New website - testing please

[torstan]

Hi. So I've finally built myself a website that can be found here:
http://www.fantasticmaps.com/

I'd be very grateful for any testing people could do on different web browers (I have firefox and IE but noe of the safari, netscape, chrome etc). Any thoughts, broken links, spelling errors or other screw ups gratefully appreciated.

Also, I need a logo that goes with the name. So far I am drawing a blank!

[Gandwarf]

I am missing your picture in the "About" section

[Gamerprinter]

Because my IE exploded at work, I've been using Sea Monkey, which is a derivative of Netscape - it works fine on that browser. I checked all the links, read the pages for spelling errors and didn't notice any.

Nice job, simple site layout - black background, white text is pretty standard for artistic sites, though not my favorite. I prefer white background, black text, so things can be read easier, but then that's more generic. I can understand why you wouldn't want that.

GP

PS: logo wise, I see using some of your more elegant font label styles for a map with a closeup of your maps as a background - that would work, unless you're looking for something more unique.

[torstan]

Thanks for the check and the thoughts. I'm going to doodle with a few ideas this afternoon.

As for the black background I wanted a background that would show off the pictures, and white's a bit harsh for that.

[Greason Wolfe]

From an aesthetics point of view, I think it looks nice. Not too cluttered and easy to navigate. The coloring works well given the nature of the site and there's no javascript/java/flash involved. A definite plus in my book. The roll-overs are subtle and everything seems to resize properly for those of us with vision problems. Nicely done.

On the technical side of things, there are a few mark-up errors as well as a few parsing errors in your CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...m%2Findex.html

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...m%2Findex.html

But nothing that I can tell is going to cause any major problems in most modern browsers, though I, like you, tend to stick with Firefox and IE.

All in all, is good to see. Once I settle a few issues here at home, I'm gonna start rebuilding my web-sites. I mean, it isn't like I don't have enough on my table as it is, right?

GW

[Turgenev]

On the technical side of things, there are a few mark-up errors as well as a few parsing errors in your CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...m%2Findex.html

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...m%2Findex.html

These errors are minor mistakes that can be put to right easy enough. If you need any help, drop me a line torstan. This is one of my specialties.

[Greason Wolfe]

These errors are minor mistakes that can be put to right easy enough. If you need any help, drop me a line torstan. This is one of my specialties.

Heh. I figured they were probably just typing errors. I'm notorious for doing things like that in the process of writing mark-up and css and then pull my hair out trying to find them. Certainly not my specialty, though, so I'm glad there's someone here that can help our man Torstan out with these things better than I'd be able to.

GW

[Turgenev]

Heh. I figured they were probably just typing errors. I'm notorious for doing things like that in the process of writing mark-up and css and then pull my hair out trying to find them. Certainly not my specialty, though, so I'm glad there's someone here that can help our man Torstan out with these things better than I'd be able to.

The other thing to take into account with validation is errors often have a cascading effect. It might say there are 11 errors, but when you go into the code and fix a couple mistakes at the top of the code and then re-validate, it can then pass.

I've done typos in my code in the past and I've scratched my head trying to figure out why a site isn't validating only to look and see that I transposed a couple letters somewhere in the code (for example, typing ahref instead of a href). The http://validator.w3.org/ site is invaluable as a resource.

The top two reasons why a validated site is a good idea are:
* It means the code is correct and will allow better browser cross-platform capability (it will work on more than one type of browser). Sites dedicated to just one type of browser could potentially ignore/alienate future viewers/clients.
* A site will validated code will have an edge against a site with errors in the search engine game. New sites can take a little while to get listed in Google (the regular estimates are anywhere between 3 - 8 months depending on how competitive the topic is). So having a well written site will get you listed quicker and often at higher listings than a non-validated site. Course there are many variables involved in this process so being weak in one area may balance out with a stronger showing in another area.

[torstan]

Thanks a lot guys, that's a full website education right there! I'll work through those points to make this more solid. My challenge right now is to get above the current freelance mapper that comes up in Google when I search for fantastic maps (I shall not link him here as that will only increase the task ahead...)

That's really useful. Rep to you both, and I'll make sure I spread some around so I can rep you again Turgenev when you put your castle in the finally finished section.

[Gamerprinter]

Everything, Turgenev mentioned exists on the Gamer-Printshop.com site as well, didn't mention it, as its been so long since I applied them to the site. I did all that at site creation and pretty much haven't touched the site since (notice those broken links...)

Strange, but once I placed the keyword-optimized pages up, the Robots.txt and the XML file, in 24 hours gamer-printshop.com was at the top of the search engines and have stayed there ever since, with no post-build optimization applied at all.

So its probably wise to do all the TG says, it worked for my site!

GP