Me and Pipe (user in the forum) have created a new hMailServer.com webpage. Before we make it public, we would like to hear if there's anyone has any suggestions on it. The new layout can be seen here:
http://www.hmailserver.com/new/
New webpage
Well on the first glance it looks quite good. Nice design.
But some comments:
1. People like me who fight for W3-standards and clean X(HTML) do neither like tables for design effects nor the doctype HTML 4.01 transitonal. I prefer the Strict variant. And the code should validate correctly... (http://validator.w3.org/)
2. A fixed table width with frequently results in display dificulties - huge monitors only display a thin table, whereas small screen resolutions or reduced windows always lead to scroll bars.
3. If the image is copied from somewhere else, it should be checked that there is no copyright on this image.
But some comments:
1. People like me who fight for W3-standards and clean X(HTML) do neither like tables for design effects nor the doctype HTML 4.01 transitonal. I prefer the Strict variant. And the code should validate correctly... (http://validator.w3.org/)
2. A fixed table width with frequently results in display dificulties - huge monitors only display a thin table, whereas small screen resolutions or reduced windows always lead to scroll bars.
3. If the image is copied from somewhere else, it should be checked that there is no copyright on this image.
Tacks for your comments.
1) I have made some changes so that it now validates correctly. However, I'm having a hard time seeing why I should remove tables and use CSS instead when there's still more users with browsers supporting tables than CSS.
2) I've tested the page from 800x600 to 2004x1536 and it looks like I want it them all. Sure, the pager is thinner on a 2004x1536 than on a 800x600, but it's still the way I want it to look.
3) They're all checked.
A parenthesis: I don't agree that it's something bad to use fixed size tables. I'm normally running my monitor in 1856x1392 and I really hate it when people don't set fixed sizes on their tables. Example: When I open up validator.w3.org, their page is showing about 300 characters per line on my monitor. This both looks ugly and makes it really hard to read. I prefer when there's like 70-100 characters per line. Not 300.... If the author of the page knows the length of the content, I can't see why he shouldn't set a fixed size of the page.
1) I have made some changes so that it now validates correctly. However, I'm having a hard time seeing why I should remove tables and use CSS instead when there's still more users with browsers supporting tables than CSS.
2) I've tested the page from 800x600 to 2004x1536 and it looks like I want it them all. Sure, the pager is thinner on a 2004x1536 than on a 800x600, but it's still the way I want it to look.
3) They're all checked.
A parenthesis: I don't agree that it's something bad to use fixed size tables. I'm normally running my monitor in 1856x1392 and I really hate it when people don't set fixed sizes on their tables. Example: When I open up validator.w3.org, their page is showing about 300 characters per line on my monitor. This both looks ugly and makes it really hard to read. I prefer when there's like 70-100 characters per line. Not 300.... If the author of the page knows the length of the content, I can't see why he shouldn't set a fixed size of the page.
I like it. Good job integrating the dynamic pages into the site. I won't get into the whole web standards thing. As long as it validates, good enough for me. I'd rather have you working on hMailServer, not the HTML. But hey, go for XHTML Strict if you have time!
Only thing I noted is that if you want a white background, you should specify it. I don't use a white background by default, so the colors are a bit clashy since the site uses my default grey background.
As long as it validates, good enough for me. I'd rather have you working on hMailServer, not the HTML. But hey, go for XHTML Strict if you have time! Only thing I noted is that if you want a white background, you should specify it. I don't use a white background by default, so the colors are a bit clashy since the site uses my default grey background.
Windows Server 2003, hMailServer 3.4 Build 69
I do not doubt that the page looks ok in most current browsers, which is very important. And of course I think your work on hmailserver is much more important then the perfect website.
Nevertheless I want to point out that the alt-attribute in the image tag should NOT contain mere emptieness, but an alternative text. For example, if I use a browser which does not display images, I cannot use any of the navigation-buttons. If the alt-attribute would contain some real text it would make more sense. Of course you will not have many visitors who suffer from this "design-error", but nevertheless the standards make sense.
A last word about tables: I'm not really against tables - I use them too, but only if the logical structure demands a table. Stuff that should be displayed in a table belongs in a table. But blind tables do not represent the logical structure of an document. And describing the logical structur of a document is the purpose of the HTML-syntax.
Nevertheless I want to point out that the alt-attribute in the image tag should NOT contain mere emptieness, but an alternative text. For example, if I use a browser which does not display images, I cannot use any of the navigation-buttons. If the alt-attribute would contain some real text it would make more sense. Of course you will not have many visitors who suffer from this "design-error", but nevertheless the standards make sense.
A last word about tables: I'm not really against tables - I use them too, but only if the logical structure demands a table. Stuff that should be displayed in a table belongs in a table. But blind tables do not represent the logical structure of an document. And describing the logical structur of a document is the purpose of the HTML-syntax.
I like it!
One thing: Can't change images in the screenshots section. Firefox just sits there and does nothing. IE gives me an javascript error.
About the content: Going a little deeper in the features section would give the site a more professional touch. I'm not speaking for myself - I like the short version which says: I spend my time coding, not advertising
One thing: Can't change images in the screenshots section. Firefox just sits there and does nothing. IE gives me an javascript error.
About the content: Going a little deeper in the features section would give the site a more professional touch. I'm not speaking for myself - I like the short version which says: I spend my time coding, not advertising
suggestions about your web
in the news lastes news section, will be good if you put a link to the section where you can read more about it. by example i like to go to the looking for translators and need to surf all your web to find the relative note.
good job.!!!
good job.!!!
Just a note so that no-one feels swindled (or whatever it's called)..
The main layout is a free template from http://www.interspire.com/. So any real congrats should be made to the authors of that site.
Was quite a bit of work tog get it working properly though. New logo etc.
The main layout is a free template from http://www.interspire.com/. So any real congrats should be made to the authors of that site.
Was quite a bit of work tog get it working properly though. New logo etc.