Cosmetic Updates

[AV1611]

Not a rewrite, but I made several cosmetic changes to my site... would love to hear any comments, good or bad...

Please click a few links... (A couple of changes aren't done yet... you'll know them when you see them)

Thanks:

[a href=\"http://www.baptistrevival.com\" target=\"_blank\"]CLICK HERE[/a]

[redbullmarky]

at first glance, i think it's very well styled. it's only when you go into it a bit more you start to notice things, and maybe a possibility that you have priorities mixed up on each page.

1, the content that doesnt change as you click through different pages takes up far too much room, i think. the actual content sits right at the bottom of the screen, kinda pushed out of the way a bit. i think you could at lease make it half and half, instead of 2/3rd's static content and 1/3rd for the content of each page.

2, forms - one of my biggest expectations when presented with an <INPUT> or <TEXTAREA> field is that the first field of the form automatically focuses, so that i don't need to click it. minor point i know, but it makes alot of difference in my opinion

3, i really don't like the animated 'if you died today...'. it just kinda cheapens things a little bit. i'm not religious, but for a more 'serious' slogan like this, i think it needs to be treated a bit more delecately rather than scrolling, spinning and zooming. if that's the way it's got to be, at least slow it down. i'd probably suggest slow fade in/fade out if anything.

4, scroll bars. one of the biggest problem using frames is that these 'beauties' crop up all over the place. unfortunately though, it can have a detremental effect on the style, feel and professionalism of a site. maybe the 'if you died today...' bit could be a non-framed summary (ie, so it don't induce scrollbars at all) with a click through to it's own section in itself? seems there's enough content in it to warrant a new page.

5, the font on your search pages (where the form/submit buttons are) is different to the rest of the site, and because it seems like the default font, it just doesnt look great. i'd also replace the text of your 'Submit' buttons to something a bit less 'default', such as 'Search'

otherwise, like i say, it's very clean and well laid out - literally a few minor bits of work, IMO

Cheers

Mark

[AV1611]

I have added my changes in your comments... They were ver helpful...
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
1, the content that doesnt change as you click through different pages takes up far too much room, i think. the actual content sits right at the bottom of the screen, kinda pushed out of the way a bit. i think you could at lease make it half and half, instead of 2/3rd's static content and 1/3rd for the content of each page.
[/quote]
// I changed it so when you navigate to a book/chapter/verse in the commentary, it not only displays the commentary in the right pane, but it displays that chapter of the Bible in the left pane!!! A VERY nice change!

[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
2, forms - one of my biggest expectations when presented with an <INPUT> or <TEXTAREA> field is that the first field of the form automatically focuses, so that i don't need to click it. minor point i know, but it makes alot of difference in my opinion
[/quote]
// I don't know how to do that... Suggestion?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
3, i really don't like the animated 'if you died today...'. it just kinda cheapens things a little bit. i'm not religious, but for a more 'serious' slogan like this, i think it needs to be treated a bit more delecately rather than scrolling, spinning and zooming. if that's the way it's got to be, at least slow it down. i'd probably suggest slow fade in/fade out if anything.
[/quote]
// I missed that... but you could not be more correct... I'll get my flash person (a.k.a. my Daughter) to fix that...
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
4, scroll bars. one of the biggest problem using frames is that these 'beauties' crop up all over the place. unfortunately though, it can have a detremental effect on the style, feel and professionalism of a site. maybe the 'if you died today...' bit could be a non-framed summary (ie, so it don't induce scrollbars at all) with a click through to it's own section in itself? seems there's enough content in it to warrant a new page.
[/quote]
// I don't really know what to do with scrollbars... I CSS'ed them in IE, but FF won't let you change the drab ugly grey ones...
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
5, the font on your search pages (where the form/submit buttons are) is different to the rest of the site, and because it seems like the default font, it just doesnt look great. i'd also replace the text of your 'Submit' buttons to something a bit less 'default', such as 'Search'
[/quote]
// I have some menu's that I still need to correct...

// What do you think of the rounded corner boxes on my menu's? the are done entirely in CSS...

otherwise, like i say, it's very clean and well laid out - literally a few minor bits of work, IMO

Cheers

Mark

[redbullmarky]

[!--quoteo(post=355176:date=Mar 15 2006, 01:29 AM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 15 2006, 01:29 AM) [snapback]355176[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
// I don't know how to do that... Suggestion?
[/quote]

not a problem. you can put the code where you like really, but out of habit i always put it outside the closing </form> tag:

[code]
...
...
</form>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
document.sform.Scriptures.focus();
</script>
[/code]
i'm not 100% sure, but you may need to add 'id' properties to your form/input elements, eg: name="Scriptures" id="Scriptures". i read in a few places that 'name' is only used now to keep backward compatibility, but ID is the main one to have. i always have my name and id properties holding the same value too.



[!--quoteo(post=355176:date=Mar 15 2006, 01:29 AM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 15 2006, 01:29 AM) [snapback]355176[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
// I don't really know what to do with scrollbars... I CSS'ed them in IE, but FF won't let you change the drab ugly grey ones...
[/quote]
ahh nothing much you can do then really. i know what you mean about some of these cross browser differences. i think scroll bar styling is only for IE, and even then you can only deal with the colours not the size, etc. other than using flash or javascript, you'll have to stick with the grey ones. having said that tho, after some of the changes you made, it may not be so important after all to do away with them as things generally seem alot neater.


[!--quoteo(post=355176:date=Mar 15 2006, 01:29 AM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 15 2006, 01:29 AM) [snapback]355176[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
// What do you think of the rounded corner boxes on my menu's? the are done entirely in CSS...
[/quote]
i hadn't noticed to be honest, but yeah - they add a nice (and probably essential) touch. i can only imagine how plain it'd be if they were all just square boxes. i really gotta start learning how to do stuff like that in CSS as i use the effect all over the place - only i always use images to do the curves and things.

[b]EDIT:[/b] you'd be good to add a bit of padding to these rounded menu boxes, as the text on your 'dictionaries' page sits right up to the left of the box.

otherwise, things are definitely heading in the right direction!

good stuff.
Mark

[moberemk]

Well, given that those scrollbar properties are IE-only spec, this will ruin your chances of validation or of getting them to look different in any way.

[AV1611]

I DON'T want to start a validation war, but can you give me a very practical explaination as to why it is that important... I create my site in FF, check it in IE, and even run it through Opera... if all those work, what does it gain me?

This really is meant to be a question... I need someone to explain this to me without getting on a soapbox...

Thanks!


[!--quoteo(post=355305:date=Mar 15 2006, 06:34 AM:name=moberemk)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(moberemk @ Mar 15 2006, 06:34 AM) [snapback]355305[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Well, given that those scrollbar properties are IE-only spec, this will ruin your chances of validation or of getting them to look different in any way.
[/quote]

[obsidian]

[!--quoteo(post=355350:date=Mar 15 2006, 09:14 AM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 15 2006, 09:14 AM) [snapback]355350[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I DON'T want to start a validation war, but can you give me a very practical explaination as to why it is that important... I create my site in FF, check it in IE, and even run it through Opera... if all those work, what does it gain me?

This really is meant to be a question... I need someone to explain this to me without getting on a soapbox...

Thanks!
[/quote]

very good question. i am one of the biggest proponants of validation, however, let me explain where i think validation has its place. as a developer, i insist on all of my personal pages validating since people will be looking at my pages to see what i can do, and validation only adds to the list of things i can point people to and enhance my work in their eyes. as for a personal site or a site catering to an audience who isn't going to care about the technical aspect of things, i'd say don't worry about validation. if your markup is solid and you want to add something that may not validate for an effect on your page, i'd be the last one to knock you for it.

i would recommend to most people to follow the basic structure and guidelines set forth by the W3C, and if you want to add to a personal page, more power to you. however, if it's a page that someone is going to be using to try and promote their technical savvy, i'd definitely jump up on my validation soapbox ;-)

one other note about validation... one of the most important reasons for it is cross-browser compatability, so if you know your audience and you know your site works for them, it's more a preference thing.

[AV1611]

2 Things:

I'm an Electronic Engineer by training ...well, on the secular side, anyways ;)
It's all about Form, Fit and Function... in my biased view of the world, that's what the customer wants. You make W3C sound like ISO9000 Certification... A nice thing to put on a business card, but not really much more than that...

What if you need a site to do something W3C didn't think of? Is it professional to think outside the box? That is really how I personally view this. Not an excuse for sloppy coding...of which I am certainly guilty... but as an obstacle to innovate without being labelled unprofessional...

Of course, I always put a lot of credence in your advice, Obsidian... I'm just voicing my thoughts in the name of higher understanding...

Second, you mention cross platform compatability... I have gone through MANY of the W3C school tutorials, and find that neither IE(To a greater degree) nor FF(To a lesser degree) adhere to the standards, so it doesn't really help much... It's trial and error for the most part, unless you want a rectangle with some color...

I am perhaps playing devil's advocate, but I'm really trying to understand this issue to the fullest...

Let me give you just one real world example: My menu is done with JS and makes a small "Tick" sound when you hover or click. THAT WILL NEVER VALIDATE, as it's IE ONLY, UNLESS I put something in the code that's an IE ONLY clause... which then will let it validate anyways... I'm not satisfying ANY browser, just W3C... Do we really need another M$ to tell us how to do it? That's my spin... Ignorant, but my opinion...

Thanks!

[AV1611]

W3C says my page validates after a few changes (Like adding ALT to my shadowlines (who cares?))

I assume that validation doesn't mean anything until I run it on each page in each Iframe now, correct? I have to actually do this for all 35 pages of the site??????

[jcombs_31]

So much wasted space. The only thing that changes is the small bottom box. Do I need to see a big image of a book and pen and what visitor number I am on every page? Shouldn't that be your content area? Why a pop-up for links? The right box is overlapping the container. I have many problems with this site being usable.

[AV1611]

What browser are you using? I've never heard of anything overlapping anything... can you be more specific?
Are you referring to the right box when you first load the site? Yes, I have to take a <br/> out... it's one line too long, but only on some browsers at 800x600...

Please go back and click the links on my site... I think you perhaps didn't get the feel of what it does...

The site works like this:

you select a catagory from the menu at the top, like Bible Commentaries, Menus, etc...
you then get a set of suboptions at the bottom. If you select an option, you get some pulldowns then a query runs. It displays reference data in the right box, and Bible verses in the left box. It actually works very good for what little space there is... You HAVE to follow the links to there logical conclusion to see it...

Let me give you a good example:

if you select commentaries from the top, then select Matthew Henry from the bottom menu. Select a Book, Chapter, Verse from the menu.

Now you have the Book and Chapter of the Bible in the left pane, and the chapter of Matthew Henry's notes in the right pane. Now in the left pane, click on ANY word in the Bible Chapter. (They turn red)
Now you will notice the right pane changes from the commentary to several different Bible dictionary lookup results in the right pane.

This is a tremendous amount of data to display on the screen at the same time... I have to use the IFrames, because it's supposed to be a study environment. That means multiple datasources open and viewable at the same time...

This is a STUDY tool. it does a LOT MORE than meets the eye.

As for CONTENT,
I have the following readily available:
King James Bible
King James Bible with Strongs Notes
Reina Valera Bible (Spannish)
Barnes Notes
John Gill Commentary
Lightfoot Commentary on the Gospel
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary
JFB Commentary
Matthew Henry's Commentary
Smith's Bible Dictionary
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Websters 1812 Dictionary
Vine's Expository Dictionary
Nave's Topical Dictionary
Torrey's Topical Textbook
Strong Concordance
Strongs Greek & Hebrew Lexicons with Full Phonetic Pronunciations and Definitions
Complete set of Bible Search Utilies
Foxes Book of Martyrs
J. Vernon McGees complete 5 years study of the Bible in Streaming MP3
Alexander Scourby's Streaming MP3 reading of the Bible
Spurgeons Treasure of David commentary on the Psalms
And a smattering of Articles, etc. that I have written.

The site takes up 9.5 GB of Hard Disk Space.

I'm not complaining because you gave critisism, but I don't think you "got" what the site is/does...

[jcombs_31]

[img src=\"http://www.multimedia-technologies.com/misc/overlap.jpg\" border=\"0\" alt=\"IPB Image\" /]

trying to justify how it works doesn't help. I'm just giving you feedback on my quick visit to your site.

[moberemk]

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't think I fully understood what this site was. Maybe you should have mentioned this is a study tool in the first post?

[redbullmarky]

[!--quoteo(post=356924:date=Mar 21 2006, 12:24 PM:name=moberemk)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(moberemk @ Mar 21 2006, 12:24 PM) [snapback]356924[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Thanks for clearing that up. I don't think I fully understood what this site was. Maybe you should have mentioned this is a study tool in the first post?
[/quote]

it shouldnt really make a difference to the feedback he's after whether it's a shopping site, study tool or a personal homepage. if it works and looks good, great. if it don't, not so great.

i think it's starting to look alot better. i still think though that you could make the bottom container larger and the others smaller, just to bring it into view a bit better. this becomes most apparent on the homepage, where it runs off the page totally - all it does is creates a browser scroll bar AND a frame scroll bar, both of which need to be used to get things into view properly.
you've freed up some space in your right hand box now, so i reckon you've got enough space to do this.

[AV1611]

JCombs,

What browser and what resolution are you running? I really need to know... I'd like that nasty to go away...

As for the rest, thanks, I will see if I can change the layout... I really need it to run at 1024x768 to look good, but am trying to squeeze it all down to 800x600 on my 1280x1024 monitor...

What if I made the site full screen and fluid all the time? I don't know how to lay it out that way, but it would seem less "cramped"???

In your opinion, do I need to FIX or RECREATE the site?

Thanks...

[redbullmarky]

[!--quoteo(post=356979:date=Mar 21 2006, 02:43 PM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 21 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]356979[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]

In your opinion, do I need to FIX or RECREATE the site?

Thanks...
[/quote]

fix.

the work is done - like your title says, it's just cosmetic updates as well as little fiddly bits that need attention.

[jcombs_31]

I'm at 1280x1024 on firefox 1.0.7

[AV1611]

I'm curious... are you planning on upgrading your browser... it seems ok in FF 1.5... I run FF at 1152x864 std and don't have any issues...

[AV1611]

OK,

Here is my idea...

If I take the top menu and convert it to a css menu will pulldowns, then I could get rid of the submenus below, so I can make the bottom much smaller and have it ONLY be for pulldowns... then the left and right would be bigger...and make the top smaller as well...

Comments?

[jcombs_31]

[!--quoteo(post=357036:date=Mar 21 2006, 12:56 PM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 21 2006, 12:56 PM) [snapback]357036[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I'm curious... are you planning on upgrading your browser... it seems ok in FF 1.5... I run FF at 1152x864 std and don't have any issues...
[/quote]

you gonna ask everyone that visits your site to upgrade their browser? I don't think that is the problem.

[AV1611]

That is not what I meant... I meant that if you were gonna upgrade, then the problem went away, then if is an early release of FF that got fixed... but if the problem persisted, then it's my code at your resolution...

[jcombs_31]

[!--quoteo(post=357128:date=Mar 21 2006, 05:48 PM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 21 2006, 05:48 PM) [snapback]357128[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
That is not what I meant... I meant that if you were gonna upgrade, then the problem went away, then if is an early release of FF that got fixed... but if the problem persisted, then it's my code at your resolution...
[/quote]

My point is that there is something inconsistent in your code that would make it not render properly. There is nothing wrong with my browser. All pages display fine for me.

[AV1611]

You miss my very elementary point. If is does "A" in early version, but "B" in newer version, then they fixed something in "A".

I check my work in FF, IE, and OPERA

I REALLY don't have the ability to also check it in EVERY VERSION of EVERY BROWSER...

I will fix it because I know it's a problem for your very unique case, but I can't accept that it a CODE problem at my end because A. W3C Validates that particular page and B. the UPDATED SERVICE RELEASE of your browser doesn't have the problem...

Thanks!

[jcombs_31]

[!--quoteo(post=357394:date=Mar 22 2006, 03:56 PM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Mar 22 2006, 03:56 PM) [snapback]357394[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
You miss my very elementary point. If is does "A" in early version, but "B" in newer version, then they fixed something in "A".

I check my work in FF, IE, and OPERA

I REALLY don't have the ability to also check it in EVERY VERSION of EVERY BROWSER...

I will fix it because I know it's a problem for your very unique case, but I can't accept that it a CODE problem at my end because A. W3C Validates that particular page and B. the UPDATED SERVICE RELEASE of your browser doesn't have the problem...

Thanks!
[/quote]

Validating the code just means that is structured correctly, has nothing to do with layout.

[jcombs_31]

I went ahead and updated firefox and it did fix the layout for your site. But then I decided to look at your code and saw iframes everywhere. Good job.