Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by moberemk

  1. Good visuals, good semantic coding, and only one small problem that I can see. Your gradient at the bottom, with the "top of the page" link is, I feel too tall of a gradient in relation to the footer content. Scale it down some.
  2. Don't worry so much about it always being at the very bottom. Alternatively, you could try using the fixed property and then applying padding to the bottom of the content.
  3. Image, black background, no DOCTYPE, HEAD tag, TITLE tag, and browser sniffing. This is bad.
  4. Ha HA! Finally, you used light colours! This looks pretty good. Three things: First, add some margin at the top of the page, so it doesn't just run up against the top like that, unless it's a key design element (which as far as I can tell, it's not). Second, what's with the table to the right? I don't really see the use for that. And finally, I don't really see the point of that progressbar. I don't even see it, the page loads so fast.
  5. You have taken a look at your site in Internet Explorer, right?
  6. [code]<div id="wrapper" style="margin:0px auto;"> <div style="width:643; height:74;" ><img src="#" width='643' height='74' alt="img0" /></div> <div style="width:643; height:30;padding:0px;" ><img src="#" width="171" height="30" alt="img1" /><img src="#" width="85" height="30" alt="img2" /><img src="#" width="79" height="30" alt="img3" /><img src="#" width="121" height="30" alt="img4" /><img src="#" width="188" height="30" alt="img5" /></div> </div>[/code] Actually, no, don't do that. That's bad. It uses inline style definitions and won't solve the problem. Instead, do this: [code] <div id="header">     <div id="header_img"><img src="#" width="643" height="74" alt="img0" /></div>     <div id="header_img_row"><img src="#" width="171" height="30" alt="img1" /><img src="#" width="85" height="30" alt="img2" /><img src="#" width="79" height="30" alt="img3" /><img src="#" width="121" height="30" alt="img4" /><img src="#" width="188" height="30" alt="img5" /></div> </div> [/code] Then attach this piece of code to your stylesheet: [code] div#header_img_row img {       margin: 0px;       padding: 0px; } [/code] By doing that, there won't be any spacing to the images.
  7. [quote author=Ifa link=topic=102289.msg406520#msg406520 date=1154359837] Or you can use text-align:right and left [/quote] I don't think that's what he's after. I think that he means blocks of text, like on Wikipedia. Besides, that won't let them stack next to one another, they'll just go one on one line, and one on the other.
  8. float: left; and width: widthpx; for the left element, and the rest will fall into place. As for the child node of a table element, I dunno. <tr> maybe?
  9. Of course not. It's class="nesfact". Style declarations are also not HTML tags-instead of an equals sign, you should have a colon and at the end a semicolon. You have it right in your font-size and color declarations, so I don't know why you didn't do it right that way-though given that the align isn't even a CSS property, it probably doesn't matter.. Also, if you want to have those h1 and h2 tags show up that way inside the newsfacts class, you don't nest them like that-you make them a separate declaration, only you would write them like .newsfacts h1 or h2. That tells it to apply the property to the newsfacts, and then only to h1 tags within that class. Basically, your CSS code is terrible. Here's how it should look when it's well-formed: [code].newsfacts { background-color: #2299FF; } h1 { font-size: 8pt; color:#AA5522; text-align: left;} h2 { font-size: 4pt color:#DD9955; text-align: center;}[/code] Just a quick tip: pt sizes are for printing, and generally don't work the same accross all browsers. And a question: why are you using a table for that? I don't quite get the reasoning as to why you've used it there-if all you're using is one cell, why not just make it a <div> instead?
  10. The contact page is really fairly cluttered. The contact information, after which the page is named, probably shouldn't be at the bottom of the page. Add borders-blocks of colour just aren't cool. Add some spacing to the images-the way that they just run up against the text right now doesn't look very good. Your use of an IFramed Google Calendar isn't very professional either. The font should probably go sans-serif too. Your navigation might want to be re-thought out, maybe make them tabs? The way they are now isn't very pretty. Finally, on your contact page, in the public transportation section, make it so the images don't stick out of the sentence so much.
  11. This is probably the closest thing: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail/.
  12. The navigation bar is controlled by the Nuke template, and the sidebar there is a block, who's name I've forgotten.
  13. I'm curious about something here: [code]a.band img{border-width:2px ;border-style: solid;}[/code] Why is there no border-color: attribute?
  14. Add a border around the content. And I'll bet that the 850 people are from Teenfront members, right?
  15. position: fixed; with left: 0px; and top: 0px should do the trick in good CSS-compliant browsers. That or Javascript.
  16. moberemk


    What's with the space between the colour value and the closing semicolon. Also, I think that I remember reading something about a specific order for that... but I don't quite remember it.
  17. I've got one! http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css
  18. I'd link you to some articles on the subject, but they seem to be experiencing technical difficulties. All I can say is that the code is easier, the design is more flexible, it makes semantic sense, and it makes your site more accessible to the disabled.
  19. I always wondered why you would make your username your email address.
  20. IE6 and below doesn't support PNG transparency. Period. There's no way for that to be fixed.
  21. Well, if I WAS critiquing the functional side, I would critique the invalid/deprecated code and tables, as well as the use of images for text. But I'm not. Instead, I'll critique the graphical side of things. Graphically, it's good, and except for the divider to the left and the ugly horizontal rules in the main content, this looks pretty good.
  22. So? Does it really matter? Just because that's the sort of site that is considered popular doesn't mean that he has to design his site like that.
  23. Well, you could put a border around the main content, and give it some definition.
  24. You have an image with some image maps. Nope, nothing to critique here. I don't get why you didn't use Flash to create this-it would probably work better for this type of style.
  25. This forum is for critique, not for soliciting. That being said, on to the review! Your site, while looking cool, has an issue in that the code is terrible. And your forums are still the default phpBB skin. Outside of that, this isn't too bad.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.