Show off your website!!

hey, what do you use to make the backgrounds (cool looking stuff)..it is flash?

I just took a litte javascript / html at school...

well, since it is sites = http://www.geocities.com/pilotace001 was done like 6 years ago... back in middleschool, using Yahoo pagebuiler...lol
 
pilotace001 said:
well, since it is sites = http://www.geocities.com/pilotace001 was done like 6 years ago... back in middleschool, using Yahoo pagebuiler...lol
Click to expand...

HAHA, boy that looks like the websites I used to build for my high school computer class. ^_^ The ghetto'ness of tripod site builder and notepad. That old thing can be seen here http://towert7.tripod.com/ (with links to the other 2 sites).

Well, I'm working on Two UMASS websites now, but they are not done yet. When I finish them, I'll make sure to post them here.
 
www.Trademasters.com - Client site - Awaiting content(my uncle :))
www.EastCoastPaintball.com - Client site (my other uncle :), and the babe on the front page is actually my new aunt :eek: )
www.EastCoastPaintball.com/dd/ - Work in progress (takes waaaaaay to long to load ATM)
www.OHSRobotics.org - Site I did for my high school robotics club, It won the regional award.
www.WireWalkerStudios.com - Web design studio I am starting shortly, has since been put on hold (Don't worry nobody goes to the site so it isn't too obvious i overshot the due date :))

Not bad for a 16 year old is it?
 
vapb400 said:
www.WireWalkerStudios.com - Web design studio I am starting shortly, has since been put on hold (Don't worry nobody goes to the site so it isn't too obvious i overshot the due date :))

Not bad for a 16 year old is it?
Click to expand...

No True Offense meant, but if you are going to start a web-design company I'd suggest you become very familar with this website: http://validator.w3.org/
as currently none of those sites Validate through. Clean code is happy code! :D
 
Very true, I only recently begun to validate all the sites, but have not updated the results. Maybe I will do that tonight. The wire walker splash site was made in less than 2 minutes so that is why it sucks so bad.

*edit* and definitely no offense taken at all, I need that type of criticism.
 
One last bit of advise: Move your CSS coding out of the file. It looks like you use Dreamweaver to generate you code, which is good, but Dreamweaver often does a lot of redudant stuff. Just make a true .css file and reference link it on your real pages.

Add this code before your </head> tag,

<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" />

/Thread de-rail :p
 
abudhu said:
One last bit of advise: Move your CSS coding out of the file. It looks like you use Dreamweaver to generate you code, which is good, but Dreamweaver often does a lot of redudant stuff. Just make a true .css file and reference link it on your real pages.

Add this code before your </head> tag,

<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" />

/Thread de-rail :p
Click to expand...
Yep on my more recent sites I have done that, all of those sites are fairly old. Thanks for the criticism. Once again, I will fix all those and do them properly. Both of those are reasons I put wire walker studios on hold, I hadn't mastered the language yet.
 
abudhu said:
No True Offense meant, but if you are going to start a web-design company I'd suggest you become very familar with this website: http://validator.w3.org/
as currently none of those sites Validate through. Clean code is happy code! :D
Click to expand...
Oh come now, Rules are made to be broken ^_^.
As long as the darn thing works and is browser independent and platform independent, its fine by me. After all, that's all you can ask of a website.
 
towert7 said:
As long as the darn thing works and is browser independent and platform independent, its fine by me. After all, that's all you can ask of a website.
Click to expand...


Hahahaha! Writing it to spec is the closest you'll come to browser and platform independent. Even then, certain browsers will still screw it up.

Now lets talk theory... let's say I'm writing a web browser from scratch, and want to do it right. What is my guiding light? W3! Now, if I write my software to work to the specification, and your page doesn't render correctly... whose fault is it?

Writing to spec ensures that both current and FUTURE browsers will render your page correctly.
 
fat-tony said:
Hahahaha! Writing it to spec is the closest you'll come to browser and platform independent. Even then, certain browsers will still screw it up.

Now lets talk theory... let's say I'm writing a web browser from scratch, and want to do it right. What is my guiding light? W3! Now, if I write my software to work to the specification, and your page doesn't render correctly... whose fault is it?

Writing to spec ensures that both current and FUTURE browsers will render your page correctly.
Click to expand...

Yea, personally im not a big fan of the validation thing (from the website design point of view)... but that's just me.

By the way, that's a nice quote you have in your sig, I really like it!
 
towert7 said:
Yea, personally im not a big fan of the validation thing (from the website design point of view)... but that's just me.

By the way, that's a nice quote you have in your sig, I really like it!
Click to expand...

Can I ask why? Writing to specification isn't any more difficult. It speaks volumes about your attention to detail, and at the same time future-proofs your code.
 
fat-tony said:
Can I ask why? Writing to specification isn't any more difficult. It speaks volumes about your attention to detail, and at the same time future-proofs your code.
Click to expand...
I think the post by [K]entor sums up my feelings. A website can work fine on diffrent OS and diffrent browsers, but still come up with errors for the W3C validator.

That is the case for me at least.
 
fat-tony said:
Can I ask why? Writing to specification isn't any more difficult. It speaks volumes about your attention to detail, and at the same time future-proofs your code.
Click to expand...

towert7 said:
I think the post by [K]entor sums up my feelings. A website can work fine on diffrent OS and diffrent browsers, but still come up with errors for the W3C validator.

That is the case for me at least.
Click to expand...

It really depends what you are trying to achieve. If you are required to build a website that meets accessibility requirements for the disabled (such as screen readers, etc), then its in your best interest to write to specification. The cleaner the code that houses the content the better screen readers work. Some states and corporates require such a thing.

It is good practice for the amataur to code in specification, but most of the time its not required. Personally I think anyone that is seriously going into the web design/development industry should be able to code something close to specification.
 
towert7 said:
I think the post by [K]entor sums up my feelings. A website can work fine on diffrent OS and diffrent browsers, but still come up with errors for the W3C validator.

That is the case for me at least.
Click to expand...

Sure. If you want to go ahead and look at the result from a google search, you'll see that the code is actually hideous. There are IMG tags with no "src" field. There are no linefeeds anywhere.

From my perspective, it's the difference between looking at some contraption that is functional but held together with duct tape, or looking at a well-assembled, beautiful assembly that the creator cares about. Looking at properly written code shows quality. If I were in the process of hiring a web designer, I'd first look at his code and see how much "love" he puts into it. It's the same as if I were getting a mechanic. If he told me (showed me) "I'm not going to fix your car right, I'm going to do a sloppy job, but it's going to work." I'd walk away.

Edit: You might also want to look at Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Quality is discussed quite a bit.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
fat-tony said:
If I were in the process of hiring a web designer, I'd first look at his code and see how much "love" he puts into it.
Click to expand...

Would you hire me:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.phipsiua.com/index.php

:D *Gloat* Took about 2.5 weeks to recode the damn thing from bottom-up. So Proud.

However, the one annoying thing about Validators, is that if you change Docu-type to format by you get so many more errors! I code to Transitional as it seems to be the most "lenient", Strict XHTML 1.0 doesn't validate for me. Because you know, there is no attribute such as "table width" :p Haha.
 
fat-tony said:
Sure. If you want to go ahead and look at the result from a google search, you'll see that the code is actually hideous. There are IMG tags with no "src" field. There are no linefeeds anywhere.

From my perspective, it's the difference between looking at some contraption that is functional but held together with duct tape, or looking at a well-assembled, beautiful assembly that the creator cares about. Looking at properly written code shows quality. If I were in the process of hiring a web designer, I'd first look at his code and see how much "love" he puts into it. It's the same as if I were getting a mechanic. If he told me (showed me) "I'm not going to fix your car right, I'm going to do a sloppy job, but it's going to work." I'd walk away.

Edit: You might also want to look at Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Quality is discussed quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's where me and you are diffrent, for sure.

~Enjoy
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
abudhu said:
Would you hire me:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.phipsiua.com/index.php

:D *Gloat* Took about 2.5 weeks to recode the damn thing from bottom-up. So Proud.

However, the one annoying thing about Validators, is that if you change Docu-type to format by you get so many more errors! I code to Transitional as it seems to be the most "lenient", Strict XHTML 1.0 doesn't validate for me. Because you know, there is no attribute such as "table width" :p Haha.
Click to expand...
That is because strict XHTML is more concentrated on css attributes instead of html. I love strict ^_____^
This is just a little thing I made for my computer specs: http://www.zeroboy.net/computer/
 
[K]entor said:
That is because strict XHTML is more concentrated on css attributes instead of html. I love strict ^_____^
This is just a little thing I made for my computer specs: http://www.zeroboy.net/computer/
Click to expand...

Interesting. My website only has 4 errors under Strict. However, going back to the point at hand, so in the case of one of the errors it tells me there is no attribute width, as pertains to a table. Would that mean I would have define the attribute width via css? That seems a bit silly to me. I suppose that would mean you could just style any table you insert, correct? Nifty but no-thanks.

Also, gotta lover Opera, I have it set to identify as IE 6.0 and your site tells me I can't view it, changed opera to identify as opera and bam. Hehe, Nice.
 
abudhu said:
Interesting. My website only has 4 errors under Strict. However, going back to the point at hand, so in the case of one of the errors it tells me there is no attribute width, as pertains to a table. Would that mean I would have define the attribute width via css? That seems a bit silly to me. I suppose that would mean you could just style any table you insert, correct? Nifty but no-thanks.

Also, gotta lover Opera, I have it set to identify as IE 6.0 and your site tells me I can't view it, changed opera to identify as opera and bam. Hehe, Nice.
Click to expand...
Wait, I just tested using width in a table and using 1.0 strict and it validated.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline
http://kentor.no-ip.com/table.php
 
The validator is a bit sketchy sometimes. It'll spit out some invalid code, which in fact isn't invalid. The cause of the error can sometimes be attributed to some bad code that has no relations to the invalid code detected.
 
Huh, thats neat. I will have to read up on how Strict Validation works some time in the future, should give me something to do after all.

Any ways, this thread went some-what off-topic. People post your websites!
 
synergyo1 said:
http://www.etoeto.com

I started designing and coding the page just 2 days ago. Only one page is up. Tell me what you think. The coding and comments is inconsistant atm, but I'll fix it when I am done tweaking. Please excuse the poor grammer.
Click to expand...

looks a bit similar to HicksDesign but i like it so far. Content is a little too wide though.
 
that madpaintballer one looks pretty nice, and the tunign one looks like it has alot of potential
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top