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 review from Devs

Discussion in 'Websites' started by Seert1, Jul 22, 2017.

0
  1. #1
    Hello Fellow Developers,
    I created a site called Uniference.com
    Its whole purpose is to provide references on college teachers just like ratemyprofesor. It has been long since I updated the site. I feel that a website needs constant upgrades (or maybe till it becomes successful). I used a simple template, used back-end programming with PHP and some Javascript and made it work. It has been 6 months, and my sites most users are from mobile.

    I would like a small review or feel back on the site, or any recommendations I could have in order to better up my UX. Also, I would appreciate if there is something I need to learn to optimize my site, in other areas.
     
    Seert1, Jul 22, 2017 IP
  2. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #2
    Well, first thing I see on desktop is a content-less space wasting bandwidth wasting "splash page" with illegible colour contrasts (white on cyan-green? REALLY? Ever heard of the WCAG?) Once I figure out "hey, it scrolls" there's STILL not enough content to warrant it even BEING a page of a website, though not knowing the language I can't really elaborate a lot further on that.

    Evaluating it from a network performance standpoint, it is a ridiculously absured 1.21 megabytes <doc brown>ONE POINT TWENTY-ONE MEGABYTES!?!</doc> spanning 54 files, which explains the page load feeling a bit sluggish but also leaving me wondering given the LACK of content or images just exactly what all those separate handshakes are wasted on....

    ...and it turns out to be the typical developer ineptitude of 22 separate JavaScripts totalling over 730k on a page I can't even see warranting the PRESENCE of JavaScript (unless much of it is blocked by ghostery) and the even more laughably pathetic 329k of CSS in 12 files when there is ZERO legitimate reason for all but the largest of websties to break 48k in ONE CSS file per media target FOR THE ENTIRE SITE!!!

    So just from a network performance standpoint, it's garbage.

    Popping the bonnet to look at what's going on for markup, I see pointless meta, someone doesn't understand what a keyWORD is, no media targets on the stylesheets, static <style> inside <body> (double /fail/), static scripting in the markup, gibberish non-semantic markup, little if anything resembling logical document structure, jacked up nonsensical language encodings, endless pointless classes for nothing, presentational classes... but of course 99% of that can be expected when this bit of mouth-breathing idiotic stupidity is involved:

     <link href="vendor/bootstrap/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet">
    Code (markup):
    OF COURSE the markup is ineptly slopped together garbage. Hence the 29k of markup to deliver 416 bytes of plaintext and NOTHING I would even consider to be a content image. Even accounting for the crappy coded <option> inside that <select> there is NO excuse for that page to be significantly more than 12k of HTML!

    It reeks of a cheap off the shelf template made by people who don't know enough about HTML, CSS, or accessibility minimums to be making websites for others.
     
    deathshadow, Jul 25, 2017 IP