redbullmarky

6 to 12 months is a long time, especially if you've got the knack and experience. once you get the basics down, the rest gets quite easy to pick up as you go along. however, maybe you'd be good with a compromise. I learnt plenty of tricks and tips by getting under the bonnet and looking at the code of CMS's/Frameworks/forums, etc - so worth a shot. I'd recommend taking a look at Drupal as a pretty robust, open source and trusted CMS that uses PHP/MySQL.

i'd change the very top "Login or Register to take full advantage of this site!" banner completely. the colouring of it makes it look like my popup blocker, so is immediatly offputting and distracting (i tend to stay away from sites that force popups - and whilst yours doesnt give me any, i naturally want to navigate away from the page as soon as i see that)

i'm also with 448191 on this one. at first glances, things look quite good, but going over things in more detail do kinda bring up issues. first off the bat, and if you're deciding to keep the style/colours the same, then i'd lose some (maybe all) of the margin at the very top - ie, above the black banner area. also, the centered logo just kinda looks a bit weird. it'd probably look much better either left or right aligned. tis always good also to make the logo into a link to go to the homepage. many of us lazy types just kinda expect that. on this page: https://www.bizsox.com/products/socks.php the "menu" (leave it to us/our quality, etc) only seems to cause issues of whitespace rather than actually adding anything to the page. I think you could safely either put those menu items horizontally, or do away with them altogether - it's not a huge page after all. the same goes for the 'About Us' page. with only 2 sections - get rid of the "menu". If you decide to ignore that suggestion, then at least consider moving the 'top of page' return link to the left hand site, as it's a bit clumsy clicking the item on the left and then having to move the mouse to the right of the page to go back up. some other pages (eg, the news page(s) ) share the same issues. just too much whitespace. overall, i think its biggest problem is the site is trying too hard, and is bigger than it needs to be. you gotta remember, there's only so much you can talk about socks. 448191's comment about trying to go for a more "slick" look sounds good - take a look at some businessy menswear sites, such as this: http://www.suitsyou.co.uk It's a great idea though and from a design point of view, you're not too far off the mark at all. Good luck!

it depends what you're asking. most places here are generally for specific coding help on something you've already written. If you're completely new to PHP, the FAQ/Code Snippet Repository is probably a good start. Over on the main phpfreaks site, you'll find plenty of tutorials to get you started, then you're probably just better to dive in at the deep end, try stuff out, and ask for help along the way. Good luck!

yeah it was dude. ta very much for the effort! Cheers

moved from @PHPFreaks Questions, Comments & Suggestions. Please check where you're posting in future.

of course. welcome aboard! I knew virtually zilch when i first joined up here myself, so yeah - providing you get acquainted with searching the site/reading the FAQ's, etc to make sure you're not asking something that's been asked over and over, you're fine - regardless of your experience. I'm guessing that's not really your name, or you're one of those that sold the rights to their name to a winning bidder to choose on eBay? jk

if your problem occurs when the file is in a subdirectory but not on your main index page, then consider using something like: <?php include_once($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . '/includes/classes-LIT/test.php'); ?> which is pretty much the "internal" equivalent of referencing a file from the web root.

well i'm hopefully gonna have a bit of time to put some of the suggestions into action over the next few days, notably from the images 448191 has provided (although I thank everyone for comments so far, positive and critical). Before I get cracking, and maybe even using 448191's new mock-up's as benchmarks, I'd be keen to grab a few more thoughts before I get stuck in to proper changes. What people would see as beneficial to change or leave well alone. Anyways - cheers so far for your input. Mark

the page itself no doubt uses flash. a right click presenting a context menu with flash options gives the game away. ontop/aside from that, what thorpe said above stands.

oh how they probably laughed out load when the idea of MVC was first proposed. "Hahaha!! So you want us to write 3 files for every page we have right now? And use lots of complex terminology? Haha, you should be doing it this way, as this way is correct..." Most of the time, when many mention patterns and bits, I'm often scratching my head wondering what the gist of things really is and what the point is. Sometimes, I realise I'm doing some of the stuff anyway, but havent put a name to it. No biggie, it works. My point is - I've found the MVC framework via firstly realising the benefits of templates and then taking it a step further and examining frameworks. Now - many purists out there will look at my framework and laugh whilst chanting stuff like "that's wrong, that's not the correct implementation of this or that". But the point is, the end result is a site that's quickly deployed, secure, functional, stable and cash in my pocket. So where does the right vs. wrong stop? I'm not going to have a dig at the "purists" or the "educated" - but I will say that even doing this whole web stuff part time nowadays, I do make more money than alot of people I know who are more concerned with making sure it's "correct." Before anyone jumps in and gets offended by that last statement, I'm not having a dig at anyone at all - as everyone who's contributing here is helping a great deal. Nameless too - have picked up a few bits and pieces from your responses that I can learn from. So I don't wanna sound all hypocrytical or anything, as I have my opinions about how code should be generally structured and written, but I personally (strongly) believe that rules (even the proven ones) are made to be broken. Else, everything will just go down the same old path, with no further thinking, no innovation, etc, etc, etc.

nope. all those provided links still provide scrolling content...

this might be one solution for your 'tree menu' too: http://scbr.com/docs/products/dhtmlxTree/index.shtml

I can't speak for Java, as I've no experience with it, so can only say what I'd do by using my normal weapons of choice... I can't remember which, but have a look at TinyMCE and FCKEditor. (I use the former, but not explored it in detail yet) as I believe they both support spell checking and incremental saving. As for your columns, you may find that a simple 'frameset' is the way to go. People do seem to really hate frames, but when used properly and carefully, they can look quite good. Failing that, you'd just be incorporating some relatively simple drag and drop, with the draggable "handle" being one of the sides of your columns. There are plenty of drag/drop resources out there, but generally I just use Script.aculo.us or Mootools for all that sort of stuff. (sure, there are probably others but these are the ones that seem most popular).

from past experience, making tweaks to get my sites to validate has been at worst an hour job. not because there were only a few errors - some pages would literally have hundreds of errors/warnings, but as many were the result of others, it really doesnt take long. 1, open up a page in the W3C Validator. 2, Starting from the top, and one by one, tweak the code based on the result. The descriptions are really strong clues, with examples, as to why your code is invalid. Otherwise - Google is your friend. 3, Revalidate. After fixing an error/warning in step 2, watch how many errors disappear from your list of errors. I really don't mean to sound patronising with the above, so apologies if it comes across that way. But you mention just purely dismissing the 20% who DONT use IE, when validating your code correctly by a few simple tweaks might be the difference in not having to do that. Remember, not too long ago, IE had 95% of the share. Other browsers, notably FF, are chipping away at the share day in day out. Consider this, as well as validation - are you clients gonna be happy when say 40 or 50% of their customers cant view the site properly? So yeah - for dismissing users because of their choice of browser and for making your site inaccessible to the disabled just because of a few HTML markup errors, that's lazy in my book - but like I said before, it does depend on whether you're doing it professionally or as a personal hobby. Obviously everyone has to start somewhere - and at one point, i was asking these "what's the point?" questions myself. But if you're gonna take the time out to learn HTML/CSS/PHP and all the bits and pieces that go with it, may as well learn to do it properly if you're gonna be taking people's money off them.

it's a nice enough skin (although very dark) but to be honest, that's all it is - just yet another forum skin.

agreed. I appreciate Flash for making people think outside the box, but it's like "yesterdays AJAX" - everyone wants to use it, even if they dont quite know why. I'm a huge fan of DHTML these days. Coupled with AJAX and other bits and pieces, you can do some blinding stuff with it. Ok, not as slick/smooth as Flash - but at least it still retains some of the simplistic charm. So I love the idea, and may even have a good play around with it. But if there was a complete, all in one LAMP/WAMP + mootools/scriptaculous + whatever runtime package available (for ALL users, not just developers who know how to setup a local server), that could interract just as well locally as well as with the server, and as easy to install as Flash player, then I'd be a taker for definite, especially with some of the bits i'm working on right now.

Thats definitely not true, no validation does not mean that the web master shown a lack of effort towards the construction of a site, because I dont validate my side is due to the fact that I am not literate to the html errors that display when you validate. I dont understand any of what they are saying, so I cant modify, and there are some advertisement codes that tells you do not change their codes, but those also have errors in them, what do you do then? well, there i will disagree: yes it IS true. it's a prime example of a "professional" starting a job and not finishing it properly. a prime example of a workman doing work on your house, leaving sawdust and paint all over your carpet. ok, so they dont HAVE to vacuum up the sawdust after - but 1,000,000 extra ninja points (thanks, C_V ) if they do. no disrespect - but if you are not literate to the HTML errors, then you need to spend more time doing your homework and getting to grips with Google, not doing websites - unless it's gonna remain just a hobby. Like Andy suggests, many errors are down to the pesky ampersand symbol. others are by using outdated tags (eg, <br> instead of <br /> when using XHTML. Sometimes you'll see a list of a few hundred errors/warnings, yet many are knock on effects of others - clear up one, and you might be clearing up ten or twenty or a hundred. As for advertisement codes - I dunno, I only really use google adsense and I don't have any validation problems with it. I'm not perfect, and there are occasions where I do get a bit lazy (on my OWN projects) - but I'll try my damned best to make sure that (by the time I'm finished) not only does a client get the site they wanted, but also one that's tidy and accessible to all. I do believe that, dependent on the nature of the site and what country you're in, you could be breaking the law under the Discrimination/Disability acts - just by cutting a few corners or being that little bit sloppy. Cheers

you're on the right lines. it doesnt look too bad at all. (though to be brutally honest, even if you replaced the current site with the new one as it is, without even bothering to add content, it'd be a step up ) obviously there's not much to critique right now, but from what you say/what i see: 1, don't go down the ajax/javascript route. you'd be just another one of those people using it for no other reason aside from "just because it's there." It's a simple site, so keep it simple. If, later down the line, you REALLY see a need for it, then fine. 2, I reckon you could do alot better with the image of the ping pong player. it looks a bit grainy - and whilst the header in general needs a few tweaks anyway just to spruce it up, sorting that out would make things up top look a bit cleaner. Be interesting to see what it looks like with a bit of content, but as it is, it looks fine and definitely an improvement on the existing site... Good luck Mark

it's fantastic. i particularly love the bit where you forget to post your own link

no. it'll probably still work - however: 1, it's unprofessional and shows lack of real effort. 2, people who use screen readers, etc rely on valid HTML to operate. invalid code = certain people with disabilities (notably the blind/partially sighted but not limited to) can't access your site properly. that DOES include search engines to an extent. 3, less chance of it looking consistent across browsers/platforms.

i do now. cheers

nope. cant connect to it....

definitely a few points there i can take away - cheers. might be easier to let you know where i'm at now, since i first posted: 1, Both windows and icons are generated by document.createElement calls. these are then passed to a window function, looslely based on work here: http://www.brainjar.com/dhtml/windows/default2.asp. At the moment, this is instead of any cloning, though i'm kinda guessing that cloning would be quicker? 2, i have a regular directory structure, which is used to construct the layout, etc. ie, the root directory = the desktop, the subdirectories = the windows, the files within these directories = the normal icons. 3, a double click on an icon sends a path to the server (specifically a class method called 'open') via an AJAX (specifically JSON, but you know what i mean) call, and says 'here, open this'. the 'path' is registered in a $_SESSION for checks later on to prevent further re-opening of same thing. in return, instructions are sent back such as 'var thewin = drawWindow('test window', 50, 50,400, 300); and 'drawIcon('test', 'test.gif', 50, 50, thewin); which I then handle via an 'eval' call client side. the result is an open window with all its folders/files in it. 4, in a similar way as opening a window, callbacks are used when resizing/moving windows, and dragging icons. and 'close' - to free up the $_SESSION var so that the window can be re-opened if required. So really I reckon I've done fairly ok so far, but I can see problems which all fall back on the way I store the info (ie, a file called 'info' kept in each directory stores the icon positions/labels, etc, and also the size of the resulting window should they be launched). But later I'm gonna want to introduce dragging between windows, etc - which maybe an issue. Also, whether I'd be better to store REAL files (ie, DOC's , etc) in a single, central place and each icon would be like a 'pointer' to the real files. I dunno. I guess I'm toying with all the options at the moment, but the structure, etc is pretty confusing. Javascript not as easy to debug as PHP... Cheers Mark

slightly off topic. when posting lots of code, please use the tags instead of the tags as it makes things a tonne easier to read. cheers