My friends and I formed a website - www.sitecritic.net. The idea behind is to let people review websites, talk about the good and bad points of a site. From the pool of authors that sign up, we also hope to form a core group of experienced designers and developers to work on bigger projects.
Any ideas and comments welcomed. I look forward to improving on it.
Well, I guess I'm going to be the first to point this out and warn you now, esp. since you have a site that critiques other sites. Now, if this pertains to design and coding, then it would be really important for your site to be top notch in terms of validation and current design standards.
So here we go:
1) The entire design of the site is layed out in tables. This is not a good practice. You should code your site to be designed fully in CSS. Any tabular data can be displayed in tables, but as for layout purposes, you should be using CSS.
2) You have 19 validation errors and thus not XHTML Transistional 1.0 like your Doctype suggests.
3) You have 3 CSS validation errors. You also have a bunch of warnings, but they all seemed to be in regards to not have a background-color for your links and headings, which is ok.
That's just a simple start. I'm sure all the design gurus around here will lay more into you when they get the chance, hehe.
personally when i looked i found it to be quite confusing as to where I should look. There is a lot going on with different colours, font sizes and styles.
Apart from that, I do think the actual colours are nicely done. I think with a bit more structure, and possibly more consistency then it could be very nice
I really like the concept of the site. However I'd agree with Shane, that a site reviewing other sites really needs to set a very high standard to begin with. But don't be discouraged, I think you have a great idea and you should definately develop it further!
Well, I guess I'm going to be the first to point this out and warn you now, esp. since you have a site that critiques other sites. Now, if this pertains to design and coding, then it would be really important for your site to be top notch in terms of validation and current design standards.
So here we go:
1) The entire design of the site is layed out in tables. This is not a good practice. You should code your site to be designed fully in CSS. Any tabular data can be displayed in tables, but as for layout purposes, you should be using CSS.
2) You have 19 validation errors and thus not XHTML Transistional 1.0 like your Doctype suggests.
3) You have 3 CSS validation errors. You also have a bunch of warnings, but they all seemed to be in regards to not have a background-color for your links and headings, which is ok.
That's just a simple start. I'm sure all the design gurus around here will lay more into you when they get the chance, hehe.
-Shane
i agree with points 2 and 3 but there is nothing wrong with tables
__________________
public string ConjunctionJunction(string words, string phrases, string clauses)
{
return (String)(words + phrases + clauses);
}
<--- Was I Helpfull? Let me know ---<
Well, fix up your markup - as far as i am concerned using tables is fine - little bulky - but fine. site looks good
__________________
public string ConjunctionJunction(string words, string phrases, string clauses)
{
return (String)(words + phrases + clauses);
}
<--- Was I Helpfull? Let me know ---<
I like the colors (you managed to get 'em all playing well together) and the concept is cool albeit somewhat unoriginal. Regarding what the others have told you, I have to agree fully. If you're going to judge sites, you really have to show that you're qualified to do so. Then again, it all depends on what your judging criteria spells out. Regardless of what it says, though, I would expect your site to be exemplary of whatever criteria you're judging. If it's SEO, you should have the SEOiest, if it's design, you should have the classiest, if it's standards, you should have the most compliant, so on and so forth.
Regarding tables, they're great at what they are meant for: containing and organizing tabular data. For layout and positioning they're a hack sorry to say. Using Divs in combination with X/HTML elements and CSS is the best way to go. It's not just about page weight, it's about accessibility with devices other than your standard browser. It's about semantics. X/HTML elements have meaning. For example, let's take headings <h1></h1> through <h6></h6>. Headings have meaning. In a book this meaning is conveyed visually. On the web, however, its meaning may be conveyed by way of the element's designation, which means it may be be done so visually, but not in all cases, it may be an aural conveyance.
The moral:
1) If you're going to judge, be prepared to pass the judgement of others.
2) If you're going to be taken seriously and to succeed, see No. 1.
I like the colors (you managed to get 'em all playing well together) and the concept is cool albeit somewhat unoriginal. Regarding what the others have told you, I have to agree fully. If you're going to judge sites, you really have to show that you're qualified to do so. Then again, it all depends on what your judging criteria spells out. Regardless of what it says, though, I would expect your site to be exemplary of whatever criteria you're judging. If it's SEO, you should have the SEOiest, if it's design, you should have the classiest, if it's standards, you should have the most compliant, so on and so forth.
Regarding tables, they're great at what they are meant for: containing and organizing tabular data. For layout and positioning they're a hack sorry to say. Using Divs in combination with X/HTML elements and CSS is the best way to go. It's not just about page weight, it's about accessibility with devices other than your standard browser. It's about semantics. X/HTML elements have meaning. For example, let's take headings <h1></h1> through <h6></h6>. Headings have meaning. In a book this meaning is conveyed visually. On the web, however, its meaning may be conveyed by way of the element's designation, which means it may be be done so visually, but not in all cases, it may be an aural conveyance.
The moral:
1) If you're going to judge, be prepared to pass the judgement of others.
2) If you're going to be taken seriously and to succeed, see No. 1.
I hope is helpful.
Mike
I would disagree with your commant about tables .
and I will fight this to the death - in my opinion - use one or the other
DIVS and TABLES mixed is not good (IMO). But Tables alone - if your markup is correct - should not have many negative reprocusions.
now don't start with the 'this page won't work on a pda' or any of that crap. If you want your pages to work on different mediums other then the standard pc you should code seperate pages for that, because really - how many CSS pages work on these mediums? how many people even care about these mediums?.
__________________
public string ConjunctionJunction(string words, string phrases, string clauses)
{
return (String)(words + phrases + clauses);
}
<--- Was I Helpfull? Let me know ---<
I would disagree with your commant about tables.
and I will fight this to the death[...]
Yeah, yeah yeah, and so you will, no doubt, but not with me.
However, I'm not trying to help you, convince you, or argue with you, I was responding to bpeh's post not yours. Since his tabular construction was brought up, I chimed in my my feelings on the matter.
Yeah, yeah yeah, and so you will, no doubt, but not with me.
However, I'm not trying to help you, convince you, or argue with you, I was responding to bpeh's post not yours. Since his tabular construction was brought up, I chimed in my my feelings on the matter.
Mike
and i was just expressing an opinion for the sake of bpeh.
letting him/her know that if they wish to take the approach of pure tables - they will not be alone.
all my work is tables. i hate divs...
*and i agree - that argument is best served in a new thread on a different forum.
__________________
public string ConjunctionJunction(string words, string phrases, string clauses)
{
return (String)(words + phrases + clauses);
}
<--- Was I Helpfull? Let me know ---<
now don't start with the 'this page won't work on a pda' or any of that crap. If you want your pages to work on different mediums other then the standard pc you should code seperate pages for that, because really - how many CSS pages work on these mediums? how many people even care about these mediums?.
That is a very ignorant attitude.
Sites built with tables are :
#1 Semantically incorrect
#2 In general, much more difficult to maintain than CSS sites
#3 In violation of disability discrimination laws
#4 Are bad for SEO
#5 are unnecessarily bloaty
#6 practically impossible to resdesign without starting from scratch
but as I said before, this is not the place for a lengthy discussion on the subject - fwiw there are already many.
I for one dont care if you use tables - more work for the rest of us. Just pointing out the other side of the coin. The OP can make his own decision on the matter
Lets not get off topic here, this is to review the OP's site not debate tables versus CSS, if you want to do that, search the General Web Building forum and the HTML & CSS forum, it has already been discussed several times to great lengths.
I already received emails saying that the review sucks and design sucks and so on.... I myself like the concept I think there are rooms to push the design and code.
my friend is a very visual person and he finds it hard to layout in dreamweaver with css, ie you cannot put icons and images anywhere you like easily. I am a programmer of course I want css...
Take the hand on the top right hand for example, we have to use tables plus div...He could have done it with just tables but trying to incorporate divs as much as he can...Worst scenario is that is looks different in diff browsers.
Before you post, read our: 
