MultiSource Website

legohalflife2ma · 05-01-2008, 06:52 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, 10:07 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, 11:30 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 · 05-02-2008, 12:05 AM

@ 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.

Quote:

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 · 05-02-2008, 12:32 AM

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.

Edit:
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, 12:41 PM

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_xsl...t-semantic.xsl

legohalflife2ma · 05-02-2008, 05:04 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, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremywilken

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 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, 05:32 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, 05:44 PM

Black/Red/White is just my opinion, as I said, but I can recognize when it is done right

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, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremywilken

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, 08:01 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, 09:49 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, 11:06 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, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyanLight

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.

05-01-2008, 06:52 PM	PM User \| #1
legohalflife2ma New Coder Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: USA Posts: 40 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	MultiSource Website 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. __________________ The Elder Stats - The Oblivion Statistics Database

05-02-2008, 12:32 AM	PM User \| #5
PappaJohn Regular Coder Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Quakertown PA USA Posts: 931 Thanks: 1 Thanked 104 Times in 102 Posts	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. Edit: I should also mention that the improper use of the corporate designators is inviting a fair share of tax headaches as well. Last edited by PappaJohn; 05-02-2008 at 12:42 AM..

05-02-2008, 05:04 PM	PM User \| #7
legohalflife2ma New Coder Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: USA Posts: 40 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	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. __________________ The Elder Stats - The Oblivion Statistics Database Last edited by legohalflife2ma; 05-02-2008 at 05:06 PM..

05-02-2008, 05:32 PM	PM User \| #9
BabyJack Regular Coder Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Somewhere. Posts: 602 Thanks: 43 Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts	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 __________________ Enlightenment in Coding Validate before Posting \| Google is your friend for PC Problems \| Make sure you have a doctype

05-02-2008, 08:01 PM	PM User \| #12
Apostropartheid Comrade Grammar Nazi Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Do you know where Nazi Zombies come from? Posts: 2,216 Thanks: 13 Thanked 182 Times in 180 Posts	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. __________________ Cyan Light Industries \| It's Firefox, just easier on the eyes Follow me on Twitter Last edited by Apostropartheid; 05-02-2008 at 08:05 PM..

05-01-2008, 10:07 PM	PM User \| #2
Millenia Open Source Zealot Join Date: May 2008 Location: Lost in Localhost... Posts: 691 Thanks: 3 Thanked 44 Times in 43 Posts	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.

05-01-2008, 11:30 PM	PM User \| #3
gnomeontherun Senior Coder Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Houston Posts: 2,797 Thanks: 10 Thanked 235 Times in 226 Posts	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.

05-02-2008, 12:41 PM	PM User \| #6
Birmingham New to the CF scene Join Date: May 2008 Location: Birmingham, England Posts: 7 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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_xsl...t-semantic.xsl

05-02-2008, 05:44 PM	PM User \| #10
gnomeontherun Senior Coder Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Houston Posts: 2,797 Thanks: 10 Thanked 235 Times in 226 Posts	Black/Red/White is just my opinion, as I said, but I can recognize when it is done right 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.

05-02-2008, 09:49 PM	PM User \| #13
legohalflife2ma New Coder Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: USA Posts: 40 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I think the light gray looks better with the template, though. Looks a little more professional, too, don't you think? __________________ The Elder Stats - The Oblivion Statistics Database

05-02-2008, 11:06 PM	PM User \| #14
Apostropartheid Comrade Grammar Nazi Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Do you know where Nazi Zombies come from? Posts: 2,216 Thanks: 13 Thanked 182 Times in 180 Posts	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. __________________ Cyan Light Industries \| It's Firefox, just easier on the eyes Follow me on Twitter

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: