Pipboy wrote:Its been tested on different browers and worked fine.
Not on all browsers, though. Writing valid HTML is the only real guarantee that other users can actually read what you've put together.
Pipboy wrote:Its is valid html
The validator is by the W3C, the guys who created the HTML standard in the first place. If their validator says what you've done is not valid HTML, it isn't valid HTML.
Pipboy wrote:as its a template i didnt code the template.
Then you've either used the template wrong or the template itself is broken. Or both.
Moreover, while you do have alt-attributes to your images, they're always empty. Not good. They're there to serve as a describtion should the image not be available for some reason. And for visually impaired people, who are dependant on screen readers and braille lines.
And yes, I'm aware that I'm being pedantic here, but these things are important. And you did ask for reviews, after all.
I ment game reviews not reviews on the site itself. And as long as most people can view thats all i care about to be honest.
marticus wrote:<st1:place w:st="on"> and <o:p> </o:p> make me think that this was coded using *ugh* MS Word
Edit: Oh, and pointing to a css on your computer doesn't work so well for everyone else <link rel="stylesheet" href="file:///C%7C/Documents%20and%20Settings/Compaq_Owner/My%20Documents/Pointandclick/New%20Folder%20%282%29/css/site.css">
Wasnt coded using Word i copyed my text from word.
Pipboy wrote:And as long as most people can view thats all i care about to be honest.
I don't think you care about that either. Having badly formed HTML will increase the chance of it being not rendered in a readable state and most people simply skip over sites that don't work too well.
I will say from my own experience that people usually get too hung up on validator's result. Having said that you've got quite a few novice errors that are simple to correct.
As for the site itself, I don't see a need for yet another review site when there are quite a few very good ones already.
MusicallyInspired wrote:Especially not one without valid HTML code when all the others do.
Its been tested on IE, firefox, safari,Aol and bt internet. and works fine on all off them and there the most common ones. So instead of actuly looking at the site you alot just went on it and started viewing the source. Picking holes in it great help that is thanks. Instead of being idiots and saying whatr wrong with it help me make it right.
MusicallyInspired wrote:Especially not one without valid HTML code when all the others do.
Its been tested on IE, firefox, safari,Aol and bt internet. and works fine on all off them and there the most common ones. So instead of actuly looking at the site you alot just went on it and started viewing the source. Picking holes in it great help that is thanks. Instead of being idiots and saying whatr wrong with it help me make it right.
There is no simple answer to your query, as the main problem is that you don't know HTML. You need to start learning HTML in order to understand what's wrong with your page. Check here, for example: http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp
My knowledge of HTML is seriously out of date, but the bit about <link rel="stylesheet" href="file:///C%7C/ ..."> seems pretty clear:
An URL specifies both a protocol (how to access it) and an address (where to access it). In this case, the protocol is file which refers to a file on the viewer's local disk. That works for you, because you have that file on your hard disk. It probably won't work for me, since I don't.
I assume you have to upload the file so that you can access it by http instead, just like the rest of the page.
Even if you feel these people are being pedantic when saying the HTML should validate, and that the majority of users will not notice, you should really get someone to proofread the site: there are lots of spelling errors, including the one in the title of this page, that users will notice. Nothing is better for instilling mistrust than obvious errors...
Well, mixnmojo.com just talks about LA games - a bit thin. There are so many recent point and click adventures, and none of those sites is reporting about current games.
But just to show how a good adventure site looks like, check www.adventure-treff.de or www.adventurecorner.de. Sorry that thse sites are in German, but I cannot think about any good English site right now.
Pipboy wrote:
MusicallyInspired wrote:Especially not one without valid HTML code when all the others do.
Its been tested on IE, firefox, safari,Aol and bt internet. and works fine on all off them and there the most common ones. So instead of actuly looking at the site you alot just went on it and started viewing the source. Picking holes in it great help that is thanks. Instead of being idiots and saying whatr wrong with it help me make it right.
Have you tested it on Opera, Sea Monkey (especially for Monkey Island fans), Konqueror, Chrome, and, most important of all, Lynx?
Nikioko wrote:Have you tested it on Opera, Sea Monkey (especially for Monkey Island fans), Konqueror, Chrome, and, most important of all, Lynx?
To be honest, a lot of web site admins out there haven't tested their sites under lynx... But well-behaved websites should show up correctly under all major web browsers (i.e. Firefox, IE, Opera, Chrome and Safari)
Look iots free site if the codeing is shit i dont care it looks fine on all the most popular browers and i do no html but like i said its a free site im not making it for anyone so i dont care really.
spookypeanut wrote:Even if you feel these people are being pedantic when saying the HTML should validate, and that the majority of users will not notice, you should really get someone to proofread the site: there are lots of spelling errors, including the one in the title of this page, that users will notice. Nothing is better for instilling mistrust than obvious errors...
What error in the title?
Last edited by Pipboy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fuck sake why you all going on about this the site looks fine. i didnt ask anyone to look through the source and tell me whats wrong with it did i, so just drop it the lot of you.
Last edited by Pipboy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well, sorry to break this to you, but quite a large amount of websites out there is free/ad based. Also, all the major adventure game websites out there are are free. If you don't care for your website and don't want to learn how to improve it, don't expect people to treat it seriously
md5 wrote:Well, sorry to break this to you, but quite a large amount of websites out there is free/ad based. Also, all the major adventure game websites out there are are free. If you don't care for your website and don't want to learn how to improve it, don't expect people to treat it seriously
no one is telling me how to improve it thats what i said earlier everyone just saying "oh your html shit" "you cant spell" no on is helping atall.
