Dear Members, We need your evaluation about a new concept in building websites through http://www.faltat.org/3alamionline/default.aspx 1- Technical Review 2- Whether you are interested to work on it or not? 3- Your personal opinion about its capabilities 4- Financial benefits ( Designer, Sales and Prices) waiting your feedback thank you!
It looks pretty good but this page made me laugh - you have 4 target markets and the "client" is the least important. #fail. 1 - couldn't really review without creating an account and didn't want to go there. 2 - no, can't see me recommending it, I don't recommend "hosted" to anyone. 3 - couldn't review the capabilities 4 - can't sell what I can't recommend
Much like SarahK I'm not going to create an account, even through my throwaway mail unseen just for a review, however if the end result bears any resemblance to the page you linked to, it's inaccessible trash. Fixed width layout with no responsiveness, goofy illegible bandwidth wasting webfonts in inaccessible fixed metric (px) sizes, illegible color contrasts on a good deal of the text far, far, FAR below accessibility minimums... and that's just looking at it. Diving deeper, it's a bloated mess consuming an ungodly FIVE MEGABYTES in an absolutely ridiculous 107 Files to deliver less than 3k of plaintext and maybe two dozen actual content images... ineptitude of the highest order. ... under the hood it's only worse since as the first line of markup proudly proclaims it's in 'transition' from 1997 to 1998 coding practices. The META[keywords] is an overstuffed mess of terms that don't even exist inside BODY, wastes time on META nothing actually gives a flying purple fish about like AUTHOR, has incomplete/inaccessible use of FORM elements, appears to be passing client-side in hidden INPUT stuff that has no business being passed client-side (that's of course ASPhattery in action), static style inlined in the markup, tables for nothing, tables for layout, IFRAME and attributes like ALIGN and TARGET that have no business on any website written after 1997, complete gibberish use of numbered headings -- hardly a shock it wastes 40k on that 3k of plaintext and two dozen content images -- easily four to six times as much markup as should have been needed on such a simple page. If that laundry list of how NOT to build a website is typical of what you offer, I pity anyone DUMB ENOUGH to choose your services.
... and I just visited a few of the "live demo" templates -- and they're even WORSE than the page itself; good for a laugh being the HTML 5 bloat ones that only further prove what idiotic BS HTML 5 truly is, and how it seems carefully crafted for the folks who never pulled their heads out of 1997's rump.