How's my new Website

I have finally managed to get my own website online and have started putting some of my content on it. If you all could take a quick look at it and tell me what you think and give me some suggestions on how to improve it I would be very thankful.

A General Idea of my website:

When I thought of making a website I had many things in mind, I wanted a personal website to share anything I found interesting, I wanted to upload all my work to the internet and share it with the world, and I wanted to be able to let it grow and help others get through some of challenges i have already faced.

As you can see the website wouldn't have a set topic as I have many interests, including Robotics, Programming, Gaming, and lots of other things that allow me to create something new.

I don't expect to make money out of this site or even to get that many hits.

Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

Thanks in Advance

The layout is good, I like the colours. The only thing that I can see a problem with is your spelling. :D

It looks quite good (could use a spell-check, though). Nice work. :)

Looks nice!

Contrast could be better (between font colour and background colour). Black font on white background is tried and true. Followed by white font on black background.

Thin grey font on darker grey background gets tiring for the eyes to read.

As cyberfish pointed out you need more contrast between the text and the background. I've found off-white backgrounds with black text to be much more readable.

For accessibility purposes add a link at the top of the page that is hidden via css to skip all of navigational stuff and goes to the main content of the page.

Rethink the use of tables for the main content layout. You aren't presenting tabular data so why are you using a table?

Rethink your use of Joomla!. They have the dumbest interpretation of how the GPL applies to PHP scripts. Don't let the GPL screw up the web even more

nice wesite. can you make one for me????:D
its really nice..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Looks nice!

Contrast could be better (between font colour and background colour).

...

Thin grey font on darker grey background gets tiring for the eyes to read.

---

Seconded.
Also, the font size could be a little bigger.
Those with smaller monitors will have a hard time reading that.
This is really the biggest problem on the web today, too small font size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Seconded.
Also, the font size could be a little bigger.
Those with smaller monitors will have a hard time reading that.
This is really the biggest problem on the web today, too small font size.

---

Evidently someone has yet to discover that modern browsers allow you to select a "minimum font size".

I would much rather people use fonts as small as they prefer, since this can be over ridden very very easily, than that they start deciding they need to use a larger font which everyone would then be forced to read.

Of course not. How would anyone find such a feature?
It would be well hidden, and 99% would not know it exists or find it, including me.
That speaks volumes for using a larger font, because you usually design web pages with a particular size in mind, and when using a larger size, it can screw up the layout. Literally.
So use a proper font size from the beginning to get rid of those problems.

Well the site is basically just a Joomla install with a free template, unmodified except for the logo. Looks as if it cant have taken longer than a couple of hours to put together.

Personally, I like the dark on dark style, but the colours in your logo are clashing. I'd redesign the logo first, then look at adding more content, plus maybe an extension or two if you find something useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

How would anyone find such a feature?
It would be well hidden, and 99% would not know it exists or find it, including me.
That speaks volumes for using a larger font, because you usually design web pages with a particular size in mind, and when using a larger size, it can screw up the layout. Literally.
So use a proper font size from the beginning to get rid of those problems.

---

Web programming is programming, but IMO it is a realm with "lower standards", probably because there is so much of it and it is so easy to "distribute". I use a minimum font of 22, which is probably larger than most web designers expect, so on a poorly designed page, the text will overflow. However, that is simply bad programming ; since it is something I dabble in I know for a fact it can be prevented (with vBulletin, for example, there are no such problems no matter how large you make your font). Bad programming is common on the web -- I've noticed more than one multi-million dollar site where the divs are aligned using an inferior method, meaning they can end up piled up on each other and have text overlapping, perhaps because these sites were not even tested in a sufficient number of different browsers!

Being able to choose a minimum font size is an important feature (and your "not knowing about it" does not mean the rest of the world should ignore it now, Elysia, and it certainly does not follow that because Elysia doesn't know, 99% of people don't either. They know.) which a good programmer accounts for in his/her work. If someone came on cboard and said "Oh, well, I didn't know users could do that, I think I should restrict their options and protect my general laziness by not bothering to take these things into account" or "Well it didn't produce a buffer overflow on my computer" I doubt ANYONE would support such an attitude. And here you are encouraging someone to adopt such a bad programming habit ("you design web pages with a particular size in mind" -- no)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Being able to choose a minimum font size is an important feature (and your "not knowing about it" does not mean the rest of the world should ignore it now, Elysia, and it certainly does not follow that because Elysia doesn't know, 99% of people don't either. They know.)

---

What is this nonsense? I never said it wasn't an important feature.
And me not knowing bodes bad for such a feature because nothing ever bothered to tell me it even existed. Who is to say others aren't having the same problem?
I think you expect too much.

Quote:

---

which a good programmer accounts for in his/her work. If someone came on cboard and said "Oh, well, I didn't know users could do that, I think I should restrict their options and protect my general laziness by not bothering to take these things into account" or "Well it didn't produce a buffer overflow on my computer" I doubt ANYONE would support such an attitude. And here you are encouraging someone to adopt such a bad programming habit!

---

Again, pure nonsense. I never suggested not taking that into account. And I never suggested that everyone should ignore it, either.
And besides that, there are a number of rules or guidelines on how to make a page. I'll be damned if I remember them, since it was so long ago I studied that and web pages isn't exactly my field of programming, but just as you should use the proper font and colors, I bet you shouldn't make the font too small either.
A lot of people try to lower the resolution because the usual font is too small, you know... and if they don't know about DPI, you can be sure they don't know about minimum font size either!

> Web programming is programming, but IMO it is a realm with "lower standards"
And I suppose MySpace is collaborative programming? MySpace is where you go when you want to see how to break every W3C standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacs7

> Web programming is programming, but IMO it is a realm with "lower standards"
And I suppose MySpace is collaborative programming? MySpace is where you go when you want to see how to break every W3C standard.

---

I don't use it so I don't know, but if you ask for trouble you might get it. Part of the problem is the "browser wars" whereby in the past mozilla and microsoft (but mostly the later) would intentionally break W3C standards themselves in order to encourage web designers (perhaps, such as those at myspace) to also break the conventions. This wasn't to improve the product, it was in hopes that pages incompatible with firefox would flourish.

Generally, however, MS has had to release new versions of IE intermittently to correct these "oversights" since the tactic backfired -- as web programming gets more complex, the programmers are less likely to want to be left victims of MS whimsy, so they write according to the standard, meaning IE lost market share to firefox, which is has a more consistent record of properly reproducing pages written to according to the *independent* rules of the W3C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

since it was so long ago I studied that and web pages isn't exactly my field of programming, but just as you should use the proper font and colors, I bet you shouldn't make the font too small either.

---

Where was this, The Crayola School? :p

Generally speaking, web pages *do not* dictate an absolute font size at all; they use a relative size (eg, "normal") the absolute size of which is dictated by your browser settings. Even if you do not have a minimum size set, you definately do have a default size set. That is the font size; it is not specified in the page. If it is too small for you, choose a different default presentation font. And I bet 99% of users actually do know about that.

It is possible to set a specific absolute font size in a web page, however, that is not a normal practice and it is not a good one either, since the fonts are not delivered with the web page, they are there on the user-client's system, and if you say I want to use "SomeCarzyFont 19" there is no guarantee that the font will be there or that it will be available in the right size.

The proper way to specify a font in web programming is to use just a "font-family" (eg serif, sans serif, monospace) and a relative size (small, medium, large). Even then you can run into problems; I noticed on a friend's stock windows system the other day that an x-large monospace must be scaled up and looks awful (because there is no monospace font of sufficient size).

So just to re-iterate: Point sizes are used in many kinds of document presentation but they should not be used in web pages because (whether the user know it or not) that is controlled by the browser. This is a restriction of the www client-server relationship (and who cares? People who need to rely on a specific font for their page 1) need their head examined closely, 2) probably have not "moved on" from their intro at the Crayola School...it is essentially like #including a whole bunch of non-standard libraries for no good reason, such that the user has to download all that crap just to see the small "g" from someone's fav font -- ridiculous, you are wasting your time, learn how to do some real programming instead please)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

It is possible to set a specific absolute font size in a web page, however, that is not a normal practice and it is not a good one either, since the fonts are not delivered with the web page, they are there on the user-client's system, and if you say I want to use "SomeCarzyFont 19" there is no guarantee that the font will be there or that it will be available in the right size.

The proper way to specify a font in web programming is to use just a "font-family" (eg serif, sans serif, monospace) and a relative size (small, medium, large). Even then you can run into problems; I noticed on a friend's stock windows system the other day that an x-large monospace must be scaled up and looks awful (because there is no monospace font of sufficient size).

---

Well then, we have a problem:

Code:

---

body {
        font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif;
        line-height: 1.3em;
        margin: 0;
        padding: 0;
        font-size: 11px;
        color: #626262;
}

---

12px is minimum IMHO. And it's not relative size either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Well then, we have a problem:

---

Yeah, as I said you do have the option of doing it the wrong way. That will override your default. However, it will not override your minimum. Notice there are three fonts specified in "order or priority", ending with sans-serif which is really a generic catch all. My system does not have "Verdana, Tahoma, or Arial", so I will end up with Helvetica, which is sans-serif. Too many choices for the muddle brained makes a muddly thing methinks. The combination of serif, sans-serif, monospace, italic, bold, color, and relative size is enough to create clear and consistent distinctions in any document. Beyond that, you are just being asinine. Most entire books usually use only three fonts (bold, italic, normal) in a few sizes. Of course, they are are specific (eg. "typeset in myface") but that is kind of besides the point. Plus, if you want a real fancy font for a title, you can just use an image and make it shiny, 3D, in 256 million colors.

I suspect this option exists becomes enough people have insisted on it, and they want something like a pdf or postscript file, the form of which is immutable. But that is not a good model to apply on the web, with the restrictions of the client-server setup*.

* me personally, I don't think the restriction is so bad. Fonts are for letters, letters are for words, words are for writing, writing is for CONTENT. If you are a bad writer with little content to convey, you are bound to be obsessed with "fonts" to disguise your air-head products as real work. Some people will be distracted by anything, no matter how inconsequential or irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Seconded.
Also, the font size could be a little bigger.
Those with smaller monitors will have a hard time reading that.
This is really the biggest problem on the web today, too small font size.

---

you are probably right, methinks.
For a background color of #101010 and a foreground color of #626262 which i think is used for the content part of the OP's website,

Juicy Studio: Luminosity Colour Contrast Ratio Analyser


says that the font size should be larger. So now the question is, are you a bot? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

People who need to rely on a specific font for their page 1) need their head examined closely

---

Do not get carried away.
A representative portion of the web is made up of carefully "drawn" websites that try to explore at most all aspects of presentation. This is true of many corporate websites including publicity, art, fashion, or games, to name a few. Many of these websites try to enforce very specific font choices so they can "visually work".

Meanwhile, and taking that aside for the moment, the decision to make of the website a visual experience is a legitimate one. Carefully planned fonts, and font sizes is perfectly acceptable as a practice, under this context. Web Standards aren't broken in any way because of this choice. At most, accessibility rules may. But this is a perfectly legitimate decision. And sometimes even a necessary one. Not that it matters though; No browser will stop render a webpage because the defined font wasn't found on the user machine.

As for the web standards themselves... anyone wanting to create 100% Web Standard obeying websites should be the one having their head examined.

Quote:

---

2) probably have not "moved on" from their intro at the Crayola School...it is essentially like #including a whole bunch of non-standard libraries for no good reason, such that the user has to download all that crap just to see the small "g" from someone's fav font -- ridiculous, you are wasting your time, learn how to do some real programming instead please)

---

Just because you decide to use an absurd example, that doesn't mean all cases of specific font usage are absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Just because you decide to use an absurd example, that doesn't mean all cases of specific font usage are absurd.

---

There is nothing absurd about it and I guarantee that all of those "carefully crafted" websites to which you refer could be done *without* using specific font sizes, because many of them are. It may be that the programmer has to more carefully craft the site, treating it as a web document, and not a desktop publishing file. As I implied earlier, I do not have most of the "fancy fonts" installed and I fail to see how this makes any significant difference to the "visual experience". I am also quite thoroughly convinced that most of the programmers pre-occupied with specific fonts have neglected more complex programming because they can't deal with it. If you turn off "allow sites to specify their own fonts, overriding mine" for a little while you will realize how irrelevant all that was.

I appreciate the art* and I enjoy web programming. Once again WRT a bit of text, you still have

• font style
• font color
• relative size
• various forms of emphasis
• background color
• borders

* in which composition includes the concept of clutter, eg "myspecialfont 17"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

12px is minimum IMHO. And it's not relative size either.

---

12 px (pixels) or 12 points?

Whether 12 pixels is too small depends on the DPI of the display device and the quality of the font itself. This is one of the reasons why specifying font sizes in pixels is completely bogus in the first place.

If you meant 12 POINTS, a measurement which actually has some physical significance, then again I disagree -- 12 point text is for children. It's a pointless waste of screen and page real estate and it makes me feel like I'm reading from a 4th grade ruled notebook. If you have vision problems, you can use the browser zoom feature, or install a local stylesheet as described below.

At any rate, since the site is using CSS the point is moot. You can install a local stylesheet which overrides the base font size entirely. That's the whole point of stylesheets. If you don't like the designer's choices you can override them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

There is nothing absurd about it and I guarantee that all of those "carefully crafted" websites to which you refer could be done *without* using specific font sizes

---

I could argue those websites could also go without any sort of presentation. What would that lead us to then? Or is it YOU get to decide when to stop?

The decision to make a website design depend on a specific font is made often based on practical and aesthetical needs. Practical, because the font style may help establish an environment or emotion and this is for some reason deemed important, or even because it follows the official guidelines (many companies use specific fonts in other media). And aesthetical,... because.

This in fact has been a limitation of the HTML/CSS combination. Contrary to what you seem to imply, the push is exactly to try and create a more structured usage to fonts on the web. Right now, there's only two options available to designers; Either get away from HTML/CSS and design using other technologies like Flash, or provide an alternative website. I can't blame anyone who decides against both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The decision to make a website design depend on a specific font is made often based on practical and aesthetical needs. Practical, because the font style may help establish an environment or emotion and this is for some reason deemed important, or even because it follows the official guidelines (many companies use specific fonts in other media). And aesthetical,... because.

---

All malarky IMO. The concern about using "our business font" is *beyond anal*. I have no respect for people who have nothing better to do than come up with "official guidelines" like that and I hope and pray I never have to work for them.

I do remember having this personality defect once (pouring over different fonts looking for "just the right one") and I am very happy to be over it now. There are many, many, many more expressive and significant ways to get creative with web pages. As I said, if you turn off "site specific fonts" in your browser you won't miss them after about 10 minutes -- except for sites which are nothing but a collection of dippy fonts.

The site you refer to seems to be recommending consuming more bandwidth just so the browser can download the proper fonts for a page. This will have to be optional, so fortunately I can disable that sad joke if it ever comes to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

All malarky IMO.

---

Very well. As you wish. I exhausted my arguments.

Well, I guess not all of us can be idealists sitting in our basements producing nothing of value...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Well, I guess not all of us can be idealists sitting in our basements producing nothing of value...

---

No, my room is on the third floor :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

No, my room is on the third floor :p

---

I'm on the 2nd, but I have really good shades to keep out the sun (It's like nighttime 24/7)

wow I never expected so many replies, and thanks for all the suggestions ill definitely be making some modifications.

Quote:

---

I would much rather people use fonts as small as they prefer, since this can be over ridden very very easily, than that they start deciding they need to use a larger font which everyone would then be forced to read.

---

People are willing to wait for about ~5 seconds on average for a website to load. Isn't it easier for them to hit the "back" button than to change the font setting?

There are so many sites on the Internet now, that people get to be very picky (except for a few very important sites, for them).

For me, for example, I almost always hit the "back" button immediately when I see "Please view the site in Internet Explorer", even if most of them do work with firefox.

Likewise, when I see a site with small fonts, I hit "back", since that's 1 less keypress than "ctrl-+" (and "ctrl--" to change it back when I leave the site).

Rule of thumb - don't expect the user to change their browser settings (or change browser, or screen resolution, or browsing behaviour) to view your site. Most people view a few hundred sites every day. They don't have time for that.

If your site hosts the best pr0n on the internet, users MAY be willing to give you an extra 30 seconds. But when it's just 1 out of a few million search results...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Rule of thumb - don't expect the user to change their browser settings (or change browser, or screen resolution, or browsing behaviour) to view your site. Most people view a few hundred sites every day. They don't have time for that.

---

HOW DUMB ARE YOU PEOPLE? You don't reset your settings. You pick a minimum font size and leave it that way. Permanently. I never see a font smaller than 22. Period. End of story. This is easy to understand. I already know I don't want to see 11p text. I don't need to "rediscover" this over and over. I don't even want to bother with 12 or 14 or 16, which is I believe the vBulletin default. But I see it in 22, just like I see every other site on the net.

My eyesight is perfect (and clue: I want to keep it that way), but I know people who are not so lucky who use minimums of like 28 or 30 pts. That is why *all* browsers make it *easy* to set a minimum size, and I promise there is a significant number of users who do. I'm kind of baffled and amazed that people who are software programmers are ignorant of this and twice as baffled that they seem to have such a problem grasping the concept.

Will you take it easy? It isn't as black and white as that.
Some text should really be smaller, some larger.
Text menu items and things like that are suited for smaller font.
But body text is not.
So even when I set the minimum font size to 12, sites get messed up because they can't show 11px in some places where it would fit, so it not a solution.
The solution is, like you said, to use relative size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Web programming is programming, but IMO it is a realm with "lower standards", probably because there is so much of it and it is so easy to "distribute". I use a minimum font of 22, which is probably larger than most web designers expect, so on a poorly designed page, the text will overflow. However, that is simply bad programming ;

---

A little off topic, but I find it quite interesting that you refer to this as web programming. This seems more like user interface design, and consequently web design, as opposed to the provision of functionality via client side and server side scripting, which I would classify as web programming. When we consider that web designers may have made a transition from design on printed material, it makes sense that they, until taught otherwise, would tend to design as if they were working with a printed document instead of a webpage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Will you take it easy? It isn't as black and white as that.
Some text should really be smaller, some larger.
Text menu items and things like that are suited for smaller font.
But body text is not.
So even when I set the minimum font size to 12, sites get messed up because they can't show 11px in some places where it would fit, so it not a solution.
The solution is, like you said, to use relative size.

---

Okay, I apologize for using the word "dumb" but I can't think of anything else appropriate here :p

I'm a bit of a hypocrit, because when I write websites I do use the relative size "small" and "x-small" for little things like "close" at the bottom of a pop-up menu. Of course, when I look at them normally they are still 22pt, so I have to turn that off to make sure the aesthetic is okay. But when I turn it back on, nothing gets messed up because I set my divs up correctly (that is the real #1 problem on websites today). Like I said, all the text at cboard is for me 22 pts and vBulletin handles that just fine, because it was programmed well.

There are like 5 or 6 relative sizes, so I don't understand why anyone ever has to use an absolute point size*. And I do agree with everyone in the sense that I cannot see any reason to ever dictate a size for an actual paragraph of text. It should appear as the user's default size (which you do have set).

*Actually I do know why they do it: these are the same designers responsible for the proliferation of the "paper width" site like this:

Scientists warn carbon dioxide may soon make coral reefs extinct | Environment | The Guardian

which is a fixed, absolute width in the middle of your screen. This is particularly ridiculous considering most new monitors are widescreen. It is basically just laziness in design IMO.

MK27,

I've been a web programmer (not silly Joomla template stuff like this but real programming) for some years now. I would like to say on behalf of web programmers: STFU. A web designer (which is actually what we are talking about) should not expect the user to make any changes to their browser settings in order to work. That means the font size needs to be adequate for the majority of users.

Elysia: When you say a "small monitor" that typically implies a lower resolution which in turn means that the fonts are going to be appear larger since most font sizes are giving in absolute terms (pixels, xx-small, x-large, etc) and not relative (smaller, larger, em, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thantos

A web designer (which is actually what we are talking about) should not expect the user to make any changes to their browser settings in order to work. That means the font size needs to be adequate for the majority of users.

---

I agree. A minimum font size feature is good, but that does not mean that people know about it, as this thread apparently demonstrates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thantos

since most font sizes are giving in absolute terms (pixels, xx-small, x-large, etc) and not relative (smaller, larger, em, etc).

---

I am not a web designer, but I had the impression from reading certain Sitepoint books that the current best practice recommendation is indeed to use relative font sizes.

Best practice yes. Common practice no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

which is a fixed, absolute width in the middle of your screen. This is particularly ridiculous considering most new monitors are widescreen. It is basically just laziness in design IMO.

---

Is it really?
As I was taught, it's easier to read shorter lines than longer. Lines should typically be around 13 words or so.
That means that the text part must be fixed width. And the rest of the content is usually images and stuff and images should never stretch, so usually it becomes fixed size too.
And centering the whole thing on the page instead of putting it all the way to the left or the right is just more visually pleasing.
After all, the web pages must target a minimum resolution, usually 1024 x 768.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thantos

Elysia: When you say a "small monitor" that typically implies a lower resolution which in turn means that the fonts are going to be appear larger since most font sizes are giving in absolute terms (pixels, xx-small, x-large, etc) and not relative (smaller, larger, em, etc).

---

I know what you say, but I compared a 42 inch LCD TV vs, say, a 24 inch LCD Monitor.
TV has resolution 1920 x 1080 and the monitor 1920 x 1200.
You might have a hard time reading that small text on a 24 inch monitor for which is really suited for such high resolution.

42 LCD TV != monitor ;) I get what you are saying. From the web design perspective I doubt many people are considering how the page will look on a large screen like a 42" TV. In fact I think most people are actually looking in the opposite direction: How will the page look on a 3" screen?

Yeah, the text is somewhat readable on a 42 inch TV. But then, how will it look on a 24 inch monitor or smaller?
I keep wondering that. Why do people use such small text?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thantos

A web designer (which is actually what we are talking about) should not expect the user to make any changes to their browser settings in order to work. That means the font size needs to be adequate for the majority of users.

---

Right, but *all* browsers have a default font setting, "Arial-18" or whatever. So we are not talking about changing settings. They are already set. You do not need to specify any font at all, unless there is some particular reason for doing so, which should be a real reason, methinks, not just habit.

And judging from the quality of a double digit percentage of professional web work out there, being a professional web designer amounts to exactly squat in my book, so sorry, your opinion is still just an opinion.

I have a friend who is paid full time to maintain a corporate web site, and he does a nice job, has a great eye, etc, but I can code circles around him in anything except php (which I don't know any), and I can perl circles around his php stuff. He does not try to deny this either. "Pro" is just a title dude.

About the num of words in a line thing, that is a good point, I personally just do not find this to be the case and I read a lot. That also means you would have to assume a certain font size, which is ignorant. I think sites that use the entire page width look much better IF it is done intelligently, eg without stretching images. I think it is fairly normative to use a relative size div (eg, 80% of screen width) containing divs with absolute sizes for certain things, but positioned relatively. Making them all absolute still seems lazy to me!

ps. "small" "x-small" are absolute, but they are relative in the sense that the browsers dictates the actual size relative to the default.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Yeah, the text is somewhat readable on a 42 inch TV. But then, how will it look on a 24 inch monitor or smaller?
I keep wondering that. Why do people use such small text?

---

Don't know why. I don't spend a lot of time in the design side. I generally just create the system to put the data in the pages and let another person make them pretty. I concern myself with design just enough to meet my needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

And judging from the quality of a double digit percentage of professional web work out there, being a professional web designer amounts to exactly squat in my book, so sorry, your opinion is still just an opinion.

---

My opinion is based on real experience in dealing with customer feedback. What is yours based on?

Quote:

---

I have a friend who is paid full time to maintain a corporate web site, and he does a nice job, has a great eye, etc, but I can code circles around him in anything except php (which I don't know any), and I can perl circles around his php stuff. He does not try to deny this either. "Pro" is just a title dude.

---

At it is a title I didn't use. Now your friend sounds like a designer who knows just enough code to get by (similar to how I know enough design to get by). Nothing wrong with that. I do wish that companies would recognize the need to separate out their programming for their site design and get the people who can do those individual parts the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thantos

My opinion is based on real experience in dealing with customer feedback. What is yours based on?

---

I'm a consumer of websites. There is my feedback. A lot of them are horrendous. That Guardian news site, for example, almost looks like there is no organization at all; someone just created a page from a list of items. But I bet professionals are getting paid big bucks for it anyway. Maybe it is to their advantage to maintain a low standard of work to keep it easy! There's a conspiracy for you. So "customer feedback" could mean someone said "that'll do" because it looks equally pathetic. Which is understandable: the web is great and important and it would be even if it were still just plain text. But too much navel gazing would be, too much navel gazing.

Still, they could at least try. I use Verizon internet, which Verizon is like one of the largest telecommunication companies in the world. But I have to use their site to pay my bill, etc, and it is a very unpleasant experience. In contrast to other places, for example, using a min 22 font does screw it up. To me, that is just plain "unprofessional", but I am sure they have spent millions on their monstrosity.

Quote:

---

Now your friend sounds like a designer who knows just enough code to get by (similar to how I know enough design to get by). Nothing wrong with that. I do wish that companies would recognize the need to separate out their programming for their site design and get the people who can do those individual parts the best.

---

You've got it. He doesn't have any formal training, either. The company is small, but a lot of their business is on-line, so I think the owner likes having one guy in the office who works for him, rather than contracting out. When he started last year, the existing site had been contracted and was an expensive mess. Apparently the boss is very appreciated of what he's done with it, which was a complete re-write (he even got to buy books and learn on the job, and this paid off for everyone. I'm very jealous, actually).

The moral being, no doubt massive corps like Verizon do contract other massive corps, but it seems that all the bureaucracy and inefficiency there simply mean large numbers of highly trained but semi-competent "professionals" are kept employed. Those are the people setting the low standard which other people may be following in error, or out of insecurity...it's the science of mediocrity in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

The moral being, no doubt massive corps like Verizon do contract other massive corps, but it seems that all the bureaucracy and inefficiency there simply mean large numbers of highly trained but semi-competent "professionals" are kept employed. Those are the people setting the low standard which other people may be following in error, or out of insecurity...it's the science of mediocrity in action.

---

It's a more or less accurate description, I'd say. But...

You are wrong in that these are semi-competent professionals. First do everyone in here a favor and stop using words like dumb, idiot or quoting the word professionals. Until you show some credentials, a few of us in here demand a little more respect. This, of course, if you plan for this conversation to remain civil, and for you to gain some new knowledge from people far more experienced than you. Yes, that's the operative word; Experienced.

But the idea of semi-competent professionals really is faulty at large. It is a clear indication of your lack of experience on the market of website design and programming. If there is no denying there less competent or unknowing people out there, there are however a lot more competent and knowledgeable people getting payed to develop poor websites.

Until you get into that head of yours that many professional programming task (and just not web development) is subject to limitations of time, corporate specifications, customer choices that often change mid-project, and even pay amount, you will keep barking at the wrong tree. And be laughed at.

And if that is not enough, until you realize that HTML/CSS are outdated, limited, and weak technologies with a complex set of Standards that delay development times considerably, complicate website maintenance, and do not directly answer today's web market needs, you will keep failing to understand that the real problem is not lack of competence. It is, for the most part, the lack of a better technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Until you show some credentials, a few of us in here demand a little more respect.

---

Unfortunately, I do not think this way AT ALL.

Just to clarify: I think I am being polite. Obviously, you have received way, way too much undeserved respect in your life and now you just feel entitled. I am very skeptical about the idea that people like you have anything at all to teach people like me so I will tell you right now I do not care at all what you think about that, where I rank on your "favoured" list or whatever it is you are trying to imply.

I put the word "professional"ized in quotes because I think the real term here is commercialized. I have been using the www since it started in 1993. A huge amount of it today is absolute crap and garbage done by people who clearly do not have much interest in what they are doing. I have had jobs that to me were a check, and not much more, so I won't hold the attitude against anyone; I probably wouldn't be that interested either but getting paid is getting paid. So get off your high horse: you look ridiculous on it. Extremely.

No offence, Mario F, I actually think you are an insightful guy. Just I have a nasty habit of telling the truth to people I respect :p

There's no reasoning with you. Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

There's no reasoning with you. Bye.

---

xP xP xP xP xP

:|

You don't have to be so mean after I said such nice things about you:

Quote:

---

No offence, Mario F, I actually think you are an insightful guy. Just I have a nasty habit of telling the truth to people I respect

---

"If there is no denying there less competent or unknowing people out there, there are however a lot more competent and knowledgeable people getting payed to develop poor websites."

O_o

Wait... are you saying that the competent people getting paid to develop crap generally outnumbers the incompetent people getting paid to develop crap? Or did I just overreach?

Soma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

HOW DUMB ARE YOU PEOPLE?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Just to clarify: I think I am being polite.

---

You're not being polite; you are being a teenager that thinks he knows everything. It's ok, most of us went through that phase before we grew up too. Trust me, in 10 years you will look back on your posts here (assuming they still exist) and realize how ignorant you actually are.

And if you're not actually a teenager, then I guess I just feel sorry for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bithub

You're not being polite.

---

You're wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bithub

And if you're not actually a teenager, then I guess I just feel sorry for you.

---

I fail to see much "maturity" in this "I know you are but what am I stuff" bithub, so GFY.

I'm probably older than you altho I obviously have less programming experience. To me there is a socio-political/attitudinal component here, and I think I do understand programming well enough to see what that is. So it looks to me like *you* are the one "that thinks he knows everything", and the saddest part is you probably believe it yourself because you have some form of resume based "credentials". And that pathetic little piece of drivel is basically the definition of PATRONIZING, you idiot, so you still have not gotten out of grade school, argumentation wise.

As I've gotten older and the long term differences between me and others have become clearer, I've gotten more sure of myself and much, much less polite, because the essential reactionary nihilism of many of those others has been demonstrated over and over and over again. I don't have to waste my time giving people the "benefit of the doubt" anymore when they do not deserve it. You can have your sad-sack compromises and the consequences *and* all the convoluted and ridiculous justifications that go with them. Sometimes it has not been "easy", but I am very very happy to accept the consequences of my beliefs; I'm very proud of who I am today and I don't even have a resume. Understand when I wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

I am very skeptical about the idea that people like you have anything at all to teach people like me so I will tell you right now I do not care at all what you think about that, where I rank on your "favoured" list or whatever it is you are trying to imply.

---

I said it well and I meant it. You are wrong to say this is about a "maturing process"; I will be as proud of what I have said today, yesterday, last week in ten years as I was when I said it. The truth is, probably I have *never* agreed with you about some fundamental philosophical things and you have *never* agreed with me and never will. Neither of us will "grow out of it"; I will continue to be right, and you will continue to be wrong, altho I emphathize somewhat with the motives for your wrongness, I think, since they are probably the common ones.

Sorry if that makes you angry ;P

Yes, I was patronizing you. And if you read your posts in this thread, I feel that you deserved every ounce of it.

Quote:

---

I don't have to waste my time giving people the "benefit of the doubt" anymore when they do not deserve it.

---

If you don't feel like the members of this board do not deserve you giving them the "benefit of the doubt", then why are you posting here? I'm willing to bet that Thantos and Mario know a lot more about web programming than you, yet you are talking to them as if they were idiots.

Anyways, I'm going to take the same approach as everyone else, and just give up trying to reason with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bithub

the members of this board ... the "benefit of the doubt"

---

Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by "you"; I am not painting everyone with the same brush, and maybe I have even gotten "you" (bithub) wrong, but I promise I have gotten some number of others very right. We don't need to agree anyway, and so long as someone doesn't throw some kind of weird fit and starting spamming, I don't think there is any harm done. It is not as if I keep an enemy list so I can lurk around waiting to sabotage someone's threads or send them threatening pm's all the time:p Teenagers or not, I still think the membership here qualifies as adult.

And I did not talk to Thantos like he was an idiot, because s/he didn't say anything idiotic. A little defensive maybe, but that's okay :p We did not actually disagree about anything concrete, if you read the thread closely.

But enough said already. Just remember one thing please: No one's work is beyond criticism. The end.

Well maybe I've gotten you wrong (apparently I was wrong about the teenager thing). You seem pretty normal and helpful in most threads, but your posts here have clearly rubbed me (and obviously others) the wrong way. In this thread you are giving off the vibe of someone who is not knowledgeable in an area, talking down to everyone else. The verbage of calling people "dumb" and "idiots" who are clearly neither never helps either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bithub

The verbage of calling people "dumb" and "idiots" who are clearly neither never helps either.

---

Yeah, that is short-hand/laziness on my part and I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, it just seems like somewhere where a normal adult should not/would not "have their feelings hurt", so if that's alright then then I don't see much harm in calling each other dumb or even stupid or that you are a real ......... and a .......... ........ Honestly. But some people actually do seem to get upset by that so I apologize again.

People do that to me and I take it to mean "You are being wrong and you should know better". That happens!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bithub

your posts here have clearly rubbed me (and obviously others) the wrong way

---

Are you trying to say I "hit a button"? :p