IMIKYA site

[Merciless]

Hi guys, even though if your looking at the site with FireFox the top banner will not be centered, (because even with help from DD forum guys i could not get it to center in firefox) i released a "beta" type version of the site, so that people can help me look over it and fix/add stuff, if you have any ideas or things you think are bad broken or dumb i'd appreciate it, so far i've determined that it is a bunch of eye candy. be sure to listen to the music.

- http://IMIKYA.cOm

-ReT

[Twey]

Problems:

1. It doesn't validate
2. HTML Trans is outdated
3. It's fixed-width
4. It's table-based, a hack that, with the onset of CSS, has become essentially obsolete
5. It uses various forms of obsolete presentational markup
6. The Flash objects are created with Javascript, so even users with Flash can't see them if they don't have JS
7. The music.

[Merciless]

1. Does anything?
2. what do you mean HTML trans is outdated
3. it doesn't matter that its fixed width because thats the minimum width it can be... it cant go any smaller, it could enlarge i suppose, but, ??
4. How am i supposed to use CSS to organize that, i saw it on killerchetneys site, care to elaborate?
5. It uses various forms of obsolete presentational markup < what does this mean?
6. the javascript was used to eliminate those grey boxes that appear around flash animations in internet explorer, got any better ideas?
7. how is there anything wrong with the music? you just dont like it?

- you straight up blew me away twey, now i hate myself, how can i fix it? please tell me before i go and commit suicide

[BLiZZaRD]

Twey does that, don't take it (too) personally. Just worry about 1 - 5, the rest are personal grudges Twey has about using site design based on items visitors might have (i.e. Flash, JS, etc.) enabled.

But if you use Flash, use JS as well, because I have yet come across a person who has one but not the other (unless they are testers, coders, or those that will not install Flash for any reason, but they don't count anyway )

Yes, most well viewed sites will validate, and although you may have a number of errors, take the time to correct them, it will make the site look better in the end anyway

2, he means use HTML strict, it will throw more errors in your face when you validate, but apparently it is the "to do" today as trans, although still supported is out dated because of slack ass browsers not being compliant with modern ones ( I use trans too )

3, fixed width cause viewing problems on lesser grade monitors, those still using 800X600, or smaller no WS LCDs, etc.

4. Learn CSS. It's actually not that hard to get a grasp on the basics and it can turn your site around in a matter of days.

5. Not sure about this one

[Merciless]

so CSS is my main problem then, thanks blizzard, your the best, i'll go do just that.
- Edit: where would i go about starting to find css stuff? dynamic drive? and is the site so bad
that i should remove it from the internet???

[Twey]

No, of course not. It's perfectly usable. You asked me to list flaws, so I did so. The Flash is actually done very nicely -- it's all too common to see a big blank "you need to install Flash Player" messages when viewing sites that use Flash.

As for the music, it's generally considered a bad idea because a) it adds quite a lot of bulk to the page, which can deter people on slower connections altogether, and b) it irritates people. If you must have music on your site, dedicate a whole page to it, obviously labelled "music" or similar, and have it play when the user starts it, not automatically.

Don't worry about #5 too much: when you switch to HTML 4.01 Strict, the validator will complain about it. Essentially, I was talking about things like

<div align="center">

instead of centring the <div> and/or its contents using CSS.

the javascript was used to eliminate those grey boxes that appear around flash animations in internet explorer, got any better ideas?

Do you mean Microsoft's new "click to activate" security feature? If so, embed the Flash using normal HTML, then reload the source using Javascript.

it doesn't matter that its fixed width because thats the minimum width it can be... it cant go any smaller, it could enlarge i suppose, but, ??

Well yes, that's pretty much the definition of a fixed-width design If it can't go any smaller, you should make it so it can, but your site is sufficiently well-organised and the minimum width sufficiently small that the minimum isn't too much of a problem -- it might irritate users with smaller displays or browser windows, but it's unlikely to render your site unusual. I'd be more worried about making it expand to fill the available space -- fixed-width sites often look tiny on large displays, where a pixel is considerably smaller than you'd expect. This is one of many reasons not to use pixels to size things: people on large displays will have suitable default font sizes, but a pixel doesn't scale with the display, so something whose size is specified in pixels will look much smaller in comparison to the text on a large display. For example, on a sufficiently large display, your site would only be able to fit a single word (or less) on each line.

Just worry about 1 - 5, the rest are personal grudges Twey has about using site design based on items visitors might have (i.e. Flash, JS, etc.) enabled.

Hardly. In this case it's not too much of a problem, since the site doesn't rely on either to present content, but with some sites it can impair usability. In this case, it simply means that some people who otherwise could see the Flash wouldn't be able to do so. I imagine that the designer of the site would like the Flash to be seen by as many people as possible, so I pointed it out. The music, as I said above, poses one stylistic and one technical problem, but it's a point of style on which enough people agree that it's worth mentioning.

[BLiZZaRD]

Hardly. In this case it's not too much of a problem, since the site doesn't rely on either to present content, but with some sites it can impair usability. In this case, it simply means that some people who otherwise could see the Flash wouldn't be able to do so. I imagine that the designer of the site would like the Flash to be seen by as many people as possible, so I pointed it out. The music, as I said above, poses one stylistic and one technical problem, but it's a point of style on which enough people agree that it's worth mentioning.

Not to start a fight, but you DO do that Twey. If a site isn't perfectly aligned with the solar system and the Gods have sung their praise, there is something wrong with the site in your eyes. It is a nice stand point, but web site "perfection" can be annoying.

I tend to think of web sites like movies, you have different genres. Different styles of displaying the content. While you may like "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down A Mountain" I can say I actually HATE that movie, but on the other hand I LOVE "When Harry Met Sally" and you despise that one.

Sites are the same thing, I may enjoy Flash ONLY sites, while you hate them, but you may love perfectly designed sites about coding, where I would rather not even click to them.

You can't make a website that will please everyone, just like you can't make a movie that will please them all. You have to pick a specific group and aim to please them, my site caters to riddlers, who by nature have every decoding, encoding, decrypting and photo manipulation software on the market, this includes Flash. I have no problem making a Flash only main site, and not worrying about those (relatively) small number of folks that don't have Flash installed.

It's just two sides of the coin my good friend (and I mean that good friend part ) I just disagree that every site has to be a perfection of your higher web standards.

[BLiZZaRD]

so CSS is my main problem then, thanks blizzard, your the best, i'll go do just that.
- Edit: where would i go about starting to find css stuff? dynamic drive? and is the site so bad
that i should remove it from the internet???

OOps.. sorry Merciless... start HERE A very basic resource.

Then the best option after you do that is to find what you want to control with CSS on your page, try it, test it, fix what won't work, and ask here when you get stumped.

I did that, and I made a complete CSS web site (50 pages) in 2 weeks. I can say I know CSS to a fair degree (at least for my needs) at this point. Not to bad for a couple weeks.

And leave your site up, no point in taking it all down, just make it better

I still tweak my site daily, and I doubt anyone here with more than 20 posts doesn't.

[Twey]

I just disagree that every site has to be a perfection of your higher web standards.

I think you're missing my point. Obviously nothing is perfect. However, if someone asks me to point out the flaws in a given site, I'll do so, even if they're not flaws I'd normally even notice, because they could cause a serious problem in some cases. The fact that they don't do so in my case doesn't stop them from being flaws. Even if they cause no problems in any case of which we know, their mere potential to do so still means that they count as flaws, if minor ones.

I may enjoy Flash ONLY sites, while you hate them

Yes, but the reason I hate them is that I can't see them at all Something that stops people being able to at least extract the content from a site isn't a stylistic point, it's a technical flaw.

[BLiZZaRD]

My Love/Hate examples were just examples, I don't know if you really hate Flash (or love The Englishman for that matter ) And I do understand your point, my point though was that these "minor" flaws can't always be helped, and as such, instead of telling everyone to "stop using Flash or JS to present content" perhaps the site IS perfect for those that have those items enabled, in which case it isn't a flaw on the designers part, but more a general laziness on the visitors part.

If it were possible to disable php parsing through my browser, should I then argue that web designers shouldn't use that to present content because I refuse to allow php to be active on my browser? Hardly.