My New Website

[Larbear]

Hello everyone, just wanted to put the link out here for my new website, let me know what you think. It's not quite complete yet, but it should be within the next day or so. As always, I welcome all comments, suggestions, or ideas.

Thanks,

Larry http://www.customfreelancephoto.com

[Photo678]

<<<runs from nancy

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by Photo678

<<<runs from nancy

:p

If you REALLY want to know what I think... I'll tell you later But be warned, I dont sugar coat the pill

[Terry L]

Hello Larbear,

I'm living in the dark ages with dial-up technology so, I couldn't get to your web site without waiting ten minutes per page download. My fast speed is 24Kbps but the normal speed is 21.4 Kbps! However, I'm suppose to be getting DSL in a matter of days (probably Monday 5 Dec) with the hub only 800 ft. away so, I'll be able to get to your site then...which I will. The same holds true for image critiques. Hang in there and I'll take a peek.

[Cassidy]

Larbear,

Just a couple of comments,
1. I think your front page is way too busy
2. I think your examples could be more and not as intensive (I am on a 1.5k connection, so can imagine for dialup it must be gruelling.)

[Hunter]

Since everyone was giving Nancy a hard time for being honest, I'll join in the fray and give my honest opinion, too. Note that these comments are not intended to hurt/offend, etc, but to give realistic feedback.

Well, it's certainly not compliant in terms of valid markup. There are 30 markup errors on the main page alone: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...ancephoto.com/
There's no DTD declaration, ALT text has not been used for the images, the javascripts aren't properly defined, etc. BTW, the javascript you have to disable right-clicking is kind of pointless as it's VERY easy to bypass (at the minimum, people can always do a PrintScreen and get your images), so why add to the codebloat from FrontPage and have it? Oh, and why, oh why, did you ressurect the BLINK tag (when you mouseover the packages links)? Very 1995 in terms of layout and will just annoy people. It's almost like using the Page Curl effect on images.

Part of the coding issues may not be your fault - you're using a very old version of FrontPage and it did not create very clean code. If you're serious about wanting to create and update your own site(s), you'll want to invest in a more Standards compliant editor (or learn proper HTML/XHTML markup so you can go back and edit it yourself... unfortunately, that version of FP4 you have will delete your hand-edits and replace it with code that IT wants to use, not what you specify).

Hmm... NEVER underline something online unless it's a hyperlink - you'll just confuse visitors who will try to click on it and get upset when it doesn't work. You have no navigational elements when you have a user go to one of your packages - that's a big no-no in terms of useability. And then you have an image used for navigation which is not obviously a navigational element. And clicking on it does not spawn a new window. It's a "best-practices" thing to always spawn a new window for links that take you away from the site you're currently on.

Your images seem to be very heavily compressed which goes against what you're wanting to show. Lots of jaggies and compression artifacts going on in those pictures.

Also, all CSS style info should be created in a separate file and then referenced via either a LINK or an IMPORT statement in the HEAD section of your code.

[Larbear]

Please don't think I'm offended by the truth, this is all fairly new to me and I'm looking for honest input, and I appreciated everyone who takes the time to contribute. I've tried my hand at basic HTML and I guess there's just to much empty space on my shoulders. I'll clean things up and maybe if I'm real nice Santa will bring me a more current version of web page software. One question I have, should I ask him for a newer version of Front Page, or is there something better that's not to difficult to understand. Thank you all again, don't be affraid to say what's on your mind, rest assured I won't.

Larbear

[Frank Lopes]

You have a website that covers your restoration and photography talents.

Consider having distinct sections so you can properly showcase both. I looked at your portfolio and you have terrific photographs. Showcase them.

You need to be neat with the use of HTML. For instance in some of the pages you have tables with extra rows which you are not using.

One other point: in the "Major Package" section, you promise to "Repair all imperfections". Really? All imperfections? :-)
Be carefull with what you promise.

You have, as I mentioned before, terrific photographs in your gallery.
Give them a more prominent place in your web site.

Clean the html by using one of the free code validators.

Finally, there is nothing like "looking under the covers" of someone else's web site to see how it was done. I'm not talking copying the code. That would not be appropriate. But it is perfectly appropriate to learn how others have addressed the same issues:

how did they organized the front page?
how much information is too much information?
how to give the users both a low res image (thumbnail) and a hi res one?

[Larbear]

Frank,

Thank you for the compliment on my gallery. I'm going to have to plead "stupid" when it comes to code violators, I'll have to do some research and see if I can understand what they're telling me. You right about the "Remove All" comment, sometimes my fngers move faster than my brain

I've thought about combining the Photography with the Retouching but I haven't come up with any idea's yet. It's like Hunter said, I'm using an old version of Front Page. I really think I need to try someting different, I just haven't figured out what yet.

Thanks again for your feedback, I really do appreciate it. I'll keep plugging away and try to get something put together.....

Larbear

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Larbear

I've tried my hand at basic HTML and I guess there's just to much empty space on my shoulders.

Nah, not at all. In some ways, creating sites can be very easy, in other ways you're always scratching your head wondering WTF? I've been playing with HTML code for just over 10 years now and the specs and utilities change so fast at times that it can be quite daunting to keep up with it all. That's why keeping your editor software of choice current is usually more of a necessity than a nicety - for example, the current version of Dreamweaver (my editor of choice, but it's not cheap... hint: academic discounts find a student who can buy a copy for you... or enroll in a night class at a college so you can qualify to buy software at the academic price. MUCH more reasonable in terms of price this way) - anyway, the current version of Dreamweaver has tools inside it to check for browser issues and other coding mishaps.

Another good tool is to use the Firefox browser and then get the Web Developer toolbar extension for it -- lots of fun toys to help you get good info on your site.

I'll clean things up and maybe if I'm real nice Santa will bring me a more current version of web page software. One question I have, should I ask him for a newer version of Front Page, or is there something better that's not to difficult to understand. Thank you all again, don't be affraid to say what's on your mind, rest assured I won't. Larbear

I'm glad you weren't taking it as a personal attack as it certainly wasn't that -- I have not used the current version of FrontPage (FP2005 or 2006, i think, is the name of it). Honestly, I hated the older versions because the code was just bad and when I'd manually go in and fix it to where it was right, FP would rewite the code again once the page was saved to be back where IT wanted things. I've heard the newer version(s) don't do that and that they're more stable. The problem with FP still is that it likes to sometimes insert proprietary things that only IE will read. Unfortunately, you always have to be mindfull that IE is not the only game in town and is losing marketshare daily.

I've heard good things about Namo, but I've not used it. I currently use Dreamweaver MX2004 on one computer and Dreamweaver 8 (the most recent version) on another.

In terms of a site looking good, it's always hardest to do a site for yourself - we're all our own worst customers. If you have the $$, you might look for a designer to create a site for you... unfortunately, that doesn't help you much when it comes time to updating it or learning stuff for yourself. There's also always premade templates out there - some are good looking, others aren't; some are functional and others reeeeealy suck.

If you find a site you like the look of, look at the source code - if need be, copy it to your local system (the code) and look at it in your web editor to see how they did things. This is kind of the old school way of learning HTML.

If you go the Dreamweaver route, there are tons of resources online with free extensions to help you with the more advanced coding (I use a lot of these myself). A site that has some interesting templates for DW, great extensions for DW, and just some good all-around knowledge regarding CSS is www.projectseven.com.

Sorry for the rambling... hopefully some of this info will help!

Hunter

[Larbear]

Hunter,

No problem on this end my friend, it just so happens that one of my daughters is in college, maybe it's time to take advantage of that and get the educational version of Dreamweaver. With any luck, I might have it before the weekends over, now all I'll have to do is read, read, read,....

Another question if you don't mind, my web page is hosted by yahoo. Have you had any experience with their "Site Builder"? Anyway, thanks again, I really like this forum, I visit it everyday trying to learn from some of you who are willing to lead some of us in the right direction.

Larbear

[Hunter]

I've no experience with Y!'s SiteBuilder - sorry. In re: getting the academic version of DW, you would probably be better off downloading the demo first to make sure you like how it works. You can d/l a copy from macromedia.com - it's a fully working version that will disable itself in 30 days from your first launch of the app. That would really let you know a) if you like the interface/how it works and b) whether or not it suits your needs. If you like it, great! Then you can go and get that academic version

Getting back to the SiteBuilder software - unless this is the only way Y! will let you edit/upload your site, FP or DW would give you greater flexibility of your design.

Now if you do get DW, might I suggest you take a trip down to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders? Go to their magazine section and there are some British magazine -- Practical Web Projects, Advanced Web Design, etc... there are a number of them -- that you might want to pick up. In them, they have some good step-by-step tutorials on building sites PLUS they usually have a CD/DVD that comes with the mag with source files for the projects, and usually lots of free stuff (extensions for DW, basic web editors and CSS editors, stock photos, plug-ins for PS/PP/PSP, etc). Since they're import mags, they're not the cheapest... usually around $15.00 a piece. But I find that the stuff on the CDs counteract the price

[Larbear]

Hey Hunter,

I've been hammering away trying to get something done with Dreamweaver, but I gotta tell ya, I started pulling my hair out. Put one together, ran the code checker and it came back with more errors than my Front Page. Since I'm familiar with Front Page I decided to upgrade to FP 2003, guess I'm not smart enough to use Dreamweaver. I've got one question maybe you can answer for me. I put the web page together again, ran the code checker that comes with Front Page, corrected all the errors it told me about. Then, I checked it with another code checker I found with Google, and it tells me I got 18 errros???????? Any suggestions on a good book that might be easy enough for someone like me to understand. I'm not going to give up until I get this page up to standards, just might take me a little more time than some.

Thanks,

Larbear

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Larbear

I've been hammering away trying to get something done with Dreamweaver, but I gotta tell ya, I started pulling my hair out. Put one together, ran the code checker and it came back with more errors than my Front Page. Since I'm familiar with Front Page I decided to upgrade to FP 2003, guess I'm not smart enough to use Dreamweaver.

Nah, don't feel that way. That's why I suggested downloading the trial version to see if you liked it. If you prefer FP, you prefer FP. I've not used the 2003 version of it, but I have heard that a lot of the problems with previous versions were not as prevalent in it.

I've got one question maybe you can answer for me. I put the web page together again, ran the code checker that comes with Front Page, corrected all the errors it told me about. Then, I checked it with another code checker I found with Google, and it tells me I got 18 errros???????? Any suggestions on a good book that might be easy enough for someone like me to understand. I'm not going to give up until I get this page up to standards, just might take me a little more time than some.

Actually, I don't have a book to reccommend, but I would suggest you use the Firefox browser and install the Web Developer toolbar. You'd want to use FF (or one of the other non-IE web browsers) to check your site visually because IE forgives some things that are "wrong" in other browsers... and then you can get stuff that is totally standards compliant and it looks like hell in IE because IE doesn't conform to many of the web standards. Welcome to Web Developer Hell.

Getting back to FF and the Web Developer toolbar you'll want to install in it, there are many features on it that will help you sort out much of your code. For example, it has a TOOLS button that has options to validate your CSS, your HTML, your RSS Feed, your Links, section 508 compatibility, WAI, and a Speed Report. These tools will spit out a report that tells you what items are "bad" and where they are in your code, etc.

Now one thing that might be messing up your code validation is your DTD, or Document Type Declaration. If there is no DTD statement at the beginning of your file, then a web browser doesn't really totally understand how to display your page. It would kind of be like talking to someone in, say, Spanish and using a lot of slang words. The other person might be saying "hey, I only know Mexican slang words and you're using Peruvian slang words - you didn't tell me that I had to know those words." (not the greatest analogy, - perhaps a better one would be someone using Southern California Surfer slang when they're talking to someone rom Maine who only knows Northeastern Lobster Fishing slang)

For example, a "basic" page may have a statement at the top that says:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
(this is saying "hey, I'm using HTML 4.1 in Transitional mode and look to this particular webpage for standards info" -- and if you're curious, W3C is shorthand for the World Wide Web Consortium)
Instead of "transitional", it could say "strict"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
Each of those statements will tell the web browser to behave in a certain manner. If you put in code that does not conform to the standards that you've specified in the DTD, then you'll get errors when you try and validate the code. A real common "mistake" is that people will swap an XHTML DTD statement in place of their old HTML 4.1 statement without changing anything else. Well, if you were like me and in previous times used all uppercase letters for my Tags as it made them easy to see. Unfortuantely, XHTML compliant tags must be in all lowercase

So.... I wouldn't totally trust the code checking abilities of FrontPage. Why? Um, it's a Microsoft product and you can almost guarantee that it will be heavily skewed towards only checking for errors in reference to viewing in a Microsoft browser. While, yes, IE still tends to have the majority of marketshare, they are losing ground as more and more people want a more secure and standards compliant browser. I'd trust the validator from the Web Developer toolbar since it's going straight to the W3.org site and comparing it to the standards that they created.

Sorry for the novella here - hope this helps!

Hunter