Another review wanted

[Jonathan]

Looking for TAR (Yet Another Review)

Site: http://LastEntry.com
Comments: Email system for the comments page is still not working
Main contact form + rest of the site works perfectly, first time I finished
a project all the way through for this sort of thing~ so for the first time
I'll have a handy EDIT function Also got basic BBcode and emoticons from phpBB.

Need to add a note bout where I got the JS script for the BBcode from...
Also got a plan for a RSS feed but forgot bout it til just now
Plan to finish it tonight though might scrap the "email" part for the comments.

Tell me what y'all think bout it.

[sdjl]

The design looks quite nice in my opinion.
The line height of the text could be a little bigger though. It's a little hard to read small text when it's bunched together in my opinion

I've noticed that you offsite.php script doesn't actually work. It seems to refresh the page constantly, which could in some cases cause problems on peoples machines.

David

[Jonathan]

odd it was working before ?? I'll have to check into it.
I use JS to forward people after logging the URL/Afil value into MySQL.

Edit: Fixed it. Turns out I didn't include a file in there so it
didn't have the mysql user/pass/db info to make a connection.

[timg]

It's very nice looking...

...but also *very* hard to read. I got dizzy within a few seconds of looking at it, to be honest.

Of course, I'm old and running on too little sleep, but still....

[Jonathan]

...but also *very* hard to read. I got dizzy within a few seconds of looking at it, to be honest.

Of course, I'm old and running on too little sleep, but still....

Check it now, how is that? I bumped the title up 2pt
and the main content up a notch. Looks really big to me now.

[sdjl]

I prefer it at that size

[timg]

Thanks.

That's better, but I was referring more to the combination of colours - that colour of text on the dark background is just tough on the eyes.

[oldBear]

i tend to agree with timg on the color contrast.

While there are no absolutes, and i've seen very nice websites - done by professional designers - that violated the "rule of thumb", generally too little difference between the background and text makes for harder reading.

nifty little tool called "colour contrast analyser" available from

http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/contrast_analyser/index.html

that will perform a "rule of thumb" analysis.

pretty nifty site (once my eyes adjusted to it

cheers

[Jonathan]

I'll look into changing the color but to be honest blue on grey
is pretty contrasty when you think bout it. Maybe I'll go with a
more bright sort of blue to stand out even more.

[timg]

Some notes on readability....

Here are some factors on readability:

1) light text on dark background is always far harder to read than the reverse, even with the same two colours.

2) bold print in small fonts is harder to read than normal font face.

3) crowded text is harder to read.

4) sans-serif fonts are easier to read on screen than serif fonts (you're okay on this one).

I'm sure there are others, but that's a start.

Almost everyone wants to do at least one "artsy" or "cool" looking site that has light text on a dark background. That's okay, but then you need to be extra careful with other readability issues.

In your case, consider losing the bold print. Barring that, at least adjust line-height and letter-spacing with CSS so that the text isn't so crowded. There should be less effect then of the letters blurring together.

HTH.

[awpramono]

>>Copyright

It would be great if the copyright title (at the bottom) using serif font cause it more easy to read it.
Sans-serif is preferable for long text reading.
Serif it more convinience for Title, sub title, and small text size.
There should be no more than 3 type of font in one web page .
Dont pick up two similar font in a single the text to create contrast, ex. the usage Tahoma and Arial.

That all. Regards.
Awpramono

[djn]

Well done indeed, Jonathan. Kudos for writing valid code.
That said, there are a few points you may want to be aware of:
- the CSS validator objects to 'font-style: bold'. Guess it should be 'font-weight'
- on IE versions below 6 the jp.gif image falls on the next line down, probably because of box model differences (IE 5.01 SP2 and 5.5 SP2)
- on text-only browsers (tested with Links and Linx) the links to the W3C validators both display just 'W3C'. A more detailed alt text might be less ambiguous.
- your RSS feed has got some minor stuff wrong. Test it at feedvalidator.org for the details.
- HTML Tidy gives some warning about malformed URIs and non-authorized characters. I'm not sure about this, but I suspect what it wants is a %20 instead of a blank space in the mailto subjects.
My compliments again. Nice and effective.

djn