From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 05-15-2005 03:21
I want to pre-emt your rant against XHTML with my pro-XHTML rant, by saying he is using it because XHTML is the better technology, it is where the standards are going and is XML for all intents and purposes, which is a superior base to work from.
Onto other things, I think you need to spice the page up a bit. It is really really plain. Spend some time with some images, or if you are trying to stay pure. The work in some more colors and some better text treatments. I don't like where you mouse over text comes in, it just seems a little off.
You look to be going in a good direction. It just needs some more work.
From: Kansas City, MO , USA Insane since: Feb 2002
posted 05-15-2005 04:17
THere will be images, this is just my base. It has alot more work to go...
I am using the XHTML because of all the years I have been doing design, it seems to always remain more cross-browser compliant, and I absolutely love that. Since I have been "pure" I could never go back to tables.
I want to pre-emt your rant against XHTML with my pro-XHTML rant, by saying he is using it because XHTML is the better technology, it is where the standards are going and is XML for all intents and purposes, which is a superior base to work from.
I'm actually all for XHTML, but his website isn't XHTML, it's (rendering) HTML...and HTML may as well be coded in HTML.
quote:Ensellitis said:
THere will be images, this is just my base. It has alot more work to go...I am using the XHTML because of all the years I have been doing design, it seems to always remain more cross-browser compliant, and Iabsolutely love that. Since I have been "pure" I could never go back to tables.:
You can refrain from using tables in HTML 4.01, too, y'know.
quote:WarMage said:
XHTML is the better technology...
... but doesn't work on today's web, hence shouldn't be used.
quote:Ensellitis said:
I am using the XHTML because of all the years I have been doing design,
it seems to always remain more cross-browser compliant
You can't possibly have an argument backing that up.
quote:Ensellitis said:
Since I have been "pure" I could never go back to tables.
These are the lamest kinds of arguments in favor of XHTML. I hope you realize that XHTML 1.0 adds nothing over HTML 4 (but the reverse is true).
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, CSS does work with HTML, and you can abuse tables in XHTML too.
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 05-16-2005 00:59
That seems rather short sighted. It is the better standard. It might not be implemented correctly in browsers, but as the better standard it make sense to use it. Especially for sites like this where learning is the key.
Just like with CSS support, the browser companies cater to the demand. If they see that this is the way that the technology is going they will follow by coding their browsers to support it. It is the chicken or the egg problem, but if you want to advance the technology you have to pick one, and as a web developer you only have one option, which is to push the technology through use.
If I may interrupt the XHTML/HTML war for a moment...
I'm not too keen on your current navigation. I shouldn't have to rollover a nav link to see what it is. If you want to have the rollover text provide more information, fine, but you shouldn't make that the only information--i.e., the links should be self-explanatory.
Also, why the vertical limitation? I can understand the horizontal fixed width (although I may not agree with it), but why is the content area so short? All that does is increase the amount of scrolling that needs to be done.
This is a triumph for CSS and XHTML integration. That said, your mystery meat navigation (read: I want to know where I want to go before I even move my mouse) leaves a great deal to be desired.
The purpose of navigation is to give the user the ability to go where he/she wants, yes? To retrieve information in the most efficient way possible, no? That said, the icon-driven system that exists throughout the web does nothing for usability. From that perspective, the designer is saying, "you should know where you're going before you go here. Just access your bookmarks. These icons are for design purposes only."
You can imagine my dismay.
-----------------
What once twItch^ed is now more stable.
From: Kansas City, MO , USA Insane since: Feb 2002
posted 05-17-2005 03:32
Thanks for the input. I am actually working on a better navigation system using DHTML... I uploaded it so you can take a look if you wish. I also killed the scrollbars. Now I am trying to fix the padding problem on the bottom of the page...
Thanks for the input. I am actually working on a better
navigation system using DHTML... I uploaded it so you can take a look
if you wish. I also killed the scrollbars. Now I am trying to fix the
padding problem on the bottom of the page...
Yes, yes, this is a much better layout. I even enjoy the contrast between red and green on the mouseovers for the menuing system.
What padding problem are you worried about? I look at it, and while I see a decent sized chunk of blank space underneath the main content area, I don't particularly think it's a bad thing; there's no problem with a bit of whitespace to make the bottom of the design flow into the background.
That said, my guess is a line-height CSS definition in the logo bit on the bottom. Consider tweaking that.
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 05-17-2005 04:54
Wow, that was one hell of a jump. It is much much better.
Ok, I do have a minor problem with the navigation. When you mouse ever portfolio it looks broken. This is going to be difficult to discribe but I will give it a shot.
When you mouse ove it pops up the sub-red nav link. The text under these sublinks at first appear as if they are a part of the background. This cause me a wierd distortion when tpying to figure out what was going on therep
Also use of the sub red nav bar looking element for your link is really poor usability. I think those are headers and not links, you should distinguish between the two with some different styling.
Personally, though, I'm not too keen on using dropdowns for explanatory text. Users have been so conditioned by drop-down menus that they might be confused by the unclickability of the text. It also introduces the problem WM pointed out with the portfolios button. Here's an idea: why not use that empty space to the right of the menu to pop up the explanatory text on rollover? This way you eliminate the unnecessary drop-downs on most of the buttons, as well as avoiding possible confusion with the portfolios button.
Should I just get rid of the Ensellitis title at the bottom and have one at the top?
Now that you've changed the layout, it is completely possible for the title to be off the page before scrolling, so yeah, it might not be a bad idea to put the title at the top.
As for the descriptions, one thing you could do is just include them as titles in the links. This way they will display as tooltips when you hover over the links. This might not be as fancy, but it would be just as functional and far easier to implement. But maybe that's just me--I'm a sucker for simplicity.
posted 05-15-2005 00:49
