Topic: New WebSite - please express opinions (Page 1 of 1)

Hello all

I have updated my website and need your opinions, input and etc

http://www.digitalchalice.com/

The user interface is resonably unique and the only hint is- hover with mouse 1st - then decide to click ;-)

Your time is appreciated

Xcalibur

Xcalibur

in firefox, all i get is a black blank page...

The Space Between Us | My Blog: lukas.grumet.at

Ditto in Opera.
What's up with the JS compression ? you realize that by doing that you render your site inacessible to search engines.

The interface is reasonably well executed, kudos. This said...

If it is a site review, it may be in "site reviews". If it's dhtml prowess in display, let me think.
Not meaning to hurt, interest in javascript is a very healthy thing, but some people here are extremely highly skilled experts that you will not impress easilly, period.

In the continuity of javascript enjoyment, however, I will encourage you this (harsh) way :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Designing for one browser and assuming Bill GaTe$ oWnz us is bad.
Microsoft software is poor in quality, very poor : it is rich in (useless) possibilities but that comes at the cost of reliability, performance, and then some.
Get over IE NOW (besides, it's a shitty browser compared to anything else including notepad or my shoes).

2) Music and webdesign don't mix. Web is about "maximizing usability" because end user environments are highly variable : pdas, psp, laptop, Mac, Linux, Windows
flavours, and then browsers, and then... And then you messed up my "Nine Inch Nails - Survivalism" lesson by pouring this creepy music on me.
TALK ABOUT MAKING THINGS USABLE TO ME, Now I have to turn down the volume, or go find your button to stop the music, and
resume my Tune or playlist in my media player. Time wasted. I am an internaut, I don't have that time to waste on ONE page out of billions.

Please, all webdesigners, stop packing your websites with awfully shitty music that sounds so much "myspace".
It is nice to be able to handle music in javascript. But it's a pain in the ass to have this interrupt MY experience.

3) Stretched images have jaggies. High def monitors help jaggies shine. Jaggies look cheap.

All in all, please take a step back and mark my intention "funny but serious" : if you want to show people how much skill you have,
make sure you INVITE them over into your reality. Invitation is : you fullfill their needs, so they accept your rules, and will find what is
great about your skills from this point on.

It is not about pushing things to people, it is about opening to them and hinting at the positive return (no bold - my stuff is pretty unique - statement there).

That is also what Doc does : he makes toys, for himself to have fun, and then people do enjoy his toys, so he shares his toys in a nifty and playful fashion.
It is all about genuine fun first, and it happens to look freaking classy.

This is commerce, seduction, design, and general communication, it is something to pick, learn, and use to spice up the technical display -
web is about end users, end users don't know javascript, they know how to click rapidly in hopes it will lead them to something kewl,
so give them something kewl, and enjoy it altogether.

Just tried in IE6.

No QuickTime = No site = Thanks but no thanks.

From what I could glance in the source code, document.body.innerHTML and by unscrambling the JS, the code and markup are ... sub obptimal and screaming 1998.

Seriously ?

• using the cumbersome clip property instead of a container in overflow:hidden;
  
  
  
  
• parsetInt( style.foo ) instead of offsetFoo
  
  
  
  

• code:

  ---

  if(this.func)
  
  {
  
  	eval(this.func);
  
  }

  ---

  instead of

  code:

  ---

  if( 'function'==typeof(this.func) )
  
  {
  
  	this.func();
  
  }

  ---

  Didn't anyone tell you that eval is evil ?
  
  
  
  

• why
  code:

  ---

  if (func)
  
  {
  
  	this.func = func;
  
  }
  
  else
  
  {
  
  	this.func = null;
  
  }

  ---

  instead of

  code:

  ---

  this.func = func||null

  ---

  or better

  code:

  ---

  this.func = 'function'==typeof(func)?func:null;

  ---

  
  
  
  
  

• document.all & document.layers all over the place
  
  
  
  
• cpPrevious = '<a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)" onClick="controlPages(1); return false;" onmouseover="displayText(\'Previous page\'); return false" onmouseout="displayText(\'\'); return false" onfocus="this.blur(); return false"><< Previous</a>';
  
  ?! can't you use a SPAN with a className or title attribute for that and a global mouseOver/mouseOut event listener
  
  
  
  
• theArrayOfPages = new imageFolders('\n<table width="'+contentWidth+'" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">\n<tr>\n<td align="center"><img src="'+ciImg[ i ]+'"></td>\n</tr>\n</table>\n'); I don't think this requires a TABLE
  
  
  
  
• ...

From what I see, it's supposed to be some kind of image gallery with scrolling elements and sounds. Unfortunately it's absolutely inaccessible. FWIW recently I worked on an image gallery thing. To make sure the accessibility police does not hunt me down I tested it in Lynx and unobstrusively Ajax-ified it.



(Edited by poi on 09-13-2007 11:18)

quote:

---

To make sure the accessibility police does not hunt me down I tested it in Lynx

---

*speechless*. K, you need less meds. Or more. Or I need to share some.
I am sorry for the proud youngster who stepped in this way, but THIS (poi's demonstration) is taking care of detail,
did I mention highly skilled pros? YES they get that close to madness in perfectionism. Hence the name of the place.

Hah ok, I got a black screen in Firefox, That's where I'd usually stop trying, but morbid fascination made me hav ea go in IE 7, it said something about allowing an ActiveX control for Quicktime, GOD HOW ANNOYING! ok whatever I'll click allow, why not.

Then I picture of a galaxy and some smelly image saying I need to download the following items to get the full experience, (if it's anything like what I have so far I'm not too keen) the thing is I get a little black box with nothing in it, so I'm left there looking at a nice galaxy picture with smelly text and I'm MADE TO FEEL FOOLISH.

That's how your site makes me feel, FOOLISH, not what I want from a website I ever intend to visit. thanks for making a website that makes me feel bad

F-

I should have stopped trying after I failed with Firefox, at least FF was trying to protect me.

@Poi

quote:

---

What's up with the JS compression ? you realize that by doing that you render your site inaccessible to search engines.

---

Hmm, interesting, could you elaborate, are you saying that having Obfuscated JS will make your page inaccessible? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Make your site accessible for more than one browser there's a spread in the browser market these days, don't be ignorant.

Cheers,



(Edited by Blaise on 09-13-2007 12:38)

>> Hmm, interesting, could you elaborate, are you saying that having Obfuscated JS will make your page inaccessible? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Ajax calls cannot be resolved when the JS is obfuscated or compressed. And generally speaking, if js is readable BY DESIGN, there is a reason or 1000.

Notice I "reviewed" the site before going to work, and I was already late

quote:

---

What's up with the JS compression ? you realize that by doing that you render your site inaccessible to search engines.

---

quote:

---

Hmm, interesting, could you elaborate, are you saying that having Obfuscated JS will make your page inaccessible? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Make your site accessible for more than one browser there's a spread in the browser market these days, don't be ignorant.

---

Regarding the compression, it's rather useless for a file that will be GZip'ed, served once on an "Ajax" page, and in cache next time the user comes. Obfuscating JS is pointless, I mean: You can't stop the signal. (c) Mr Universe

Most search engine crawlers don't execute JS, and this page is entirely populated using JS. On top of that, the (noplugin) page has no plain text fallback content whatsoever.

As for accessibility in general, well, I think the site and script speak by themselves. No JS = no site. No QuickTime = no site. Contextual menu disabled. And the list goes on.

Wow, I just saw that even the CSS is sub-optimal. No shortcuts. The font-family and font-size are set one zillion times. Looks like somebody forgot about the C in CSS.

xcalibur: Hope the hints mentionned above will help. Check also other DHTML/Javascript and Site Reviews threads for pointers about semantic markup and accessibility.

And sorry, but I will not install the QuickTime plugin. I already have 2 media players ( one I did not choose, and my player of choice ) on my machine with the alternative codecs for Real and QuickTime. I don't need another X mb of bloatware.





(Edited by poi on 09-13-2007 13:31)

quote:

---

Blaise said:

thanks for making a website that makes me feel bad

---

Haha genius

I can't really add that much of value to what has already been said, but I will throw in my two cents: making your site completely invisible in Firefox (and Opera, apparently) and requiring a user to download some QuickTime component for IE might not be the best strategy.

These issues aside, this definitely belongs in site reviews, so... moving.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

I can't even get it to work in IE7

Prettiest black page I've ever seen.

-steve

I'd even go as far as saying its blacker then black

Daryl Quenet, Web Developer / SEO Consultant
PHP Development Company, Scenic British Columbia, Dr MadCow's Web Portal