PDA

View Full Version : My (sucky) website



joeprogrammer
10-15-2006, 06:02 PM
I looked at my current website, and I thought "Man, this is a load of crap. I'm going to make it better." The result? I think it's still a load of crap, but oh well.

At first I tried making my own theme, but I gave up after I realized I could make everything move to where I wanted, but I just don't have an artistic eye. So, I grabbed a theme from Google Pages, and modified it a bit. (By the way, I took that picture in the header at Deception Pass, WA.)

Also, I think there's going to be some browser compatibility issues (tested it with Firefox 2.0 RC2 on Mac, don't have IE to test). There's also an issue with the fonts being too large and then having the menu wrap around (happens on Safari 2.0, not on Firefox). I think I've fixed the problem of menu wrapping... tell me if it still persists I'm thinking about implementing a flexible width page, although this doesn't work correctly in IE if I've been informed correctly.

So, although I put time and effort into my website, I still don't think it looks very good.

http://righton.thruhere.net

Queatrix
10-15-2006, 06:08 PM
The layout looks like a blog.

CornedBee
10-15-2006, 06:10 PM
It looks decent.

Is the pretty URL worth the site trying to open a pop-up, though? (Not that it actually manages to ...)

joeprogrammer
10-15-2006, 06:13 PM
It looks decent.
Thank you. I needed that.

Is the pretty URL worth the site trying to open a pop-up, though? (Not that it actually manages to ...)
That's what I've been trying to figure out. Actually, it's the DynDNS URL cloaking that brings up the popup. If I turned it off the cloaking... maybe that's better.

whiteflags
10-15-2006, 06:41 PM
> I think I've fixed the problem of menu wrapping... tell me if it still persists
IE 6 is probably just being evil, but the menu is wrapped on my screen.

I find the layout very clean and easy to read, so I wouldn't change much. It even works for me on a deeper level; I think the design fits the content.

joeprogrammer
10-15-2006, 07:00 PM
IE 6 is probably just being evil, but the menu is wrapped on my screen.
It's the result of the content width being too narrow. Can you post a screenshot, or just tell me how much it wraps, so I know how much to adjust it?

I've just added a counter so everyone can see how popular (or unpopular) my website is.

edit: thanks, citizen. Added 100px to width and centered menubar, is it fixed now?

whiteflags
10-15-2006, 08:35 PM
6878

[edit] Looking good, Joe! It's been fixed now.

maxorator
10-16-2006, 02:38 AM
I don't like the big fat blue footer. Everything else is OK.

Sang-drax
10-16-2006, 05:00 PM
The math articles have stuff missing, for example:

As mentioned above, a point or vector can be represented in 3D space as . When using matrix math it helps to represent it as .

joeprogrammer
10-16-2006, 08:34 PM
The math articles have stuff missing, for example:
Oooh, thanks for catching that, Sang-drax. Do you think I should remove these articles, or are they still good enough? I know I found them really useful, but I don't know that much about 3D math, so I wouldn't know if it was lacking some critical elements.

I don't like the big fat blue footer. Everything else is OK.
That was because before, the header also had that blue gradient, and so the footer kinda matched. I've just changed the header to sort of a greenish design; does that look better?

maxorator
10-17-2006, 03:16 AM
It would look better on one line.

Jaqui
10-17-2006, 04:10 AM
I was going to say it can't suck as bad as mine, but I might be wrong about that ;)

while I like the dark background, the header and footer aren't displaying well for me in mozilla's Seamonkey, the contrast isn't there to show up on the screen.

check the css I used on my site, it actually fixes the navigation on the top of the screen so you don't lose it even when scrolling. There are only two pages to my site that require scrolling, so you would have to search all 6 or 7 pages to find them :p

The first line on my site pages, which is an xml declaration rather than a doctype, actually makes the css and xhtml work for every browser that supports css and xhtml. [ it throws IE into quirks mode and allows it to render the pages right ]
[ no browser issues :D ]

My site. (http://jaqui-greenlees.net)

maxorator
10-17-2006, 04:18 AM
Well, I like clean designs so I think Jaqui's site looks quite nice.

Jaqui
10-23-2006, 03:26 AM
Well, I like clean designs so I think Jaqui's site looks quite nice.

aww gee thanks :)

I also prefer a clean site with minimal page content that isn't directly applicable to the site.

I'm working on tweaking a css based menu for it, with a tabbed layout, just to show that full "dynamic" menus can be done without using active clientside scripting.

maxorator
10-23-2006, 05:20 AM
I have seen multilevel drop-down menus that only use CSS. I don't know if they're worth the mess, but it's so cool it can be done without JS.

The only problem is that IE6 supports :hover and some other pseudo-classes only for <a> element. You'd need an extra javascript thingy for it to work with IE6.

Jaqui
10-23-2006, 12:48 PM
need javascript to get drop down and slide out menus to work for IE?
not likely.

here, Stu Nicholls has a validating drop down and slide out css only menu that works cross browser.

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/dd_valid.html

maxorator
10-23-2006, 01:05 PM
need javascript to get drop down and slide out menus to work for IE?
not likely.

here, Stu Nicholls has a validating drop down and slide out css only menu that works cross browser.

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/dd_valid.html
It is sad but true. In IE6 :hover only works for <a> elements as I already said, but a little javascript file fixes that in IE6.

CornedBee
10-23-2006, 04:05 PM
Validating doesn't necessarily mean valid. Sure, the page validates and is even valid when looking at Firefox's DOM tree. But IE's DOM tree is not valid.

Jaqui
10-23-2006, 10:26 PM
But the menu I posted the url to doesn't use js, and does function with IE.

it validates against the w3c xhtml/xml and css validation tools, which was what I meant by it is validating.
I never worry about browser specific dom trees, since to have a page be valid in the browser trees you need to have a page for each browser. If the W3C's tools say it's valid, then that is good enough for me.
[The standards setting body takes precidence over application developers choices ]

maxorator
10-24-2006, 12:52 AM
On that page there's a special CSS file for IE, where the :hover is not on the LI element, but on the A.
But more complex dropdown menus (multi-level etc.) need :hover to work with LI too.

Also, look at this part of source code, this makes me laugh (it's taken from that site):


<br /><br />
<h3>NO javascript - just CSS - and it validates</h3>


<div id="adsie">
<script type="text/javascript">
google_ad_client = "pub-6651950180071236";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 90;
google_ad_format = "728x90_as";
google_ad_type = "text_image";
google_ad_channel ="";
google_color_border = "FFFFFF";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "aa4400";
google_color_url = "ff9933";
google_color_text = "555555";
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</div>

Jaqui
10-24-2006, 01:12 AM
yup, the advertisements are google, which is js.

the menu part is not js based.

since I turn off js by default, I just don't see the advertisements. :)

I actually do not enable any clientside scripting.
most of the time, I use lynx to browse online, so no images either.
or tables
or frames
only the textual content of the site.

CornedBee
10-24-2006, 03:16 AM
The site uses conditional comments to give IE different source code than other browsers. This is ingenious, I will admit, but the result is still that IE sees invalid code.

laserlight
10-24-2006, 04:34 AM
This is ingenious, I will admit, but the result is still that IE sees invalid code.
How does that matter?