15 replies [Last post]
jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

http://attherisingstar.com

No, the css doesn't validate, and yes, the xhtml will validate, but only after certain page elements are created (PHP, dynamic stuff)...

So anyway, let me know what you think!

Triumph (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Guru

jmctg wrote:... No, the css

jmctg wrote:
... No, the css doesn't validate, and yes, the xhtml will validate, ...
... and thus violates the rules for a site check.
Quote:
If you think your site is ready for release then post a link here and we will check it out. Make sure you validate your code and check it in as many browsers as you can first.

Honestly, as soon as I saw the marquee tags I stopped looking.

Moved to "Beginners CSS Questions".

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

Well, the marquee is useful,

Well, the marquee is useful, especially as an simple RSS ticker, which it is. Right now, though, there are no RSS articles to grab, so the marquee is empty.

The css validates beautifully, except for the transparency, which I am assured is ok to have, as long as everything else validates. So, yes, the site is done, and yes, it validates correctly, except for a few quirks.

All I would like are a few comments on the overall site design. I don't need any help with the CSS or XHTML. I just wanted some design advice.

Katie
Katie's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Seattle, WA
Last seen: 6 years 40 weeks ago
Seattle, WA
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2006-08-06
Posts: 357
Points: 2

So, if you're just looking

So, if you're just looking for design feedback, jmctg...:

The header image contains the company name, phone numbers and address, but that's the ONLY place where that information is. So this information isn't available if the user has styles or images disabled. Place that information in text behind the image using an image replacement technique.

You've got a nice favicon - it's even transparent so it doesn't uglify my colored tabs.

I think you're using opacity too much. I don't see the point of having the navigation menu be 80 or 90% opaque, other than to prove that it's possible.

Your navigation menu busts out of the dark area and into the yellow area, making it hard to read, when the text size is increased a few sizes. Also, the navigation menu is repeated in the footer - and I don't see the advantage to this.

The design seems a little confused - and I think it's because of all the different styles of elements on the page. The navigation bar and articles headings have clean, solid, square edges. But the header has that soft faded gradient edge, and there are curved corners on that shadow border around the yellow box. It's quite jarring and inconsistent.

Blog: Pew Pew Laser Blog
Online File Storage: DropBox
Daily Deals on Local Activities: Groupon

Triumph (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Guru

jmctg wrote:... it validates

jmctg wrote:
... it validates correctly, except for a few quirks ...

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://attherisingstar.com/

That's why I figured beginners would be a good place for you to start. There is no such tag as marquee in XHTML 1.0. Scrolling items ensures that I (along with many others) will never return. On top of being invalid, it's also distracting and annoying.

Just trying to be helpful. Smile

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

I threw in an article so you

I threw in an article so you can see what the marquee looks like. I don't find it annoying or distracting do you? If so, what do you think a good replacement would be? (client wanted a scrolling news ticker, as they put it.)

BTW, I was unaware of those other XHTML validation errors, they have all been fixed.

CSS validates except for the transparency, but I'm sticking with it.

Is there any way for the marquee to stay AND validate???

Triumph (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Guru

jmctg wrote:... I don't find

jmctg wrote:
... I don't find it annoying or distracting do you? If so, what do you think a good replacement would be? (client wanted a scrolling news ticker, as they put it.)

Honestly, yes. I absolutely find it distracting. While trying to read the text in the main content block my eye is draw upwards to it. The other reason to avoid marquee tags is that if you have more than three words no one is going to wait for text to scroll back again to read something on it. It's a waste of their time and effectively a waste of yours. It will drive away customers.

Here are a few links to take to your client:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html

Trust me, trust every else, you don't want scrolling text. Seriously, the marquee tag is why I put this thread in beginners.

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

Thanks,The information is

Ok.

So Triumph, what should I do as a replacement?

And Katie...

The information is shown on the contact page, but what are you talking about text replacement?

Isn't that just setting a span inside the div to display:none? If so, even with images off, they wouldn't see the text...

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

It validates without the

It validates without the marquee... Smile

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fattherisingstar.com

Now I gotta deal with not-so-happy clients!

Triumph (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Guru

show them the links.

jmctg wrote:
It validates without the marquee... Smile

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fattherisingstar.com

Now I gotta deal with not-so-happy clients!
You could show them the links I posted. Smile

Here's another. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990502.html

Marquee tags were considered bad practice in 1996. I have no idea why they still even work.

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

Yeah, I also broke down and

Yeah, I also broke down and removed the transparency in the CSS

validates also now!
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fattherisingstar.com&warning=1&profile=css21&usermedium=all

Triumph (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Guru

jmctg wrote:Yeah, I also

jmctg wrote:
Yeah, I also broke down and removed the transparency in the CSS

validates also now!
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fattherisingstar.com&warning=1&profile=css21&usermedium=all
You crazy rebel, you! Tongue

Now you've got to find a way to make your menu increase in height with the text increases. Can you remove the height definition from the menu?

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

Now, what about those stupid

Katie
Katie's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Seattle, WA
Last seen: 6 years 40 weeks ago
Seattle, WA
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2006-08-06
Posts: 357
Points: 2

jmctg wrote:Is there any way

jmctg wrote:
Is there any way for the marquee to stay AND validate???

The Marquee tag will never pass validation - it's not part of the official HTML or XHTML specifications. (http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/HTML:Element:marquee) You could replicate the effect with JavaScript, but as you've seen here, you probably don't want to.

jmctg wrote:
And Katie...

The information is shown on the contact page, but what are you talking about text replacement?

Image replacement refers to using CSS to have an image for most browsers, also having text for that element for screen readers, image-off surfers, et cetera. This is important for accessibility, and for SEO. Google is the internet's most influential blind user; thousands of people listen to what Google says. (Try a Google search on css image replacement - you'll find many articles discussing this.) My favorite IR method is the revised Phark technique - http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revised-image-replacement/ compares it with other methods.

If you're going to put contact information on every page, you should put it there so everyone can read it.

jmctg wrote:
Now, what about those stupid CSS warnings? Should I worry about them?

Absolutely. Don't forget to test your site with images turned off, css disabled, and JavaScript turned off.

Blog: Pew Pew Laser Blog
Online File Storage: DropBox
Daily Deals on Local Activities: Groupon

jmctg
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 14 years 48 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-01-03
Posts: 21
Points: 0

Oh, so image replacement is

Oh, so image replacement is for screen readers (and seo) only?

It didn't make any sense to have text hidden from view like that, but oh well! Added as well, thanks.

And I tested the site in Firefox, with scripts and images turned off, and everything was functional, so what are all the warnings about :shrug:

burlster
burlster's picture
Offline
Leader
Bournemouth
Last seen: 1 year 34 weeks ago
Bournemouth
Joined: 2007-05-31
Posts: 693
Points: 45

Suggestion

That's some very dark blue your black text sits on at the bottom. I had to highlight it to read it (but then I was up all last night so my eyes are stinging today). Still, if it's like that because you want that part to be not so obvious, I would be inclined to make it white but smaller by default or something.

Just a suggestion, otherwise I liked the site Smile

J

Have YOU said Hello yet?
The CSSCreator Hello Thread