opinions on site please | WPDFD.com Forums

Teche said:

11/13/04, 318 29 2004 2004:%i:1100370567 13:29:27

Well, folks of course we all know that opinions are like ass holes everyone's got one and I would like yours;D please do not hold any of you opinions back I prefer honest over modesty.

site for review
http://www.tech-e.biz

is the site done? no
will it ever be? they never are.
thank you in advance.

Joe Gillespie said:

11/14/04, 319 53 2004 2004:%i:1100433184 06:53:04

I'm not sure whether this is send up or not but anyway...

There are two main aspects to web design. One is technical and one aesthetic. Some people tend to put one before the other but you have to be good at one and passible at the other.

If it wasn't for the fact that you are offering 'web design' I would say that it was an average newbie site. The JPEGs are over-compressed, the 'dividers' don't fit together and neither the HTML nor the CSS are anywhere near valid.

IMHO, you don't yet have the technical skills nor aesthetic judgement to be offering your services as a 'web designer'. It's a tough and very competitive business and if you want to make a living out of it, you have to do better than this.

Teche said:

11/14/04, 319 52 2004 2004:%i:1100443929 09:52:09

JPEGs are over-compressed?? Hmm well I use Photoshop and they have all been saved at quality 12 maximum base line standard. Threw the new AOL 9.0 op browser JPEGs seemed to be more compressed looking they look fine in all the rest. These new surf the web after technology seems to be compressing the hell out of images. What's you thoughts on them? My friend just recently got the new net zero high speed and all images get that blocky over compressed look. Thanks for pointing out the code valid issue I forgot that when implementing this new Java script I just threw up. Also can I see some of you work?

Thanks for you honesty,
Bryan Baxley
http://www.tech-e.biz

Joe Gillespie said:

11/14/04, 319 29 2004 2004:%i:1100449742 11:29:02

JPEGs are over-compressed?? Hmm well I use Photoshop and they have all been saved at quality 12 maximum base line standard.

I very rarely use anything more than 50 for JPEGs. Your hand in the top right is definitely suffering badly from compression artefacts. Did you use clip art that was already compressed because saving a JPEG at 12 that was previously saved at 20 is not going to fix the loss.

Threw the new AOL 9.0 op browser JPEGs seemed to be more compressed looking they look fine in all the rest. These new surf the web after technology seems to be compressing the hell out of images. What's you thoughts on them?

Sorry, I have no experience of AOL.

My friend just recently got the new net zero high speed and all images get that blocky over compressed look.

I don't know what that is. Doesn't sound like I want to either

Thanks for pointing out the code valid issue I forgot that when implementing this new Java script I just threw up.

Seems you have your priorities wrong. Validating your site is more important than JavaScript tricks. Get the basic right first and then you can embellish.

Also can I see some of you work?

http://www.wpdfd.com
http://www.minifonts.com
http://www.funwithfonts.com
http://www.hdri-studio.com

Teche said:

11/14/04, 319 39 2004 2004:%i:1100450365 11:39:25

your right priorities,priorities,priorities i have a bad habit in that and need to break it.

Thanks for the words of wisdom ;D
Bryan Baxley
http://www.tech-e.biz

Baxter said:

11/15/04, 320 07 2004 2004:%i:1100531259 10:07:39

I don't think that's jpeg artifacts, it looks to me like it was poorly resized.

The gradient on the other people makes it look like they're standing around in fog.

web site design � Tech-E.biz all rights Reserved does not make appropriate alt text on the images. Especially on every one of them.

There's some weird gradient dividers in there, I don't know where they're supposed to be going.

First. validate.
Second, view the page with images off. THen with styles off. Then with both off. Get the firefox web developer toolbar, it makes this easy.
Third, if your image looks bad, don't use it.

Just fixing the stuff you'll find doing those things should keep you busy for awhile

Steve said:

11/17/04, 322 57 2004 2004:%i:1100743031 20:57:11

Quote from your site: "Please take the time to browse threw are portfolio and see what separates us from the rest."

Well, I did, and I did. And if you still don't see what's wrong with your statement, that's part of the problem.

Even if I ignored the botched copy (and that would be difficult), I guess I'd want to suggest that you hold back on offering a design service until you have something to show other than your own site. Maybe you can find a local group that needs some help? Offer a little time and see if you can get another page or two to show?

I do not understand your graphics. A guy leaning against the wall? OK, maybe. But who are all those others? Staff? Customers? Showing me unidentified people doing generic task doesn't make me think, "Hey! Cool designer!". And what's the ampersand (the "@" symbol) all about? I do see people using "@" to replace the word "at" in regular writing (wrong, so wrong!) but even that doesn't work in the way I see it on your page.

When I click on the jumbo underlined links, the replacement text actually overprints itself in two cases (Services, Contact Us), or puts a headline across the guy's belt. Or not. I guess each item doesn't have a headline? Anyway, it's hard to read.

Uh-oh, more Language Cop: "After a lot of planing blood, sweat, tears, and a lot of coffee the results are a web page ..."

I think you mean "planning", as in figuring out ahead of doing. "Planing" is using a tool to smooth wood. But maybe you were smoothing wood while you planned your site? BTW, without a comma, you were not even planing wood, you were planing blood!

Finally, "the results" tells me to expect at least two of something, but in this case that would be wrong. You finish with, "... a (single) web page." You can say "result", or you can say pages or site, but something needs fixing.

It's great to learn page coding. I'm still learning too. But along with learning CSS or XHTML, put a dictionary on your desk and don't depend on "spell checkers" (since your words were not misspelled, they were misused).

I hope you see this as helpful; that certainly is my intent.

Steve

Schomer said:

11/18/04, 323 35 2004 2004:%i:1100763307 02:35:07

I am hardly in a position to speak, as I do not consider myself a web designer. However, I would recommend you go to your local library or book store, find some books about web design and CSS, and go through each of the examples and samples. Duplicate similar-looking websites for yourself. Then surf the web to find nice looking websites and try to duplicate them too. After a while, I think you will have gained some understanding of how it technically works and what different ways there are for presenting information via a website.

As it stands right now, you're not doing yourself any good by presenting a website like that, in an attempt to find website design work.

If I were looking to hire someone, I would need to see a number of sites the person has put together. If you don't have customers, make them up. Put together some fictional company websites, to show what you can do.

And lastly, like these guys already pointed out. Find someone to write the text content for you, as it appears you are either very bad with your grammar, or English is not your first language.

Work hard, have fun, and you can do it.

Schomer

Joe Gillespie said:

11/18/04, 323 25 2004 2004:%i:1100773514 05:25:14

If I can just add, someone has pointed out that this site has a copyrighted article from WPDFD used without permisssion and attributed to 'Joe gilespie' [sic]. Please remove it!

Sjc said:

11/20/04, 325 02 2004 2004:%i:1100998957 20:02:37

hahahaha maybe this will seem rude but i think you guys are crazy.

the site has some kind of half assed "professional" feeling to it, and you guys are blabbing away about validation as if it is important...

yeah, i know you think cell phone users and pda users and cross browser compatibility are important...but ahh...nobody cares about that shit except for web designers.

if it works in IE, and on windows, -----BAM----- there ya go. a perfect site.

my personal opinion of the site?

ditch the serif fonts.
your logo is kind of neat looking, but why not go with

and ditch the "/" ??

i don't know much about subliminal messages, or if that is even the right word, but to me, the "/" is an attempt to make a cross-over to "cool" webdesign, when what i think you want is "professional"

personally, i could care less about validating a webpage. BRING ON BROWSER SPECIFIC TAGS PLEASE!.

Sjc said:

11/20/04, 325 03 2004 2004:%i:1100999024 20:03:44

one more thing.

you have a LOAD of grammar problems.

Schomer said:

11/20/04, 325 21 2004 2004:%i:1101000091 20:21:31

I don't necessarily think everything needs to be 100% valid, I do think a site looks cheap when something doesn't work. And I think getting it through the validaor is one way to make sure your site works.

So you can laugh about it, but I hope you realize that if you're putting a site together to do real business and represent a company well, that you better write at least fairly standard code.

Otherwise, you'll be the one that is laughable.

The point here is that (1) the site, in a design sense, is poorly designed, and (2) technically, it isn't put together well. Both should be addressed if this person is serious about what they say they are setting out to do.

Baxter said:

11/22/04, 327 39 2004 2004:%i:1101137983 10:39:43

IF you're selling web design services, you better show an abillity to walk the walk.

As it sits, the site doesn't. And validation would probably cure any number of display issues.

Finally, with alternate browser share increasing rapidly, the designer who builds for IE only, or is stupid enough to use browser-specific tags is just setting themselves up for a world of pain, and a very brief business life.

Teche, I'm not talking to you... it seems your heart is in the right place, even if you're not completely there yet.