Website Criticism (Part II)

[Spiffyness]

I have recently created a brand new template for team 810. It loads twice as fast as our old site, and is a bit for organized. Tell me what you think:

http://shsrobotics.vze.com

Thanks a bunch!

-Spiffy

[evulish]

Wow. Looks great. Fast, sleek, and simple. That's what I like to see. I like the layout alot! I don't see anything wrong with it Nice work.

[AJ Quick]

I like it.. but not necessarily as much as the other one.

[jonathan lall]

That's not very nice. The site looks great, but I can't view the source. Or right-click for that matter.

[Jack]

Originally posted by jonathan lall
That's not very nice. The site looks great, but I can't view the source. Or right-click for that matter.

Well... I can view some source

PHP Code:

<!-- This page is Encrypted with WebPage Protect Pro (v:1) --> 


Personally, I think that's a little over the top. I'll have to agree, I like to right-click to open some new windows sometimes, and I get a little angry when ppl have some JS that doesn't allow that.

I'd also have to say that the biggest sites don't have protection, not to mention that what you have isn't that hard to break. But... If you think that your design is that valueble (sp?) then go ahead and do what you like.

Other than all that, nice simple, but good styled design. Loads quick on my 56k which is a '+'.

[Yan Wang]

People dislike websites with 'encoding'. Yours is sooo simple that my webbrowser and (my stuff) shows it anyway... I mean, it's also a pain for other teams to copy your text in case they wish to post something up or whatever. Unless you're worried about someone stealing your html format, it's useless and a noob mistake at making a good website. The layout, however, is very nice.

[evulish]

Wow...didn't notice that encoding stuff. That's pretty lame.

[apk]

limiting your viewing audience

what about the viewers who do not have javascript enabled?
they get a blank page.

[Stephen Kowski]

nice and clean.....your javascript stuff doesn't do anything in opera just case you wanted to know. second that isn't really too much encryption since all the original code is just mashed together with random characters.

[Raven_Writer]

the page is not actually encrypted. In fact, it would be way to easy to fix it, since it just adds 0a or whatever to every '<', '>', and others. I wouldn't really worry about protecting a good site, I'd worry about getting the content for a good site.

[activemx]

exactly

nice and simple site. Though protecting your scource is pointless.
People usually have no intesnsion to steal code from sites. Even if they do you site is beyond simple and doesnt not have any complex code. There is no javascript apart from ut js encoding script, which can easily be breached. I have a of experiance with Js and there are some pretty good methods of pretecting your JS through httpaccess though its still pretty pointless. Its also a pain for the end user if they cant view the scource easily.

[Raven_Writer]

I feel it's more of a privilage having someone take your code. That person feels that it's good enough to use. Even if they're just doing it because they're lazy, they are still using it.

[AJ Quick]

My biggest qualm, is that it is designed for 640 X 480.

Most everyone that is now using the internet is viewing atleast 800X600, or 1024x768.

I have a good 400 pixels of empty space when viewing it.

[HFWang]

Perhaps make the table layout more fluid... What you did could actually have been done in just CSS and thus would probably end up making more sense syntactically as well as being able to resize easily to everyone's resolution. Add that to the fact that editing your CSS can quite often give you a whole new site....

[Aaron Knight]

I'd say it's a great site design, just needs a little bit of tweaking:
For one, the site in general loads very quickly, but then loading a 4 meg flash file is not. I'm not on dialup, but even so it was taking way longer than the average viewer will have the patience for.
However, overall, the site is very well designed.
And in response to those talking about ditching 640x480 - that STILL is the standard for the vast majority of web browsers (the people, not the browser...). It's best to play it safe, and 640x480 res is perfectly fine. Looked fine on my screen, and I'm at 1152x870...

Again, great design...

Aaron Knight
Webmaster, Team 891
(Our temp. MIRROR: <first891.topcities.com>)
acknight@tirebiter.net