|
|
Posted by jojo on 07/06/06 22:41
Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> I found 6 externel JavaScript on this Site: 3 from maps.google.com, 2 from
>> www.assoc-amazon.co.uk and one from pageat2.googlesyndication.com.
>> And there are at least 9 <script>-Tags in your main sitte and another one
>> in the iframe.
>
> We're not sure what you're saying there -- is there some reason we shouldn't
> be using JS at all?
>
Yes, there is... About 15% of all users have swithed it off (I know you
do not belive this...). But this was not my point. I just wanted to
disprove your statement:
> What JS are you referring to? The bulk of the JS is the Google Maps tracking,
> which I assure you cannot be done with HTML & CSS.
>> When I scrolled or clicked the site before all your multimedia was loaded
>> my browser crashed (only Firefox, works on IE). So actually I was brought
>> nowhere...
>
> That is worrying as we haven't managed to crash FF once. Is this
> repeatable?
Yes, crashes every time I scroll to the bottom of the page before the
bottom is loaded... but it may be an exception. You have to ask other
people to test it, too.
>> And now it is 3D? I personally think that websites with sound are one of
>> the most cruel crimes you can commit. Not only the loading-time, it's just
>> annoying. And imagine someone listens to music while visiting your site...
>
> There is a balance here. Some people like the initial way the site brings
> you to the street, visually and audibly. Take away the audio and you lose
> one of the senses that you couldn't avoid on the street. Do you wear
> earplugs when shopping?
No, but my computer is connected with my stereo... and I always listen
to music when I surf the Internet.
<snip>
>> Your site still needs a lot of time to load with broadband connections.
>> (especially the sound)
>
> The sound portion is 100k. Again, the site is designed for/recommended for
> broadband connections.
>
I have broadband (DSL 2000).
>> I just have to switch off JavaScript and - bingo, i can right click on the
>> images...
>
> It is just a deterrant. The images are digitally watermarked.
So why don't you just leave out the JS than? The alert box is really
annoying!
>> Oh, there is one thing that you learn very quickly: Do not visit this site
>> again!
>
> Thanks for your constructive feedback.
>
> Just out of interest -- how would you achieve the end goal (a good quality
> scrolling interactive streetscape with a realistic high street 'feel')? You
> guys are very quick to criticise, but we do not see any better ideas coming
> from the same direction as the negative comments. ;)
I've got a suggestion: leave out all your multimedia-stuff and
concentrate on the thing you actual want: shopping.
I do not see the need of a virtual street to go shopping... If I want to
go to a shopping-street I can walk or go by bus/car. And if I want do
online shopping I do not need any street...
>> BTW: have you ever tried to validate the site?
>>
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superhighstreet.com%2FGeorge-Street-Richmond%2F
>>
>> Cruel! The most serious mistakes:
>> -No doctype
>
> The site is currently in beta, and has yet to be launched. This is made
> clear on the top of the page. We doubt any non-programmers are going to
> validate the site at this stage.
No, but browsers have to view it... perhaps this is the reason why
Firefox crashes?
>> -2 <html>-Tags
>
> You are confusing that with the SSI top shared border which has its own tag.
It is not allowed to have more than one <html>-tag in one document. Just
leave out the second one.
>> -Many attributes with no values (for example <meta name="..." content>
>
> Beta, will look into it thanks.
>
>> -Attributes used on tags which doesn't have them (for example <iframe ...
>> target="_blank" >
>
> Again thanks.
>
>> -Attributes used which doesn't even exist
>
<img border="0" id="img4" src="..." height="26" width="160" alt="...™"
title="..." *fp-style="..."* *fp-title="..."* title="..." ... alt="...">
Just one example. BTW: the alt-attribute is double.
>
>> I wonder what program creates such wasted code... Even FrontPage can do it
>> better I think... Or was it FrontPage?
>
> FrontPage was a great help with the graphic imagemaps over the streetscapes,
> yes.
Should have guessed that... Couldn't you use a better software? What
about Dreamweaver, for example? Doesn't generate that much rubbish...
[Back to original message]
|