Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Seeking a Miracle


  • Please log in to reply

#1
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
These two were with iPowerWeb:

http://www.greeneink.com
http://www.tigerboosterclub.com

This one was with Blue Voda:

http://www.tcrnews.us

Thank you!!!! :tazz:
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
NullWolf

NullWolf

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts

http://www.tigerboosterclub.com

The "Go Tigers" paw that stays on the left side gets kind of annoying, especially when its hovering over the links.
Other than that, the marquee that scrolls is eyesore-ish, but, those are probably the school colors. :)
The graphics and colors other than mentioned look pretty good.


http://www.tcrnews.us

This one isn't loading. "Could not be found"
  • 0

#3
Neil Jones

Neil Jones

    Member 5k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts

http://www.greeneink.com


1) Doesn't fit in 800x600.

2) Style clashes. I see four different fonts on one page.

3) The stripes hurt to look at.

4) The advert looks dumped in the middle of the page.

http://www.tigerboosterclub.com


1) The scrolling up text is not needed, neither is the Marquee.
2) Again, doesn't fit in 800x600.

This one was with Blue Voda:

http://www.tcrnews.us


Doesn't work. Not a good sign.
  • 0

#4
lil_cat_luver

lil_cat_luver

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
http://www.greeneink.com

I agree with Neil on this one, the stripes are not appealing, and the fact that it gets cut off makes the page look unprofessional. The red text should go, and it's also better if you stick to one font colour, either a dark green or black. In the "hidden talent" box, there are about 5 line breaks that shouldn't be there. I like the gray rollover's on the navigation, but from "travel" and below, there's a green background extending to the edges of the sidebar. I hope that's not intentional.

http://www.tigerboosterclub.com/

The marquee with the yellow background and the very, very pixelated paw are not needed. They just make the page look cluttered, and gets annoying after a while. The picture below the mission statement would be better if the background was gray or if it had some sort of border.

http://www.tcrnews.us/

The title, out of all things, should not be a marquee. The sidebar starts out as regular text, but starts scrolling after about a second, not very visitor friendly. Like the first site, there's too many different font colours. Try to stick to one or two. The picture of Marcus A. Parker is not very clear, probably because you resized it using the width and height tags. That's not a very efficient way, so instead of doing that, actually resize it in your graphic editor. It'll be smaller, therefore loads quicker and use less space and bandwidth. I really like the link rollover's you have for the navigation, but it should not be on the bottom. I'd rather see those on the sidebar than that yellow scrolling box.
  • 0

#5
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
Thanks for the insight.

I made a couple of changes that I liked better, the navigational item did need to be on the left rather than at the bottom of http://tcrnews.us. However, it kind of unbalanced my front page and made it look overcrowded on the left of the front page, so I will likely move the book-seller affilliate to another page all together.

However, the stories are specific to a certain market, so not everyone is going to find them appealing. The site is open to the public, but only a certain "specialty" market of people looking for positive news and entertainment of the "gospel" (or spiritual) leading and influence in the African-American community will find the stories there of any use. This is not another website made to cater to famous people content-wise - they have plenty of news about them and it can be found everywhere and anywhere. Ad nauseum.

The site is for those "up and coming" in the industry - new talent. Fresh fish out there making a difference the spiritual way and not just any old way. Rap and r&b music and basketball and football talent that isn't geared toward godliness is for another crowd; and they, too, get all the attention they need. They make front page news all day every day, especially when it makes them look bad in public.

These are the young people out there - the best and brightest "hidden" talent (Manna) who are not getting the attention they deserve. People who want to read about Oprah, or Kirk Franklin, or Mary Mary, or even Bishop T D Jakes and Eddie Long will not be hurting trying to find a story. They can visit every other website out there and kaboom, kablam -- there it is.

Mines is unique in that we don't cater to fame, just talent -- and enterprise -- in a youthful part of society that all-too-often takes a back seat in the news to young blacks who are in jail or some place committing a crime; or being blamed for one they didn't commit.

This is absolutely intentional.

Edited by sspsllc, 08 October 2005 - 07:30 PM.

  • 0

#6
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
On the greeneink website. That whole front page informational thing is going - red text and all. Thanks. I just hadn't had time to work on that yet.
  • 0

#7
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
On the tigerboosterclub website, I think I will put the tiger paw back where it was. I moved it to the front page and it doesn't need to be there.

The school colors are purple and gold, as you could tell.
  • 0

#8
lil_cat_luver

lil_cat_luver

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
By "I hope this is not intentional" I meant the extra green background on the navigation, I wasn't referring to the content of the website. If you put the background there intentionally, it doesn't do anything except to look like an error in the coding.
  • 0

#9
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
Actually, on http://greeneink.com, it was part of the template I used, which I loved, but I don't know what to do to change the template. I didn't like that either, but it appeared there when I had to add more pages.

It seems like the further it stretches, or the more pages I add that have to go on the navigator, that stuff just includes itself.
  • 0

#10
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
On tcrnews.us, the picture of Marcus Parker was taken, with his permission, from his website. I didn't change the parameters in the tags, just kept trying to finagle it in the graphics editor; but if you go to his website, you will see how big it is and I can't give it that kind of space on my front page. I need it for others without visitors having to scroll up, down and side to side to see the whole page.

It should fit into a nice 17" monitor window nicely. I don't know of many people who have 15" ones any more.
  • 0

Advertisements


#11
lil_cat_luver

lil_cat_luver

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
Screen size has nothing to do with how the page displays, you can have something that fits a 19" and is too small for a 15". It depends on your screen resolution, not screen size.

You did change the size through width and height tags. The actual size of this picture http://tcrnews.us/Marcus.headshot.jpg is 750x271, the picture displayed on your site is 320x178. You used this tag
<IMG src="Marcus.headshot.jpg" align="top" border="0" width="320" height="178" style="position:absolute;left:175px;top:337px;width:320px;height:178px;z-index:15"></A>

I was just showing you a more efficient way to display the image, you can choose to keep it that way of course, but it uses more space, more bandwidth, and takes more time to load.

Edited by lil_cat_luver, 08 October 2005 - 08:34 PM.

  • 0

#12
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
When I use the tags, I physically type in w="(var") and h="(var)". With this one, I pushed and pulled and dragged the edges with the mouse cursor. Apparently, the "tagmaster" reframed itself once I got it to a partially decent size. I suppose I might try Hypersnap or one of those things to resize the graphic one of these days, but I'm not a perfectionist about those things. It's not a commercial site.

I could probably also shove it in my photo editor and crop it, but I don't know how well that would work. Yet.

Resolution is what someone mentioned earlier, about it not fitting in with an 800x600. By monitor resolution is 1024x68 and 21", 17" viewable. When I said something about the monitor, it meant I didn't want people to have to scroll four ways four times across and down in order to see a page. That happens when the page is out of proportion with what most people would see in a monitor. The average person isn't paying attention to resolution and wouldn't know what it meant if you cracked them in the knee with it.

The quality of the pictures themselves ... I don't know. I don't take them, I just use what I am given. I have a decent digital cam, so my own pictures don't seem to be as muddy as the ones I get from others. Mine usually resize with tags, drop and drag, push and pull, photo editors, snappers, croppers, and everything else and still look good.

His photo is embedded in a banner, so its proportions are what they are and they work with the whole banner instead of alone. I would have to get a picture of him alone, like the one of him on the page about his book to have a decent clear shot.
The front banner is just a clicker to the web page, so I don't worry about it so much. :tazz:
  • 0

#13
lil_cat_luver

lil_cat_luver

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
I don't think you understood half the things I said, maybe I'm just not good at explaining.

When I use the tags, I physically type in w="(var") and h="(var)".

Don't do that.

The quality of the pictures themselves ... I don't know. I don't take them, I just use what I am given.

I have said twice, that the quality of the picture is bad because it was resized by height and width tags. Use photoshop, or paint shop pro, and properly resize the picture. The quality should not be reduced significantly if it was resized in a graphic editor. If you don't have a decent one, I can resize it for you in photoshop.

By monitor resolution is 1024x68 and 21", 17" viewable

If your site fits 1024x768, it'll fit every else's monitor that is set at 1034x768 (most people do). Mine's also set at this resolution.

His photo is embedded in a banner

I don't see any banners, it's just a jpg with a link to it.
  • 0

#14
Neil Jones

Neil Jones

    Member 5k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts

http://www.tcrnews.us

View Post


I can see this site now so if I can comment on how it looks now:

1) Like previous sites, this doesn't fit in 800x600 either.
2) Marquees suck. When Marquees are used as headers, they suck even more. Please don't do that.
3) Your rollovers will do better if the image that appear when you roll over a button is the same size as the original button.
4) The whole site is just looking like a dog's dinner at the moment, things everywhere and no general structure.
5) Text boxes that scroll can look good where used effectively, but your use of it sucks because it doesn't offer anything extra to the rest of the page.

  When I use the tags, I physically type in w="(var") and h="(var)". With this one, I pushed and pulled and dragged the edges with the mouse cursor. Apparently, the "tagmaster" reframed itself once I got it to a partially decent size. I suppose I might try Hypersnap or one of those things to resize the graphic one of these days, but I'm not a perfectionist about those things.


By resizing the pictures in HTML you are not doing anybody any favours. In fact your picture of Marcus Parker looks even more awful than it would have done had you resized the picture manually.

I could probably also shove it in my photo editor and crop it, but I don't know how well that would work. Yet.


It doesn't need cropping, it needs resizing downwards.

Resolution is what someone mentioned earlier, about it not fitting in with an 800x600. By monitor resolution is 1024x68 and 21", 17" viewable. When I said something about the monitor, it meant I didn't want people to have to scroll four ways four times across and down in order to see a page. That happens when the page is out of proportion with what most people would see in a monitor. The average person isn't paying attention to resolution and wouldn't know what it meant if you cracked them in the knee with it.


Now this breaks one of the key rules of the web of the future: accessiblity.
It is one of the worst things you can do to assume that everybody else has the same screen resolution as you do and then design a website around it.

To be web-socially acceptable, sites should either be tailed to fit 800x600 OR (preferably) auto-scale themselves to each user's platform. Your sites do neither of these things.

As previously stated your monitor size is irrelevant but the fact that you have a 21" at 1024x768 and that you imply that anybody will smaller monitors can't do this resolution is one of the most arrogant things you could have possibly said.

Edited by Neil Jones, 09 October 2005 - 04:28 AM.

  • 0

#15
sspsllc

sspsllc

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
I appreciate your help, really I do.

Nobody that I have sent this to has had a problem with it yet.
If they ever do, I will address it at that time.

Thanks so much!!!
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP