critique requested

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Cynthia Turcotte

    critique requested

    Hi all --

    A client has hired me to, among other things, optimize her web site
    for search engine submission. So being the dutiful SEO geek that I
    am, I went through and optimized each and every page of the site,
    including a complete recoding of the homepage which she botched.

    Now after all of this work, she tells me that she wants to keep the
    home page as it is. I've gone on record telling her that I feel that
    she won't get the results she is expecting if she keeps the page as
    is, to no avail.

    So I am seeking outside opinions. The site is geared toward women so
    I would like to get as many female opinions as possible -- but men are
    welcome to respond too.

    Please note that I am NOT asking for a critique of the core layout.

    All I want to know is which page is a. better optimized and b. more
    visually appealing.





    Please reply either here or via email at webmaster@wkdes ign.com

    Thanks!

    Cynthia Turcotte
  • David Dorward

    #2
    Re: critique requested

    Cynthia Turcotte wrote:
    [color=blue]
    > Hi all --[/color]
    <snip>

    Read: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

    --
    David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

    Comment

    • Daniel R. Tobias

      #3
      Re: critique requested

      Cynthia Turcotte wrote:
      [color=blue]
      > Please note that I am NOT asking for a critique of the core layout.[/color]

      Though, since this is a discussion newsgroup rather than a help desk,
      you might get comments on that and all other aspects of your site anyway.
      [color=blue]
      > All I want to know is which page is a. better optimized and b. more
      > visually appealing.
      >
      > http://www.b-tone.com
      > http://www.b-tone.com/indexa.html
      > http://www.b-tone.com/indexb.html[/color]

      Well, first of all, none of these have valid HTML. They're missing
      doctypes and charset attributes, for starters, and have an enormous
      number of syntax problems. For instance, you insert a "TM" sign as a
      proprietary character from a vendor character set instead of using the
      standards-compliant Unicode number for it. There's a lot of
      nonstandard, proprietary JavaScript too, such as a "link" that attempts
      to bookmark your page (which doesn't work in Mozilla, but it has a
      perfectly good bookmark function in the browser user interface where it
      belongs). There's also one of those really obnoxious "no right click"
      scripts, which unfortunately *does* work in Mozilla (there's a Bugzilla
      entry seeking a configuration setting to disable this sort of thing).
      Another script generates a "mailto" link that includes space characters,
      which are invalid in URIs unless encoded as %20. The whole page is in a
      fixed-pixel-width table, which is bad for adaptability to different
      resolutions and display situations. Your stylesheet sets all the font
      sizes to pixel sizes, which is also bad for adaptability.

      None of this has anything to do with your question, but as I said, this
      is a discussion newsgroup, not a help desk; you'll get whatever people
      decide to throw in, and if some of it happens to answer your question,
      that's purely coincidental. :)

      --
      == Dan ==
      Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
      Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
      Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

      Comment

      • Cynthia Turcotte

        #4
        Re: critique requested

        >Well, first of all, none of these have valid HTML. They're missing[color=blue]
        >doctypes and charset attributes, for starters, and have an enormous
        >number of syntax problems. For instance, you insert a "TM" sign as a
        >proprietary character from a vendor character set instead of using the
        >standards-compliant Unicode number for it. There's a lot of
        >nonstandard, proprietary JavaScript too, such as a "link" that attempts
        >to bookmark your page (which doesn't work in Mozilla, but it has a
        >perfectly good bookmark function in the browser user interface where it
        >belongs). There's also one of those really obnoxious "no right click"
        >scripts, which unfortunately *does* work in Mozilla (there's a Bugzilla
        >entry seeking a configuration setting to disable this sort of thing).
        >Another script generates a "mailto" link that includes space characters,
        >which are invalid in URIs unless encoded as %20. The whole page is in a
        >fixed-pixel-width table, which is bad for adaptability to different
        >resolutions and display situations. Your stylesheet sets all the font
        >sizes to pixel sizes, which is also bad for adaptability.
        >
        >None of this has anything to do with your question, but as I said, this
        >is a discussion newsgroup, not a help desk; you'll get whatever people
        >decide to throw in, and if some of it happens to answer your question,
        >that's purely coincidental. :)[/color]

        I do appreciate all of the technical input, but the important question
        was not answered -- if you had to pick one, which of the three pages
        is more visually appealing?

        Thanks again,

        Cynthia

        Comment

        • Alexander Johannesen

          #5
          Re: critique requested

          Cynthia Turcotte <cturcote@cfl.r r.com> wrote:[color=blue]
          > I do appreciate all of the technical input, but the important question
          > was not answered -- if you had to pick one, which of the three pages
          > is more visually appealing?[/color]

          Not to sound like a daft one, but why are you asking questions about
          visual stimulus in an *authoring* newsgroup?


          Alexander
          --
          _______________ ____ _______________ _______ _______________ ______________
          | |
          http://shelter.nu/ | alex at shelter . nu | http://shelter.nu/xsiteable/
          _______________ ____|__________ ____________|__ _______________ ____________

          Comment

          • Chris Lambert

            #6
            Re: critique requested

            Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
            [color=blue]
            > Another script generates a "mailto" link that includes space characters,
            > which are invalid in URIs unless encoded as %20.[/color]

            Then your browser/mail client should encoded it as %20.


            --
            Chris Lambert (http://web.trout-fish.org.uk/)
            "I am Homer of Borg. Prepare to be ...ooooh donuts!"


            Comment

            • Alan J. Flavell

              #7
              Re: critique requested

              On Fri, Sep 12, Cynthia Turcotte inscribed on the eternal scroll:
              [color=blue][color=green]
              > >Well, first of all, none of these have valid HTML.[/color][/color]

              [...]
              [color=blue][color=green]
              > >resolutions and display situations. Your stylesheet sets all the font
              > >sizes to pixel sizes, which is also bad for adaptability.[/color]
              >
              > I do appreciate all of the technical input, but the important question
              > was not answered[/color]

              Some of the *important* questions _were_ answered. This is, after
              all, an _HTML_ authoring group. Given a discrepancy between your
              personal priority and the group's charter, I know which I think should
              win, and I would say that no matter who was setting the question, not
              excluding myself.

              If you wanted to know "is my tag soup visually appealing?", I'm more
              than a little sceptical that this was the best place to ask it.

              The curious thing is that, in my experience, once the graphic artist
              has produced an appropriate display (tag soup and all), then someone
              who understands web design principles can almost always produce
              something that looks almost indistinguishab le on the originally-
              intended platform, but is much better engineered for the WWW.

              Can we take the building analogy? You have a cardboard cut-out model
              of your intended building. At the slightest hint of a breeze, the
              model would collapse. But instead of offering it for critique amongst
              visual stylists, you've asked in a building engineer's forum, and
              naturally they're going to tell you what building engineers are
              required to tell you: that the disabled toilets are useless on the
              sixth floor with no lift access above the fifth, the earthquake and
              hurricane resistance requirements aren't met, and fire evacuation
              arrangements are completely inadequate. Its only claim to fame is
              visual appeal.

              good luck (you may need it)

              Comment

              • Daniel R. Tobias

                #8
                Re: critique requested

                Chris Lambert wrote:
                [color=blue]
                > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:[color=green]
                >>Another script generates a "mailto" link that includes space characters,
                >>which are invalid in URIs unless encoded as %20.[/color]
                >
                > Then your browser/mail client should encoded it as %20.[/color]

                It might, as an error-correction step, but the *author* should have
                properly encoded it in the first place.

                --
                == Dan ==
                Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
                Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
                Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

                Comment

                Working...