Whatcha think?

MindPhuck

I just finished doing up the site today, what im looking for is suggestions on features n stuff or just your general opinion?

http://www.room101.org

Tar

Seth Brundle

I didn't spend too long looking at it but it worked fine in MSIE 6, Opera 6 & Netscape 7. The home page looks good - colours may be too close for visually impaired though
Doing a validation check on w3c.org I get 183 errrors for the homepage (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.room101.org%2F&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29)
Killian

MindPhuck

Cheers for the feedback and thanks for the info on wc3. very interesting results.

I will be putting together a feature for user selectable style sheets so it should help out the vision isssues.

Again, tnx.

Kai

eh that validation thing it fairly interesting, even www.w3c.0rg has errors :

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3c.org&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional

37 of them and they host the validation check, i tried a few sites and none of them come up as valid or without errors so i think that test might be too strict.

Seth Brundle

you are possibly right about the validation thing but it is a good indication of the quality of the HTML and it makes the designer more aware of errors.
There are browsers out there thar are contrary in the way that they build the page (Opera 6, Netscape 4, etc, and despite what people may claim about their appropriatness they are being used). It helps if your code is clean and not Microsoft HTML.

p

Originally posted by Frugu
eh that validation thing it fairly interesting, even www.w3c.0rg has errors :

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3c.org&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional

37 of them and they host the validation check, i tried a few sites and none of them come up as valid or without errors so i think that test might be too strict.

w3c.org does not have errors. I'm guessing you just changed the URL at the end. You can't just do that: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/

Put the URLs into here: http://validator.w3.org/ and you'll get valid results for some sites.

The validator isn't really that strict it's just that not many designers/coders know about standard code and just ignore it, to their detriment I might ad.

High profile sites would include, wired.com, espn.com and alltheweb.com

- Kevin

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Webmonkey

Nope ur 7 Days is a bit 2 far up outside the box. It's within it in mine - using IE6

peterd

Same problem here in Opera 7. Also the drop-down menu doesn't work. You could put plain-text links at the bottom of each page to the main sections of the site.

MindPhuck

thats mad. It seems to space out differently alright.. I'll have another gander at my code and see what the hell im doing.

Cheers for the screenies.

Eric

GoneShootin

Id change that text if possible. Its a bit of a strain when reading it.

DJB

One thing I'd change is the jpg roll over links on the left. You should change these to .gif's as you can see the pixelation on the jpg image.

JPG's for graphics more than 256 colours
GIF's for graphics less than 256 colours

Otherwise... nice site!

Rolo Tomasi

The site is nice but the name is class!