- Crit Pls
- Posted by firestarter82@gmail.com on October 24th, 2006
This is my first real attempt at designing a SEO website. Any feedback
is appreciated.
<a href="http://www.micrographics.ltd.uk">Micrographics Ltd</a>
- Posted by Davémon on October 24th, 2006
\\ firestarter82@gmail.com :
Graphically it's a yawnathon, competent and safe but not really
interesting. Take risks, get more attention.
The top level navigation needs mouse-over events - just feels flat right
now. The bullet stars don't line up with the text properly on the right
hand menu. And float the page in the middle - would look much better.
OT SEO Stuff:
It's a very old one, but for SEO isn't using 'more' as anchor-text
shooting yourself in the foot?
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/NoMechanics.html
There's no alt-text in the top navigation.
Some of your <strong> over <h*> choices seem a little dubious to me.
looks like mark|r has got some competition ! ;-P
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
- Posted by Twisted on October 24th, 2006
Its funny you should mention Mark|R, as I was taught by him during my
university placement.
- Posted by Davémon on October 24th, 2006
\\ Twisted :
heheh. Mark is a regular around here, although he tends to request crits
more than give them. No doubt it's all about the IBL's ;-) Hopefully
he'll post so you can do the whole "When I met you I was but the
learner. Now, *I* am the master." Darth Vader thing.
You could also post your site to alt.internet.search-engines and ask
them specifically about the SEO. Dunno what the mood is like in there
right now, but sometimes they can be helpful, but they can get a bit
tetchy.
Also, it's good form to quote the context of the post you're replying
to, and not doing so will upset some people.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
- Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on October 25th, 2006
On 2006-10-24, Davémon wrote:
Not at all.
I wouldn't say that. See the way it appears in my browser:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/micrographics.jpg>.
Please don't!
Even better would be to use a fluid layout and fill the window.
There are 24 validation errors that also need to be fixed.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
- Posted by mc.preist@gmail.com on October 25th, 2006
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
Looks ok,
Well, changing your text size to "normal" will make it look "normal".
Does feel flat, no connection to the visitor.
Agree,
if to be very strict..
to me, this is not the brightest example of a good website. I am
viewing it with a 1920x1200 resolution, so when I maximize the window
it becomes small and strange.. I don't like the stars (bullets), and
their alignment. The website entirely feels dead, nothing moves not a
tiny bit and the gray color makes it feel even more dead.
What I like about it is the color scheme, looks clean and has some nice
taste. The logo is pretty good.. Like the menu background. For a small
company this website is okay!
- Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on October 25th, 2006
On 2006-10-25, mc.preist@gmail.com wrote:
"Normal" is a size that I can read. My normal size is shown in
that JPEG. If I have to have the text unreadably small to make the
site work, then it is useless to me (and many other people).
....
And, by doing that, much of the problem of inadequate space for
the text would be solved.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
- Posted by Davémon on October 25th, 2006
\\ Chris F.A. Johnson :
Absolutely. Many IT services companies use exactly that genre of imagery
colour and type.
You must also need large text for other applications, not just
web-browsing, perhaps it would be better decreasing the resolution on
your monitor, rather than setting type-sizes in all your different apps?
No, do. It would help.
This is really bad advice. It leads to overly long lines of text on
large high-res monitors, and long lines of text cause readiblity
problems (the eye looses its place whilst reading). It's why newspapers
have narrow columns (quick scanning), and why novels are laid out as
they are, with an average of 10/12 words per line (extended reading).
I did scan through the article:
http://cfaj.freeshell.org/web/bbc/
and noticed you made the same basic typographical oversight throughout.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
- Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on October 25th, 2006
On 2006-10-25, Davémon wrote:
The higher resolution gives a better quality of type.
On the site in question that is not going to be a problem unless
the window (resolution has nothing to do with it) is extremely
wide, as the text is in two columns.
No, it's not. Most newspapers have columns that are far narrower
than the optimum width. This is because they sell advertising by
the column inch (or agate line).
Most novels are towards the wide side of the optimum range.
Then you must be using a broken browser that doesn't recognize the
max-width setting.
Yes, it is wider than I like when viewed with IE, but it is not
unreadable. Wider margins and extra leading help.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
- Posted by mc.preist@gmail.com on October 26th, 2006
Arguing like two kids 
No offence.
- Posted by Jim Douglas on October 26th, 2006
Interesting when I see a web page layed out nicely I check out the code
and in yours found no tables? I realize there are other's that probably
do and don't use tables but the stuff I do is tables, which I hate.
Also don't see any width or height attributes. Sizing of the images
makes everything nice and neat? Sorry if this is a basic question. I
saved the source out to review and learn from as it's great!
Thanks
JimD
firestarter82@gmail.com wrote:
- Posted by Davémon on October 28th, 2006
\\ Chris F.A. Johnson :
Most of the web is in typefaces (Arial/Verdana/Georgia/Times) which have
been specifically designed to be read at low res. If you can't see small
type, can you really see the small differences in 'higher quality'
rendering?
A "fluid" site - which you were advocating is naturally much wider on a
higher-res monitor as there is more window in relation to type-size.
Unless you expect /everyone/ with a high-rez monitor to up their
font-sizes like you do?
because it aids quick scanning of the document.
You've mixed up the cause and effect there...
Yes and with your 'fluid' design, we easily get line-lengths of 20 or
even 30 words, which are very difficult to read.
Sorry Chris I wasn't being clear, the oversight is that you haven't
taken into account the effect of line-lengths on readability in the
argument being presented.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
- Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on October 29th, 2006
On 2006-10-28, Davémon wrote:
Yes, because ona larger monitor, the pixels at a lower resolution
are correspondingly larger, hence more jagged.
I expect user to have teir font size set to whatever is comfortable
for them. The web designer cannot know what that is. A large type
in a narrow fixed width is not comfortable to read.
[ITYM skimming, not scanning.]
But it is not the optimum for reading. The optimum is in the range
found in novels.
When I started working for a newspaper, 40 years ago, I spent a
lot of time studying design and typography. I forget exactly what
is considered the optimum line length, but it is in the range of 2
to 3 alphabets wide.
Definitely not.
I have worked for newspapers which have increaded the number of
columns purely to increase the ad revenue. These columns are much
narrower than ideal for reading.
Not if their is a max-width style.
On the contrary; I have done exactly that.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
- Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on October 29th, 2006
On 2006-10-29, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
AARRGGHH!! I don't believe I did that!
s/their/there/
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
- Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on October 29th, 2006
On 2006-10-29, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
My apologies; I misunderstood you again.
You are quite right that I didn't address the issue of very long
lines in that article. That's because it is by far the lesser
problem. It *is* a problem, and one that I will address in another
article.
Fixed-width columns, as in the page I discussed in that article,
as in the page that began this thread, frequently make a page
undreadable. Long lines, on the other hand, are still readable. On
a multi-column page, that problem is almost non-existent.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
- Posted by cmp on November 4th, 2006
In article <ug9il2hdl76q.psdd1j25lqgu.dlg@40tude.net>, Davémon
<"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:
I might be showing my background in Human Factors Engineering, but it's
proven fact that people tend to best digest information in small chunks
.. . . both physically (giving the eye time to rest) and
psychologically (being generally of fairly short attention span -
typically those who type/set long lines and paragraphs are not the ones
who have to *read* them). Too, people tend to enjoy being able to skim
quickly through information to better find what they're looking for
(and what they're not). Lines more than three inches wide tend to be
more daunting to the average reader than say, two and half to three
inches . . .
