New U.K website - first time user of Osc

[Interceptor]

Hello all.

This is my first post, mainly because I haven't encountered any serious problems whilst working with Osc, and any problems I did have I found by searching the forums.

With that said, there is one thing I can not do a search on these forums for, and that is feedback on my store.

 

So if any of you talented people would like to give me any pointers or even a nice pat on the back, feel free to do so.

I wont cry I promise :D

 

www.cdfix.co.uk

[dynamoeffects]

This is one of the few times I can give some praise in this forum. Your site is a little rough around the edges, but it's concise, easy to navigate, and you explain what you do and what the products are without six pages of text. My only suggestions would be to add margins to your text where it pushes against the table borders and redo the masthead because it's really grainy with all of the JPG artifacts. I also prefer to have fixed-width sites in the middle of my screen, but that's no biggie.

[♥FWR Media]

Very nice start imo

 

Positives:

 

For a change it's a site that's FAST .. well done. (Lots of time spent here optimising)

 

SEO urls too another bonus.

 

Unique titles .. hmmmm nice.

 

SSL logging in .. good.

 

Negatives:

 

Doesn't validate http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&am...epair-c-21.html and is therefore not interoperable. (and harder to debug)

 

Given the excellence of the other work I'm amazed that it doesn't look less stock (maybe you are like me and can code but can't design :) )

 

Rob

[Guest]

The site map is a great idea.. i need to sort that out for mine.. and you've used the blue template.. i personally prefer that to the standard red and white..

 

it looks nice..

 

most important.. it looks trustworthy..

 

i agree with dynamo about possibly centering the shop.. that would make it look better..

[kallista]

The site map is a great idea.. i need to sort that out for mine.. and you've used the blue template.. i personally prefer that to the standard red and white..

 

it looks nice..

 

most important.. it looks trustworthy..

 

i agree with dynamo about possibly centering the shop.. that would make it look better..

Great job

I like it lots

pat yourself on the back

blessings

kalli

[Guest]

looks loads better now it's back in the middle :)

[Interceptor]

Thanks for all the comments :thumbsup:

 

Centering of shop now sorted

Working on a new image for the header, but is proving to be hard as the current image comes in at 16kb, dont really want it much bigger than that, maybe go upto 20kb.

 

At this time i'm not too worried about wc3 validation, however it did show me that my site was calling 2 title tags, which has now been dealt with. I also used that site to check some big name websites, and ebay.co.uk came up with 218 errors, so i'm not sure how effective it really is regarding the other errors. Although it cant hurt to try and lower the number of errors when time permits.

 

Point taken on the text pushing against the tables, I will work my way through these shortly.

 

I thank you all for taking the time to review my site

Much appreicated

:thumbsup:

[♥FWR Media]

Thanks for all the comments :thumbsup:

 

Centering of shop now sorted

Working on a new image for the header, but is proving to be hard as the current image comes in at 16kb, dont really want it much bigger than that, maybe go upto 20kb.

 

At this time i'm not too worried about wc3 validation, however it did show me that my site was calling 2 title tags, which has now been dealt with. I also used that site to check some big name websites, and ebay.co.uk came up with 218 errors, so i'm not sure how effective it really is regarding the other errors. Although it cant hurt to try and lower the number of errors when time permits.

 

Point taken on the text pushing against the tables, I will work my way through these shortly.

 

I thank you all for taking the time to review my site

Much appreicated

:thumbsup:

 

Fair point about W3C however my view is (and I like an easy life)

 

1) If it validates it is interoperable with other browsers (pain removed)

2) If it validates I can check small errors easily (pain removed)

however it did show me that my site was calling 2 title tags, which has now been dealt with

3) If it validates we know the bots can read it (gready smile)

 

My name is Robert and I'm a validator (looks at the rest of the group)

[dynamoeffects]

Fair point about W3C however my view is (and I like an easy life)

 

1) If it validates it is interoperable with other browsers (pain removed)

2) If it validates I can check small errors easily (pain removed)

 

3) If it validates we know the bots can read it (gready smile)

 

I disagree, and this is a conversation I've had many times:

 

1) A page that validates does not guarantee that it's interoperable with other browsers. IE6 and Safari almost always need "nudges" to display complex CSS properly, and that has nothing to do with bad scripting practices, it has to do with flawed CSS implementation within the browsers themselves. An interesting tidbit from a browser standards conference a week or so ago makes an interesting point:

 

"Chris [Wilson from Microsoft] queried the top 200 web sites and 50% of them are in strict mode. When he did this in IE 6, only one of them was like this. He hinted at having developers opt-in to standards mode in a different way."

 

2) You can check small HTML, and maybe even CSS errors easily. The validator doesn't check javascript. I do agree that it will quickly find missing end tags, which is very helpful.

 

3) This I will agree with. Not so much that it validates, but your HTML needs to be in the correct format and all tags need to be nested and terminated correctly. Validation will help you with this more than anything.

 

My point is not to argue about who's right or wrong. I just want to make the point of not relying on the validator for anything more than a debugger.