Browser check please

  • The header image is far too low-resolution for my liking.
  • Created using a WYSIWYG editor; as a result, the code is horribly malformed and does not conform to the W3C standards which exist to promote long-term growth of the web, accessibility and cross-browser compatibility. The site has potential accessibility problems as a result and is most likely in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act.
  • Aesthetically, I think the colour scheme is effective if a little bland. I do generally like the layout although the page is somewhat cluttered. I also feel that the header image should be at the very top of the page, above the login bar etc.
  • Displays (I assume) correctly in Firefox 1.5 (which is the only visual browser I have access to on this computer.)
  • Goes without saying that it creates problems for those who use text-only browsers out of choice or disability. I have tested the site in Lynx, and the lack of semantic coding, alternative text for images etc. causes collosal accessibility issues.

I may be called an elitist for doing so, but I'd strongly recommend that you learn HTML and CSS: you clearly have an eye for a good design, but simply being able to know how to create effective designs is somewhat worthless if the execution of the coding of page in question is not semantic, standards-compliant or appropriate: deeming it inaccessible to a number of users.
 
Its all been hand coded :confused:

Its not a CMS ive wrote it all myself.

The Roaddhogg said:

  • I may be called an elitist for doing so, but I'd strongly recommend that you learn HTML and CSS:
Click to expand...


  • That comment actually made me LOL, sorry but ive been writing websites for years. I must say that im probably a CSS Guru tbh, and as for not being able to write html, whats that supposed to mean?

    Paul ...
 
Last edited:
Can't find any security flaws per se—you seem to have magic quotes turned on—but there were a couple of things I noticed:

Make a whitelist of acceptable image folders (this would recursively include forever if it wasn't for the re-defining of functions!):

http://www.the-reviewer.co.uk/index.php?pic=1&folder=.&page=index&format=ps3

Sanitise (i.e. intval() for ints) user input:

http://www.the-reviewer.co.uk/index.php?page=reviews-full&id="
http://www.the-reviewer.co.uk/index.php?page=consoles&format="

Either throw a user-friendly error or make a default format if the given format for reviews is invalid:

http://www.the-reviewer.co.uk/index.php?page=consoles&letter=d&format=x

Same with other stuff; you need to make things nice when people enter invalid data:

http://www.the-reviewer.co.uk/index.php?page=view-developers-games&id=x

Good work though :)
 
Last edited:
Erm, your headers are Images. CSS guru you say? ;)

I'll post a picture of what it looks like in safari asap.
 
Last edited:
You hand coded in

Code: 
<!--DWLayoutTable-->
?

It's very plain and it's too wide. That big image at the top should be on rotation as it's not all that nice as it is.

All these new consoles boast about the quality of graphics and I think your interface fails to reflect that excitement.
 
SherberT* said:
Erm, your headers are Images. CSS guru you say? ;)

I'll post a picture of what it looks like in safari asap.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that screenshot, its hard to please everyone with every browser, every designer knows that!

And i prefered to do the headers as images ;)

paulsheff said:
You hand coded in

Code: 
<!--DWLayoutTable-->
?
Click to expand...

Ok maybe i used DW to draw up a few tables ;) everything else has been hand wrote though.

Paul ...
 
Thesnipergecko said:
Thanks for that screenshot, its hard to please everyone with every browser, every designer knows that!

And i prefered to do the headers as images ;)



Ok maybe i used DW to draw up a few tables ;) everything else has been hand wrote though.

Paul ...
Click to expand...

Tables? CSS Guru? Tut tut.

Someones telling porkies. :p
 
Thesnipergecko said:
That comment actually made me LOL, sorry but ive been writing websites for years. I must say that im probably a CSS Guru tbh, and as for not being able to write html, whats that supposed to mean?

Paul ...
Click to expand...

I fail to find any humour in my first post whatsoever. When I see Dreamweaver comments left within one's coding, which is a clear sign a WYSWIYG editor has been used at one stage or another, you'll forgive me for assuming that the whole page was created in it. Never-the-less, my point still stands. Your HTML does not even validate to 4.01 Transitional as is declared in your doctype; you have used inappropriate character encoding for your page's content; your website is clearly inaccessible to those who are less fortunate than ourselves; and, to say that you are a self-proclaimed CSS "guru", you seem to fall short of understanding the fundamental basis for using CSS alongside HTML: in that HTML is for content, and CSS for dictating all presentation; not to mention the fact that you need to fall back on a WYSIWG to provide you with simple markup.
 
First of all good work mate. I won't mention the good stuff, you know what you like :)

Got a couple of gripes though. Firstly, what does the site actually do? Why should somebody visit your site? To me, it's not clear at all what the website actually does until you examine the content. Therein lies the second gripe, which is the confusing front page. I know, if you actually skim the headings you can figure out whats going on, but the first few seconds are very important. I think some people might be overwhelmed, as it all seems to be of equal importance. Maybe make certain bits more prominent - the left side boxes could be a different colour perhaps to draw attention.

The header is blurry, give it a bit more KB'age. It's nice to limit things slightly for slow connections, but things have to move on eventually. I would make "The Reviewer" more prominent, and add something to help identify the site, a little bit of text to summarise what exactly it does.

Last thing, the white gap at the very top is too big on opera (a real browser :) ). Sorry, that dragged on a bit :rolleyes:

And rob, nice finds mate :D

Roaddhogg - relax dude, he used dreamweaver for tables. Can't really blame him, writing <table> <tr> <td> ... etc is tedious eh?
 
Thesnipergecko said:
Thanks for that screenshot, its hard to please everyone with every browser, every designer knows that!
Click to expand...

Actually, using semantic and valid (X)HTML and CSS coding makes it is incredibly easy to achieve successful cross-browser compatibility. That is, with every browser which supports the appropriate W3C standards. Unfortunately, as we all know, this excludes IE (I can't comment on IE7 as I don't have the means to download it); but it is a hell of a lot easier to make you code fully standards-compliant so that it will work in all KHTML/Gecko browsers and similar; then, if absolutely necessary, create appropriate hacks etc. for IE. Catering to one browser or screen resolution is never a good idea.

Thesnipergecko said:
And i prefered to do the headers as images ;)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I only just realised that you actually did this now. Not only have you made the fundemental flaw of excluding alternative text for these header images - which means that they won't even be rendered in text-only browsers or if, for whatever reason, the images are removed - but their very existence is unnecessary as using CSS and text would have been able to create exactly the same effect, cutting down on total page size and loading time.

I implore you to learn how to code appropriate, standards-compliant and semantic markup: this is a friendly suggestion which will undoubtedly effect the quality of your sites.
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
Borders would look better if they were a few px smaller imo :)

It also fails validation: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...ically)&doctype=Inline&ss=1&verbose=1&No200=1
Click to expand...

every site seem to have masses of errors using the validation check LOL bbc.co.uk has 45 etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom