April 14, 201115 yr So after I got slated for not using XHTML and supporting IE, I simply started from scratch with my CMS project *for the third time*. Points: Now supports < IE 8 *tested* might support lower. Their are bugs still but I'm still sorting them out Javascript need to be reduced (its still in dev form, alot there thats not really useful). firefox has some issues *i work in crome* but once again, im sorting this out I would appreciate pointers rather then browser bugs as this is very much still in dev. Please try not to delete ALL of the data on the site but feel free to create dummy data if you wish. Another note: I't might not be the prettiest CMS but its pretty simple and easy to use. http://www.philipmclifton.com/cr-admin/
April 14, 201115 yr So after I got slated for not using XHTML and supporting IE, I simply started from scratch with my CMS project *for the third time*. Points: Now supports < IE 8 *tested* might support lower. Their are bugs still but I'm still sorting them out Javascript need to be reduced (its still in dev form, alot there thats not really useful). firefox has some issues *i work in crome* but once again, im sorting this out I would appreciate pointers rather then browser bugs as this is very much still in dev. Please try not to delete ALL of the data on the site but feel free to create dummy data if you wish. Another note: I't might not be the prettiest CMS but its pretty simple and easy to use. http://www.philipmclifton.com/cr-admin/ Awww alot better this go around, i love the design better as well, good job
April 14, 201115 yr cheers, whats the load time for you. Does it run slow? No its actually quite fast, must say im impressed with it, are a few layout issues in firefox but like u said ur addressing those, also still need to fix some javascript errors in IE but deff better then before Edited April 14, 201115 yr by webdesigner93
April 14, 201115 yr Author Thanks for your comments, Can you think of any other statistics to gather and chart out, I feel like I have hit the key ones but I'm interested to know what people think are useful stats to record.
April 14, 201115 yr on the dashboard its 4.02sec with firefox on ubuntu... 686ms is the html... but you have issues! in the main div you have another html doc within <td width="100%" valign="top"> <div class="main"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> that wont help the load time... also put the css files in the head element and then JS it means the css is not blocked by js downloads, makes the page pop abit more... also sorting out the headers so the browser caches the js and css files will make the website load faster on the second load onwards.. i haven't seen the past versions but the code is bad in places... looks nice but the code lets it down to be fair Edited April 14, 201115 yr by SniderDK
April 14, 201115 yr Author on the dashboard its 4.02sec with firefox on ubuntu... 686ms is the html... but you have issues! in the main div you have another html doc within <td width="100%" valign="top"> <div class="main"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> that wont help the load time... also put the css files in the head element and then JS it means the css is not blocked by js downloads, makes the page pop abit more... also sorting out the headers so the browser caches the js and css files will make the website load faster on the second load onwards.. i haven't seen the past versions but the code is bad in places... looks nice but the code lets it down to be fair what page are you looking at when you see the doc in main? Im yet to even really think about making it run faster, I'm just pleased that its loading fast-ish before I start. My css file is also already in the <head>. I feel you might be viewing a run-away page I havn't paid any attention to, I cant find your points. Edited April 14, 201115 yr by PhilipMClifton
April 14, 201115 yr what page are you looking at when you see the doc in main? Im yet to even really think about making it run faster, I'm just pleased that its loading fast-ish before I start. on the dashboard it does it... as for the speed thing its just thats the best way todo it, confirmed by many a test from big companys like Yahoo, Google etc... js and css in the top... css before js so when the css is ready when needed so you get a progressive page load, and if you want to speed things up abit if you serve js and css from separate sub-domains it allows the browser to download more files in less time speeding it up even more... even tho your not ready for that... you know now
April 14, 201115 yr Author its getting late and I'm making silly mistakes. I have no idea how that got there but I fixed it. edit, i re-read your post and you didn't mention js in the header lol. rant avoided Edited April 14, 201115 yr by PhilipMClifton
April 14, 201115 yr edit, i re-read your post and you didn't mention js in the header lol. rant avoided css files in the head element and then JS the head element is in the top of the HTML... so what could you possibly rant at me about? im interested lol got beef with me trying to help? it's funny, i don't actually care... i have blown up a few times here would be a hypocritical if i had a problem with others doing it to me... chill winston and read the england on the page.
April 14, 201115 yr That's not necessarily true as you need to make a further DNS request. I imagine you'd need to do a bit of testing. I'd personally had more success using the static file hosting that my host offers. your right it does depend on the amount of includes on the page, but as he has lots im sure there would be an improvement... but it needs testing, some websites benefit from offloading just JS some both, and some when you do both it makes it slower than doing nothing at all... for him i think the better parallelised downloads is worth a dns lookup... in fairness doing it is abit OTT i'll give you that!, but im a performance freak
April 14, 201115 yr Slated for not using XHTML? I really do hope you're joking? How can someone possibly slate you for not using XHTML.
April 14, 201115 yr Lols... Both HTML 4 and XHTML 1.0 use precisely the same elements, attributes, and values. The difference between HTML and XHTML is in their respective syntax - the main differences are discussed in this section. * XHTML requires that all Webpages contain the <html>, <head>, and <body> elements, as well as the DOCTYPE declaration, where as in HTML they are not required. * XHTML insists on having closing tags for every element, even empty ones, where as HTML often lets you omit them. * HTML requires that all attributes be enclosed by quotation marks, where as HTML lets you omit quotation marks, but only around attribute values which consist of only letters, numbers and these characters: - (dash), . (period), _ (underscore) and : (colon). * XHTML is case sensitive, where as HTML is not case sensitive. Furthermore XHTML requires that all enumerated attribute values be lower case. Since XHTML is an official standard of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), your website, whether it's about youth baseball bats or crocodiles, will more likely render correctly in more browsers then should you choose to use non-standard HTML tag sets, which reduces site maintenance work, and improves the overall usability of your site.
April 14, 201115 yr Author the head element is in the top of the HTML... so what could you possibly rant at me about? im interested lol got beef with me trying to help? it's funny, i don't actually care... i have blown up a few times here would be a hypocritical if i had a problem with others doing it to me... chill winston and read the england on the page. Broken layout at http://www.philipmcl...hp?page=newpage For a site like this with tons of icons I'd personally be using css sprites as op[posed to making tons of HTTP requests. For CSS files minify them. Get rid of inline js and minify/compress the rest of your javascripts. Is this one of those admin templates from themeforest - saw one very very simialr to this. EDIT: you have a demos.css referenced, which leads me to above aswell wink, wink No demos.css was for something comepletely unrelated to the layout. its not a theme, its simply some css that uses one gradient background image. I used those themes for inspiration but Im not going to pay for that stuff when I can create my own. This is a learning project for me, theres no point in downloading a theme to use. Sorry I didnt explain myself properly, rant was the wrong term to use, I was going to ask why you suggested to put js in the head then I noticed you infact did not. People pointing out js needs to be reduced, if you read my opening post you would have realised that i'm not at the point of combining js files. this would make it faster. yes. but while in dev its a nightmare to edit. sorry if I sounded rude and thank you for your comments. Edited April 14, 201115 yr by PhilipMClifton
April 14, 201115 yr Author Another one I noticed: no image upload feature for the text editor you used - it's such a pain in the ass for the user to have to upload an image externally, copy the url and paste into your popup box. Why not just use an editor with an upload feature built in? I have created an ajax image loader but I had not linked it under navigation as its not completed fully yet.
April 16, 201115 yr Author That's a good idea, but I meant a built in one for the tinymce text editor - as it currently pops up for you to paste in a full url where the image is located - which is a pain in ass. I was referring to fiunctionality that would allow you to upload an image directly from your computer to site, as this stage. I agree, I can write javascript to pop up an image selector window and some javascript to paste the tag strait into the tinymce window(*like I did with the chunks selector*). It wont be integrated as such but It think it work work perfectly. Thanks for the idea
April 18, 201115 yr Author You could, but not sure why you'd go to the trouble of writing one yourself, when there are loads available that can be working within a couple of mins. For example, I personally use CKEditor and there are several file manager that work with it out of the box. thanks for that. when I looked I only found expensive ones.
Create an account or sign in to comment