Grateful for critique of multiversion site
Matt Brown
I have a pending registration for a new domain name and have been
working on a new site to put up there, an incomplete version of which is
available at:
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~mattb/preview/
Some of the content is not yet finished but the main structure of the
site is up and running. There are three versions available (the address
listed above should autodetect the most appropriate version for you):
1. Navigator 3/Communicator - frames, scripting, 800x600+
2. Navigator 2/Explorer 3 - frames, 800x600+
3. Explorer 2/Table-enabled browsers, 640x480+
Any feedback on the site would be most welcome, but I would be
especially grateful if people running on different platforms and
different browsers (ie. not Netscape, not Windows 95, not a PC) could
check the site out and let me know if you run across any problems? I
need to know if the expandable menu in the NN3/4 version works and if
the autoredirection works correctly. Version 1 uses some nifty
JavaScript and all versions of the site feature snazzy graphics (if I do
say so myself).
As an added incentive, there are some freebie animated .gifs and Windows
95 trivialities available as freeware on the Freebies page (please note
that all other pages are under copyright).
With many thanks,
--
Matt Brown
Yeah Right Graphics & Illustration
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~mattb
ma...@dircon.co.uk
Dave Gibson
This is what a Lynx user sees when viewing your site.
Maybe you should think agin about the overall design
Yeah Right Graphics & Illustration, London UK: No-frames version
[INLINE]
Click here to see the other versions of the Yeah Right Site
www.yeahright.co.uk no-frames version
Graphics & text _ Yeah Right 1996-1997
[INLINE]
[INLINE]
[INLINE] [INLINE]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK]
[INLINE] [LINK][LINK] Use this tree to navigate your way around the
Yeah Right Site. When you've finished looking at a page, use the
"Back" button on your browser to come back to this page.
Clicking on a main heading ( [INLINE] ) or its name opens each of the
main pages on the Yeah Right Site. These give a full explanation of
their sub-pages ( [INLINE] ) and links to each sub-page, but you can
skip straight to the sub-pages by clicking on their names.
We hope you find the site fun to look at and perhaps useful too - let
us know what you think.
Yeah Right
[INLINE]
--
Dave Gibson
dave....@cyberdude.com
Matt Brown <ma...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3369613A...@dircon.co.uk>...
Matt Brown
Dave Gibson wrote:
>
> This is what a Lynx user sees when viewing your site.
> Maybe you should think agin about the overall design
I'm grateful to you for looking at the site, but perhaps using a
non-graphical browser to look at a site called "Yeah Right Graphics &
Illustration" is bound to be doomed to disappointment?
However I will now put a warning about the graphical nature of the site
on the front page.
--
Matt Brown
Yeah Right Graphics & Illustration
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~mattb/preview
ma...@dircon.co.uk
Les Jones
In article <336C996E...@dircon.co.uk>, Matt Brown
<ma...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Gibson wrote:
> >
> > This is what a Lynx user sees when viewing your site.
> > Maybe you should think agin about the overall design
> > etc. etc. etc.
>
> I'm grateful to you for looking at the site, but perhaps using a
> non-graphical browser to look at a site called "Yeah Right Graphics &
> Illustration" is bound to be doomed to disappointment?
It's now just Lynx users. Many Netscape and IE users surf with images off
for greater speed. In fact, the graphic artist who designed the logos for
my latest site keeps images off. Ironic, innit?
> However I will now put a warning about the graphical nature of the site
> on the front page.
Better yet, use alt tags. That's what they're for. It's entirely possible
that someone might visit your site with Lynx, or with NN/IE and graphics
turned off, and selectively download selected images for viewing. From the
HTML 3.2 spec:
"Although the ALT attribute is not required, it is good practice to add it.
It should replace the image's meaning, and not just provide a description
of the image! If the image is purely decorational, use ALT="" or a
decorative ALT text like "* " if possible."
+ Les Jones + Special Projects Ranger + U.S. Internet +
Warren Steel
Dave Gibson wrote:
> This is what a Lynx user sees when viewing your site.
> Maybe you should think agin about the overall design
> etc. etc. etc.
Matt Brown wrote:
> I'm grateful to you for looking at the site, but perhaps using a
> non-graphical browser to look at a site called "Yeah Right Graphics &
> Illustration" is bound to be doomed to disappointment?
Not necessarily. Some may use Lynx (or another text-mode
browser) with a true X image viewer on a sophisticated hi-res
console. Others may download images for later viewing.
Some may use a popular graphical browser with default image-
loading off, to save connect time. Such users may be happy
to load images individually, if they are given some indication
that it's worth their while. Your site may be devoted to
images and imaging software, but I see no reason to exclude
or hinder these users.
> However I will now put a warning about the graphical nature of the site
> on the front page.
It would be more helpful to add ALT= attributes to the
images on this page, for reasons outlined in the preceding
paragraph. Instead of saying "load all my images, or go
away," take a gentler approach and entice viewers to view
the images by means of informative ALT= text. Tell users
which images are important and which are dcorations. Etc.
--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
Christian Wagner
>> This is what a Lynx user sees when viewing your site.
>> Maybe you should think agin about the overall design
>> etc. etc. etc.
>non-graphical browser to look at a site called "Yeah Right Graphics &
>Illustration" is bound to be doomed to disappointment?
Did it ever occur to you, that the reason that someone might want to hire
you to do web graphics/design, is that they don't have the computer
capabilities to do it themselves? If I had a small business with old
computers that can only run Lynx (or Netscape 1.22 with image loading
turned off due to slow system speed and lack of RAM), do you think I'd
attempt to create professional-looking web pages myself? No, I'm going to
hire somebody else to do so, and I'd probably pick somebody whose web
pages are usable on my system.
>However I will now put a warning about the graphical nature of the site
>on the front page.
You also might want to remove the bit about "old non-JS compatible
browser"; my browsers are newer than Netscape 3.01, and neither of them
support JavaScript. You could also get rid of the menu where the user
selects his or her frames capability, through the proper use of
<NOFRAMES>. In fact, it would be pretty simple (and much more
professional, IMHO) to get rid of all references to the viewer's browser.
BTW, you can now change the "Negative Feedback" section from "So far,
nobody's given us any!" to something more accurate.
--
Christian Wagner I R I S Internet Connectivity Consulting
cwa...@io.com http://www.io.com/~cwagner/iris.html
"You've just turned the last ten minutes of our lives into a Tarantino
scene. I'd call that a triumph for post-modernism any day of the week."
Les Jones
In article <lesjones-ya023480...@news.usit.net>,
lesj...@usit.net (Les Jones) wrote:
> It's now just Lynx users.
^^^
If that didn't make any sense, it's because I mis-typed "not".
Les "not even a spelling checker will save me" Jones
Matt Brown
Christian Wagner wrote:
> Did it ever occur to you, that the reason that someone might want to hire
> you to do web graphics/design, is that they don't have the computer
> capabilities to do it themselves?
Doh. No, of course it hadn't - I'm very stupid. Thanks for your polite,
unpatronising reply. What is it with the attitude in this newsgroup? I
asked for critique, not a slag-off.
> If I had a small business with old
> computers that can only run Lynx (or Netscape 1.22 with image loading
> turned off due to slow system speed and lack of RAM), do you think I'd
> attempt to create professional-looking web pages myself? No, I'm going to
> hire somebody else to do so, and I'd probably pick somebody whose web
> pages are usable on my system.
So how are they supposed to see what I'm capable of if they can only see
a text-only version of my site? That's really going to impress them.
Obviously if I were interested in making plain text sites, I wouldn't be
advertising myself in such a way, and would probably advertise in a more
conventional medium such as newspapers.
However as I'm not interested in making boring sites, I think it is of
more value to me to show people what I'm capable of. I also disagree
with your assertion that people won't want me to make them a nice
website if they're not capable of viewing it themselves. Surely a
business wants other people to be viewing your site - it's not merely
for your own pleasure.
If my site is unviewable by a small minority then that's a shame, but SO
FAR I have taken all the steps that I know how to avoid it - the site is
not yet finished. I would love it if I could make a one-version-fits-all
site that reflects what I am best at but Microsoft, Netscape, and the
collective community that gave rise to the WWW has prevented that. I am
not an expert on HTML and that is why I posted a request for a critique
here in the first place.
> >However I will now put a warning about the graphical nature of the site
> >on the front page.
>
> You also might want to remove the bit about "old non-JS compatible
> browser"; my browsers are newer than Netscape 3.01, and neither of them
> support JavaScript.
OK, I'll remove the "old". Sorry to unconsciously slur your choice of
browser.
> You could also get rid of the menu where the user
> selects his or her frames capability, through the proper use of
> <NOFRAMES>.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
> In fact, it would be pretty simple (and much more
> professional, IMHO) to get rid of all references to the viewer's browser.
If the browser supports JavaScript, the only reference made to what
version of the site is being looked at is 7 tiny characters in the top
left frame. If the site does not support JavaScript, then obviously some
kind of choice is going to have to be made about which version of the
site you want to look at, or not to look at it at all, which is also the
viewer's choice. I want people to see that there are different versions,
because as I am better at working with Netscape 3 than anything else, I
would personally prefer it if people saw the funkiest version, the
Netscape 3.0/Communicator version. That is MY personal choice.
> BTW, you can now change the "Negative Feedback" section from "So far,
> nobody's given us any!" to something more accurate.
I shall do. And I have you to thank for it. Happy?
--
Matt Brown
Yeah Right Graphics & Illustration
Christian Wagner
I just accidentally lost the original version of this article, which I
spent half-an-hour typing up... So instead of replying to everything like
I did originall, I'll just rewrite the important bit with all the content,
instead of bothing with the rest.
In article <336CEAD9...@dircon.co.uk>,
Matt Brown <ma...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Christian Wagner wrote:
[BIG, big snip]
>> You could also get rid of the menu where the user
>> selects his or her frames capability, through the proper use of
>> <NOFRAMES>.
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
A basic concept of using frames is the use of a <NOFRAMES> section to
allow a single URL to serve both users of frames-capable and non-frames
browsers. Here's an example framed document structure, pulled from
<http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/usage/>
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>A sample frameset document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<FRAMESET ROWS="*,*">
<FRAME SRC="foo.html" NAME=foo>
<FRAME SRC="bar.html" NAME=bar>
<NOFRAMES>
<BODY>
...
</BODY>
</NOFRAMES>
</FRAMESET>
</HTML>
A frames-capable browser will display the frames containing "foo.html" and
"bar.html", and ignore the contents of the <NOFRAMES> block. Browsers
that do not understand frames will ignore the <FRAMESET>, <FRAMES>, and
<NOFRAMES> tags, and instead render a normal HTML pagee as contained
within the <BODY>.
On your site, if you added a <NOFRAMES> section to "indexn2e3.html" that
contained the contents of "indexnoframes.html", you could have the user's
browser automatically select which version to show, without any sort of
clunky question-and-answer period for the user.
Matt Brown
Christian Wagner wrote:
>
> I just accidentally lost the original version of this article, which I
> spent half-an-hour typing up... So instead of replying to everything like
> I did originall, I'll just rewrite the important bit with all the content,
> instead of bothing with the rest.
> On your site, if you added a <NOFRAMES> section to "indexn2e3.html" that
> contained the contents of "indexnoframes.html", you could have the user's
> browser automatically select which version to show, without any sort of
> clunky question-and-answer period for the user.
Thank you very much - this is exactly the kind of advice that I need and
was looking for. Much appreciated.
--
Matt Brown
Yeah Right Graphics & Illustration
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~mattb