Amateurish sites?

Amateurish sites?

  • They are plain black on white(example: [url]http://www.stallman.org/[/url])

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Excessive use of images, plugins marquee, and more

    Votes: 10 35.7%

  • No CSS

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • No layout

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • Total voters
    28

蜃気楼

Jirachi Fan
    • 246
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Seen Feb 27, 2010
    Have you ever seen some amateurish sites? If you did, what does a typical amateurish site look like?
    For me, an amateurish site has a tiled background image, and animated GIF for "Email me button", full of <font> tags, deprecated attributes, clip arts, no layout, and no CSS.
    Here's a typical amateurish site:
    https://members.shaw.ca/mstrott/
    and
    https://buizel.net/Index2.htm (no CSS and a BG image)
    That site has full of font tags such as "<font face="Footlight MT Light" size="3">", the author should use CSS instead.
     
    Too bad this isn't a multi poll, I would have chosen the last 3 options

    excessive use of images, flash, colour etc along with no CSS/Layout
     
    As a teacher myself, I think the first site is perfectly fine. It's meant to deliver information in the easiest way to access possible, and it's not hard to find the quizzes of that site. That is all that matters.

    If you think that is unacceptional, try this one: https://www.ualberta.ca/~sgraves/225/home.htm
     
    There are no such things as amateurish sites. Layouts are simply how users navigate through and connect with the content. It doesn't mean a site is "amateurish" simply because it has bad layout.
     
    ...
    Let me make this clear. A good website does not require a good layout and perfect coding. The eye candy that comes from nice layouts only complements the content. Would you go to a website that has the most beautiful layout ever with no content and browse for more than 10 minutes? I would guess no. Sure, these sites look noob, but who cares? THEY GET INFORMATION ACROSS. That's all websites should do. If you just want people to look at eye candy, I suggest a trip to the art gallery.
     
    Even if a website has information, no one will stay on a bad site for long (if the person doesn't press the back button straight away <_< ) if its littered with stupid pictures, bad layout, flash/pictures that make the site take forever to load etc

    Just because a site has information, doesn't mean it's good. It should have a decent layout, it should be coded in a way that makes it compatible with major browsers (like IE and Firefox) etc I could also get into what professional web devs have to think about but I will leave it at that

    so in reply to this

    A good website does not require a good layout and perfect coding
    Click to expand...

    good layout = yes for reasons stated above, as for perfect coding, it doesn't need perfect code but it does need coding that will make it compatible with major browsers such as IE and FF otherwise problems can arise for those viewing the web page on the aforementioned browsers
     
    no u phail. Serebii is a good website, but does it have a good layout? NO! Does it have perfect coding? NO! so there. Point proven.
     
    Right. Don't go to Serebii for a day and we'll see where you get your stupid pokemon info. Aren't all the other crap sites here based on Serebii? HA!
     
    Wow, just ignoring everything I put in my post, well done.

    Now with Serebii, I haven't checked the code and I don't have time to just now but layout wise, it has a pretty nice layout and I don't see any real problems on IE or Firefox. The only real thing i would change is perhaps the text colour (black on green is a bit hard to see sometimes) plus they have a nice banner as well.

    so in reply to:

    but does it have a good layout? NO! Does it have perfect coding? NO! so there.
    Click to expand...

    It does have a good layout, and the coding is done well enough that it doesn't cause any problems (that I could see) between firefox and Internet explorer.
     
    As someone pointed me to this thread for my opinion on website coding, let me put in my thoughts;

    Coding is not what makes a site (yes I realise what I said). It makes it in the means that it constructs it, but that's not necessarily the best thing.

    Take CSS and XHTML. At the moment, the worst thing you could do, if you wish to have a successful site, is code entirely with the layout in CSS using divs and aligning and positioning it with the stylesheet.

    Due to browser compatibility, it will not render accurately and as such you'd have the site working well one one browser but poorly on others.

    I recently experienced this with Pokéarth on my site. I was trying to be flash and have it with perfect coding and everything, but it was not displaying correctly across all browsers? So what did I do? I went back to basics and utilised them as guess what, they all render correctly on all browsers.

    A good layout is not one that is perfectly coded or necessarily looks fantastic. It's one that sets everything out in a relatively pleasing manner and has everything on the site accessible within 2 or 3 clicks.

    Plus, just to clarify, perfect coding is NOT essential. Very very VERY few websites on the internet have perfect coding. Look at my site, it's a highly comprehensive site with a functional layout and so forth, but the coding is a mish-mash of 9 years worth of knowledge from very little to my vast skill-set of this day and it's just unfeasible for me to convert the one million plus pages on my site.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top