Xeoncross Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 A light-weight blog site created with ajax-loading of content. It "downgrades" to a regular site for people without Javascript or for search engines. I.E. You can't break it. If you visit my site and have JS enabled - Mootools will complete a hostle take-over of my HTML. After disabling links and forms it will request Ajax style pages. The only problem is I went overboard with graphics and the page is like 250kb in size Plus you need at least a 1200x768px screen to enjoy it. The site it's self is hand coded so feel free to look for holes to break it. Xeoncross.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The header at the top is too big in my opinion. I don't like having to scroll down to see content. It looks really cool though. I don't like when pages scroll my window for me. I'm perfectly capable and enjoy my power to scroll. You have an "Oops! Error loading image!" error on the image by your newest post. Random grammar note that's a pet peeve of mine, ajax/Ajax = AJAX. Bottom looks broken in FF3. Don't know if it's supposed to look like that or not. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can upload a screen. Anyway, looks good overall, and kudos for the downgrading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeoncross Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 The header at the top is too big in my opinion. I don't like having to scroll down to see content. It looks really cool though. Since is my site I just decided to keep it since the site loads via JS and so you don't have to look at it every page load... I don't like when pages scroll my window for me. I'm perfectly capable and enjoy my power to scroll. If it was a "normal" page it would "scroll for you" anyway because it would be a new page and place you at the top of the page. I just do it with JS. You have an "Oops! Error loading image!" error on the image by your newest post. Ya, I need to fix that Random grammar note that's a pet peeve of mine, ajax/Ajax = AJAX. Noted name != Acronym Bottom looks broken in FF3. Don't know if it's supposed to look like that or not. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can upload a screen. Looks fine to me... Anyway, looks good overall, and kudos for the downgrading. Thanks for replying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I like the site. I have to agree that the header is too big IMO. But if this is just your personal blog than who cares... I love the auto-scrolling, allows me to be lazy. But isn't that what technology and high level languages are for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 "Noted name != Acronym" So are you saying AJAX isn't an acronym, or that it's become common usage as Ajax? If it's an acronym (which is how I view it), it should be all capitals in my opinion, even if Ajax is common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeoncross Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 "Noted name != Acronym" So are you saying AJAX isn't an acronym, or that it's become common usage as Ajax? Neither, I am saying that it a Name is not an ACRONYM and shouldn't be treated like it (and vise-versa). Therefore I need to use ACRONYMS like they should be used and not like Names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 The only problem is I went overboard with graphics and the page is like 250kb in size Plus you need at least a 1200x768px screen to enjoy it. Actually, its not so bad. When I had a glance with FF3 using the lastest Firebug and Yslow, the home page clocked in at a respectable c (78) rating. On an empty cache, I'm getting a report of 137.6k using 33 http requests. Not bad really. The amount of http requests could be better by merging many related images into CSS sheets and loading them via CSS backgrounds (by example, you have a bunch of social bookmarks icons as individual images, and you also have some images along the footer as well (Firefox / Supported By God / Subscribe / Hosting 1 & 1). By merging examples like this, you shave off some http request chitter chatter between browser and server. If you go this route, just don't go too overboard (as you are sitting at 12 css background images already..which isn't bad.. but you don't want to get too carried away with this). Overall though.. in good shape it seems. Don't worry about needing a resolution of 1200x768px to view it. The days of 800X600 are pretty much dead. The only thing that I found immediately awkward was the location of the search field along the top. I would personally shift the location over the right so that the seach button is in line with the right-hand edge of the site's content. I would also ensure it validates. Other than that.. I like it. Good stuff Cheers, NRG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 AJAX = Asynchronous JavaScript and XML? Wouldn't that be considered an acronym? Edit: It seems that the first time (according to Wikipedia) that the term AJAX was used, it was used as Ajax. Can't find any specs on AJAX (as a name). Hrmmm.... Appears you're correct, but I still think it should technically be a acronym. Also, I don't personally think that the term can be set as a standard by the first user of it [the term] since the technologies were not his, he just named using them together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Yes, AJAX is unarguably an acronym. Even if pronounced the way it sounds, it should still be spelled with all capitals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeoncross Posted September 11, 2008 Author Share Posted September 11, 2008 The only problem is I went overboard with graphics and the page is like 250kb in size Plus you need at least a 1200x768px screen to enjoy it. Actually, its not so bad. When I had a glance with FF3 using the lastest Firebug and Yslow, the home page clocked in at a respectable c (78) rating. On an empty cache, I'm getting a report of 137.6k using 33 http requests. Not bad really. Thanks for checking it out - but that is Code2Design you were looking at - not xeoncross.com Yes, AJAX is unarguably an acronym. That is what I said. ...a Name is not an ACRONYM and shouldn't be treated like it (and vise-versa). ... I need to use ACRONYMS like they should be used and not like Names Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 The only problem is I went overboard with graphics and the page is like 250kb in size Plus you need at least a 1200x768px screen to enjoy it. Actually, its not so bad. When I had a glance with FF3 using the lastest Firebug and Yslow, the home page clocked in at a respectable c (78) rating. On an empty cache, I'm getting a report of 137.6k using 33 http requests. Not bad really. Thanks for checking it out - but that is Code2Design you were looking at - not xeoncross.com (glances nervously around the room)..I... I knew that.. I was just testing you! Ok, now on to my correct site assessment. - I do agree with the comment about the header being too large.. A lot of precious screen real estate wasted. I too think it looks nice.. but very large. - I also think the footer is also exceptionally large. - I do like the overall look and feel.. the whitespace is seems very well balanced. I also like the border / trims. - From a performance standpoint, while it wasn't terribly slow, it wasn't fast. I would consider examining the site with Firebug and yslow. Indeed the homepage comes in at 286.9k... And while 31 http requests isn't the end of the world, it can be reduced. I would seriously consider reducing the header size (not sure how much you can save on this with regards to kilobytes). - lastly, I would consider validating your code. Overall, good stuff.. I like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 "Noted name != Acronym" So are you saying AJAX isn't an acronym, or that it's become common usage as Ajax? Neither, I am saying that it a Name is not an ACRONYM and shouldn't be treated like it (and vise-versa). Therefore I need to use ACRONYMS like they should be used and not like Names. Oh Xeon, maybe I misunderstood, because I had no idea what you meant there x.x. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeoncross Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 (glances nervously around the room)..I... I knew that.. I was just testing you! hahahaha - I do agree with the comment about the header being too large.. A lot of precious screen real estate wasted. I too think it looks nice.. but very large. - I also think the footer is also exceptionally large. the 1# rule in site design is to know your audience. The audience that is coming to my site isn't there to read my awesomeness - they are there to view my design. Therefore I don't need to reduce the header/footer because it isn't a heavy traffic site that actually has people coming to read what I wrote. (Now I need to do this with my other sites though... ) - From a performance standpoint, while it wasn't terribly slow, it wasn't fast. It is terribly slow. Cell phones and dial-up users (like 20%) would die before it loaded. - lastly, I would consider validating your code. The theme was valid before I placed the Content - does that count? Overall, good stuff.. I like it Thanks for taking the time to look over BOTH sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 the 1# rule in site design is to know your audience. The audience that is coming to my site isn't there to read my awesomeness - they are there to view my design. Therefore I don't need to reduce the header/footer because it isn't a heavy traffic site that actually has people coming to read what I wrote. (Now I need to do this with my other sites though... ) You do bring up an interesting point of knowing your audience. However, I think you may be confusing this as a rule of design principal vs a rule of site design implementation. By your logic, all the people who visit your site enjoy a huge amount of screen space dedicated to a header and footer (in other words, would they email you with complaints if your header and footer was smaller)? Despite your given target audience, you CAN build a site with minimalistic (or at the very least, a much smaller, more reasonably sized header / footer), thus freeing up the bulk of the screen for the actual 'meat & potatoes' of your site.. re: the content. It is terribly slow. Cell phones and dial-up users (like 20%) would die before it loaded. I AM a dial-up user (oops.. did I say that out loud?). For me personally, I didn't find it fast, yet not terrible (trust me.. go visit some common photographer portfolio based sites loaded to the gills with flash on dialup, then come see me and tell me your site is slow However, as I mentioned, it can be streamlined to reduce bulk (finding ways to reduce HTTP requests would be an excellent start.. as would... you guessed it.. a reduced header image size among other things). A note on cellphone (re:Mobile usage), keep in mind that sites on mobile are usually extremely simplified compared to their bigger desktop brothers. I read somewhere that mobile site pages should be on average roughly 10k in size (give or a take 5k) per page (some pages may be heavier than others of course). Some phone companies charge by the download (perhaps some plans include a base amount of memory allowable within the monthly billing, and charge extra on top of that).. So since your site's pages is much heavier than 10 or so k, yes, it would be much slower (plus you can be costing your target audience in excess downloads to view your site). Is your target audience heavy mobile users? If so, perhaps looking into developing a separate .mobi website geared specifically for that segment of your target audience. The theme was valid before I placed the Content - does that count? Um... no LOL.. not at all. Thanks for taking the time to look over BOTH sites. Oh hey, no problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[UW] Jake Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I think the graphics & CSS are awesome! Probably better than most people here can do. A very professional looking site, and original, with the artwork up top. I love it! In my opinion the header is NOT too big. It's great artwork so I like that being shown off. If you want constructive criticism, here's what I found: - RSS rollover image is "bugged", only half of it turns black. - Probably not a good idea to neglect support for the most common resolution on the web (1024x768) Everything else looks sweet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.