Website Review

[XXXconanXXX]

Was wondering if you lovely gents could review and critique my website:

www.TBDesigns.net

Feedback is greatly appreciated. How's the layout look? Is it effective? Professional? Any tips on making it better and more compatible?

 

[azareus]

I'm using Firefox, and theres a huge gap at the top, only grey. Is this intentional?

 

[Magentix]

Not to sound rude, but...

Tables for lay-out... :nuts:

 

[GetTriggerUnit-]

Use url rewriting.

 

[tooltiperror]

ARGH. Use <div> tags. Tables are bad (don't ask why, we are just expected to accept that with ignorance).

It looks a bit corny and un-sleek in this Web 3.0 era.

Also, welcome back from your ETERNAL SLUMBER.

 

[saw792]

Using safari on iPhone = all text overlapping and no ability to scroll down the page

 

[Darthfett]

I don't know much about html, so my feedback will be strictly from the visual.

I like the layout and use of rounded images for the content.

The images in the navigation bar look awful, though.

If you could, it might be better (from a design perspective) to make the text actual text (so it scales with resolution), and perhaps script the color change from mouse-over.

 

[Xienoph]

Tables are bad (don't ask why, we are just expected to accept that with ignorance).

CSS was created to separate aesthetics from content. Ideally, HTML is used to designate sections of the site (by using headings and divs to indicate sections, for example) while CSS is used for look and feel only. So, if you use a table for doing a layout, you're breaking this rule, and that's why it has been discouraged. At least that's my guess.

However, since CSS isn't strong enough to do all the look and feel you want, I don't mind using tables for layout.

As for comments on the site:

• Center align the titles. They look ... crooked. If it's meant to be that way, make it more obvious (and not look like they're accident)
• "Dynamic and Communicative" is better than "Dynamic and Communicative?". You want to assert that your design is dynamic and communicative, not question it.
• Personally, I find the website to be too ... busy. Reduce the number of gears, lines for the borders, and the strings around the gears.
• I'm not a big fan of the font. Serif fonts usually conveys professionalism, classical, and seriousness. But the rest of your website feels playful, as if you're designing for a child's engineering toy like Meccano.
• Grey, brown, and blue make the website feel like it's a website for a construction company (is this your intention?). But somehow the colour combination doesn't work. Try experimenting with different shades of blue and gray (try lighter)
• Are you working alone or not? The email link says "email us" but the rest of the website says "contact me" and "about me"
• Reduce the distance between the label and value in the contact page.

 

[Magentix]

However, since CSS isn't strong enough to do all the look and feel you want, I don't mind using tables for layout.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but: what?!

CSS allows for so much more than tables do.

Secondly, tables are used for tabular data.
If Google sees a table element, it starts parsing for valuable information.
If your table only contains images, however, your pagerank will plummet.

Last but not least, on older machines tables are built slow and synchronously.
CSS loads before the page, so div tags will already show up 'in the right place' before the actual page becomes visible.

Tables are bad (don't ask why, we are just expected to accept that with ignorance).

No, we're expected to know better than tables.

 

[Xienoph]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but: what?!

CSS allows for so much more than tables do.

I didn't say that CSS is weaker than tables. I said that CSS isn't strong enough to replace some of the features that tables offer. I'll send you a PM to avoid hijacking the thread.

Secondly, tables are used for tabular data.
If Google sees a table element, it starts parsing for valuable information.
If your table only contains images, however, your pagerank will plummet.

Last but not least, on older machines tables are built slow and synchronously.
CSS loads before the page, so div tags will already show up 'in the right place' before the actual page becomes visible.

That could also be the reason why tables are discouraged.

 

[JerseyFoo]

• Tables for non-table data
• Spacers
• Looks 2001
• Inline mambo funcs
• Inline events
• CSS is 2001
• If you don't use XHTML, don't use XHTML.
• Spam-bot approved
• Images are relatively heavy
• ../

If you were only claiming to be a web designer, I'd say good job. "Front-end developer", better hit the books, because this stinks of 'playing around with Dreamweaver CS2'. Industry needs less BS.

On the plus side, it's almost compatible with IE7.

 

[Lyerae]

141    <!-- fwtable fwsrc="LayoutBorderB.png" fwbase="LayoutBorder.png" fwstyle="Dreamweaver" fwdocid = "1673842758" fwnested="0" -->

Derp.

Also, move your stylesheets and JavaScripts to external files (they can be cached), rework the entire page to actually fit the XHTML Standard (Note: You'll need to do it by hand. No WYSIWYG editor I've met ever makes standard-compliant code), etc.

This is just a guess, but your 180 line-long HTML page could be shorted to around 20-30 lines, and 1 line of JavaScript and CSS (Compression is the best. <3).