Re: critique on solicitors website

Nice start. I like the basic look and feel. Let's look at the index page
first. For starters, if this page isn't part of a class on html where the
instructor insists on W3C logos on the bottom of the page consider losing
them. Validators are tools for the designer, not part of a Website to be
viewed by the public. The visiting public could care less whether or not
your code is valid HTML, XML, strict or transitional. If they take that
link, they might be confused, wondering what all that nonsense has to do
with Raworths Solicitors and they'd be right. That valition information has
nothing to do with Raworths and when that visitor clicks on that W3C logo,
that hard earned visitor just left Raworths.

They might not come back. Secondly, when clicking on the XHTML button, the
validation is false. In other words, the page doesn't validate XHTML, CSS or
otherwise.



The address and contact info doesn't show in my MSIE browser but does show
in Netscape 4.7. The horizontal lines, both top and bottom don't show in
Netscape 4.7 but do show in MSIE.



Your typestyle doesn't show in Netscape 4.7, nor does your positioning. Your
links are all justified to the left. If your intent is to appeal to older
browsers, you need to totally rethink your CSS implementation.



Netscape 7.0 looks the same as MSIE where the contact info at the bottom
doesn't show, yet does display those silly W3C and Bobby logos.



It's up to you, but I'd personally remove the whole page on accessibility.
It has little to do with Raworth Solicitors and:

1. Most people who have accessibility problems know how to adjust their
browser's text size.

2. Almost nobody changes browser settings to view one site differently from
the way they're already viewing other sties.

3. A professionally designed site ought to be accessible without user
intervention on the part of the visitor. Emphasizing otherwise would seem to
me to be an admission of an inability on the part of the designer. (just my
opinion)



What I guess I'm trying to say is that all this stuff about validation,
Bobby and whatnot is not about Raworth but about the design of the site. If
this is a site that is being built as an example to show one's skills in
designing accessible sites, meant to be an example for ones portfolio, then
I guess it's ok; but if this is being built for and being paid for by the
client, then I'd certainly remove all those unrelated items. One can talk
clients into things like allowing the inclusion of W3C logos, but that
doesn't mean it's right.



IMO, one should always ask, "[i]s this link relevant to my client and is
this information that a visitor would want to see when they're looking for
information about my client?"



I'd also remove the "links" page. There is absolutely no reason to invite
people to leave a client's Website by taking a non-relevant link, like
"Weather" and "London Tube maps." IMO, it might be better to have a resource
page where only links to sites, which are completely relevant to Raworths,
are displayed and only links, which might be needed and which do not invite
hard earned visitors to leave for no real reason.

Basically, once cleaned up, this site looks professionally designed with a
nice clean feel. Good luck in your endeavor.

Obligatory Disclaimer: The above is strictly my opinion and should be taken
as such.

Viewed with: MSIE 6.0, Netscape 7.0, and Netscape 4.7. Sony 19" monitor and
Matrox 550 at 800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x1024 at 32 bit depth. Machine
type - dual 2000 Athlon MP with 1 gig DDR, Connection type - T1.

Craig T. Harding

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "denise" <denise(at)amun-ra.demon.co.uk>
To: <hwg-critique(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:40 AM
Subject: critique on solicitors website


> Hello all
>
> I'd be grateful for input on www.raworths.co.uk - a website for a small
firm
> of solicitors in North Yorkshire, UK.
>
> So far, the site validates as XHTML 1, and valid CSS and Bobby AA.   It
> looks fine in Opera, IE and Netscape (latest versions, I
> don't have access to older ones) and Mozilla 1.2, but since the new
> versions of Mozilla have come out, there have been problems with the
> grey line across the top of the page disappearing and my H1 ending up
> between the menu and logo.
>
> Thanks
>
> Denise
>
>

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