Re: Single Page Critique

Hi Sandy,
I visited the Balneotherapy page with NC4.04, T3, HiRes, HiColor
Site Visited: http://www.balneotherapy.com/therpy.htm

I didn't have a problem with the appropriate nature of the image in
relation to the content and on a commercial site.

But I do have some other comments if you would like to hear (read) them ...

The first thing I noticed about the image is that I would have preferred it
without the table border.  The alt description of the main image wasn't
very clear either ... "Enjoying of a Bath"  Perhaps, "Enjoying a Bath"

I also felt that the page could have been constructed differently, without
the unnecessary use of tables and additional rows.  The table use yes ...
just not the extra rows and nesting that were implemented.

I took the liberty of spending a couple of minutes on the page to show you
how I would have accomplished the very same placement of content without
the use of the extra rows and nesting tables.  (Amongst a few other minor
changes mentioned below)  I could have used even less rows, but chose to
keep the FOOTER in one.

http://model.clickhere.com/cmj/therpy.htm.

I might rethink the choices you've made in regards to the BODY ... more
specifically ... the text, link, alink and vlink colors ... they are really
close to one another ... I could never be confused with a artist ... so
I'll let someone else comment more intelligently on that topic rather than I.

I'm not sold on the idea of the entire content in bold ... or strong as you
have it.  This is meant for emphasis to a section or a key point, for
example.  This is changed in the example.

I would change the following "is{FONT SIZE="+1"}now available to use in the
privacy of your own home!!!!{/FONT}" to "is {B}now available to use in the
privacy of your own home!!!!{/B}" ... (note the additional spacing required
between words)  This is changed in the example.

I would changed the alt description on the following image(s) to be a
little more descriptive of the image ... "{IMG SRC="bar2.gif" ALT="{short
description of image}" WIDTH="400" HEIGHT="16"}"  This is changed in the
example.

While we're talking code ... perhaps a more widely used DOCTYPE ... you have,
{!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO
4.0::19980408::extensions to HTML 4.0 for Miva//EN"
 "hmpro4.dtd"}

I would use ... {!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Draft//EN"}

I felt the navigational area was off-balance ... meaning the horizontal
bars and the text links wasn't very well balanced IMO.

This may be just personal preference ... but I would never overshadow, or
equal,  the content of the clients' page with that of my own endorsement.
In fact, rarely would I have my company name on the face of the site in the
first place, but like I said .. it may be a matter of personal preference.

That's what I noticed.

Best,
cmj


At 09:53 AM 7/13/98 -0700, Sandy Stillwell wrote:
>I would appreciate having one of the pages in a new site critiqued.  The
>question my client has:  Is the photo positive or negative to the viewer?
>We both thought it was  funny but this is a commercial site and not sure how
>people will react.  Would sure appreciate your feedback on this one so I can
>get back to my client.  The URL of the page is
>http://www.balneotherapy.com/therpy.htm
>

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