http://ddd.simplifiedimpact.com/

This is a website for a law firm based in Cork, Ireland. I've deliberately used DDD throughout and removed some alt attributes so that search engines could not relate it with this site.
It looks as though they want to take this design - but already have another designer who is charging astronomical prices. Basically - they're caught up in a contract with him and can't just say they don't like his.

Would like opinions on design and code. I think both are okay really.

The design is only one page at the moment.

Thanks,
Ed.

This post has been edited by Vivara: Jul 2 2008, 12:26 PM

nice i like it good design havn't looked at code couse i reli cant be bothered right now lol but design is nice n fresh n is making me feel a lil happyer *looks at screen with a grin*

Let me start by saying the site looks very nice, but since I am not a designer I will comment on your coding practices which are weak.

Let's start by looking at the following bit of code from your site.



The <br /> tag should be used to enter blank lines, NOT to separate paragraphs or sentences in your case.

I would like to also recommend that you display your logo through the use of CSS instead of placing it in the structure of the document. I say this because currently you have the logo placed in the <h1> as an img. The <h1> is a very powerful tag as far as search engines are concerned, and you could be placing keywords and terms that will help the sites search engine rankings. This is a very small and simple change that should help you out a lot.

Continuing on I would recommend you rethink the names of your divs and classes. (e.g. logo could be branding, and "<li class="one"></li>" could be class="active"?)

Structurally I feel you have went overboard with the use of <div>'s.



The problem is you are adding <div>'s left and right to style your page. The <div> tag defines a division/section in a document. You should not be adding them just to give you more hooks to grab with CSS. Here are just a few <div>'s that were added solely to style the site.



Your site is very nice, just needs a little bit of work! Good Luck!

Hmmh.

The <br />s are from the cms (cmsfromscratch), which is odd. Never had that problem before. Will have a look into it. They are certainly not added by me.

What would you suggest with the <div>s Jacob? I need the 'content' div, but come to think of it - could do away with the 'topcontent' and 'bottomcontent' <div>s. To be honest, it was quite a rush job trying to get it in so I can see where I made these errors. I wouldn't say I went overboard though, which is clearly an overstatement. <div>s are semantically neutral.

I'm usually one to admit things, but my coding skills are not weak at the slightest. This is the first website I've done since before Christmas so I've gotten a bit rusty in this time and actually strugled to remember how to do things! I do see my errors though.

The debate on the image in the <h1> tag was one I recently had at WebForumz. It's merely speculation that search engines consider alt attributes to be less important due to keyword stuffing. The W3C recommended way is of course to do what I did - and there are huge disadvantages to other CSS methods (Involving Images Off, CSS On, which is more popular than you think). If search engines do consider alt attributes to be less important, it's likely that they take into account the size of the image, and the amount of words that are 'supposed' to be contained.

I've never ever heard someone comment on class and id names and I actually find it quite laughable.

EDIT: The <br />s were from the rich text editor in the cms. The client had been messing about.

Ed.

This post has been edited by Vivara: Jul 2 2008, 02:30 PM

The design is nice. Suitable for a law firm.


An <h1> should not hold an image is what Jacob was saying. H1's are headings for text (originated from print). They weigh heavily in search engines therefore should be used for text. Putting an image in an h1 is pointless. An image is better off in a div.

Not much else to comment on since it's a very simple design. Good luck.. hope you get to use it!

Ahhh, CMS error makes since now.



Perhaps I've explained things wrong yet again. I'm not suggesting you get rid of the content <div>. What I am suggesting is that you get rid of the unneeded <div>'s that hold no value to your documents structure. They were placed there to allow you to style the page with CSS, that's not what the <div> tag is for. The <div> tag defines a division/section in a document. (Branding, Footer, Content, Header....etc.) You shouldn't be adding them just to allow you to have more hooks to grab at with CSS. (<div id="topcontent">, <div class="left">, <div class="right">, <div id="bottomcontent">, <div class="left">, <div class="right2">)

To achieve the effect of getting the image aligned to the right or left you could add a class to the image, instead of placing the image within it's own <div>. That image is not it's own division/section of the site. It's just an image within the content section. Get the picture? If not, I'll try to explain it again for ya.





Ahhh, that makes since. I know how you feel, when ever I spend time away from coding, I often find myself looking up attributes and tags that I should know...hehe.



Linda covered this one!~



Well, glad I made you laugh.

When using class names to hook into CSS it's not a generally thought of as a good idea to give elements class names like 'bigblue' or 'width40' although, depressingly, I've seen it done! This is definitely an abuse of class names – its not a 'bigblue' its a 'price'.

First, I think this looks really good. Fresh, but with a touch of formality -- a little class befitting a solicitor.

I think you lost a </div> somewhere (see the validator).



Markup-purist nonsense.

<div>s are semantically neutral. They serve no purpose other than styling/scripting hooks; and on this site, there's hardly any <div>s. Let me show you some of my code:



There is absolutely nothing wrong with that code, except that it looks ugly and somewhat hinders source-code legibility. Those <div>s are purely presentational: they allow multiple CSS backgrounds. Markup is not art; you don't get brownie points for elegance. <div>s should be used for styling and scripting hooks; and a few "unnecessary" <div>s can make your code much easier to maintain.

I use <div>s like they're going out of fashion. I won't hesitate to sprinkle nested <div>s around my pages whenever it's convenient for me; and I have yet to encounter a good argument against this practice.

Div-mania is different. Div-mania is about using <div>s for everything, even when other markup, such as a list or heading, would be more meaningful.



That's correct. Much received wisdom about search engines is mere speculation (and much of it is ridiculous). The most accessible method is what you've used: an image with alt text.

Nevertheless, I think there is a moderate probability that alt text is weighted much lower than plain <h1> text (my feeling is that this is about 30% likely).

There are numerous image-replacement systems, but almost all of them fail badly with "CSS on, images off". I use Gilder-Levin, which is almost perfectly accessible. See this excellent overview of image-replacement methods.



I agree wholeheartedly. My article on semantics covers this point; class and id names are purely for the benefit of the coder, and make no difference to users. Choosing a good name can make your code easier to maintain, but that's all.



<br> should be used to indicate a deliberate (meaningful) line break, which is not quite the same thing as a blank line.

The canonical example for using <br> is between lines of a poem.

Oh, I forgot to mention:

I think your text could benefit from some leading (line spacing). I would also increase the text size at least slightly, as it is very small (I understand this lends a certain classy look too. It's a compromise).

Just a thought: would the page look better with some gap at the bottom (to let the blue background show)? You have background space around the top and both sides, but none at the bottom. I have the feeling that the page has been cut off.

Believe me Mike, this very problem has crossed my mind numerous times and I've tried numerous methods. I, however often use logos/headers with transparent backgrounds so the Gilder/Levin method isn't really an option. However, for sites like this, I can use it as the logo doesn't require the transparency.




I for one seem to like the cramped look (for some strange reason), but it's definitely something I will change even if it is by a small amount (which, of course can make a big difference). The text size, does, indeed give a classy look and it's design preference. I'll have a look and see what I can do though.




I actually was meant to add a footer with the unneeded copyright information, and, of course, a cheap attempt at some of my own advertising!

Ed.