i have my own design company www.dzinetaste.com i have totaly 100% design it. so what u say about my work? it good but there is some thing missing
i don't know what
but good work cool. but check out www.lovelets.org nice design but if u want suggestions , you have to seperate it 2 frames, put ur banner and menus into 1 frame, and ur mainpage should be 2nd frame. Coz when you click links all load from beginning and this is not good for slow connection speeds. If you seperate them your menu will load for once. Do you really want to know?
I think the design is visually fine. It has a reasonably clean look, good color choices, and decent layout, but I have a number of concerns about the technical aspects.
Flash Splash
That's an immediate turn-off to me. If I want to go to your page, I want to go to your page. I don't want to go to a page that lets me go to your page. Gratuitous splash pages are part of yesterday's web. It's great that you can do Flash animation, but don't make me look at it every time I get to the page. Save that for a section illustrating you can do Flash, rather than putting a speed bump in my path to your page.
(The Flash itself is fine, but rather routine. If you're going to use Flash, use it to do something more interesting than a text animation, like a game or real interactivity.)
Standards compliance
Your page doesn't specify an HTML / XHTML type. That's fine, because browsers will choose a type for you. My browser chose to render your page in standard HTML 4.0, which is among the loosest standards in use today, yet a quick check on validator.w3.com showed 31 errors in this very forgiving document type. This is really easy to fix, and it's worth doing. Use HTML tidy ( http://infohound.net/tidy/ ) to check your page. This site will even fix the problems it finds and send you back a completely standards-compliant page.
Today's customers are beginning to expect compliance with web standards. Even Microsoft has finally released a browser with decent standards, compliance, so a professional web developer should be writing to those standards. I recommend XHTML 1.0 Strict. It isn't that hard to achieve, and it ensures your program will work well on any standards-compliant browser.
Table Troubles
Table-based layout was a necessary hack in the bad-old days, when HTML didn't have suitable page layout features. XHTML has -no- page layout features, but CSS more than makes up for that loss. There's no good reason to use tables for layout anymore. I really encourage you to learn CSS-based layout and use that instead. You'll find that it's a learning curve at first, but once you get the concept, you'll never go back.
Copy.
Hire a copy editor. Your text is decent, but you have some simple grammar errors (misplaced apostrophes, awkward sentences and the like) which will erode confidence in your firm. If I hire you to write my copy, I want to know that you'll be professional and put my copy in the best possible light. If you can't get your own copy right, how can I trust you with mine?
ImageReady not so ready
Your reliance on imageReady may cause you issues down the road. The image-slicing technique used by this software is very appealing to visual developers, but it can cause you problems, because it does not take into account some aspects of the web: How will this page scale on cellphones and PDAs? What about people with visual disabilities that rely on screen readers? How will you adapt to changes quickly? What happens when (inevitably) your clients start to demand client-side interaction that imageReady can't really support. At some point you'll need to be able to handle your code by hand. I suggest you get started on that road as soon as possible.
Image Maps - The pinnacle of 1996 technology
At first I was thrilled that you had a secondary menu at the bottom of the page. This is very important because your primary menu uses Flash, which will cause some major usability issues for blind users.
Then I looked over the code and saw that you implemented this second menu with an image map, which has the same problems. There's no way for a text reader to know what exactly is in an image. Web developers have an obligation to provide some sort of alternative for people who cannot see images or Flash (not simply blind users. people often disable these features on small devices or limited bandwidth situations) With some clever CSS styling, you can get exactly the same visual look on your page but in a way that will still work for those who can't see the image.
Please don't think I'm being harsh. You asked for my evaluation, and I'm giving constructive suggestions (which you are of course free to ignore.) I've helped hundreds of people start their own web businesses, and I'd love to see you thrive as well.
Best of luck to you! In Firefox:
- index page: left, bottom 76px of welcome flash is offset about -2px left; makes frame of flash appear to be broken
General:
- index page: mouseover cursor change for "Enter" is crosshair; this seems a pointless idiom change; don't do different cursor idioms, just because you can - your visitors won't love you for it
- home page: your HTML/CSS needs a lot of work - no doctype, outmoded CSS, tables for layout
Besides being broken, the index page doesn't serve much purpose beyond showing that you can do simple flash presentations; your home page offers that idea as well and gives information; lose the index - it pointlessly chews the bandwidth and is a speed-bump for your visitors.
Without page headings (h1, h2, etc.), meaningful HTML filenames, reinforcing content, etc. the site is never going to be highly regarded by search engines; study or locate someone to do an SEO overhaul.
Nice images - you're a graphics group, not web-developers; find a good developer who's willing to work with you to create stable, extensible markup and styling. |
