Website opinions ??

=>I am no Web expert but I have re-launched 2 websites that I maintain, could =>I ask if you get a chance to have a look and perhaps give me your opinions =>good or bad ! =>

is my own garden railway website => is a 7mm modern image group =>

=>Thanks =>

=>-- =>

=>

Wish I could say, but your version of Java crashed my machine. Your version of Java may be newer than mine, wh/ is a problem I've encountered before. :-( OTOH, you may be using Microsoft software. If so, be aware that MS does _not_ follow international standards, and the result is that often websites created with their software are more or less unreadable by non-MS browsers.

I expect some twerps will tell me to get with the program and accept the reality of the modern internet, etc. Well, my friends, I do have an MS machine, but I use it _only_ to download software (and less and less of that

- there's not that much inteersting software out there.) I _never_ use it for browsing or e-mail -- I'm paranoid about viruses, etc, and see no reason to expose the machine to unnecessary risks. So IMO it's the MS-only websites that are out of step with the reality of the internet, not me.

A general note about websites:

Make your homepage as simple as possible - few if any graphics, no sound effects or animation, etc. Let the visitor decide what things he or she wants to see, and offer them on separate pages. Offer text-only versions of most of your pages - there are still a lot of people with plain old dial-up, and waiting for graphics and sound effects to load is a real PITA. -- BTW, courses and articles on web-page design make the same points. The purpose of the home page is to help the visitor decide what to do next, not to overwhelm him or her with glitz and glamour.

HTH

Whilst I had no problems with the technical aspect of the site using both Netscape 7.1 and Internet Explorer 6, I would agree with Wolf's comment about MS "standards" of website. I notice that your site is written using MS FrontPage, which is an excellent piece of software. However, I found to my cost that other people had all sorts of problems reading my site also written using FrontPage, especially those using older MS software or non-MS software. As a consequence, I re-wrote the site from scratch using IBM Websphere and Notepad which generates much more standard HTML. Those who previously reported problems could then access it fine. Just a thought, are you sure that your ISP *fully* implements FrontPage extensions? If they don't, some people will have problems using non-MS browsers. PlusNet appear to have some implementation issues, for example.

I'm afraid the content is too modern-image for me, but that isn't a criticism!!!!

Paul

the websites look great, content being the winner every time :)

however, you need to change the Targets on your link pages. At the moment they load the outside links within your own frames.

Pete

Love the website - Only slight envious, well a lot actually. No probs with IE 5.5 or NS6, nothing else to hand at the moment.

I work with a charity (da2c.org) - we help disabled people with IT.

I have what we think is the best html tutorial (the Joe Barta tutorial, we have the last free version, takes you up to HTML 3) and I seem to remember we have a freeware syntax checker ( CSE HTML Validator). If you work through the tutorial (about a week of evenings if you take it easy) and use CSE to edit the pages you should be fine. Its a bit 'handraulic' but the resulting code is prtty clean.

We have developed a method for untrained people and bline webmasters to maintain sites - examples run by blind people:

and The method involves using Open Office ( a freeware office package, pretty much equivalent to MS Office) that lets them work in a word processor, the HTML code it produces is pretty clean, although it does leave two non standard bits, one in the header and one at the end, that you should edit out with CSE HTML Validator.

Point being if you want to play send me an address to mike at igg org uk and I'll post you a CD.

it's not MS java. it's nothing to do with MS at all :) there's some Java 'snow' on one of the pics. an applet rather than a script.

Pete

I have a small screen and the menu drops off the bottom, and because of the frames I can't get to it very easily. I do see a message about the "best" resolution, which is pushing the useful menu down, but even for those who know how and can, virtually no-one will reset their monitor just to look at a website. The idea is that the web works independently of browsing situation.

This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.

A few links on the framed pages should mean anyone would be able to get around the site.

...

HTML3 is like getting a clockwork model train with steamroller wheels. If you are starting out, go straight for learning HTML4. Version 3 contains lots of Bad Things that were expunged from later versions, and if you learn 3 you will soon have to unlearn a lot of bad habits. Being cleaner, HTML4 + CSS is also a lot quicker to write, which suits lazy people like me :-)

There is a validator at

but it isn't the most user-friendly thing in the world, it can take a while to understand the reports.

I'm using IE6/Win98, BTW. I normally use the vastly superior Opera browser, but I've broken it while trying to "fix" my computer.

Mike,

The snow applet is a nice touch, but will not work in some browsers. The mouse-overs on the menu are a touch difficult to read. You could lighten the Class 37 or use white text? The Talacre station sign at top centre is pretty low quality. I'll do you a new one if you like? FOC... The slideshow is very slow / buggy on Mac. (Dunno if you're bothered about that, though :o) Also the huge EasySpace banner rather detracts from the pictures... Just a small issue on the links page, there are lots of non-breaking spaces in the code - FrontPage's fault - which mess up the formating a bit...

Argh, more snow! Is it Xmas already?! Damn... There's something very odd going on with the mouse-overs on the menu. It looks like the 'over' images are bad. The "£12 a year" marquee is a bit on the large side, and I don't like it anyway! Enbolden it and make it pink or something... The Chester Show page - I don't know how enthusiastic you are about coding, but you could improve the look of this page x100 by putting the content in an invisible table. Then it would look the same in any browser. The contacts page - is that REALLY the best you could do? Use you imagination! Links page - as above MIGO+1 Fotopic link page has... a picture of this website? Oh. I just realised the Welcome button is the home button. It should be at the top really... You could have a MIGO+1 logo in the top frame which remains the home button?

There we go. These are all good and bad opinions, depending on how you look at them... Well you asked!

Unfortunately I'm a web designer. :o\

Jim

-------------------------------------------------------

pester me, why not? whokid at flywheelnetwork . co . uk

I agree, I would'nt bother changing settings for just one website! I actually recommend a 17" CRT or 15" TFT running at 1024x768 at 16bit colour for viewing websites as a minimum spec these days (some 15" CRT's can do that resolution as well, but with most being 0.28 dot pitch they are rather fuzzy) for any web user.

Alan

Thanks for you comments, I have to admit I cant seem to re-size images etc properly for the website, I would appreciate a new Talacre logo if you could do me one, I am working on some other things at the moment,

Thanks once again

Mike Dunning

Even though 17" CRTs are pretty cheap these days, not everyone has as enough room on their desk!

Actually, I recently bought a 17" TFT LCD for under $600/£250 to replace my 15" Trinitron, and I now have room for a lot more junk on my desk! Even though the Sony was OK, the LCD is much clearer with more contrast.

Heh! I have two 17" CRTs and a 19" CRT - I live for the day when they blow up and I can persuade the Financial Controller to let me buy TFT screens to replace them, and double the size of my desk :-)

(and I already use a KVM switch to keep the numbers down).

Mike,

I'll be happy to provide you with a Talacre logo. Should I just go off the style of the current one?

Jim

-------------------------------------------------------

pester me, why not? whokid at flywheelnetwork . co . uk

Hm.. for my taste less gimiks and more info would be better. just my two (euro)cents later Paul

=>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:23:57 +0000 (UTC), "Mike" =>wrote: =>

=>>I am no Web expert but I have re-launched 2 websites that I maintain, could =>>I ask if you get a chance to have a look and perhaps give me your opinions =>>good or bad ! =>>

is my own garden railway website =>> is a 7mm modern image group =>>

=>>Thanks => Hm.. for my taste less gimiks and more info would be better. =>just my two (euro)cents =>later Paul

I second Paul's opinion - in fact, the homepage wouldn't load completely on my system, and it was some gimmick that did the damage. Your homepage started a Java applet partway through loading, which crashed the browser. Your applet clearly used a version of Java that was incompatible with the one on my machine. Could be my Java is too old (I haven't updated the Java plug-in in ages), could be that your version is the one supplied by Micos**t, which unfortunately is not compatible with standard Java. Either way, I didn't get far enough to see what I liked or didn't like about your site. And I _do_ like narrow gauge, so I was looking forward to seeing what you were up to. As a rule of thumb do _not_ put Java applets on your home page - the risk that a significant portion of potential visitors will be stymied by it is too high.

The home page should be as simple as possible - eg, you don't need graphics to make the menu look pretty, plain HTML text will work just fine. Use as few graphics as possible, in fact - there are still many people on dial-up connections, and many others that pay by the minute or by the kilobyte. It seems impolite to me to create a homepage that uses up more time and bandwidth than necessary. You can always structure your site so that the visitor can choose the gimmicks -- and it would very nice of you to offer plain versions of any pages that have gimmicks such as sound or animation built into them.

One other annoyance is coloured or textured background - for some reason, people who like this feature have eyes that don't work the same as mine, and I find their webpages difficult to read. :-)

HTH&GL

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

I have just checked out both sites and for me (on XP Home ) both work perfectly

BTW Like the site the pictures loaded great on Talacre but then again I'm on BB

-- Merry Christmas

From Gray The Madcaravanner from Chesterfield

You don't have to be mad but it helps