nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

My Website

^whitey^

Planning to do a bit of work on my website once I finish my exams.

I realise that alot of the code isn't efficient (I dont really know HTML that well)

Anyway just looking for some constructive criticism on any partof the site.

www.csnmc.com

Cheers

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cgarvey

Opions..

- Consider not using frames
- Consider not useing "tacky" elements like the changing title bar, and scrolling text, they attract attention and contain no useful information.
- Consider lining up the content with the title/banner graphic. I know the graphic is centred WRT the content and navigation menu, but it still looks out of place.. maybe extend it to go from left of menu to the right of content.
- Consider the Red colour used in lines and hrefs.. it looks a bit harsh against your soft blues.

.. thats it .. will be a nice site with a few small touch ups.

.cg

Terminator

Some great photos there. The liverpool bags brought a tear to my eyes.

buddy

Consider aligning your text:

<p align="justify">

Originally posted by buddy
Consider aligning your text:

<p align="justify">

Justified text on the web is pretty crap, and is harder to read.

^whitey^

Thanks cgarvey will take them into pieces of advice into account.
I used frames cause I thought it was the eaisiest way for me to update the site.

What would be a better option?

I hear some people saying tables are the new frames ... but what advantage do they have over frames.

^whitey^

That guy on the right with the red top was one of the crew up evererst last year

cgarvey

Originally posted by ^whitey^
I used frames cause I thought it was the eaisiest way for me to update the site.

What would be a better option?

It depends what you use to author the site .. FrontPage, Dreamweaver and the likes usually have the ability to use common headers/footers.

Alternatively you could use SSI (Server side includes) and use a <!--#include file="menu.htm"> in each page.. but I'm not sure if IoL's webspace supports SSIs.

One thing to note though, if you do move away from frames, then investigate not using a table to display your navigation and content sections (as this will make it slower to render on some browsers)... use <div>'s instead.

I suggested not using frames because, while you are correct in saying that it is easier to maintain, it can cause problems with spiders (and particularly people linking directly to the page listed in the search engine results, and therefore losing the frames structure, and having no menu, etc.) , you are also limiting what browsers can access your site (although, its clearly a minority that don't support frames)... oh and its a personal preference.

One advantage to moving away from frames is that it makes it a lot easier to show state or presence on your navigation menu (so that if the user is on the Contact page, the contact menu item might be highlighted, or differentiated in some way).

However, in your case you have a couple of disadvantages too. That being it'll mean more work now and it will make linking to the external boards site no longer appear to be part of the site.

Your use of frames is fine, and correct, don't get me wrong.. its just I see advantages in not using them.

HTH

.cg

cgarvey

Originally posted by cgarvey
However, in your case you have a couple of disadvantages too. That being it'll mean more work now and it will make linking to the external boards site no longer appear to be part of the site.

I see you don't put the boards into the frameset anyway, so the latter point above won't apply.

.cg

^whitey^

Thanks I'll look into SSI.

The search engine problem can be very annoying when you work hard to promote the site.

All part of learning I suppose.

Cheers.

cgarvey

Originally posted by ^whitey^
All part of learning I suppose.

That's the spirit!
.cg