Re: No real critique last time... :-((

At 08:59 PM 1/12/98 +0100, Nerz'hul wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Hmmm, maybe you all didn't notice my request for feedback on my page a
>few days ago because I only got two responses and none of them conatined
>real critique....
>
>So I ask you all for a second time [three is the charm :-] to give me
>some real feedback ["constructive critique" preferred] for my page. Your
>opinion about download time, layout and design would make some little
>german boy REALLY happy :-=FE
>
>I already said it but to be sure I will say it again: My page is
>designed for 800x600 and looks really ugly in all lower resolutions :-((
>
>Thnx in advance, Marko
>
>URL: http://bigm.home.ml.org
>
>
>
Marko,

For starters ... you page(s) doesn't have to be design for 800x600 and look
ugly in lower resolutions ... what on you site requires it?  Nothing
actually ... consider redesiging.

Download time was unbearable ... no suggestions other than to investigate
other ISP options and to reduce the amount of content of the opening page
... it's quite excessive.

Below are a couple (OK ... maybe more than a couple) of notable things I
saw that you could definitely work on by doing some research and reading
the FAQ's.

1. best viewed with ... lead to suggestive thinking by the viewer
2. useless to everyone but you counter ... the right frame one, the left
side I mention later  ... still useless to visitors
3. over four minutes of download on a T1 and still downloading
4. excessive animations
5. possible copyright infringements ... the diablo image is not original
6. inconsistent color theme with non-matching backgrounds .. create a theme
7. unnecessary use of frames ... there is just no need for them
8. mentioning a controlled resolution when it's not necessary ...  ... I
saw it fine with 640
9. asking for a critique in English, but have no English version of your
site for the 80-90% of the membership you've asked to critique it.  But,
considering your highest concentration of visitors is from Germany (almost
50% - most of which came from your domain BTW), then I guess it doesn't
matter to the rest of us.  Also, good hits from the search engines, you
must have submitted well.  {that little counter in the left frame buried
below 25 BR's didn't stay hidden for very long}
10. excessive banners and rings and other nuisances that promote the rapid
departure of your site.
11. javascript "ticker" never loaded and could be better positioned in the
source
12. NOSAVE in your image tag ... who taught you that?  Haven't you even
tried it to see if it works?
13. TARGET=3D_top on almost every outgoing link ... poor design and=
 discourteous
14. <HR NOSHADE WIDTH=3D"100%"> when 100% is default
15. no DOCType
16. consecutive font tags that should be combined
17. improper nesting
18. dates in European format that could be best presented either spelled
out or abbreviated for the global community to understand.
19. public domain imagery ... although not a huge problem, I would find a
different mail icon ... one that isn't ancient like the one I saw ... (I
can remember when this image was popular ... that's scary)  What's funny
though, I can't believe you put the NOSAVE on this image.
20. mixed the use of <U> and links ... find another emphasis other than
underline.
21. BASE HREFshould not be the first line in the code.
22. and so on ....=20

That's only the first page ... all of which can be researched at the HWG
Archives at:
http://www.hwg.org/lists/archives.html

and the FAQ's at:
http://www.hwg.org/resources/faqs/

There is no cover charge and you should bring your own refreshments.  A
soft cushion is also recommended if you know what I mean.

You have a long way to go, but you'll get there if you study and pay
attention to the discussions on the lists.  My suggestion is to go to the
archives, read some of the FAQ's, and sit back and watch what others are
doing and saying ...=20

Good Luck,
cmj

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA