Hey Guys! I'm hoping I've provided some good feedback to other chaps on there sites and now would love some feedback on our tool. It's a tool that tracks website update on unlimited amounts of websites and other small but handy checks such as download speed. It's free and indeed one of things we have tried to do with how it's layed out is to ensure it doesn't look like we've made a rush job on it. I'd welcome any comments and constructive criticisms so we can get it spiffy! I'd obviously like some people to sign up to see the actual control panel also; feel free to put a fake email. http://statuscake.com ^Dan
it's a good idea NOT to make users register to check their websites as you can see almost all sites like that allow users to access without registration
Think you might slighty misunderstand what the site is facelook - it can't work without user accounts (you need to be able to add, amend and update records; it's not just a "is it up or down" site but rather a tool for webmasters to be pinged when their site goes down.
The design of the website is generally nice. Consider redoing the gradient on the homepage. The line is somewhat conspicuous -- if that is intended consider lowering it below the graphic of the 'C'. With regards to the screenshot section, are the shown pictures really relevant? It just appears to be random code to me. I'm sure you could put in place screenshots that would be of constructive use for users. If you do so, I'd suggest you allow visitors to click onto the pictures, then be greeted with a page that is within that page if you understand, similar to Facebook when one clicks on a picture. Allowing for an easy return to the main contents of the page. You should also get a favicon. I would think the colourful 'C' used on the title section would be adequate.
Few minutes ago I just visited your site. Your site is looking professional and also informative. You used awesome background and font color. Actually, it would be best if you did that for all the tap, because the grey area is taking up space. But in overall, it is very good.
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what it is and what it does... there doesn't seem to be any text actually explaining that -- it's all market buzzspeak like you were just making a fly-by-night squeeze page.
Do take another look at the site. Lots changed over the last couple of months with plenty of new features. Anyone who has a website should be monitoring it for downtime. You can't be sat in front of your computer 24/7 365 days a year, so StatusCake alerts you by email, SMS, Twitter and more. All feedback is always good!
Some marked improvements to the site as I can at least figure out what it is for -- unfortunately it now seems to have major accesibility issues -- with the inaccessible fixed width that's too big for my netbook and a useless little stripe on my desktop, the use of undersized fixed metric (px) fonts on the content, color contrasts that are right on the edge of accessibility minimums, making for a painful to use page. Much less the train-wreck of gibberish code under the hood -- though that's to be expected from a turdpress template; more so with the HTML 5 nonsense thrown on top of it! From Paul Irish's stupid malfing IE conditional idiocy around the HTML tag, to the even dumber 'polyfill' rubbish, to wordpress' "let's throw ten classes at every LI", to the nonsensical and gibberish use of heading tags, seven separate stylesheets without any media attributes, absolute URL's for no good reason besides "we like wasting bandwidth", clearfix nonsense like it's still 2001, empty attributes meaning a poorly coded back-end, inline level tags wrapping block level (even if 5tards say you can do it, doesn't mean it works right!), right down to POINTLESS comments that could in fact be tripping rendering bugs that had to be hacked around. ... and that's before we talk the absurdity of half a megabyte (over a megabyte uncompressed) in 76 files to deliver 2.8k of plaintext and maybe a dozen content images - say hello to half a minute first-load due to a lack of image recombination, pointless use of images, a failure to grasp how CSS works, and endless pointless javascript for nothing. There is no excuse for ANY site to blow 233k on javascript... and for something as simple as that 508k of javascript is shamefully bad. So it's still not exactly blowing my skirt up.