   [web] my first attempt
here it isi used some random pictures and text, they're not important, i'm more interested in your opinion on the general design, on the look, in everything that you can teach a n00b like me.show no mercy, but please remember that it is my first site, so be constructive.i will appreciate any comment.   
  I think the technique of putting the entire site in &#106avascript is potentially flawed.Also there appear to be some encoding problems; I'll investigate them shortly, but attempting to view your &#106avascript caused X to crash and quit (which was inconvenient - this never normally happens)Mark   ;Quote:Original post by markrI think the technique of putting the entire site in &#106avascript is potentially flawed.Markcould you elaborate a bit?i'm sorry it caused you problems; thanks for your feedback.   ;  I'm not too sure what qooxdoo is, but I think that having 700k of &#106avascript in your page is probably a bad thing.Bear in mind that search engines won't be able to see the page at all, nor will people whose browsers aren't compatible with the 700k of qooxdoo.Your site is basically informational, I think you should consider using straight HTML instead.Mark   ;  I think the design is pretty nice.I guess (in response to the 700k &#106avascript issue) I would call this a web application maquerading as a web site.As a web site, the design seems good, the implementation seems well done given the platform / implementation choices (not really a web page, all client-side code), but definately the platform choices are questionable.As a web app, it seemed to run fine for me.While using it I kept feeling that it should act like a webpage, which it doesn't (I normally refuse to click on anything which my browser doesn't show in the status bar as a normal url - when at sites I can't definately trust).  Even when trust isn't the issue, sites like this can't be bookmarked right, I can't send direct image / page links to friends, etc.  Many many negatives come along with your implementation choices.  Nonetheless I congragulate you on doing a good job, and if I had need of either a core web design idea or &#106avascript code I would consider you likely up to the task.  (I just wouldn't leave you in charge of the sites technical direction).   ;Quote:Original post by XaiI guess (in response to the 700k &#106avascript issue) I would call this a web application maquerading as a web site.You mean that there are web apps and web sites, 2 differents things, each one appropriate in different areas? I mean there are cases when one should use a web app, and cases when a web site is more appropriate?Thank you for your comment and for the encouraging words.;Quote:Original post by fnmYou mean that there are web apps and web sites, 2 differents things, each one appropriate in different areas? I mean there are cases when one should use a web app, and cases when a web site is more appropriate?Pretty much, yeah.  There's no reason for the page we're currently looking at to be in &#106avascript; it doesn't include any functionality that couldn't be provided with straight html and css other than a small piece of functionality on the image gallery (the image switching), and the html/css version would load a lot faster and be much more accesible, as well as being indexed by search engines.  The basic rule of thumb is that you should use scripted content only when you can't do something using plain html/css or if it would be significantly less elegant to do so, or to use scripted content in small sections of the site that are non-critical to it's use.Layout wise your design looks fine, although I agree with the comments about the buttons not acting like normal links being a slight turnoff; doing them with pure html/css would fix this.Your scripting (or are you using some existing package?) seems to run fine on each of the browsers I have installed though, apart from the slowness inherrent with large scripts.   ;  I suggest putting a header image, or at least header text, somewhere at the top of your page. You know, so I know what it is that I'm looking at. Other than that, it's okay - the photo gallery works fine!   ;  Nice design, although it could use a header.  Also, you may want to consider a cleaner font to use for the body content on the home page.The image galleries loaded pretty slowly for me.  If I were you, I'd really ditch all the &#106avascript and go with straight HTML for all the same reasons mentioned above.  I did the same thing when I was first starting out in Web Dev.  I'd use &#106avascript to pull off all kinds of neat tricks but they were really nothing that couldn't be done using multiple HTML pages.  Plus, I'd ALWAYS have browser compatibility issues. =/  I commend you on coding everything the way you did but I would look at it as practice and not as practical.Keep up the good work! ;-)   ;Quote:Original post by KazgorothYour scripting (or are you using some existing package?) seems to run fine on each of the browsers I have installed though.I used qooxdoo, a js framework. If i would be able to write 700k of cross browser compatible js code i wouldn't be such a noob, would  i? :)I choose it because i would prefer to code rather than "paint" my site, using frontpage or whatever. Moreover, using it one can create "alive", interactive sites. It is the size the only problem? It is really a problem nowadays?Thank you all for the comments.