please give me suggestion on my website www.topcreators.com

It doesn't matter if you do all the error checking in the world, or if you have the most beautiful graphics, if your site or application design isn't usable, it's not going to do well. Get input and advice on usability and user interface issues here.

Moderator: General Moderators

james_p
Forum Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:00 pm

please give me suggestion on my website www.topcreators.com

Post by james_p »

hi,
everyone I have been designing Web Site for last three Years, I have just created my own web site http://www.topcreators.com , the company Top Creators is into Web designing, Web hosting, Logo creation, SEO, Web maketing, Software Solution, ICON design, Graphic/Web recreation work etc. I have created my web site with grey and blue color combination, please suggest me how can i improve my web site look color combination so that I can get more and more business from my web site.

wating for genuine reply...

Thanks
James
http://www.topcreators.com
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

It looks great to me :D

If I do hvae to Critique I'd say, do a spelling / grammar check on your text because I see some poor english in there (it's not terrible but these things make an impression on potential clients). I'd particularly lose that flashing yellow text in the header too (it's written wrong; "in" should be "at", but it's also a bit distracting and doesn't look great).

Hope that helps some :wink:
User avatar
onion2k
Jedi Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: usrlab.com

Post by onion2k »

It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

onion2k wrote:It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
Sorry but I think that's a bit harsh... there's nothing wrong with table based layouts (yes I am now 100% CSS oriented), it's a matter of preference I guess (and rendering speed). Design-wise you cannot say that that is a "rubbish" website. We are often asked to critique websites which are completely non user-friendly and not at all naviagble. There are still plenty of (very good) web developers out there using tables, and for me I have to say that development time is increased when working with CSS rather than tables.
bobsta63
Forum Commoner
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:03 pm
Location: Ipswich, UK

Post by bobsta63 »

onion2k wrote:It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
I think it looks really good, However I would suggest taking about the image as the page background, I personally think It would look much better with a white background, mate... Just a suggestion. But it does look really good.

Onion2k - Tables arn't illegal in the UK, Most of the best sites use tables.

Anyway, looks good mate :)
User avatar
hawleyjr
BeerMod
Posts: 2170
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Jax FL & Spokane WA USA

Post by hawleyjr »

onion2k wrote:It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
Illigal???? Not really...
User avatar
onion2k
Jedi Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: usrlab.com

Post by onion2k »

hawleyjr wrote:Illigal???? Not really...
Yes, illegal. Under the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK, and the equivalent in the USA, any service offered by a business MUST be accessible by disabled people. That includes websites. By not writing a site to meet the WAI guidelines you're actually breaking the law. It's ignored most of the time, but if you offer soemthing thats only available online and your site isn't accessible you're running a pretty big risk.
User avatar
onion2k
Jedi Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: usrlab.com

Post by onion2k »

bobsta63 wrote:Onion2k - Tables arn't illegal in the UK, Most of the best sites use tables.
They are illegal. See my response above. And all of the best sites (BBC, Wired, MSN, Google, etc) are shifting to CSS layouts.
User avatar
hawleyjr
BeerMod
Posts: 2170
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Jax FL & Spokane WA USA

Post by hawleyjr »

As far as I'm aware (And correct me if I'm wrong) Section 508 is the only law in the US which regulates accessible to people with disabilities. This law however, only governs Federal sites. http://www.section508.gov/

http://section508.gov uses tables too :)


http://www.access-board.gov uses tables too :)
User avatar
phpScott
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 6:51 pm
Location: Keele, U.K.

Post by phpScott »

in the UK anyway there is a good article http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-frien ... ents.shtml here that talks about accessibility and websites.

I was only really curious because the company I now work for has done a number of sites for local council and accessibility was a big concern. They of course did the work properly and it meet the CSS standards.

So yes as off 2004 information that is only available on the web must meet the new requirements.

But I must agree that the comment by onion2k was harsh as no real explanation was given for his reasons.
User avatar
John Cartwright
Site Admin
Posts: 11470
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by John Cartwright »

Lets get back on topic shall we.
User avatar
onion2k
Jedi Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: usrlab.com

Post by onion2k »

phpScott wrote:But I must agree that the comment by onion2k was harsh as no real explanation was given for his reasons.
Ok, I'll break down my reasons a little:

1. Tables are a big problem on a corporate website. But we've covered that.
2. The site is littered with clip-art photos. Looks very unprofessional.
3. The site has spelling and grammar problems. Again, this looks very unprofessional.
4. It's a very standard top-banner-blocks-of-text design. Very dull, exactly what everyone was churning out a couple of years ago. Not the sort of innovation one might expect from a company that cliams to "offer superior quality, custom website design at extremely competitive prices.".
5. Certain elements such as the bottom text box area are mis-aligned in Firefox.
6. That bottom text box is search engine spam. Yuck.
7. Hovering over links in the bottom area makes the rest of the text move. Not good.
8. There's 5 different fonts used on that one page. That's rather unnecessary.
9. The Flash content adds very little to the page, so it shouldn't be there.

On the positive side though, the colour scheme works well and is consistant, and the navigation structure is good (apart from the bottom of the page).
andylyon87
Forum Contributor
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:31 am
Location: Dundee

Post by andylyon87 »

well took a look at your site didn't read any of the content sorry, but it doesnt look too shabby.

You need to look at your bottom image.
go_to_top.gif
it looks scewed on the table you may need to change the width of it, I think its only 2px out.

Also, I think you should be able to fix this by setting column widths, te hyperlinks seem to alter the widths of the table columns and shift the text on them.

overall though not too bad :)
malcolmboston
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:09 pm
Location: Middlesbrough, UK

Post by malcolmboston »

imo the site is what i like to call an "amateur professional" site meaning its an attempy at building a corporate style site but done very "tacky"

imo the site doesnt look that good, just looks like some 15yo kid who "designs" in his spare time has done it :/ is it just me??
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

The site is far too busy - the *entire* page consists of one-phrase links, or one-paragraph blurbs describing a one-phrase link.

What is the page for? I count no less than three links for logo designs alone. One at the top of the page (totally unneeded), one with an intro paragraph in the middle (nice), and one in the PILE of links with no explanation at the bottom (ultimate tacky).

Less links, more info, so I know what I'm supposed to click on. Also, do you really need to offer 12 different products on one page? (Webdesign, logo design, hosting...) Trim that down a bit, or split the page into services (recurring, like hosting) and products (things with a single deliverable, like logo design).

By doing that, you'll have a much neater, more logical page that people can easily find what they want, AND you can probably simplify the layout as well.

PS. Tables (and table based layouts) aren't illegal in the US. Maybe in the UK, but as I do design in the US professionally, I'm aware of the laws here, and its not in any sense illegal. Pure FUD. That said, the site example given *really* should be using css.. its just wrong to rely that heavily on tables!
Post Reply