Topic: review two sites..

1. http://www.all4you.dk/FreewareWorld/links.php
2. http://tutor.net.my/sayangmalaysia/cheeaun/

thanks for any comments!

cheeaun

cheeaun: Well, I don't have time to look at the sites right this moment, but I will try to get to them a little later on...

I do want to say welcome, though. I'm gathering your somewhere in Asia (Malaysia, maybe?)--it's always good to have another inmate from the same neighborhood.

You might want to stop by the Induction Room to get a feel for this place. And if you're interested in becoming part of the community, drop by the main forum and say hi.




Cell 270

Hmmm??? Is the first site spam? The 2nd site when translated to english is in bad need of another translation.

Hmm... yes. Why is the first site there? Did you design it? The first thing that jumped out at me was how the title graphics stole the Google color scheme (same color order and all). Not that the color sequence is copyrighted, but it will remind people of Google... I suppose that's the idea?

The second page appears to be a Shell page... fairly clean, not much to critique. The one thing that does kind of bug me is the dotted underline under the links. I would either stick with a solid line or no line at all (since the text is a different color and reacts to being hovered over anyway), since the dotted line is a) often associated with acronyms and b) makes the page look a bit messier, in my opinion.

Also, as NoJive pointed out, the translation engine is pitiful. If you really want to offer an English version of the site, hire a Malaysian-English translator. Being a translator myself, I know the importance of this. If you stick with the engine, you may be able to make English-speaking visitors laugh, but I guarantee they're not going to read through much of your content.

I'm not going to offer any more in the way of critique because you weren't too clear on what the pages were and what you wanted from us. Maybe a little more info?

The first site looks like MSN and Google got up to some funky business under the covers one stormy evening. If that's what you were aiming for then your pretty close, but I still have some beef with it. You might want to re-think the outlines around, umm, everything! Some are white, some are red, some are black, none of them actually line up with each other. You've created a hefty mess (technical design term for ugly) that almost seems random, and I'm assuming that isn't what you were aiming for.

Using thin 1px lines is a good way to section off areas of the page but if none of the sections line up is just looks too chaotic and confusing. Cross your t's and dot your i's; your a designer, writer, publisher and editor now so you better make sure your multiple personalities are communicating with each other effectively.

Oh and one more thing. If you ever use a fixed background image for any site that's not personal I'm gonna shoot you in the knee. Why? Well, I've got a 1 Ghz processor running XP and IE6 and fixed backgrounds still make the content scroll real ugly like -- I don?t have the testies to see how sloppy that's gonna to perform using Mozilla. So until the standard PC is a Pentium 5 6.0 Ghz monster (standard as in 3 years from the current markets top-end machines, which would make todays standard PCs about a P2 400 to P3 600 / Apple G3) then I'd strongly advise against doing that.

2nd site. Um, I couldn't even find a "English version" link. Then again, I'm surprised anyone can find anything on that site. A white background; black text, black headings, and grey links. Woot! How to turn the web into a sheet of paper. Seriously though, a little colour would go a long way. Some of your mouseOver styles are doing funky things too; like the links that have HTML, PS and PDF in them.

Again with lines not um, lining up. I know your code is will formed, and I think it's wonderfully that you went to the extra effort to make it valid and standards compliant but I think you've gone a bit overboard with the CSS. Mainly on the whole dotted line thing. As I said before, some of the lines don't seem to line up, others seem to overlap where I think they shouldn't (dotted line under each menu heading). Cutting back on the these a little and using a bit of plain old colour could do wonders. Ohh and the logo has some nasty jaggies on it. Might want to fix that.

Apart from that, a pretty grand effort if I don't say so myself. Especially on the standards compliant front. =)

[b]Edit:[b/] Sorry if that sounded a little harsh. I'm in an odd mood.

[This message has been edited by Dracusis (edited 10-12-2002).]

Wow, thanks for all the comments, dude!

About the first site, it's not a spam site. The Google feel well is quite accidental.. The linigs I think I will fix them.. seems not consistent isn't it? And uh.. about the fixed background image, I wonder how come it can be slow on your computer, Dracius? I'm using 800Mhz Pentium 3, 98SE, IE6.

About the second site, it's actually a site made for a web design competition held in my country. The English version is very bad, I know. Well, dont' blame me. Blame epedoman.com. To Suho1004, the dotted underline links is well my preferences.. To Dracius, can you make a snapshot of "the logo has some nasty jaggies on it" problem?

Well, thanks again.

cheeaun

Well, about the English being bad, it's very easy to just say, "Don't blame me, blame (insert crappy Internet translation program here)." That seems like something of a cheap shot to me, though. It's like renting a piece of crap car to cut corners and then saying, "Don't blame me, blame the car," when it breaks down and you miss the meeting and your company loses a multi-million dollar account. OK, so maybe I got a bit carried away there, but you get the point, right? If the English version is not that important to the site, then just say so, and it's cool. But blaming the translation program is just another way of avoiding responsibility for not providing your English-speaking readers with a version they can actually use.

Sorry If I'm being a bit harsh, but you just happened to hit on one of my pet peeves. I'll stick by what I said above: if an English version is important for the site (and in this case it may not be), go the extra distance to get a professional translation done (or do it yourself--you seem to speak English well, and it would certainly be better than the translation program).

OK, I'm done ranting now. Sorry about that. No hard feelings?

[Edit: After further thought, and reading your last post again, I thought I'd add something. I know there's no way I'm going to be able to say this without sounding hostile, but I don't buy the "accidental Google look." Not only is the color sequence the same (and blue-red-yellow-blue-green is not what I would call a common color sequence), but the font, bevel, and drop shadow are exactly the same. Now, I'm not saying that you can't copy the Google look (although some would consider that ripping), I'm just saying call it like it is. Don't tell me that the Google look is accidental when it's so clearly not.

I'm usually not this harsh with new people, but something about your replies to our criticism strikes me as disingenuous. I don't know why this is bothering me this much, either. I must be having a bad day or something. If I've aggravated you, then please just write me off as a prick and don't judge the rest of the Asylum by me--most of the people here are really great.]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 10-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 10-14-2002).]