I'm a developer and hate design but I decided to remake my site so any feedback would be gratefully recieved

 

http://www.neverg.co.uk/index.php

in firefox two white stripes appear in the background while on ie there are none, so I'm guessing there is a problem somewhere.

 

 

 

The three buttons are central to the page but not the content so it looks wrong on the page. I would suggest either centering the content, or moving the center point of the buttons to be central to the content.

 

 

May I ask what the end use of the site will be...is it to promote you as a web developer? or something else? I'm just wondering as at the moment all your site says to me is 'I am a blue header and a white box on gray background' there is nothing really to it that stands out at the moment.

A few thoughts:

 

-Consider incorporating a logo or other type of branding in the header

-The button text goes bold w/ mouse-over, but this makes the buttons change size and jump around, which is a bit annoying.

 

I like the general idea of the site (including the layout and the scroll box) but it is, at the moment, a bit plain and one-dimensional.

I know it's plain but that's just the way I end up designing. It's not my strongest point. Basically the site will be for the overall thing but I'm planning on getting a designer on board but until then I'm stuck with just me :-) I am working on a logo but that's going to take me forever :-) You should have seen it before though. No shadow on the box more the chess picture.

 

Thanks for pointing out the white lines. They are it seems a FF issue since it doesn't appear on opera either but I didn't notice them in testing so I'll have to track them down. I did plan on centring it all but I couldn't get float left and margin auto to work so I manually centred it for my resolution of 1024 x 768 but if you know how to get the floating centre to work that'd be great.

Sorted the jumping buttons but I can't figure out those white lines in firefox. anyone got any ideas?

The white in your background in Firefox is your HTML element showing. Give the HTML the same background colour as BODY and you should be fine.

 

Also; you are using XHTML 1.1 doctype which should NEVER be sent as text/html. The only XHTML version you may send as text/html is 1.0.

 

And I recommend that you move that piece of comment after the doctype declaration as it may interfere with browsers sniffing of the doctype.

The white in your background in Firefox is your HTML element showing. Give the HTML the same background colour as BODY and you should be fine.

 

Also; you are using XHTML 1.1 doctype which should NEVER be sent as text/html. The only XHTML version you may send as text/html is 1.0.

 

And I recommend that you move that piece of comment after the doctype declaration as it may interfere with browsers sniffing of the doctype.

 

you're using IE yeh? I'm only asking because I have this code in my page

 

if (strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],'MSIE'))
$type = 'text/html';
else
$type = 'application/xhtml+xml';	

header("Content-type: {$type}");

 

It only gets sent as text to IE7 because IE7 will not render the correct type

I'm a developer and hate design but I decided to remake my site so any feedback would be gratefully recieved

 

http://www.neverg.co.uk/index.php

 

use images, I always use images I don't use that much text o ly for contect and ads. check out mine >> www.inspired-all.co.uk every button is an image, ohh ans shineys just quick shhineys makes it looks good, not too many that spoils it!

turning my website into a giant picture isn't going to happen. I think the look of yours but I don't do lots images for many reasons.

i try to avoid images... occasionally i will try to make a graphically compelling site without any images whatsover (files,svg etc)... lots of borders and good colour combos, plus use of some arcance ANSII characters... its fun.

i try to avoid images... occasionally i will try to make a graphically compelling site without any images whatsover (files,svg etc)... lots of borders and good colour combos, plus use of some arcance ANSII characters... its fun.

 

maybe it's the difference between coders and designers? I did put an image on the homepage but I don't think it's to bad now. It's not as embarassing as it used to me anyway

Images used for everything...esp when an image isn't needed means a page will take too long to load as each image needs its loading time, and in the case of the example given by, Alexander, I can't read the writing for about a second and a half as that thing it loads is the white background that the text is on. I don't think you need a lot of pictures, as you said you are busy designing a header. Once the header is in place then the site will have something more than just being a box on the screen...its not a bad site, it just needs that little something that makes it lift off the page and stand out a little.

 

 

 

off topic note to Alexander, your site doesn't work correctly in IE6

 

 

Images used for everything...esp when an image isn't needed means a page will take too long to load as each image needs its loading time, and in the case of the example given by, Alexander, I can't read the writing for about a second and a half as that thing it loads is the white background that the text is on. I don't think you need a lot of pictures, as you said you are busy designing a header. Once the header is in place then the site will have something more than just being a box on the screen...its not a bad site, it just needs that little something that makes it lift off the page and stand out a little.

off topic note to Alexander, your site doesn't work correctly in IE6

 

well I put a function in that as soon as you hit enter or the page is being found it will load as much things as possible, I had another case where screens are too small, cause my screen is 1280 x 800 so I have quiet a wide screen to view it on, and lots of other people have quite wide screens and a very fast modem here, and have firefox. sorry for the ie6 lovers but I tried makeing it veiwable in all browsers but I faild

I used firefox...and then IE6 to view your site and still had those problems, I have a very fast Internet connection so speed isn't the problem...I would say its using images where images don't need to be used is more then likely where your problem lies, example using a white image where a simple white background would do, it would minimize the size (using a 34kb png for a block of white when you could use a gif get the same quality and a much lower file size, white is white and it won't look better by being a bigger filesize as there is only one bit of colour information in it...reduced that one image would be 76bytes so that is a huge difference)

you're using IE yeh? I'm only asking because I have this code in my page

 

if (strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],'MSIE'))
  $type = 'text/html';
 else
  $type = 'application/xhtml+xml';	

 header("Content-type: {$type}");

 

It only gets sent as text to IE7 because IE7 will not render the correct type

 

 

According to the W3C specs, XHTML 1.1 MUST NEVER be sent as text/html. It's suppose to ONLY be sent as XML.

Only XHTML 1.0 can be sent as text/html.

 

Also, if you're using content negotiation to deside wheter to send as html or xhtml you should not use the user agent header to deside, but insteat the accept header. IE7 for instance support XHTML as XML. http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?...ent-negotiation

According to the W3C specs, XHTML 1.1 MUST NEVER be sent as text/html. It's suppose to ONLY be sent as XML.

Only XHTML 1.0 can be sent as text/html.

 

Also, if you're using content negotiation to deside wheter to send as html or xhtml you should not use the user agent header to deside, but insteat the accept header. IE7 for instance support XHTML as XML. http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?...ent-negotiation

 

Well I'm not writing off IE just because microsoft are idiots and can't be bothered to support xhtml. Nore am I going to stop using xhtml just because IE says so. As such I'm going to keep using my method however I will use content negotiation

ok just for you I've set it up so the doc type changes to xhtml1.0 if it's sending it as text. :-)

 

having huge problems trying to get the float center to work if anyone could help?

create a wrapper/container div for the whole site. set the wrapper to have margin auto and also the width to the width of your site, place the entire sit in this wrapper, it will keep the site central and you can align you other div left as thats where your problems were

 

eg css

#wrapper {
margin: 0 auto;
width: 750px;
}

 

eample html

<body>
<!-- Start wrapper here -->
<div id="wrapper">

<div id="other_div1"</div>
<div id="other_div2"</div>


<!-- end wrapper at very end of site-->
</div>
</body>

create a wrapper/container div for the whole site. set the wrapper to have margin auto and also the width to the width of your site, place the entire sit in this wrapper, it will keep the site central and you can align you other div left as thats where your problems were

 

eg css

#wrapper {
    margin: 0 auto;
    width: 750px;
}

 

eample html

<body>
<!-- Start wrapper here -->
<div id="wrapper">

<div id="other_div1"</div>
<div id="other_div2"</div>


<!-- end wrapper at very end of site-->
</div>
</body>

 

Thanks that was just the ticket.

somebody silence the spammer phil :-)

ok just for you I've set it up so the doc type changes to xhtml1.0 if it's sending it as text. :-)

 

having huge problems trying to get the float center to work if anyone could help?

 

 

That's still utterly pointless; changing the DOCTYPE like that. The doctype shouldn't change. It should simply specify what kind of document it is.

Is there any particular reason you need to use XHTML 1.1? Are you extending it with XML? If not then there's no meaning to using the 1.1 doctype.

because 1.1 is the Latest doc type for xhtml. Besides I now have the option to extend it with xml if I choice. Why should I use html 4.01?

There's no point in using 1.1 just because it's the latest version number.

 

HTML 4.01 is just as good as XHTML 1.0 as it's just a rewrite to XML. Because 1.0 is there to create a transition between HTML and XHTML it can be sent as text or xml.

XHTML 1.1 is there to be extended and allow you to create your own doctype. But that only works if it's a XML document, which is why it never should be sent as text/html as the user agent't would not treat it as XML and the document won't work.

You do not have an option to extend it if you send it as text you extensions won't work.

If you never need to extend XHTML then you will have to drop support for browsers that can't understand XML. Only then does it makes sence to use XHTML 1.1.

 

Different versions, different use.

 

I'm in fact thinking of going back to HTML, because if my XHTML documents are sent as XML then many scripts won't work because scripts gets treated differently in XML mode.

And progress on XHTML 2 doesn't seem to be going anywhere any soon. Instead it looks like we'll get HTML5 instead, which comes in HTML and XHTML flavour.

Why xhtml?

 

There is a good reason to use xhtml.

Yes, but you are trying to keep a foot in the future and one in the past. There is no way you can use XHTML 1.1 and support old browsers at the same time.

If you want to use XHTML and stay compatible with older browsers version 1.0 is the only version that allows you to do so.

 

The thing is that XHTML was a great idea, but IE's lack of support thwarted it's usefulness to a great extent. Hopefully we might see some progress now.

yes but if nobody goes forward then browsers won't but if I don't keep a foot backwards I cut off most of the web. I suppose in theory I should do xhtml 1.0 but now I can use xhtml 1.1 for those that support it otherwise fall back on 1.0.

That will only work for as long as you don't extend it and leave XHTML 1.1 as XHTML 1.0. And in that case there would be no point in changing doctype back and forth from 1.0 and 1.1. There'd be no benefit. Or loss. It'd just be for the sake of it.

 

I understand the desire to push forward new technologies. But if that's the case I'd say it'd be better to have a site that'd actually serve extended XHTML 1.1 and make use of it's abilities and features. A proof of concept.

Such a project would be interesting. And if people set up these test cases and examples then eventually it might happen.

and maybe I will at some point but I'll have to have something in to remove those parts for IE users because a website is pointless if 85% of the population can't view it.

In which case, you won't be extending the XHTML, because then it'd brake in IE, which mean Doctype XHTML 1.1 is not needed and you should be using XHTML 1.0 which you can server as text or xml using content negotiation.

 

The bottom point is; even though you replace the doctype as fit, it's still effectively a XHTML 1.0 document. Why would you declare your document as something it isn't?

Oh this is just pointless. My document fits within the 1.1 spec so I can declare it as 1.1. If you have a problem with 1.1 take it up with W3C

My problem isn't with XHTML 1.1. I got nothing against it. I was just trying to explain that your document doesn't fit the 1.1 specs.

well according to the w3c validator it does.

Yes, because the validator get fed your site in XML with the 1.1 doctype.

 

But the whole point is that the doctype isn't something you change dynamically. What happens if you add XML extension to your docs? It will work in browers that support 1.1, but not in the browsers that get the document fed with a 1.0 doctype in text mime type.

 

The doctype is a static definition of what kind of document it is.

 

Now, I had a look at the specs again and to your favour it doesn't say that XHTML 1.1 MUST NOT be sent as text/html, as I thought, but instead SHOULD NOT. Though it's strongly recommended that's it's not. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/

As you can see 1.0 is the only flavour that MAY be sent as text/html.

 

And bear in mind that 1.1 is only a working draft, not a recommended standard yet.

I'd send it as xml and not change it if IE accepted it. Go and attack M$ for their poor support.

Its not bad, if you need a dsesigner PM me, I am always willing to work freelance and outsourceable