[thelist] popgurls preview

aardvark evolt at roselli.org
Sat Jan 15 13:26:26 CST 2005


On 15 Jan 2005 at 18:35, Richard Bennett wrote:
> > 	http://roselli.org/popgurls/
[...] 
> The site feels nice, snappy and lightweight.

good... lightweight was a goal...

> I don't like the green/pink combination... might work for females though..
> The woman on the frontpage looks a bit in pain, especially with part of her 
> head cut off...

i don't know that she was using it anyway... but yes, design was 
provided, i'm just the code monkey on this one...

> The font-size is too small, but a few mouse-wheel scrolls sorted that, and 
> everything scales nicely.

good to know...

> for some reason the 4 images of laughing woman on the front page are squashed 
> to 1/3 of the correct height. On subsequent pages they are OK.

ahh, yes, they are just placeholders.... since i had no other images 
to use, i just used the same one as inside and resized it...

> Why use the same arrow-icon for "read more" and "Submit" ? and why did you do 
> this: alt="Submit" title="" ? I'm sure you know only the title attribute will 
> give the users a clue to the button function in most browsers, so why give a 
> blank value?

the submit button on the signup was part of the design... granted, i 
didn't protest it, but it wasn't my call...

the title attribute, however, looks like an oversight... dunno why i 
left it blank...

> Also, on the internal pages you do use a "submit" button - maybe make that 
> more consistent.

i tend to agree... the design didn't have a search, and so i just 
went with a submit... i'll have to look at that again...

> Why not validate xhtml1.0 transitional? html4 validation is so sloppy almost 
> anything will pass, so it doesn't really qualify as a mark of quality.

no reason to... i consider it a mark of quality to validate to a 
spec, whichever spec is chosen... XHTML 1.0 trans is the same as HTML 
4, with some requirements on closing tags, name/value attributes, 
etc... it's essentially the same mark-up...

also, since the CMS that will drive this outputs HTML instead of 
XHTML, it would make the whole exercise kinda pointless...

so i've chosen the spec best suited for the job...

that and i'm not sold on XHTML as a default yet... it doesn't result 
in anything on the user experience that is a real change... and given 
how many CMS products output to HTML, it's still too early, IMO, to 
make a solid case for anything other than specialty projects...

> Besides, all assistive technologies will have an easier time parsing 
> well-formed content.

well, i believe the content is well-formed, regardless of the DTD... 
barring the layout tables (which are analagous to layout divs in a 
table-less design), the rest of the markup should be appropriate 
(semantic and structural)...

> You might add the 'scope' attribute to data tables, as this is a simple 
> addition, and allows screen-readers to describe tables better.

not a bad idea... sadly, i don't believe the CMS will support that, 
but i should at least get it in the template...

> The footer bar looks far better on the internal pages, than on the front-page, 
> where it is too big.

i tend to agree, but it is to-the-pixel from the design...

> I think for an entertainement site more images might work, for instance some 
> thumbnails on the entertainment page. 

that's going to be up to each author... i minimized the amount of 
images in the template on purpose, but i expect the authors will 
start to use more images in the page content with the new look...

> Nice job overall though.

thanks!

and thanks for taking the time to comment...



More information about the thelist mailing list