If you don't mind spending a little time could you please rate(/10, 10 being the
highest) and give me some feedback on my latest website layout. Note: Apart from
the homepage the rest of the site is still under construction. O yea, the link
is www.eternalanime.tk or www.bspunk.netcessorhost.com
Pretty cool banner. The theme of the layout seems a bit random though. Theres 2
naruto character and this thir character that i don't know. I like the tech
style though.
What's the point of the 15 second wait and splash screen? Or is that your host
doing that (I saw a lot of ads)?
It's kind of clunky but navigation is very simple. There is no content though,
so I would have suggested to wait until there was more to show what the layout
can do. Too late now, and it isn't very important anyway.
I suggest styling the navigation more (get rid of the dots in the li's) and
clean up the poll. It's very bold and stands out way too much against the rest
of the site.
You should ditch .tk, it is awful to use and really messed up. You should use
text equivalents to all your images for non graphical browsers. Also if I were
you I'd use a smaller banner because the banner takes up a lot of space.
I'd give it a 7/10. It's an ok site, above average. Main cons being: too big
banner, too narrow middle (content) section, layout aligned to left, layout
could be a bit wider...
Otherwise it seems ok, looks the same on different browsers. Looks kinda nice, I
guess.
This is just my opinion and don't listen to me, cause what do I know ?!
aside from what has been suggest before me i would asgree that the esthetics
look nice and could use some work, but i feel you need to work on validating
your code. possibly even making the leap into xhtml, but if this works,
"keep on trucking."
It looks nice, but could stand for some improvement. Entrance pages seem like a
waste of space and just annoy the user.
The content section of the page is too narrow with huge columns on both sides of
it. It also does not scale to the size of the browser viewing it. That means
that no matter what resolution your visitors run, they will still have to view
the narrow pages. You're also using table cells for adding margins when you
probably want to be setting the left and right padding values. You might want to
consider running it though an html validator.
You might be falling into the trap that a lot of people on MT seem to. They
often try to design a website that looks like a wallpaper, or is extremely
graphic intense. It usually turns into a site that looks beautiful but is a
royal pain in the a$$ to actually browse.
Criticism aside, the site looks nice and has lots of potential. I would give it
7/10.
Quote by RahX101aside from what has been
suggest before me i would asgree that the esthetics look nice and could use some
work, but i feel you need to work on validating your code. possibly even making
the leap into xhtml, but if this works, "keep on trucking."
I'd second this, but don't bother with XHTML - it has
benefits, but to actually gain those benefits you need to send it with the
MIME-type 'application/xhtml+xml', which IE doesn't recognise (who would've
guessed?). XHTML is just a trendy thing to do, really, if you send it as
'text/html'. Go for a strict doctype & CSS-based layout instead, or like Rah
said, 'keep on trucking.'
Quote by RahX101aside from what has been
suggest before me i would asgree that the esthetics look nice and could use some
work, but i feel you need to work on validating your code. possibly even making
the leap into xhtml, but if this works, "keep on trucking."
I'd second this, but don't bother with XHTML - it has
benefits, but to actually gain those benefits you need to send it with the
MIME-type 'application/xhtml+xml', which IE doesn't recognise (who would've
guessed?). XHTML is just a trendy thing to do, really, if you send it as
'text/html'. Go for a strict doctype & CSS-based layout instead, or like Rah
said, 'keep on trucking.'
That idea is so old. You get tons of benifit from using xhtml, without using the
application/xhtml+xml mime type. When you use invalid+outdated html your pages
may not display the same in all standards complient browsers. Also, when you use
html, you tend to put too much thought into how your pages look, and forget that
your document structure sucks. SGML to me is outdated and mainly used by the
goverment and education as far as I can see. I might be wrong about the sgml
part though
Quote by FredGregI'd second this, but
don't bother with XHTML - it has benefits, but to actually gain those benefits
you need to send it with the MIME-type 'application/xhtml+xml', which IE doesn't
recognise (who would've guessed?). XHTML is just a trendy thing to do, really,
if you send it as 'text/html'. Go for a strict doctype & CSS-based layout
instead, or like Rah said, 'keep on trucking.'
That idea is so old. You get tons of benifit from using xhtml, without using the
application/xhtml+xml mime type. When you use invalid+outdated html your pages
may not display the same in all standards complient browsers. Also, when you use
html, you tend to put too much thought into how your pages look, and forget that
your document structure sucks. SGML to me is outdated and mainly used by the
goverment and education as far as I can see. I might be wrong about the sgml
part though
It's not an old idea, it's a backlash against improper use of XHTML. HTML can be
written as cleanly as you seem to think XHTML is, & XHTML can be (&
often is) written as badly as most HTML, from a structural & bloatedness
point of view. What you say about structure isn't forced by XHTML, you can still
write presentational code with terrible structure etc. in it. The lean code
& document structure are helped more by using a strict doctype + CSS, but
only truly come from thinking through your design & making an effort to see
that it's good. It's the mindset, not the tool. Both tools accommodate both
coding styles.
The benefit to be had from XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml is encapsulating
other namespaces like MathML, or other arbitrary XML. If sent as text/html, it
will be parsed as such, so you can't embed other namespaces.
XHTML is more complex than just declaring a doctype & being valid, &
sent as tag soup it lets you do things it won't sent as application/xhtml+xml,
which will break it if you only change the MIME-type. You don't have to do those
things, but it's hard to catch all of them. For example, CSS interacts
differently with HTML (including XHTML sent as text/html) & properly sent
XHTML. This isn't browser-specific, it was designed that way.
If you're going to send as text/html, HTML 4.01 Strict is just as good as XHTML
Strict, better than XHTML Transitional, & won't suddenly break if you ever
decide to send it as what it is in order to get the benefits.
Quote: The benefit to be had from
XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml is encapsulating other namespaces like
MathML, or other arbitrary XML. If sent as text/html, it will be parsed as such,
so you can't embed other namespaces.
If you haven't noticed, this guy isn't trying to reinvent sourceforge.com or
wikipedia.com, all he is doing is making a cruddy anime site. Unless he is going
to use mathml to make the little 2 in DNA2 subscripted with mathml (is
jokingz0rz), he probubly won't need to embed mathml, rdf, rss or any xml dialect
other than xhtml. I'm not saying that writing in xhtml is an excuse for him not
to validate eaither. He NEEDS to learn proper syntax no matter what language he
plans on using. Anyways this point is worthless anyways, because it looks like
he is using a php script to help him, and doesn't have any easy way to switch to
xhtml anyways.
Try to think of a common theme to go with. The Munak is really cute, but takes
away from the "dark" feel of the layout. I suggest centering the
layout. Also, try to keep the font size and the font type in a similar manner
(ie. one font type/size for the header, one font type/size for the content). I
think you should place the login before the links just for easier access.
6.5/10
Quote by xshintaxIf you haven't noticed,
this guy isn't trying to reinvent sourceforge.com or wikipedia.com, all he is
doing is making a cruddy anime site. Unless he is going to use mathml to make
the little 2 in DNA2 subscripted with mathml (is jokingz0rz), he probubly won't
need to embed mathml, rdf, rss or any xml dialect other than xhtml. I'm not
saying that writing in xhtml is an excuse for him not to validate eaither. He
NEEDS to learn proper syntax no matter what language he plans on using. Anyways
this point is worthless anyways, because it looks like he is using a php script
to help him, and doesn't have any easy way to switch to xhtml anyways.
That's my point - he doesn't need it, so he shouldn't use
it. When you say he needs to learn proper syntax, I assume you mean how to write
the language, right? & for XHTML, that means more than just closing your img
tags. It really is another language.
Pity about the script... useful & probably necessary, of course, but they
can be a pain in the rear for tinkering.
If you don't mind spending a little time could you please rate(/10, 10 being the highest) and give me some feedback on my latest website layout. Note: Apart from the homepage the rest of the site is still under construction. O yea, the link is www.eternalanime.tk or www.bspunk.netcessorhost.com
Pretty cool banner. The theme of the layout seems a bit random though. Theres 2 naruto character and this thir character that i don't know. I like the tech style though.
Its a character from ragnarok since the site was originally designed for my ragnarok guild.
i like it.....just so you know...ive joined...ill add it to my favorites and hopefully the downloads section will be up soon
:)
What's the point of the 15 second wait and splash screen? Or is that your host doing that (I saw a lot of ads)?
It's kind of clunky but navigation is very simple. There is no content though, so I would have suggested to wait until there was more to show what the layout can do. Too late now, and it isn't very important anyway.
I suggest styling the navigation more (get rid of the dots in the li's) and clean up the poll. It's very bold and stands out way too much against the rest of the site.
Otherwise it's a decent looking layout.
good site but I would post the forum in a new page
good banner
Thats just because of the .tk domain name.
Apart from that thanx for all the fairly positive feedback so far
site looks great, easy to use, navigation looks abit plain though
You should ditch .tk, it is awful to use and really messed up. You should use text equivalents to all your images for non graphical browsers. Also if I were you I'd use a smaller banner because the banner takes up a lot of space.
I'd give it a 7/10. It's an ok site, above average. Main cons being: too big banner, too narrow middle (content) section, layout aligned to left, layout could be a bit wider...
Otherwise it seems ok, looks the same on different browsers. Looks kinda nice, I guess.
This is just my opinion and don't listen to me, cause what do I know
?!
aside from what has been suggest before me i would asgree that the esthetics look nice and could use some work, but i feel you need to work on validating your code. possibly even making the leap into xhtml, but if this works, "keep on trucking."
It looks nice, but could stand for some improvement. Entrance pages seem like a waste of space and just annoy the user.
The content section of the page is too narrow with huge columns on both sides of it. It also does not scale to the size of the browser viewing it. That means that no matter what resolution your visitors run, they will still have to view the narrow pages. You're also using table cells for adding margins when you probably want to be setting the left and right padding values. You might want to consider running it though an html validator.
You might be falling into the trap that a lot of people on MT seem to. They often try to design a website that looks like a wallpaper, or is extremely graphic intense. It usually turns into a site that looks beautiful but is a royal pain in the a$$ to actually browse.
Criticism aside, the site looks nice and has lots of potential. I would give it 7/10.
I'd second this, but don't bother with XHTML - it has benefits, but to actually gain those benefits you need to send it with the MIME-type 'application/xhtml+xml', which IE doesn't recognise (who would've guessed?). XHTML is just a trendy thing to do, really, if you send it as 'text/html'. Go for a strict doctype & CSS-based layout instead, or like Rah said, 'keep on trucking.'
That idea is so old. You get tons of benifit from using xhtml, without using the application/xhtml+xml mime type. When you use invalid+outdated html your pages may not display the same in all standards complient browsers. Also, when you use html, you tend to put too much thought into how your pages look, and forget that your document structure sucks. SGML to me is outdated and mainly used by the goverment and education as far as I can see. I might be wrong about the sgml part though
It's not an old idea, it's a backlash against improper use of XHTML. HTML can be written as cleanly as you seem to think XHTML is, & XHTML can be (& often is) written as badly as most HTML, from a structural & bloatedness point of view. What you say about structure isn't forced by XHTML, you can still write presentational code with terrible structure etc. in it. The lean code & document structure are helped more by using a strict doctype + CSS, but only truly come from thinking through your design & making an effort to see that it's good. It's the mindset, not the tool. Both tools accommodate both coding styles.
The benefit to be had from XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml is encapsulating other namespaces like MathML, or other arbitrary XML. If sent as text/html, it will be parsed as such, so you can't embed other namespaces.
XHTML is more complex than just declaring a doctype & being valid, & sent as tag soup it lets you do things it won't sent as application/xhtml+xml, which will break it if you only change the MIME-type. You don't have to do those things, but it's hard to catch all of them. For example, CSS interacts differently with HTML (including XHTML sent as text/html) & properly sent XHTML. This isn't browser-specific, it was designed that way.
If you're going to send as text/html, HTML 4.01 Strict is just as good as XHTML Strict, better than XHTML Transitional, & won't suddenly break if you ever decide to send it as what it is in order to get the benefits.
Nice Layout! The Site is alright 8/10...
If you haven't noticed, this guy isn't trying to reinvent sourceforge.com or wikipedia.com, all he is doing is making a cruddy anime site. Unless he is going to use mathml to make the little 2 in DNA2 subscripted with mathml (is jokingz0rz), he probubly won't need to embed mathml, rdf, rss or any xml dialect other than xhtml. I'm not saying that writing in xhtml is an excuse for him not to validate eaither. He NEEDS to learn proper syntax no matter what language he plans on using. Anyways this point is worthless anyways, because it looks like he is using a php script to help him, and doesn't have any easy way to switch to xhtml anyways.
Anyways, great website.
nice banner i can give a generous 8.5 for it.
Not sure bout the inside, i'll check it out later.
Nice work btw
Try to think of a common theme to go with. The Munak is really cute, but takes away from the "dark" feel of the layout. I suggest centering the layout. Also, try to keep the font size and the font type in a similar manner (ie. one font type/size for the header, one font type/size for the content). I think you should place the login before the links just for easier access.
6.5/10
That's my point - he doesn't need it, so he shouldn't use it. When you say he needs to learn proper syntax, I assume you mean how to write the language, right? & for XHTML, that means more than just closing your img tags. It really is another language.
Pity about the script... useful & probably necessary, of course, but they can be a pain in the rear for tinkering.
it's pretty good..:P
Hi!
Your page is cool!
:p
I'll give a 7.... The layout are pretty good, although it's kinda simple.
ps:Where's the content?