Post by: chriskleeman on December 19, 2006, 12:45:53 PM
!!!My webmaster has rolled out a big improvement on my website, and for those of you on TS who have checked it out, I would appreciate it if you'd go to my website and see how the new page works for you.
When you get there, click on the "Sound Bytes" button on the left-hand side. A new window should come up, and you will see the CD Covers on the left-hand side, with mp3 links on the right. All but one of the mp3 links is working on the Northern Blue CD, and nothing on the next two (waiting for me to get my lazy rear-end to edit some more bytes...) and sporadic ones on the last CD. I will get those working by the end of the week, but I'd like to know if the page displays correctly, and whether those first CD sound bytes work for you.
Just click on the link on my signature to get there!
TIA,
Chris K
Post by: sandbox on December 19, 2006, 02:05:01 PM
http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2167901
The links worked fine the toons were good but i couldn't find a place to download any CD's or cuts.
Have you ever played at Alice's Restaurant in Brattleboro around 1969-71, or maybe Max Parties?
Post by: Texas Mac Man on December 19, 2006, 03:23:35 PM
Mozilla 1.3.1
Internet Explorer 5.1.7
Netscape 7
iCab 3.0
Opera 6.03
Post by: daryl66 on December 19, 2006, 03:24:06 PM
Daryl
Post by: tacit on December 19, 2006, 03:41:10 PM
QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Dec 19 2006, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Season's Greetings to all on TS !!!
My webmaster has rolled out a big improvement on my website, and for those of you on TS who have checked it out, I would appreciate it if you'd go to my website and see how the new page works for you.
!!!My webmaster has rolled out a big improvement on my website, and for those of you on TS who have checked it out, I would appreciate it if you'd go to my website and see how the new page works for you.
I did not check the sound bytes themselves, but there are some very serious problems on your Web page, I'm afraid.
The biggest problem is that you are using absolutely enormous graphics files, then shrinking them down in HTML. Never do this. For example, the "Northern Blue" album cover picture is ginormous--1425 by 1389 pixels, and a whopping 880 KB (!) on disk, but on the page it is only being used at 240x240 pixels. Do not use such large images. Resize the picture to 240x240 using a graphics program, then upload the small version and link to it. Your users will thank you; your picture is so huge it takes about 10 seconds to download on my full T1 line, so I can only imagine how long it would take on dialup.
(You might want to consider, too, that the album cover artwork is being distorted, because you are resizing it to 240x240 pixels even if it is not square to begin with.)
You have designed the page using frames--you have a navigation frame on the left and load all the frame pages on the right. I strongly, strongly recommend you do not do this. Instead, just put all the navigation buttons on the left-hand side of every page and do not use frames at all. Frames will not be accessed by search engines. If you want your page to be accessible on Google searches, you should not build it using frames.
The guitar image on the bottom of the navigation frame, beneath the buttons, has a white speckled "halo" around it because it is a transparent GIF saved in a way designed to be used on a white background, not a black background. If you go back to the original Photoshop file that created that GIF and you save it using the Save for Web command, and in the Save for Web dialog you set your "matte color" to black, you won't see that speckled white fringe around it.
You have a "noframes" tag in each of the frames. This "noframes" tag will never be read, and simply doubles the size of your HTML pages. The "noframes" tag belongs not in each frame, but rater in your index page--the page that has the frame tags in it. There is a "noframe" tag here, but all it does is take you to
http://www.chriskleeman.com/ck_home.html
and the user can not go anywhere or do anything from that page. (You really want to get away from frames altogether, I think.)
Post by: chriskleeman on December 20, 2006, 12:07:23 AM
I completely agree about the size of those graphics... I noticed they took forever to load in on my very fast ADSLx2 line... I will pass your comments on to my pal... he's a programmer who also happens to be a fabulous musician (bassist on much of what's there on the site). He has built the site from the ground up programming the html from scratch as much of an experiment as anything else. And as such, comments like yours are quite on point.
Sandbox,
I played Alice's Restaurant in Stockbridge/Lenox MA, circa 1978-85, but not in '69-'71 in Brattleboro, I was still on Ohio at that point.
And to both of you, if you punch in my name to Google, my website comes up first, for whatever that's worth!
We'll keep working on it, and thanks for the comments, everyone! Keep 'em comin'!!! I want this site to rock, for so many reasons!
Have a great Holiday!
Chris K
Post by: krissel on December 20, 2006, 01:14:52 AM
Site worked fine on Camino but not all the sound bytes led to an mp3. In fact most got me a 404. I assume you are still setting up the files.
Otherwise, looks fine.
And I'm still enjoying your CD.
Post by: MamaMoose on December 20, 2006, 01:30:16 AM
I am no expert on web page design. Your page worked fine on my FireFox 2.0001 running on a dual 2 GHz G5 under OS 10.3.6.
MamaMoose
Post by: sandbox on December 20, 2006, 06:06:31 AM
or the name of a song that you have, or where your next gig is, if I put that in goggle it won't pop.
In order for search engines to work they need text, page tittles, content, if all your pages are hidden from the bots in frames they will have no data to refer you.
This is important stuff Chris. The key ingredient!
Post by: kimmer on December 20, 2006, 12:41:51 PM
I *hate* frames. Just a personal opinion and I had to open my browser out to get rid of the scroll bars on the bottom and such, so someone with a laptop and small screen would have a prob.
Also, the song lists for 2 of the albums displayed weird. I'm 10.4.8 with FF 2.0.0.1. You can see the pics using the links below.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/Hook...rook/malkum.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/Hook...rthernblues.jpg
Best of luck, it's a worthy endeavor!
Post by: dboh on December 20, 2006, 01:46:22 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 20, 2006, 03:42:37 PM
I dislike black backgrounds. so what!
Frames are not bookmarkable by your users. And all the other reasons not to use them that were mentioned...
There's no point in dumping a viewer at a "404 Error" page. With a standardized. non-frame site, you can easily trap that ( and other ) errors and provide a friendly way to get back to the main site pages. Do you expect all your users to know ( or care ) that "404 not found
The requested resource could not be found." What's a "404" anyway, why wasn't it 'found' and what's that got to do with Chris' music?
Just have the site let them know that an 'error' occurred for some mysterious reason ( probably not caused by them ) and they should just use the menu to visit other pages. Or perhaps they would like to click on a link ( on every page ) to send a message to the webmaster ( and you ) that they had a problem. Users are great at finding spellin nor grammatical mistakes! Speaking of getting to the pages around the site: All pages should have the same, main navigation menu in the same place, whether it be at the top, left side, right side, down the middle, etc. You can float that menu, if you really want, but it's usually enough to put "back to top" links as often as possible on each page.
Speaking of page length: It is much nicer, IMHO, to keep each page relatively short, especially, if you don't use floating nav menus.
Speaking of scrolling: I hate horizontal scrolling. Putting the nav menu along either side or at the top should allow you to use the entire page width for content ( another reason to dump the space-wasting left-hand frame ). After all, people want content not blank space on the page ( not that a judicious use of blank space is not part of a well designed page, web or printed ).
IMHO, every image on a page should have a reason for taking up the bandwidth required to use it. What is the point of the alternating image of you and ( I assume ) your dog, for example? I may know, but it could be rather confusing to new comers. "Is there a link hidden up there about his dog? Nope."
"Does his singing remind people of a dog howling at the blue moon? I hope not!" 
Please note that none of this has anything to do with you or your skills or talent! Their simply my judgments and opinions. Take them and five dollars to Charbucks and enjoy a cup of their over roasted beans!
" Take my advice. Nobody else is using it!"
Post by: Mayo on December 20, 2006, 06:47:44 PM
I think that you could probably do a better job yourself using iWeb or RapidWeaver, which are both relatively easy to use and inexpensive. iWeb has a few limitations that might preclude its use, but RapidWeaver should fill the bill nicely (someone who has more experience using RW correct me if I am wrong because I don't know ALL of its capabitlities.)
If you aren't interested in putting together your own Web site I would hire someone who can show you samples of well-designed Web sites and who will show you a preliminary plan that will make your Web site unique and reflect your musical abilities and professionalism.
I wish that I could sugar-coat this but I really hate to see someone not get their money's worth; so-called Web masters should not be learning their trade at their clients' expense.
Post by: Paddy on December 20, 2006, 09:25:32 PM
If you want to tackle it yourself, Rapidweaver is a very good option, IMHO (unless you really want to learn HTML etc., in which case the big gun, Dreamweaver is the best choice, along with learning hand-coding). iWeb is frustrating to me and has the nuttiest site management I've ever seen. Rapidweaver, on the other hand, seems to be much more straightforward and I've seen some very nice sites done with it. If you go to the MacSanta link that Harv mentioned in this thread you can get it for 20% off.
In addition to the comments already made:
1. Get rid of the frames - build a page template instead. Follow Jim's advice about keeping the pages fairly short whenever possible, though "return to top" where needed AND text navigation (part of the template) at the bottom of the page for longer pages is appropriate.
2. Use CSS to control the look and feel. Right now there are font and color tags all over the place, and the look is very inconsistent.
3. Limit use of colored text to links and possibly headings. Otherwise you confuse your users, who have become conditioned to thinking colored text represents a link.
4. Improve navigation - right now there is no way to get back to the home page - but then again, your home page doesn't have anything on it other than your picture. See #5.
5. Don't waste your home page with no information. This is the spot where you want to engage your visitors. It should have the important stuff - the stuff that changes. Keep people coming back. If your home page never changes, many will assume that the rest of the site never does either. You don't have to have everything there - highlights and links to more complete information works. Draw people in.
6. Don't use things that move/flip/change - it's REALLY distracting and makes some people run away. (the photo of you/your dog...)
Post by: jcarter on December 20, 2006, 09:56:29 PM
Great songs, I love your music! Glad youve gotten the soundbytes working.
Your graphics loaded really fast here on both Safari and Firefox.
I am signed up for a XHTML CSS class, so I will be very interested in looking at the comments and critiques of your site. It is difficult to get everything looking good, links happy, validated, pictures sized correctly, and working OK at first, but it sure is fun to learn how.
I think your intro photo and your dog could be made into a mouse over, thats one thing more I want to learn how to do too.
Merry Christmas!
Jane
Post by: chriskleeman on December 20, 2006, 11:14:45 PM
For starters, the person doing the website is doing it as an experiment, building the html from the ground up. He is a programmer with an interest in learning, and I stress, learning... about how to build an appropriate site. He hasn't charged me a dime, or a nickel either, and I have been learning how to edit html in the process, and I actually have a site... So, some of the harsher comments are a bit hard to digest. Not that they aren't appropriate, but the description of "webmaster" for my pal is only as a reference to the person who designed the site... and he is also the bassist on many of those sound-bytes. We all have to learn sometime...
I realize that most of the experts here at TS are much more web-savvy than I might ever be. I am a bit overwhelmed, but things like all the "404" errors are because I haven't loaded the sound-bytes into the directory yet... I was just actually excited about even having those CD graphics on a page with the sound-bytes. Some of the problems here are directly attributable to me. I was really looking for comments about how the idea of the page worked, and I definitly got more than I bargained for.
Perhaps I jumped the gun here, and should have waited until I had time to make the donuts and get all those music links working, but I did put a disclaimer about that in my original post.
But, I do get that most of you hate frames... and it has been a frustration for me without knowing why, and now I do...
As far as the animated .gif of my dog goes, which many of you have mentioned, his name was Sundance, and that .gif is a sentimental tribute to the best roadie I ever had. I never realized that people didn't like stuff like that. I have always gotten a kick out that picture, but then I guess few on the web looking at that would have any idea who he was.
I have been thinking about a downloadable picture page anyway, so maybe he belongs there.
I could keep going with more responses, but I'm done for now.
I thank all of you for your constructive criticism. I never meant this to be such a magnet for the sense of frustration I see in some posts.
Back to the drawing board. This is a rough crowd!
Chris K
Post by: Paddy on December 20, 2006, 11:31:35 PM
(Check your email - I'm sending you a PM)
Post by: chriskleeman on December 20, 2006, 11:40:44 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Dec 21 2006, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Chris, don't take any of this too personally!!! Some of us do this semi-professionally/professionally, so we may be coming on a bit stronger than you expected. We are more than willing to help though - and I'll be happy to help you solve problems via email etc. if you want. (Check your email - I'm sending you a PM)
(Check your email - I'm sending you a PM)Paddy,
Trust me, I measured my words in my prior post very carefully. I am, quite naturally, very frustrated at this point in time. I haven't taken this as personally as some of my comments might indicate, but when someone is trying to do something nice for me and his work gets trashed, it can be difficult to digest.
I am, however, appreciative of the criticism. In the end, my website will be the better for it.
I appreciate the offer to help; I am all ears.
And yeah, I did take the animated .gif criticism personally, he was one of the best dogs there ever was! (gone off to doggie-heaven 1984)
He traveled with me for over 10 years when I was touring; my friends along the way used to joke with me that I could sleep in the truck, Sundance could come in and sleep in the warm house... 
Chris K
Post by: Frances144 on December 21, 2006, 01:45:49 AM
It looks fine to me - and I use a black background on one of my websites that I made with iWeb (go see the "pencille" one at the end of my signature).
It all worked very well on Safari (latest ed).
Well done.
Frances
Post by: sandbox on December 21, 2006, 02:16:52 AM
If you like the layout (format) have him look into using tables instead.
I'm a dog guy, I knew why he was there. The photos are on a page About You, I don't think that will confuse anyone. The slideshow tool is normally used when a lot of photos need to be displayed and space is limited. If you don't plan on adding more photos to that sideshow you may consider just displaying them side by sidish.
Some folks have a hard time with HTML, others with english or music, I'm sure all were trying to hit the right notes, they just couldn't hear what they were writing.
Post by: jcarter on December 21, 2006, 09:24:45 AM
(And save all of your earlier work, dont discard anything, as you will go back to it for ideas and want to include some of it. Go to View_Source and copy it all, save it as you go along, but be sure to name it differently than your current page in progress. Save a template.)
You aught to hear me playing the kids keyboards, I am awful, but its FUN!
I would think that not a single person here can play and sing as well as you can, so we all excel in our field, but we must try NEW stuff all the time.
But I will not become discouraged even when they close the door to the music room!
So the first thing you should do, is open an account with www.pbase.com and put a memorial page up there for your dog. (I will send you the link for our dog if you want to see an example.) Use the black background.
Second, keep working on your page, and put the link on there to your pbase dog page.
I just signed up for another class, more geared for html beginners, I might even put my new pages here for critisizm sometime in Feb.
Jane
Edit/add I forgot these,
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/
and webmonkey has some interactive tutorials
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 21, 2006, 02:56:28 PM
QUOTE
...have him look into using tables instead...
Uhmmn, it already is a table. However, as any html developer knows, tables are for data, not formatting. At least in this age, where CSS is almost totally usable for even IE! That this chap has not charged you is fine, but one would think that, as a 'programmer' he would first do some minimalist studying of html, CSS, graphics usage before 'developing' a web site. And certainly before 'publishing' one publically.
The point about the animated gif is not that we don't like your ( or anyone's ) dog, we just didn't understand what the animation was trying to say. That's what I meant when I said it had no discernible point; was it your dog, was it a generic "I like dogs" comment, etc. Making an image a link is extremely basic html. But so is not using deprecated tags like "font".
There are simply too many sites, articles, books, classes about the extremely simple 'language' of html for something like your current site to be acceptable, if you ask for its 'review' or 'critique'. Most of us would never have said anything about it, if you had not asked. Absolutely nothing I see in these posts was meant as a personal attack or even a put-down of you nor your dog or music.
Post by: Mayo on December 21, 2006, 02:58:40 PM
When you wrote
QUOTE
My webmaster has rolled out a big improvement on my website
I naturally assumed that this was pretty-much a Finished Product. Now that I know that it is a work-in-progress being done as a "learning experience" I can look at it differently.In my experience learning HTML, CSS and similar coding languages from scratch can be difficult and frustrating (not to mention time-consuming) and the results often resemble your current "work in progress." I suggest getting a copy of RapidWeaver (use the coupon code MACSANTA to get 25% off through December 25; this is a STEAL!) and pick one of the many RW templates available to begin building your Web site.
Then you can look at the code behind the template and really see how HTML translates into what you are seeing on the screen. It might not be quite as creatively satisfying as building a Web site from scratch, but few pros do it that way these days so why should you guys be struggling with basic HTML? If you want to try "tweaking" the code to customize your Web site you can have at it all you want and you will learn a lot in the process. There are many free resources online to help you along the way. But you will also be able to put together something that looks really good a lot quicker than hand-coding.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 21, 2006, 04:25:30 PM
Saying that it is difficult to learn/use html/CSS is like saying that it is difficult to learn how to use bold, italics, underlining at TS ( or many other forums ). If you can insert a link to another site or graphics here, you can certainly do it on a web page. Saying html is difficult is simply not true. If you can navigate a web site, you already know how that should work, if you can use the "Show Source" menu item in any browser, you can already see how things are done. Saying that "most professionals" don't hand-code is an opinion, IMHO. And they certainly don't use RapidWeaver, nice as it is. Nor will you find it easy to 'tweak' a site designed that way. You still won't know anything about what does what, so how would you even know what to 'tweak'?
They do use templates, but not in the way that these programs do, same word, different method.Nor do those professionals use DreamWeaver or their ilk because they don't know html/CSS. They might be using those programs because they have great site management tools. But you certainly don't need that for a few dozen, well named pages!
Just as we have shown many of the common, non-professional ways that the site you have, you can easily see the same things done in many other sites. Some are even paying for them! But as long as people 'support' SPAMmers, they will continue to pay for badly designed sites, I guess.
One sure sign that a site has been designed from a 'template' is to see strangely and totally non-humanly named CSS classes. What does "class='e1'" mean to a human programmer/site developer? Nothing, of course, and that is why many sites have to be almost completely re-written when they outgrow the capabilities of the original 'developer'. It's usually faster for a professional to simply start from scratch than first decode what the stoopidly named CSS classes and definitions are for. And converting a page from a table to a really flexible web page is another time waster.
Surely, by now, it is obvious that web browsers on computers are not the only way people want to access a web site. Don't get suckered into thinking you can't understand the basics of html and even CSS and then get blind-sided by someone who claims to be a 'professional' web designer. Snake oil salesmen are still around, just say "NO" to them.
html has about three dozen 'tags'. Many you'll never use. Some you'll use once on every page. There are only about 10 to 15 that you'll really use every day and that's only if you need tables and lists. You probably already know more words that that in French, even if you never studied it!
CSS is more complicated, but much of that is learning that it is so rich in its capabilities. But it is so useful, I can't imagine any web designer not using it. It would be like writing plain, Courier text, instead of making use of site specific fonts/styles/colors/sizes/positioning/etc. without ever touching javascript and its evils! It would be reverting to Henry Ford's attitude; "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black."
And it replaces many of those tags that will one day be completely forgot, that are already deprecated, such as "font", "size", "color", etc.Just as you don't need Word to write a letter, you don't need anything more than a very little knowledge and any text program to write html and CSS. Period. And please don't keep saying otherwise, ladies and gentlemen, you are simply reinforcing a web rumor.
Post by: chriskleeman on December 21, 2006, 04:56:32 PM
Let me say one more thing: All of you should know that he has hand-coded the entire site.
He sat here on Saturday all day on my couch writing code. All I had to do was cook breakfast! Why hand-code, you may ask? Because he says he has not found a neutral html editing program. He is hand-coding so that it will display on all browsers pretty much the same way. And learning what works and doesn't work in the process.
So, if any of you gurus know of a PC-based html editing program that is neutral, now is the time to make your recommendation; it would be great if there is one for Mac too, especially if it's the same one. I use Composer in Sea Monkey for what I need to do to the site, but I'd sure like to learn to do more.
And the other reason I wanted folks to take a look was because we were rolling it out on a new server, so I wanted to see if there were any problems loading the site...
Thanks for tempering your comments Mayo, much appreciated.
XABD:
QUOTE
There are simply too many sites, articles, books, classes about the extremely simple 'language' of html for something like your current site to be acceptable, if you ask for its 'review' or 'critique'. Most of us would never have said anything about it, if you had not asked. Absolutely nothing I see in these posts was meant as a personal attack or even a put-down of you nor your dog or music.
I didn't take it as such, but do remember I am a sensitive artist after all
and I'm almost as grumpy as you are! I just had no idea how worked up people get about this stuff! So now I know, and I'll be very careful in the future about what I ask for, that's for sure!
Ain't a newbie anymore, so thanks for the spankin'!
Chris K
Post by: Mayo on December 21, 2006, 05:31:42 PM
QUOTE
And they certainly don't use RapidWeaver, nice as it is.
They probably don't, but I was suggesting an inexpensive program meant for beginners. DreamWeaver is NOT for beginners, nor is it inexpensive.
QUOTE
Saying that it is difficult to learn/use html/CSS is like saying that it is difficult to learn how to use bold, italics, underlining at TS ( or many other forums ). If you can insert a link to another site or graphics here, you can certainly do it on a web page. Saying html is difficult is simply not true.
It certainly can be difficult for beginners and inserting a link in a TS link is NOT the same thing as adding links using hand-written HTML code.
QUOTE
Nor do those professionals use DreamWeaver or their ilk because they don't know html/CSS. They might be using those programs because they have great site management tools. But you certainly don't need that for a few dozen, well named pages!
That is also an opinion, IMHO. And I seriously doubt the claim. And if a person is designing a simple Web site like Chris CSS likely won't be needed anyway.
QUOTE
Just as you don't need Word to write a letter, you don't need anything more than a very little knowledge and any text program to write html and CSS. Period. And please don't keep saying otherwise, ladies and gentlemen, you are simply reinforcing a web rumor.
I think that the real Web rumor here is that it isn't done right if a Web site isn't hand-coded. Balderdash! That sort of thinking is soooo 1997... And if it takes so little knowledge to create a basic Web site why didn't Chris' friend get it done after spending an entire day on the project?
The Bottom Line: You can do it the relatively hard way or the relatively easy way. My opinion is that it is much easier to learn HTML and CSS if you can easily compare the code with what it produces and looking at already developed Web site code is a good way to do just that. I don't mean to imply that learning HTML and CSS is impossible or shouldn't be done.
So what if the code isn't perfect as long as it displays correctly? Many good looking Web sites are designed every day using RapidWeaver and yes, even iWeb. No, the code isn't always "clean" (even the pro-level GoLive, Bless It's Soul, didn't produce perfect code and DreamWeaver probably doesn't either but it's used by many pro designers to do more than just "manage their Web sites") but it often doesn't matter unless you insist on picking-nits.
If you want to learn coding from scratch and just use a basic text editor to do the job, Have At It. But if you want a relatively painless method to quickly develop a Web site (and learn more if you want...) then don't be put-off by the Hand-Coding Zealots and dismiss using one of the really excellent programs designed for just that purpose.
Post by: jcarter on December 21, 2006, 05:34:59 PM
You really have to write a class for us!
Really, I'm not kidding.
Your explanations are wonderful. Do you have the time to do this?
Look at EclecticAcademy or LVS. You might be the one to do this, as you have a knack for explaining stuff.
I posted a notice on a remote Terragen forum a few years ago looking for an instructor for Terragen, and I had a response. We have now on LVS an amazing Terragen instructor and she also knows Bryce.
So think about it, you might be the ONE!
And you would not have to fly or drive anywhere to teach.
Jane
Post by: chriskleeman on December 21, 2006, 06:30:44 PM
So what if I don't know my rear-end from a hole in the ground about web design?
I agree with Jane, Jim, teach that class!
Mayo, chill out! If you want to design my site, then go for it!!!
I would remind both of you that many who checked the site out liked it just fine. It does have it's problems, but it is my website, and it's a work in progress. And all of you have presented a spectacular critique with some great suggestions.
In the meantime, why don't we all go wrap some Christmas presents?
Peace, Joy, Happiness, and a great Holiday to all!!!
Chris K
Post by: Mayo on December 21, 2006, 07:11:57 PM
Me thinks that I will just keep my opinions to myself and let the TS experts handle things... More time for wrapping presents and All That.
Happy Holidays!
Post by: chriskleeman on December 21, 2006, 07:20:16 PM
I'm just having some fun, at your expense, apparently, a far cry from where I was last night about 2 A.M.! I think your comments are absolutely on point. I'm just trying to inject some humor here. I wish I had a clue to some of the knowledge both you and XABD are sharing with us. The learning curve here is steep. Don't stop, ever! Sometimes we invest more emotionally in our projects than we are aware of. That is surely the case for me here in many respects. I always respect your posts, and your opinions and insight are always a great addition to this forum... I mean, what do I know, really???
All the best to you and have a great Holiday!
Chris K
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 21, 2006, 08:22:33 PM
QUOTE
...don't happen to agree with XABD...
Oh Kay! Fortunately, I have my database Widget open, so I can quickly add your name...there! Now, I'll simply hit that special key and get back to the rest of my computer...oops, wrong thread! Where am I? Oh yeah, extolling the virtues of maniacal fanaticism for standards and the trash that we accept as great design...
Ah, well, I know a lost cause when I start one! 
WARNING: html is too difficult for mere human use! Always use a table to lay out your design! It will help keep those geeks employed! You can't set the clocks on your VCRs, either! Surrender now and save your skin! <All your base belong to us!>
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2006, 10:15:34 PM
May I remind y'all, that this hand-coding vs. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) thing is an argument that is right up there with the Mac vs. PC argument. And unlike that argument, there is NO right side.
Jes kidding...
Anyway, for the most part I'll weigh in on Mayo's side - there is a place for programs like Rapidweaver, and some people have done some very professional-looking sites with it:
http://www.newbodytraining.com/index.html
http://www.soundslikeyou.no/index.html
Like any tool - if you have a good eye for design, you can make it work, and probably faster than if you teach yourself to hand-code from the ground up. There are any number of ways of skinning a cat.
One thing I will agree with Jim (partially) on is the use of CSS. Even the simplest of sites should use it - because it is far, far easier to maintain and to keep things consistent. As he noted - font tags etc. are deprecated. If you want to use a very simple tables-based web site layout, fine. Many, many (perhaps the majority) web sites do. Why? Because that part of CSS is not as well-supported in every browser and bad things can happen. Writing exceptions for non-compliant browsers like IE gets old really quickly and can be difficult. Check the code for just about any large commercial web site and you'll find simple table-based layout. I know - I looked recently because I was curious to see how far things were really going in that direction. However, nailing down everything with nested tables is truly unnecessary - CSS to the rescue there. Of course, if you want to do all-CSS layout that's terrific - just make sure it works in all browsers. If you're doing a single or perhaps simple two-column layout, it should work just fine. Things can get interesting when the layout gets more complicated.
As for web standards - checking your site in the W3C validators, by all means do it and do your best to make things validate. But also be aware that plenty of sites work just fine and don't validate. Tried validating Amazon lately??? You cannot tell me that that site doesn't "work"!!! I'm not making excuses - I'm just pointing out that being doctrinaire about things doesn't necessarily mean that things work better.
Bottom line - content is king. Without good content, all the gorgeous web design in the world won't save you from having a bad site. And if the content is displayed well and is easy to navigate, and people want to come back to your site, you're on the right track.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 22, 2006, 02:07:00 PM
Here's some for Windows...
<From About.com>
<http://www.notetab.com/>
<http://www.editplus.com/>
<http://www.crimsoneditor.com/>
<http://www.fckeditor.net/> ( web-based, any platform )
As for the Mac, my favorite is BBEdit, but BareBones also makes a stripped down ( barely! ) version called <TextWrangler>
All these editors have almost the same features. Mainly they use different colors to indicate tags, content, values, attributes, etc. Most will also indicate when you have correctly closed a tag that needs a closing tag. Some will create line numbers, some will do the validation for you, some insert standard parts of every web page. Some offer ASCII and UTF character palettes for inserting stuff so it's compatible with all browsers. BBEdit has a completely geeky GREP capability that will take years to master! Fortunately, it has a very easy to use Search and Replace window that makes it unnecessary to use GREP for 99% of most work.
The thing these editors have in common is that they make an easy job even easier.
I think the hardest part that people seem to have in web design is understanding that a web page is not a piece of paper. It is a fluid medium, you can never guarantee what size window a user will have, much less what the text size and resolution will be. You don't even know what kind of device will be used. Some of these unknowns can be detected and different CSS files can make the site accessible on most any device.
The fact that a major site uses tables is in no way an endorsement of them, IMHO. Many clients have no idea what standards can do, much less why they should be used. They will make sure they are used in their factories, policies and other areas of the business. But when it comes to a web site most simply want it to look good on whatever browser the boss uses. Period.
Dreamweaver, RapidWeaver, WYSIWYG editors are fine, if that's the way you want to go. My point is the reason or excuse simply cannot be because html is too difficult. It's like saying you can't do multiplication because you never went beyond kindergarten, it's possible, but highly unlikely.
Post by: Frances144 on December 23, 2006, 04:10:25 AM
I am well aware of the limitations of iWeb (building an 82 page website certainly exposes them a little) but if you are willing to work around their templates, it is a very clever, helpful little app.
I am now working a bit with HTML code for odds and sods but at least I am not having to be fluent in it.
Have a look at iWeb - it really is not that bad. Go and look at my websites - (see sig).
Fx
Post by: chriskleeman on December 23, 2006, 03:11:13 PM
QUOTE(Frances144 @ Dec 23 2006, 05:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, I made both my websites on iWeb. I really really tried to get to grips with Rapid Weaver and Dreamweaver and I couldn't, just couldn't.
I am well aware of the limitations of iWeb (building an 82 page website certainly exposes them a little) but if you are willing to work around their templates, it is a very clever, helpful little app.
I am now working a bit with HTML code for odds and sods but at least I am not having to be fluent in it.
Have a look at iWeb - it really is not that bad. Go and look at my websites - (see sig).
Fx
I am well aware of the limitations of iWeb (building an 82 page website certainly exposes them a little) but if you are willing to work around their templates, it is a very clever, helpful little app.
I am now working a bit with HTML code for odds and sods but at least I am not having to be fluent in it.
Have a look at iWeb - it really is not that bad. Go and look at my websites - (see sig).
Fx
Hi Frances,
Very clean, very useful, elegantly simple, gets the job done for what you need. No bells or whistles, but definitely a much cleaner site than mine. I think cleaning up my text colors would probably go a long way to making it look better... that was my doing anyway, I like lots of color, sort of an anarchist in that regard.
Thanks for reminding me to take a look!
Have a great holiday!
Chris K
Post by: kps on December 24, 2006, 10:08:14 AM
A great deal depends on what you want out of your website.
If you just want to have a web presence, then it doesn't really matter how it looks as long as you're happy...does it.
If you want it to be a business/professional site, then you and your friend need to work on it a bit more, well maybe a lot more.
[begin cruel critique]
Doesn't matter if you hand code the whole thing or spend thousands on web creation software, if the overall design is lacking it'll reflect on you personally. Web audiences can be tougher than your live music audiences. Not to mention booking agents. LOL
You're a great musician, your site should reflect that. Simple, clean, efficient and easy to navigate would be my recommendation. If you want a more complex site, add a contact form and a 'visual' calendar with your bookings.
You've already been critiqued in individual elements. I'll reiterate what I consider the main flaws of the basic design.
1/ Frames --get rid of them
2/ Multi colored text --use one text color or two at most for standard text content. Links, alinks and vlinks are different and they are global throughout the site.
3/The size and weight of your text is a little bit on the large size.
4/Include a "HOME" menu in navigation.
5/The blue graphic nav buttons do not match the rest of the site.
6/Improve the graphics quality.
[/end cruel critique]
It's actually not all that bad for a first attempt and a work in progress. Look around the web for a musician's site that you like and learn from it. Don't copy it, but do borrow ideas...
FWIW, I started hand coding sites in 1996 as a hobby, but the advances in web writing and design have taken major leaps in their effect and complexity. Now I don't have the ambition to hand code anything. Give me a simple to use GUI editor and I'm happy. I tried GoLive, but it's too convoluted and complex, not to mention expensive. DreamWeaver is now owned by Adobe, so I'll lump it in with GoLive. They are both overkill for your needs.
I have RapidWeaver and iWeb, but they're limited in terms of templates (especially iWeb because you can't create custom themes). So anything you create in iWeb will look like everybody else's site created with iWeb. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, content is 'King" anyway.
Better customization and some other reasons, is why I think you should consider RapidWeaver.
1/ it's fast and cheap...and spits out decent pages with the included themes.
2/ with a little practice you (or your friend) can create custom themes.
3/ better web management of content and uploading than iWeb
4/ offers better integration with outside applications or hand coding than iWeb.
5/ many more third party themes available (free or at cost).
RapidWeaver has one limitation that may affect your choice...it's Mac only.
www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/
Anyway, Chris, keep working on it. It can actually be fun, so keep having fun.
Post by: chriskleeman on December 24, 2006, 10:50:17 AM
QUOTE(kps @ Dec 24 2006, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Chris,
A great deal depends on what you want out of your website.
If you just want to have a web presence, then it doesn't really matter how it looks as long as you're happy...does it.
If you want it to be a business/professional site, then you and your friend need to work on it a bit more, well maybe a lot more.
[begin cruel critique]
Doesn't matter if you hand code the whole thing or spend thousands on web creation software, if the overall design is lacking it'll reflect on you personally. Web audiences can be tougher than your live music audiences. Not to mention booking agents. LOL
You're a great musician, your site should reflect that. Simple, clean, efficient and easy to navigate would be my recommendation. If you want a more complex site, add a contact form and a 'visual' calendar with your bookings.
You've already been critiqued in individual elements. I'll reiterate what I consider the main flaws of the basic design.
1/ Frames --get rid of them
2/ Multi colored text --use one text color or two at most for standard text content. Links, alinks and vlinks are different and they are global throughout the site.
3/The size and weight of your text is a little bit on the large size.
4/Include a "HOME" menu in navigation.
5/The blue graphic nav buttons do not match the rest of the site.
6/Improve the graphics quality.
[/end cruel critique]
It's actually not all that bad for a first attempt and a work in progress. Look around the web for a musician's site that you like and learn from it. Don't copy it, but do borrow ideas...
A great deal depends on what you want out of your website.
If you just want to have a web presence, then it doesn't really matter how it looks as long as you're happy...does it.
If you want it to be a business/professional site, then you and your friend need to work on it a bit more, well maybe a lot more.
[begin cruel critique]
Doesn't matter if you hand code the whole thing or spend thousands on web creation software, if the overall design is lacking it'll reflect on you personally. Web audiences can be tougher than your live music audiences. Not to mention booking agents. LOL
You're a great musician, your site should reflect that. Simple, clean, efficient and easy to navigate would be my recommendation. If you want a more complex site, add a contact form and a 'visual' calendar with your bookings.
You've already been critiqued in individual elements. I'll reiterate what I consider the main flaws of the basic design.
1/ Frames --get rid of them
2/ Multi colored text --use one text color or two at most for standard text content. Links, alinks and vlinks are different and they are global throughout the site.
3/The size and weight of your text is a little bit on the large size.
4/Include a "HOME" menu in navigation.
5/The blue graphic nav buttons do not match the rest of the site.
6/Improve the graphics quality.
[/end cruel critique]
It's actually not all that bad for a first attempt and a work in progress. Look around the web for a musician's site that you like and learn from it. Don't copy it, but do borrow ideas...
Thanks, very constructive criticism indeed. It's funny no-one has found that the fuzzy guitar is the home button... I've talked to my pal about this a few times, and he seems intransigent on the issue. If we continue to have the kind of winter we are having, I'll be basicallly unemployed soon... then I might have time to figure it out for myself!
Thanks, All the best, Seasons' Greetings!
Chris K
Post by: Frances144 on December 24, 2006, 11:08:14 AM
QUOTE(kps @ Dec 24 2006, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have RapidWeaver and iWeb, but they're limited in terms of templates (especially iWeb because you can't create custom themes). So anything you create in iWeb will look like everybody else's site created with iWeb. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, content is 'King" anyway.
Yeah, but as we are constantly being told, no one else in the whole world has an Apple - so one iWeb website compared to all those squillion others out there makes it look unique!
Fx
Post by: kps on December 24, 2006, 12:02:07 PM
Post by: Frances144 on December 24, 2006, 12:04:06 PM
Fx
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 24, 2006, 03:23:08 PM
QUOTE
It's funny no-one has found that the fuzzy guitar is the home button... I've talked to my pal about this a few times, and he seems intransigent on the issue.
That's a great clue that the 'content' is not apparent. If you user can't figure out what something is/does, they probably won't stay around long enough to find out. Various studies suggest that you have less than 30 seconds to 'hook' the viewer. If they don't see the 'fuzzy guitar' as a link, you need to change it, somehow, period. What 'designers' think is soooo kewl, may just be clutter to the normal user. If the site is just for you, do whatever you want, who cares. If you want to attract people's money, pay attention to the details and know what the details are. What we're actually talking about is the consistency of the site, common colors for all states of a link ( does your friend know there are four basic states? ), common font families, sizes, colors ( 3 max ), etc. throughout the site. Common navigation scheme, also.CSS is the easiest way to do this and you'll be able to dump all the extra, excess tags, values in every paragraph, heading, etc. One file will affect every single page.
I've played with RapidWeaver and tend to agree that it would serve you well, so well, in fact, you may not need the 'services' of your friend! Especially, if he is arguing about 'details' that affect the effectiveness of your site!
That's the second hardest thing a designer has to do; produce what the 'client' wants, even if it's not what the designer would do!
Post by: jcarter on December 24, 2006, 03:36:37 PM
Is it pretty easy? I too have GoLive but it was way too complex for me, tho I did make a short site with it.
Also I am signed up for another class starting with HTML, which will advance to XHTML and then CSS. The first class was not geared to beginners.
It is all fun anyway.
I will let you all know how I progress.
This is a very interesting thread, lots of excellent information here, not only for Chris, but for others(like me) who are learning this stuff.
Jane
Post by: Paddy on December 25, 2006, 11:53:55 AM