Site Check Please ?
Lee Bradshaw
know what you think, please.
All comments gratefully received, whether good or bad !
Thanks,
Lee
lee.br...@nospambtinternet.com ( Hack accordingly )
3iron
> Please could you do a site check on http://cheapgoodsonthe.net and let me
> know what you think, please.
>
> All comments gratefully received, whether good or bad !
Lee, I like how it looks
Few comments...
The first link on your index page just reloads the page ...perhaps this
should enter the site like the second one?
You need to check you links to other site..the first one I tried
(Drinks-direct) led me to a site that has now shut down! You say "All links
open in their own window." - most of the ones on this page don't and I
didn't check any other pages.
Check the grammar on the site.. (eg i'll should be I'll)
Small point but the copyright note on some page is '© 2000 - 2001' and on
others '© 2000'
HTH,
3iron
--
Red Rhino Web Design
http://www.redrhino.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An associate of . . .
Web Position Gold Pro - Site Submission and Ranking : Free 45-day trial.
http://www.webpositiongoldpro.net
Jeremy Clulow
<Lee.Br...@btinternet.com> wrote:
|| Please could you do a site check on http://cheapgoodsonthe.net and let me
|| know what you think, please.
Why do I have to click twice before reaching any product categories? The
first two screen are unnecessary. http://cheapgoodsonthe.net/directory.html
should be the first page.
Links should be underlined so we can see they are links, or is this a
"mouse-over-and-find-a-link" guessing game? Why not make them "standard"
blue while you're at it?
The colour scheme is a bit washed-out. Also not enough contrast between
foreground and background for people with less than perfect vision.
BTW, how do you define "cheap"?
Regards,
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Clulow, Webs Wonder Design
jer...@webswonder.net
http://www.webswonder.net
Tel: 01239 698488. Fax: 01239 698489
------------------------------------------------------------
dino
this...
...snipped useful comments...
> Small point but the copyright note on some page is '© 2000 - 2001' and on
> others '© 2000'
On this point...is it best to have 2000-2001 or just 2000 or
does it really matter?
niall
--
When in doubt, poke it with a stick.
Richard Watson
> In uk.net.web.authoring, 3iron, mumbled something like
> this...
>
> ...snipped useful comments...
>
> > Small point but the copyright note on some page is '© 2000 - 2001' and on
> > others '© 2000'
>
> On this point...is it best to have 2000-2001 or just 2000 or
> does it really matter?
IANAL but AFAIK you can't affect your rights with such a statement so,
in short, it doesn't matter (and it wouldn't matter if you didn't have
a copyright notice at all).
--
Richard Watson
ric...@doilywood.org.uk GPG/PGP:0xAE411550 ICQ:65274884
Eric Jarvis
> In uk.net.web.authoring, 3iron, mumbled something like
> this...
>
> ...snipped useful comments...
>
> > Small point but the copyright note on some page is '© 2000 - 2001' and on
> > others '© 2000'
>
> On this point...is it best to have 2000-2001 or just 2000 or
> does it really matter?
>
copyright should be a single specific date except in exceptional
circumstances
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
dino
this...
>
> copyright should be a single specific date except in exceptional
> circumstances
So if the site was originally coded in 2000 and then updated
in 2001 should you cahnge the date to 2001 and not use 2000-
2001.
BTW I've read Richard's comment also so this question is
probably irrelevant in any case :o)
niall
--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well,
I have others.
-- Groucho Marx
Alan J. Flavell
> IANAL but AFAIK you can't affect your rights with such a statement
Neither am I, but although you can't affect your _rights_, in some
jurisdictions it could make a massive difference to the level of
damages you could get in the event of a violation.
Addressing the hon usenauts collectively (not specifically you,
Richard, I presume you're better informed than average..):
Speaking as a layman and this advice is worth no more than your're
paying me for it, but I'd recommend reading the Usenet copyright FAQ,
which includes international considerations (part 4), not only USA.
Even though I couldn't find a update later than 1994
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/law/copyright/
Its view on the topic at hand is this
Preclusion of formalities: Under Berne, copyright cannot be dependent
on formalities such as registration or copyright notice (Art. 5(2)).
However, as noted in sections 2.5 and 2.7, this provision apparently
does not prevent a member nation from taking adherence to formalities
into account when determining what remedies apply.
Brad Templetons's copyright myths is also worth reading.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
or http://www.landfield.com/faqs/law/copyright/myths/part1/
Lee Bradshaw
It's still a "work in progress" ! I'll be working on it over the weekend.
Thanks for taking the time out to check it and thanks for your comments.
Lee
lee.br...@nospambtinternet.com
3iron <3iron...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:94s273$eua69$1...@ID-13600.news.dfncis.de...
Stylewriter
Lee.Br...@btinternet.com says...
____> All comments gratefully received, whether good or bad !
____>
First off, Lee, these kinds of splash pages do nothing for a
site except force users to click yet again to reach your
site. You may feel they're cool, but why put unnecessary
obstaceles in front of users YOU want to visit your site ?
THEN we get to yet another welcome page........but we still
aren't IN the site ? come on Lee !
GEEZ ! I'm really pissed no Lee. I haven't all night to
follow your yellow brick road. If you want to have fun,
fine. If you want to do business ? cut the shit and let
people into the site right off.
Stylewriter
3iron
> Thanks 3iron,
>
> It's still a "work in progress" ! I'll be working on it over the weekend.
>
> Thanks for taking the time out to check it and thanks for your comments.
np.
3iron
Alison Parsons
little pointless. Does the page really need to scroll like that? Surely it
can fit on 1 page (could put in a table 100% height so it would fit in all
screens). Copyright only covers 2000 - other pages all say 2000-2001.
Home page - 1st/2nd para: should there be a line space? 2nd para: due to
their (not THERE). Standardise whether the copyright or the designed by
lines are going to be last - varies on different pages.
Directories - Maybe list the web pages alphabetically rather than page 1,
page 2 - this will work out better as the site expands even more.
Afraid I haven't time to pick at much more - but all in all looks a clean
site, good use of colour and links - good luck with it!
Ali
;)
Lee Bradshaw <Lee.Br...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:94s0nj$2e6$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Lee Bradshaw
"3iron", it is a work in progress and is one of my first websites. (Maybe
it shows !?)
I'll be updating it over the weekend and will change a few things. The front
page is a bit of "yellow brick road" as you put it. I'll change that !
As always, all comments are always gratefully received.
Thanks again.
Lee
Stylewriter <scam...@eggs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.14dc2ca72...@news.iol.ie...
Stylewriter
Lee.Br...@btinternet.com says...
____> As always, all comments are always gratefully received.
____>
Don't mistake my bluntness for anthing more than working
late at night :)
Apols.
Stylewriter
Tony Sutton
news:94s0nj$2e6$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> know what you think, please.
>
Get rid of TheCounter... it's an slow loading server, which "freeze" up
Netscape for a while. I had to press the Esc key to stop it.
--
- Tony Sutton
- http://tsutton.livejournal.com - My Live Journal
- http://www.hyperboard.co.uk - Discuss on my message board
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prevent computer viruses. Install Trojans!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Ley
<al.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Afraid I haven't time to pick at much more - but all in all looks a clean
>site, good use of colour and links - good luck with it!
I found the colours to be very washed out, couldn't really see what
was going on too well, and didn't see the motivation for the visitors,
what added value do you give over a simple search engine?
Jim.
Eric Jarvis
> In uk.net.web.authoring, Eric Jarvis, mumbled something like
> this...
>
> >
> > copyright should be a single specific date except in exceptional
> > circumstances
>
> So if the site was originally coded in 2000 and then updated
> in 2001 should you cahnge the date to 2001 and not use 2000-
> 2001.
>
> BTW I've read Richard's comment also so this question is
> probably irrelevant in any case :o)
>
IANAL but
the version you coded in 2000 is copyright 2000 and the updated
version is copyrighted 2001...at least that's the way it works with
music or writing, and I haven't heard about the law being
significantly different when it comes to new media
remember it's copyrighted whether or not you have a note to that
effect on the site...but that isn't the important thing...the
important question is would you be able to prosecute somebody for
ripping it off
if there is a lawyer in the group they may correct me on this, but I
have always had the impression that this is down to it being clear
that the material or design are NOT in the public domain, and having a
record of it being created at a particular time that is likely to
stand up in a court
so the date on the copyright statement isn't really very important
Rachel & John
<Lee.Br...@btinternet.com> wrote:
It's fast, simple and useful.
I've added it to my favourites.
Your first page suddenly stops due to poor support from thecounter.com
though.
Check if your own isp has a cgi script for counters.
Rachel & John
<ric...@doilywood.org.uk> wrote:
>dino <di...@nasuwt.net> writes:
>
>> In uk.net.web.authoring, 3iron, mumbled something like
>> this...
>>
>> ...snipped useful comments...
>>
>> > Small point but the copyright note on some page is '© 2000 - 2001' and on
>> > others '© 2000'
>>
>> On this point...is it best to have 2000-2001 or just 2000 or
>> does it really matter?
>
>IANAL but AFAIK you can't affect your rights with such a statement so,
>in short, it doesn't matter (and it wouldn't matter if you didn't have
>a copyright notice at all).
However, 2000-2001 shows to previous visitors that the site has been
updated.