Page 1 of 2
please give me suggestion on my website www.topcreators.com
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:31 pm
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
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:11 am
by Chris Corbyn
It looks great to me
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

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:45 am
by onion2k
It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:48 am
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.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:38 am
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

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:40 am
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...
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:57 am
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.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:58 am
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.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:09 am
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 :)
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:31 am
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.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:47 am
by John Cartwright
Lets get back on topic shall we.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:35 pm
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).
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:07 am
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

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:26 am
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??
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:53 am
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!