|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/10/08 22:47
In article
<c687dc93-06f8-4a5d-84c4-b50318c3440f@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>,
How does it work <mydreambasket@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When building a site your index page should be built just like the
> other ones right?
>
> Meaning keywords, description and title should be page spacific and
> include all the links to your other pages within the domain or sub-
> domain and all other pages just have a home link on it?
>
It is rarely a good idea to put on the home page the links to
every single pag. That is what a site map is for. The whole
question of navigation is a big one. Care to ask something more
specific?
I can suggest to you that it is a good idea generally to put
links to the gate pages of all major sections of the website on
the home page. But there is no need and it is often simply
confusing and overkill to go further. A pox on all such sites, a
pox on the absurd use or overuse of dropdown menus.
The important thing is that each major section has a local
navigation for its own content and a means to get back to the
home page and also the other section gateways. If you were to do
just this, you be doing something good and sound and true.
> How important is text to code ratio?
>
Now that is a nice question! The sort that can stimulate debate
depending on the interpretation. If you mean markup text (like
tags and such) to content (where content is basically real
information available the user) then let me propose a theory: the
bigger the ratio (with content being the big bit), the more
elegant and better the website. Overcoding and over specifying
and over everything is the normal crappy thing to be found daily
on websites. But simplicity of structure and rich in information
is the rare delight.
>
> When you build your index page should you add your sitemap.xml to it
> and where in the head?
I put a sitemap link in the footer of every single page quite
often, but there is no hard rule, there are good arguments for
making this more prominent I am sure.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|