Web Hosting Talk : Advertising Forums : Community Reviews : Web Site Reviews : New Host - Please Review - Opinions Appreciated

[RedPCSystems]

Well, I got sick of looking at all these ultra high tech sites with flashy servers that all looked more or less the same. So I decided to go a different approach, something stylish, professional, yet light on the graphics and such. The result is here:

www.redpcsystems.com

Let me know what you think. Any opinions and constructive criticism are appreciated. Feel free to comment on anything from the layout to my plans.

Just some notes: I made the layout from scratch using notepad, and coded the site myself using php. There are only 4 or 5 images used on the site besides the footer and they all came from free galleries.

Let me know, thanks

EDIT: I'd also be interested in browser compatibility. I only had a chance to check it in IE, Firefox and Safari

[l3vi]

It looks okay. I personally like the high tech look, but this actually looks really nice. I would open up that image of the building at touch it up in photoshop a bit. Maybe add brighter colours, and tone down some of the glares. The logo also looks too dull. The menu is in a nice spot, but just seems somewhat n00bish. Overall, it is nice, but maybe add more graphics in there, just to give it some eye candy

[RedPCSystems]

I agree about the logo, and I'll work on that later, but eye candy is the exact thing I hate :p

[CybexHost]

Only part I could see improvement would be the logo. I like the simple and clean design and I'm sure many prospective customers will!

[RedPCSystems]

Thanks, working on it as we speak!

[4ulyrics]

Yeah the site is really great . I will such easy , clean and easy to navigate sites . Good job and I agree with them, I mean the logo is not that much appealing and you can make it better and better .

[theSpear]

RedPC Systems.. then a blue website.. weird.
long load time..
nice other than that.
Red is in your company name, but there is not a drop of red on the mainpage. (weird? yes)

[crucialx]

You may want to add sans-serif as one of the alternative fonts for those who are running linux.

[RedPCSystems]

Red is supposed to be an acronym :p

Load time shouldn't be long... I checked pings from all accross the world and all were under 100ms

[l3vi]

I just looked at code
I dont know if you want the code critiqued or not, but I am going to anyways

1. You are using a somewhat old Doctype, XHTML 1.0 is a better one
2. Instead of defining stylesheets inside the document, use an external one. This helps your code/content ratio, and actually lowers load times
3. 0 indentions. It is best if you include intentions, to help you when re-scripting it
4. Tables... tables=bad, especially for viewers on mobile phones, etc. Tables are old, and bad code, unless of course, they are being used for tabular data. I have finally found proof that what I say is true: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html
5. Get rid of font tags, b tags, i tags, and any other tags that you can define in an external stylesheet. And all tags should be lowercase, not uppercase.
6. All (excluding menu's and things like that) should be encased in <p></p> tags
7. Read www.w3.org information for more information on what you can fix, and run your page through validator.w3.org

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...pcsystems.com/

You have 74 errors

Edit: I just realized something... I use too many smilies

[RedPCSystems]

I write my code raw in Notepad and I could care less what w3 says, or the proper way to code a website. The site loads fine on virtually every existing browser. Tables? What am I supposed to use instead, they are the CORE of all websites. And it really doesn't matter if I make tags lower case or uppercase. Also code is easier for me to read without intendations believe it or not.

On the table issue, It's safe to say 95% of all websites are designed with tables, including WHT, which has more tables than I care to count. Tables aren't bad, they're flexible, and cross browser compatible. A site made of tables will show up fine even on IE 1.0 which doesn't support stuff like overlays.

Oh, and btw, the style sheet is a php include so it actually is an external file. And besides all that, i, b, and u tags exist for a reason, a Q&D way to make something stand out or for last minute modifications.

How would that be better code btw? Example:
<B>This text is bold using old method</B>
<font class=bold2>This text is bold using new method</font>

That's considerably more code needed to attain the same end.

Finally, the P tag is called the paragraph for a reason, it's used to format text. Why you would use it for anything else is beyond me.

EDIT: I checked up on the W3 thing. A lot of the errors are because I don't use quotes. But some of the errors are just plain stupid to me, like "required attribute "ALT" not specified". Since when is ALT a required attribute? And will it really make a difference if I put ALT="" or simply leave it out?

[the_pm]

I write my code raw in Notepad and I could care less what w3 says, or the proper way to code a website.

That's a shame. Browsers at least attempt to follow W3 specifications, so not caring about them could result in a very broken site when the next wave of browsers hit the market. Deprecated, misconstructed elements will not enjoy browser support forever. Heck, the <font> tag hasn't existed as a part of HTML since 1999!

The site loads fine on virtually every existing browser.

On virtually every browser you tested. What happens, for example, if someone needs larger fonts to be able to view your site? Your code prevents them from making the necessary adjustments (at least in old crappy browsers like IE). Happens all the time with people who have even mild visual impairments, are elderly (I have three 65+ yr. old clients myself) or are using special configurations in public places, such as libraries and Internet cafes. That's just one possible example. If you code properly, all of these considerations disappear. You'll never know who you're losing, because they can't (or won't bother) to tell you. Why purposely code something badly knowing it will result in people not being able to use your site? Doesn't make sense...

Tables? What am I supposed to use instead, they are the CORE of all websites.

Tables are fine, they are quite common, and in most cases perform as expected, but it's worth pointing out many newer sites are moving away from them. Just FYI when considering future projects.

And it really doesn't matter if I make tags lower case or uppercase.

Perfectly fine for HTML. If you ever consider going to XHTML, expect to switch to lowercase. But yes, in HTML, this is a matter of personal preference. Nothing wrong here.

Also code is easier for me to read without intendations believe it or not.

That would drive me nutty! But again, if this is what you're most comfortable doing, by all means do it!

[RedPCSystems]

I'd have to agree with you on most points pm, besides the text resize ability, I purposely constructed the site to have a locked-in text size, of course only later did I find out that Mozilla and many other browsers don't care for such things. But I'll consider it in the future

[the_pm]

Well, I'm definitely in favor of your design approach toward making things simpler and not trying to "Flash" up a site. Strictly from a visual standpoint, it's really quite nice.

Yes, Opera (my browser of choice) laughs at fixed text sizes as well. Using percentages or em instead will allow your text to be displayed at the size you want it to be seen for almost all users, but the few who need larger text will thank you for not disabling this feature in their browser. IMHO, fixed text has about the same effect as plugging in a script that disables the browser's Help Menu. It just takes away expect interaction from the user. That's my .02

I really, really like your concepts - very refreshing!