My latest website, what do you think?

2007-09-26

Comments welcome.

Link

Thanks.

Axel.

"Ustedes también son Pueblo" ¡Viva la Revolución!- Las Fuerzas vivas.

uxte · 2007-09-27 #2

While the website is quite simple there's not much to say about it.

You should give a look into CSS and tableless layouts and search engine content optimization.

Why the different versions for the browsers? I see no difference between them. Also you could use a browser detection script for that. How many of the users know which version of the browser they are using?

Besides that everything looks tight and clean (a little bit to clean though).

2007-09-27 #3

I like the style. (Nice design, background, shadow etc).
Nice logo too. To the point. Plain and simple tidy layout.
(I'm curious how shadows would look on the photos).
Anyway - nice website.

lmanuel · 2007-09-27 #4

Clean design. I didn't quite understand why there was a separate version for IE6 either?

The navigation on the left side are all images. If the only reason for them being images was for the mouse over effect. The fonts would've been a lot cleaner if they were just text with a CSS hover. The antialiased text for the navigation takes away from the clean look of the page.

A flash player requirement shows on the splash page, but I wasn't able to find a single flash piece in the entire site?

If there's no special javascript/ajax or complex layout format with specific tags used by either Firefox or IE, you should have just one point of entry with the language choices. From what I saw in the design, this site should be compatible with IE6/IE7 as a single point of entry.

Ahhh... I see. Just viewed the source. You're using a program that still formats for HTML 4 standard. There should be some freeware XHTML editors out there if money is an issue. Designing for IE6+ / Firefox won't be an issue then. Otherwise, very nice design.

Anik · 2007-09-27 #5

i think you should use a bit darker blue for the bg, and there's something i dont quite like about the menu, it seems a bit heavy.

Clean site overall.

AxelBitz · 2007-09-27 #6

Hi.

Thank you all for your comments.

I tried the tableless design but while many people find CSS to be very simple, its been a real headache for me

, and I wasn't able to put it together, and because the site needed to be online asap I didn't have the time to dive into a CSS book (which I will be doing as I want it tableless and faster).

The reason for the different versions is because for IE7 and FF I'm using transparent pngs so the background pattern doesn't break, and for IE6 it's all jpgs (if you look really close for the IE6 version you can see the background pattern breaking next to the frame as you resize your browser's window). I tried gifs to avoid the version problem but it looked incredibly awful. I'll also be looking into those browser detection scripts!

The menu is all images because the font is not a common one, but I see your point and I'll take the blur out to "un-clutter" it.

All the maps in the "Location and Dimensions/Localización y Dimensiones" sections are flash (images were about 10 times heavier!)

I tried shadows under the images but they didn't look good, a reflection effect maybe...? hmnn... let's see

I made the site in Dreamweaver, and it may just be me, but when declaring for xhtml, flash wasn't displaying in FF

, so I opted for plain html. Any body else ever had this problem?

Some one else also noted the background color as too light, I'll test a darker one...

Thanks again

More comments welcome!

souichi · 2007-09-28 #7

If you want transparent png files to show up on IE 6, just use Fireworks and 8-bit png transparency. I read an article on SitePoint that describes it pretty well, and a pretty decent alternative to using the old JavaScript IE filter switch.

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/...e-clear-winner

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:


	Ultrashock Forums > Design > Checkpoint • My latest website, what do you think?


		You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to forums, files and other resources. Click here to join now for free, and start interacting with our members, download files and much more! Click here if you are looking for our Flash files and other professional assets.

	uxte	2007-09-27 #2
	While the website is quite simple there's not much to say about it. You should give a look into CSS and tableless layouts and search engine content optimization. Why the different versions for the browsers? I see no difference between them. Also you could use a browser detection script for that. How many of the users know which version of the browser they are using? Besides that everything looks tight and clean (a little bit to clean though).

	Mime	2007-09-27 #3
	I like the style. (Nice design, background, shadow etc). Nice logo too. To the point. Plain and simple tidy layout. (I'm curious how shadows would look on the photos). Anyway - nice website.

	lmanuel	2007-09-27 #4
	Clean design. I didn't quite understand why there was a separate version for IE6 either? The navigation on the left side are all images. If the only reason for them being images was for the mouse over effect. The fonts would've been a lot cleaner if they were just text with a CSS hover. The antialiased text for the navigation takes away from the clean look of the page. A flash player requirement shows on the splash page, but I wasn't able to find a single flash piece in the entire site? If there's no special javascript/ajax or complex layout format with specific tags used by either Firefox or IE, you should have just one point of entry with the language choices. From what I saw in the design, this site should be compatible with IE6/IE7 as a single point of entry. Ahhh... I see. Just viewed the source. You're using a program that still formats for HTML 4 standard. There should be some freeware XHTML editors out there if money is an issue. Designing for IE6+ / Firefox won't be an issue then. Otherwise, very nice design.

	Anik 27 Creative Assets	2007-09-27 #5
	i think you should use a bit darker blue for the bg, and there's something i dont quite like about the menu, it seems a bit heavy. Clean site overall.

	AxelBitz	2007-09-27 #6
	Hi. Thank you all for your comments. I tried the tableless design but while many people find CSS to be very simple, its been a real headache for me , and I wasn't able to put it together, and because the site needed to be online asap I didn't have the time to dive into a CSS book (which I will be doing as I want it tableless and faster). The reason for the different versions is because for IE7 and FF I'm using transparent pngs so the background pattern doesn't break, and for IE6 it's all jpgs (if you look really close for the IE6 version you can see the background pattern breaking next to the frame as you resize your browser's window). I tried gifs to avoid the version problem but it looked incredibly awful. I'll also be looking into those browser detection scripts! The menu is all images because the font is not a common one, but I see your point and I'll take the blur out to "un-clutter" it. All the maps in the "Location and Dimensions/Localización y Dimensiones" sections are flash (images were about 10 times heavier!) I tried shadows under the images but they didn't look good, a reflection effect maybe...? hmnn... let's see I made the site in Dreamweaver, and it may just be me, but when declaring for xhtml, flash wasn't displaying in FF , so I opted for plain html. Any body else ever had this problem? Some one else also noted the background color as too light, I'll test a darker one... Thanks again More comments welcome!

	souichi	2007-09-28 #7
	If you want transparent png files to show up on IE 6, just use Fireworks and 8-bit png transparency. I read an article on SitePoint that describes it pretty well, and a pretty decent alternative to using the old JavaScript IE filter switch. http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/...e-clear-winner