...

View Full Version : Site Review - let me have it!



Big Fat
07-19-2004, 09:44 PM
Recently redid site. The purpose of the layout was to get a lot of information on a few pages. Is the layout professional? I do not understand CSS, so not a CSS site. Also, do anyone know how to do a redirect from an email link (not a form), or is that possible. I like to send them to a thank you page and then back to home page after sending email. I have too many different emails to use forms. Please review site for possible improvements. Thanx

http://www.mybigfatmortgage.net/quickindex.html

Big Fat

oracleguy
07-19-2004, 10:27 PM
Perhaps you can include the URL? ;)

Big Fat
07-20-2004, 03:21 AM
oops - http://www.mybigfatmortgage.net/quickindex.html

Layout ok?

How do you redirect from an email link?

ronburk
07-20-2004, 07:09 AM
I'm running at only a modestly high resolution (1280x1024), but the main page text is microscopic. The text refused to change size, no matter what I set IE's View|Text Size| option to.

I know of no reasonable way to redirect after a mailto: link. I did not understand your explanation of why you couldn't just use a form (which can be much more reliable, since not all organizations permit the mailto: link to function).

Your HTML did not begin with a DOCTYPE declaration (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/), making it difficult to use standard free tools for checking for HTML errors. A cursory inspection showed that the HTML did indeed contain a variety of errors, from the trivial (hex color code missing "#" prefix) to the flat-out broke (h1 appearing inside paragraph element, extraneous illegal attributes in anchor tag, etc.).

Big Fat
07-20-2004, 08:56 PM
I admit the html isn't perfect. I'm considering redoing it in CSS. I will look at changing the font so you can change the text size. I use the same resolution as you are. I like it, but maybe the letters are not spaced far enough apart and that makes it seem miroscopic.

oracleguy
07-20-2004, 09:50 PM
I'd agree that the font size is a tad too small. It is probably more readable for you since you already know what it says. Also, consider increasing the ammount of contrast between the body text and the background. That'd improve readability. Choose different colors than dark blue on a blue-silver background.

llizard
07-21-2004, 11:46 AM
I admit the html isn't perfect. I'm considering redoing it in CSS. I will look at changing the font so you can change the text size. I use the same resolution as you are. I like it, but maybe the letters are not spaced far enough apart and that makes it seem miroscopic.

Running Win2K viewed in IE6 and MozillaFirefox0.8 at 800x600 res

If you're going to redo in CSS, then your HTML has to be pristine for the CSS to work. If you don't want to put a doctype in, you can use this validator at the WebDesign Group. If the doctype is missing, it assumes HTML 4.01 Transitional and continues with the assessment:

http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/

Even at 800x600, the font size is miniscule.

You might consider actually choosing a background colour for the top, right and bottom parts of the page - instead of leaving the default - especially as you have chosen colour for the text. My default background colour in Mozilla is grey. Your footer text is entirely invisible in Mozilla. My default background colour in IE6 is ivory. The footer text is just showing through.

Otherwise, the basic layout of the page is fine.

Big Fat
07-21-2004, 10:31 PM
Thanks for the feedback.

I changed the font and the html is <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 3.2//en"> valid. I did go ahead and put that in the header. I am considering change the color of the font also.

I'm not sure of the difference in html 3.2 and 4 or 4.01. Does this have to do with browser capability? Thanks for the tip about valid html and css.

Anymore suggestions to improve the site? I think it's ok - fast download, no graphs, pleasant to look at - maybe?

http://www.mybigfatmortgage.net/quickindex.html

oracleguy
07-21-2004, 11:11 PM
I'm not sure of the difference in html 3.2 and 4 or 4.01. Does this have to do with browser capability?

http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?t=18346

That thread should hopefully answer your questions.

llizard
07-22-2004, 03:35 PM
Anymore suggestions to improve the site? I think it's ok - fast download, no graphs, pleasant to look at - maybe?

http://www.mybigfatmortgage.net/quickindex.html

Put your page into either of these validators:

http://validator.w3.org/
http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/

As you will quickly find out, there is an error in the doctype.

For information about doctypes, take a look at:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_doctype.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm viewing at 800x600 and still find the font to be quite small. I made the font larger (ctrl +) and this made it necessary to scroll down in order to see the tables to the right. Is there a reason that you are setting the font size? Is it absolutely necessary? If so, why don't you try using relative values (small, medium, large, % of parent element)

For more about fontsizes:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font-size.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other possible problem is that you have not set a background colour for the page. This will only create difficulties for some viewers. To recreate problem scenario, go into the tools section of one of your browsers and change the default background colour to black, navy, red, green... and look at your page.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder what it would look like if "Fat" in the title were made fatter and larger to really catch the eye. Or perhaps you might put a line through "Fat" to indicate to your potential customers that their mortgage will be greatly reduced if they go with your company.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Otherwise, the page is aesthetically quite pleasing. It just needs a few tweaks.

ronaldb66
07-22-2004, 04:00 PM
I'm not too crazy about default Times as the body text; I'd suggest a more appropriate sans-serif font (verdana always works well).

Furthermore, I think your header / site name could be more prominent; in that case, it might be a good idea to move the nav bar underneath it.

Layout-wise, the home page lacks air, whitespace: everything looks cramped because there's so much on it. I'd seriously consider spreading the content out some more, leading the viewer in through the top level pages and pointing them when interested to a more detailed level (with thinks like tables full of figures). The way the sidebar is used makes it work full, crowded.

Upon further inspection: the link "Sign up" leads to a page called "Mortgage manager"; not a good idea. Since that page is all about the Mortgage manager, call the link the same. Calling it "sign up" makes viewers expect a typical signup-form (in which they might not even be interested: sign up for what?); getting a whole page about some Mortgage manager may confuse them.

Code-wise, it's the typical Frontpage junk, so there's no use commenting on that.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum