Rate my sites

I think they both look pretty nice

The second one especially...More of a sophisticated look,nice color, simple navigation(the way it should be)...The clock is pretty cool too...The filmstrip type preview is a great way to display pics.

The navigation bar on the second one has the buttons that come with Frontpage. It makes it look sort of cheesy when you see things that you see on so many other sites. I love the first site, though. Looks really nice.

Yeah , they made me put buttons for the presentation of the site. When that site will be finished Il make my own buttons. Making buttons in english and in french is so long. Image Ready is soooo great! slicing tool especially.

frames = bad

use css2/xhtml 1.0 strict

[Message Edited]

frames = bad use css2/xhtml 1.0 strict

Frames = Not bad if used well.

It's all very well creating sites using the very latest standards, but not much point if no browsers support those standards correctly. You just end up with broken pages.

That's something you learn when you've been a web designer for a while. It's not what you use, it's how you use it.

As for the sites themselves, I think they're pretty good. The navigation is nice and clear on both, and you obviously know how to put together web pages.

I'd avoid using 'canned' page elements though, such as the clock Javascript, and put more emphasis on creating your own. It's far more impressive to a client to have something unique on their site, rather than coming across other sites with elements from their own which they thought were unique.

I didnt learn Java, I just love www.dynamicdrive.com but if I get a menu from that site i will skin it as much as possible so it doesnt look blahhh. Grayhaze is right about frames browser support is very important especially for netscape users but Dreamweaver is great in that department. I sure do not use Frontpage anymore! I made the switch from photopaint to Photoshop too!

Two very good steps in the right direction PixelCargo.

Have you given Macromedia Fireworks a try? It's always been my tool of choice for detail work like web design and skinning.

One thing I not on the second site: I have my status bar in IE turned on so in the navigation frame with the forecast in the corner, I cannot see the part of it. It is only the bottem three-quarters of the "Click for Forecast" that I cannot see.

I think I have Fireworks, dont know what its for lol
Çërêb®øJÐ When they made me put those buttons at the last second well they streched the whole menu page Its a bug I will have to fix sooner or later but if you have a high res you wont have that problem but support is important eh I would like to see some examples of what Fireworks can do for skinning if any of you have some that would be great! Wincustomize should have a website section so skinners can rate it.

Fireworks is just a graphics tool along the same lines as Photoshop/ImageReady, but is more focussed on creation of web graphics. I find it much easier to work with for creating detailed page elements like buttons and navigation, while I use Photoshop for working with photos and large images.

grayhaze:
obviously you haven't been a web developer long enough

the "important" browsers (4.0+) all support xhtml and css

frames are rapidly being phased out by dynamic content creation
i'll be much happier the day w3 kills them completely

Doomgaze:
Obviously you haven't been a web developer long enough.

The so-called 'important' browsers all support XHTML and CSS to varying degrees, and all interpret the standards in different ways. Also bear in mind that this only applies to the very latest versions too. The '4.0' versions of the main browsers have absolutely terrible implementations of the standards.

A professional web designer creates web pages that work well on the majority of systems, regardless of browser version or system specs. Just because it's possible to view a web page in the latest version of a web browser, doesn't mean every member of your target audience will have that version or be willing to upgrade just to see your site.

The fact also remains that there are some things you can only do effectively and consistently using 'defunct' techniques like frames. I'm by no means an advocate of widespread use of frames, but they do present a very real and very useful way of implementing intuitive navigation systems.

Sorry Doomgaze, but I've been a web designer since very close to the mainstream boom of the internet. I've seen technologies come and go, and over-eager individuals jump on them just because they're new and cool, with no regard for the actual impact they will have on current viewers. Those people tend to be salespeople and PR-types, and any web designer/developer worth his/her money knows when to use such things responsibly and ignore the hype.

Browser Hits Visitors % of Total Visitors
1 Internet Explorer 6.x 64,783 3,510 44.51%
2 Internet Explorer 5.x 7,199 1,119 14.19%
3 Netscape 6.x 5,304 475 6.02%
4 spider
5 spider
6 Netscape 4.x 540 171 2.17%
7 spider
8 spider
9 spider
10 spider

thats from a site i run
100,000 hits a month
huh
real huge need for backwards compatability eh?

the use of xhtml and css isn't about hype and whatnot
its about accessibility and adherence to the standards set forth by w3.

do you know the accesibility standards? do you know why they exist?

but you should already know that having "been there since very close to the boom" huh?

and ANYTHING you can do in frames
i can do better with xhtml/css
and faster hands down

sorry, i'm neither a salesperson, nor PR person, i'm a coder looking for ways to do things better and faster

i bet you said the same things when flash came out huh?

but i don't know what im talking about...
[Message Edited]

rate this site: http://www.firestormpc.com
unfortunatly not my site but I am doing some skins for them.

Actually Doomgaze, I was a part of a team who were one of the first web design outfits to embrace Flash and use it in mainstream websites. Unfortunately, the lack of users with the latest version of the Flash plugin always caused problems for us, and we ended up with a good number of disgruntled clients who didn't understand why they needed an inaccessible technology in their site.

As for your '100,000 hits a month' site, can I hazard a guess that it's a site which mainly appeals to the Internet-savvy audience who are more likely to have a desire for the latest versions of their browser? It all comes down to context. If you're creating a site which you hope will attract a broad range of viewers, you don't tailor it to the users who have the technology, you tailor it to those who don't. There's very little point in creating a website to sell a product if a large percentage of your viewers will never even be able to see the first page.

I'm by no means against the use of current technology in the appropriate context, but blindly spouting the benefits of the technology for all potential applications is both irresponsible and self-harming to a web designer.

Perhaps the root of your attitude is the fact that you're a coder and not a designer. You see everything from a purely technical point of view, and if it works for you it must work for everyone. If it doesn't work for everyone, then it's their own fault and they need to make sure their software is up to date. As a web designer, I consider myself fully versed in web standards, and having created sites for several government projects aimed at a non-technical audience I'm only too aware of the dangers of alienating potential viewers.

Anyway, sorry for hijacking your thread PixelCargo, but there's nothing that gets me more angry than a misinformed developer telling a designer how to do his job.

Ima gene have to go with grayhaze on this one. Even the tech side of web design goes well with the KISS theory. Techs and Designers are real opposites. Here at work the techies would choose win 2k over win xp. A designer... well I think you can guess