|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 04/12/07 19:11
biff wrote:
> Hi, I've been lurking here for roughly two months trying to pick up tips
> and tricks. Why in never occurred to me to sub to this NG before is
> beyond me but anyway I *think* I'm ready to see if I've put into
> practice all that I've read.
There is also a NG named alt.html.critique for, well, critiques,
although certainly all kinds of things pop up in a.html.
>
> The site that I'm submitting for your inspection is one that I wrote for
> that organization late last summer.
^^^^^^^
unnamed
> http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1mdmy/test/
>
> It validates,
Great! Good work, thanks for checking. And congrats.
> it renders the way I want in FF, IE6, Opera in Windows,
> and FF, Opera, SeaMonkey and Lynx in Linux.
Oh. Umm...
>
> I've munged it up some because of the sensitive nature of the site but
> you should get the general gist of the way it's supposed to be.
I'm not sure how to help you. Your munging hasn't kept the identity of
the agency or the location or phone numbers of the offices secret, but
it does make it hard to know what the site will really look like.
What's the square in the upper right? Have you munged away an image of
the "City" County seal? Or will it always be an empty, gray square? Is
there supposed to be more in the picture at the left? Does the empty
gray square explain photo of a highway? What have you hidden in the HTML
at <div id="image"></div>?
The page "renders the way you want," so should we not comment on its
sensitivity to text resizing? Is the image of the cartoon family
supposed to be stretched? Are we just supposed to comment on its
look-and-feel, its coloring, its friendliness?
You've also posted a bit of disclaimer (which I've snipped), suggesting
that if the coding's bad it's no big surprise or concern, because it
used to be lots worse. What kind of feedback are you looking for?
FWIW: The link rules in the CSS should be in the order :link, :visited,
:hover, :active (nmemonic: "Las Vegas Has Animals") rather than the
order you've used.
I think this is odd markup:
<div class="innerright2"><strong>RESPONSE</strong> is a program of
<strong>CCFHS</strong></div>
<div class="innerright3"><strong>Offices are at:</strong>
<ul id="menu">
<li>54 Xxxxxx Street</li>
<li>Xxxxxx 555-5555</li>
<li><br>112 XxxxStreet</li>
<li>Xxxxxxxxx 555-5555</li>
<li><br>149 Xxxx Street</li>
<li>Xxxxxxxxx 555-5555</li>
</ul>
</div>
There's not much list-y about the addresses and phone numbers, it
doesn't look like a "menu" either, you've got some spurious <br>s in
there, and the divs are really just paragraphs or headers. I don't know
what should be strong about "Offices are at", but if you just want the
whole element to be bold, either mark it up with <b> (a Jukka(tm)
suggestion) or apply font-weight:bold to the div's rule.
A class name like "innerright2" won't tell you or anyone else about the
semantic meaning of the element; it just says where you think it ought
to be positioned. But what if you want it positioned elsewhere some day?
What if you copy the text to another page? How about .officesHead (or
something else semantically meaningful), if you can't get rid of the
classing altogether?
Why are you setting fixed widths in IE, and why in pixels?
Not sure what else to offer or suggest, because I'm not sure what
feedback you're hoping for. But good luck.
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|