1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Need Help Getting My Web Page Live

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by cpalaniuk1980, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #21
    What "lack of content"? I'm a bit confused... the site is about my company, and it has all the content it needs? A bit of info on the front page, contact form, price-list, a page for companies, and an about-page. What more does it need?
    Why? I'm just wondering, that is, since to me it's clean, simple, and uses proven colors for being "serious" - I'm just wondering why you feel it's geocities all over again :D
    SEMrush
     
    PoPSiCLe, Feb 27, 2017 IP
    SEMrush
  2. cpalaniuk1980

    cpalaniuk1980 Peon

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    #22
    Deathshadow, I REALLY appreciate all the information you have given me. I have SO MUCH to digest now. I feel this will make me a much better person, from reading what you wrote! I am going to study everything you said. In my prime, I designed web sites for MTV, Much Music, other personal biography sites for important people, etc. I have been a successful geologist for the last 10+ years and have gotten away from web design. Give me a week or 2, i'll get back into the swing of things. Have a great day.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
    cpalaniuk1980, Feb 27, 2017 IP
  3. cpalaniuk1980

    cpalaniuk1980 Peon

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    #23
    @PoPSiCLe - The 1990s geocites look is 200% what I was going for. I am old school and want an old school site. Im doing this for me and not 1000000000 viewers. I can customize it it time.
     
    cpalaniuk1980, Feb 27, 2017 IP
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,375
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Best Answers:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #24
    A number of your subpages I would condense.... like possibly take around two-thirds the about page, mix it with two thirds the front page, and whittle down the rest. It's digestible enough on mobile, but on desktop even with font scaling it just feels like a big empty. (admittedly I'm rocking 2560x1440 here). It feels like it really badly overuses whitespace that could be better used to make the content more digestible on desktop. You ever consider perhaps media queries the opposite direction to take the bottom half of the page and make it into two columns?

    The uneven paddings between elements looks a lot like relying on the defaults or it being built with tables even though it isn't... but really, switch it to "times new roman" and, well... it will look like a lot of pages I used to visit back mid 1990's. In some ways it looks like sites people made RIGHT after using tables for layout was discovered and browsers started supporting the font tag.

    But that level of simplicity is what "flat' design is about -- so like every other design trend, it goes in circles. You take bell-bottoms, call them "boot cut" and people will buy them again. Have Ronson and Mars cut a pre-disco style funk piece, boom it hits number one... and everybody under 35 thinks it's late '80s from the small revival that the artist formerly known as and now once again known as Prince started -- there is as much "Parliament Funkadelic" in Uptown Funk as there is "Was not Was" (I will sing you the song of my people!) or "Morris Day and the Time"...(You mean those guys from that Prince movie?!?)

    That's why 'design trends' are often just sick fads... or worse taken to extremes. See "flat design" -- Great article on that a couple years ago on NNGroup:
    https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/

    You can take it too far. Like blindly hoping people realize things are links and not just words slopped on the page.

    Oh and for the love of Christmas either darken up that blue or put text-shadows on that white text. That blue is NOT dark enough to have white text on it. Given where #3399FF is on luma (133) with any font system that has font-smoothing or subpixel hinting, that colour is unsuitable for black OR white text... much less so the white since it's on that half of the spectrum...

    Or if you don't want to do the math, WebAim's brilliant tool can do it for you:
    http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

    Which if you plug in that #3399FF with #FFFFFF text, you'll see it even fails 2.0 AA "large", the easiest of the tests to pass -- meaning that upwards of half the visitors to your page will have eye strain from that, and a fifth or so might not even see that there is text there! #0066DD would probably be the brightest blue I would even consider there, being the EDGE of 2.0 AA "normal"... which with the changes to using cleartype for everything on windows and systems like OSX? 2.0 AA normal should be the new test for "large' -- see that other thread where I talked about font rendering differences and included a picture that shows a normal person what a bad webfont mated to windows cleartype looks like to around a third of the people out there.

    The top half of that image being what is rendered by windows with #111111 font-color on #FFFFFF background-color... a far cry from #111111 due to subpixel hinting and a shitty font... the bottom being adjusted for what a nearsighted person wearing the new (if fifteen year old application of Fresnel concepts can be called new) style lightweight lenses with a UV filter gets... and that's before you even THINK about throwing colourblind tests at it.

    The math for legibility contrasts exists for a reason; use it... or at least use a tool to double-check yourself. checheckity check yourself before you wreck yourself!

    Which is a shame as it does seem competently coded... well, apart from some span for nothing and classes for nothing in the main menu, and those H2 inside a lis in that idiotic halfwit "footer" tag nonsense. Are those a subsection of the page or a list item? REALLY shouldn't be both! Redundant and contradictory semantics is as bad as none.

    Oh, and your layout seems screwed up in portrait on my cubot phone... I suspect not having height=device-height in the viewport META is why. (leave it to me to get suckered in by one of the phones with that 'flaw'. But hey, unlocked 2ghz quad core, 1gb RAM and 8 gigs of flash with a micro-SD slot for $80 five years ago?)

    ... and for the love of Christmas move that GA script before </body> so it's not blocking your loads! Though honestly GA is a giant load unless your hosting sucks so bad they don't let you access the relevant data from the server logs with something like webalizer or analog.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 27, 2017 IP
  5. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,375
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Best Answers:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #25
    Side note...

    I really stamped my dotage on my forehead with that one, didn't I? I wonder how today's little pansies who complain about cherry blue's being "too loud" and requiring "too much force" would react to the Deluxe Remette I was using to type schoolwork until I could finally afford a dot matrix printer... much less how they'd survive five minutes next to a dot matrix printer and a hard drive the size of a washing machine that we used to program to see who's code could make it bounce and hop across the room faster.

    Ah, for the days when DEC used to sell sound enclosures for their line printers... that worked about as well as the cone of silence.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 27, 2017 IP
  6. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #26
    Could you throw up an image of how the page looks on your 2560 screen? Or just in general how it looks on your setup?

    As for the footer, that has been fixed (it no longer uses the lists), but I have forgotten to run an update on the main server :D Will get to that next time I'm in front of my main computer.

    I do get the comment about the contrast, but... nah, not gonna change that. I will add a high-contrast alternative CSS, though. Which already exist in both Windows, OSX and other OSes - I still don't really get why this is a problem, except that people don't know how to use their tools properly.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Feb 27, 2017 IP
  7. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,375
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Best Answers:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #27
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/PoPSiCLe/broken/cap2560.png

    That's after the left side taskbar and right side tabs take up some space. Without those in place, it's worse -- feels like the old 768px "crappy little stripes" on a 1600px display, except that the fonts are too large and there's endless wasted whitespace at the sides inside the width constriction. Makes it LOOK like you're trying to cover up for a lack of content, no matter how many pages of scrolling it is.

    Mind you that's at 8514/120dpi/125%/windows large / winv+ medium / pickAHonkingNameAlready as well... which is why laughably why I would probably end up zooming out to 80% if I understood a word of it just to be at comfortable sizes.

    Oh, and I think Vivaldi is choking on something firefox is not. In FF it looks way nicer, in vivaldi the alignments of things like the menu and heading are totally banjaxed.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 28, 2017 IP
  8. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #28
    Yeah - okay, it's not as bad as I feared, but yeah, I haven't really tested that much in Vivaldi (it accounts for less than 1% of visitors, just checked - and that was after your visits :D)
    I agree, the alignment is broken to hell on Vivaldi - I might have a look at it and see if I can figure out why, if I get around to it.

    As for the width constraint, it's just because I prefer reading shorter lines - but I agree, it could probably use a bit more of the width inside the container.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Mar 1, 2017 IP