK, so now we see what it really is. You actually DO think validation is not a best practice. Why lie about it?


...ALL WEBSITES WORTH THEIR SALT WILL SHOW ERRORS...

By your definition:
site is good == site has validation errors

Therefore:
site has no validation errors == site is not good (not "worth its salt")

You believe this because many of the most successful sites have validation errors.

Unfortunately, that is what is known as "specious reasoning." Putting it in all caps doesn't make it any more valid. It only underscores your prejudice about the issue, which is why I won't be able to convince you to see it my way. And that's fine.

I'm not after you. I'm still trying to show the other side of the argument for the sake of the OP and anyone else who passes through this thread. It's an effort to show the argument in favor of validation to anyone who hasn't already formed a baseless opinion about it.


...I will give you another example or two of BIG, well known websites.

Youtube.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&group=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

Google.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&group=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

Go ahead and list 'em. I should mention that google and youtube are both entities of...well...google. You might as well add blogger, picasa, or feedburner while you're at it. Google is a well-known and purposeful violator of web standards. In my estimation, they do so at least to some degree simply because they aren't the ones writing the standards. Google likes power. Anyway, they have published blog posts about how and why they intentionally break web standards and they are pretty unapologetic about it. They are the proverbial "poster boy" for purveyors of bad web code. If google jumped off of a bridge...would you? Google evades taxes...do you?

So let's not list google twice (even with as much as you love them) when there are literally thousands of other high-profile examples to support your list. Here are a few to help you:

ebay.com nbc.com facebook.com wikipedia.com

Pretty much anyone on the Alexa top 500 has a few errors - and often MORE THAN A FEW). I never said big-name sites don't have validation errors. They absolutely do. It is an objective fact. That doesn't mean that the validation errors can't or shouldn't be conquered for those sites and it doesn't mean that "you" (in the general sense of the word) shouldn't try. Up until a few years ago they all used tables for layout, too. I don't see them doing that anymore though, so perhaps it's possible that they're slow to adopt new ideas??? Hmm?? Perhaps they don't always do what's best??? Just consider it.

Anyway, you have a different opinion of it, and that's fine. I just don't want it to spread openly to others.

I would, however, be interested to see one of those unvalidatable pages of yours. It might also be fun to watch you tell people in the PHP forum that validation isn't possible with dynamic content. I don't think that would end well.

Grrneose
09-05-2011, 03:53 AM
Will agree with others, your website makes quite good impression.
Straight away will focus on the suggestions. As concerns the chosen color scheme, I think it's too bluish, and some lighter gradients would do no harm.
I totally agree. I love the background, so I would leave that, but choose a different color for the background of the main body of the site. White text on a darker background is notoriously hard to read.

yelixref2
09-13-2011, 06:31 AM
I really love your site.

alykins
09-13-2011, 05:24 PM
just wanted to throw into the debate an example.... www.w3.org.... validates o.O
(and I assume always will :D)

Edit: I did check out the site btw... looks good; I didn't know it was so beautiful there

Dejrasvu
09-18-2011, 07:12 PM
You have made a beutiful and informative website. I am amazed at how well you did for your first site. I also have a new first site. I think you should be proud of yourself.
Dejrasvu

As mentioned by another the grammar is off but that is fixable.

grouponscript
09-22-2011, 01:20 PM
Its look like pretty good. and i appreciate it that you shared it with us..



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum