recruit site (all mine)

[Demonicman]

so far im doing decent on it and most of my posts here are regards to coding on that site

http://www.kalrith.com

got my dad to buy the domain for me :)

any suggestions feel free to post em here... (i know i need a new template because the one i have now sucks)

[BLiZZaRD]

The site looks nice, links work, and for being severely under construction, is pretty easy to navigate.

I like the idea too, pretty fresh (and anything that keeps those guys off other types of forums is a bonus :D )

One thing to consider is a CCL I noticed your self made copyright on the pages there. Instead, try this link (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) Read the page then click the "learn how to" link at the very bottom.

I agree about a new layout. Personally when the page loaded I went "WHOA!" there is a HIGH contrast in theme colors, and very dark to very bright isn't always a good choice. If you could bring each of those extreme colors (yes even the black) to a more medium version of it's current self, it will help the page flow. You could perhaps find a more "high tech" background image and lose the Q-bert style twilight zone fan backdrop :)

Lose the tables and use <div> instead, and structure them better so the content is more at an eye pleasing, flowing means. Meaning I read left to right, top to bottom, When I view your page my eyes bounce all over the page trying to keep up. If everything was a bit more inline it would be better for my eyes, which means I will stay longer, which means I will join, which in turn means I will use the site.

Good Luck with the finished product, its a great start so far :D

[Twey]

You should probably get a native English speaker to check your spelling and grammar. It's quite good, but there are still some errors ("havent" needs an apostrophe, "questionaire" has two Ns, "recruit" is a verb not an adjective, &c.).

[mburt]

The design doesn't thrill me, but I like the way the content is controlled (menu on top, content centered). Good for being under construction, good job! :)

[Demonicman]

thanks twey... maybe i could ask the english teacher in the class im getting a 55&#37; in :P

[Demonicman]

oh and thanks everyone else... i know the template sucks but until i get the whole submit recruit link thing done i will change it but for now the template stays

[Demonicman]

i edited it to make it look better

how does it look now?

[Twey]

The design's much nicer, although I don't like the highlight style for the rollover on the left -- you should just leave it as normal links like the rest of them. However, the site doesn't validate (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ekalrith.com/).

[jscheuer1]

Not too bad. It is plain and dark looking but legible. The code is invalid though.

[Twey]

It is plainYes, but I rather like it for its simplicity in that respect.

[mburt]

I like the new design more, but with such a dark contrast you might want to have your text a lighter color.

[Demonicman]

i dont know what validate means lol

[mburt]

When people say "the validator" they are referring to the w3 set of standards that webpages should follow. This page tells you what is wrong, and around where the problem is:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fwww.kalrith.com%2F

[Demonicman]

is DOCTYPE really that important?

[mburt]

Yes. It is the certified standard for web applications.

[Twey]

What you have at the moment isn't HTML. It's just a conglomeration of text that browsers error-correct into HTML.

Invalid HTML isn't HTML at all.

[Demonicman]

oh well... if you can see it, then it doesnt really matter if its validated or not :)

[killerchutney]

oh well... if you can see it, then it doesnt really matter if its validated or not :)

With modern browsers this may be the case, but say if someone who had Windows 95 Installed with IE2, your page may be deformed, or may not work altogether. And a validated page will rank higher in Search Engines than non validated, especially if the page doesn't have a doctype.

[Twey]

No, you have it the wrong way around. Older browsers often have little or no support for standards.

A valid page will parse faster, will render more consistently across browsers, and is guaranteed to work as well as it does now for a good while into the future (browser bugs aside) if you use a modern DOCTYPE. Currently the most modern completed markup language is XHTML 1.0 Strict, but since IE doesn't support XHTML yet it's better to stick with HTML 4.01 Strict, which is only a month older.