another semi web site shot to hell?
in [Design]
|
From: Frank Bemelman on 28 Sep 2006 15:02 "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> schreef in bericht news:59USg.19409$IA.15250(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Hello Frank, > > That's what I was planning to do. Some I am allowed to disclose. > Schematics are a big no-no though and I really don't want to fake > anything. Also wanted to compile the list of publications although that > usually doesn't draw much from non-academic circles. Schematics just for decoration purposes. It doesn't have to be readable. Some schematics, on your desk or computer monitor, when photographed and reduced to 200x300 pixels clearly shows a schematic, but totally unreadable. That is fine. >> The first paragraph ("It isn't possible to furnish...") is displayed >> as 3 lines and a 4th line with just one word. That is what I call >> impossible to read. Newspapers print their articles in columns, because >> otherwise they would also become unreadable. >> > > Ok, tried again. I cannot make that error happen no matter how odd I twist > the shape of the browser window. What's your browser? It's not an error, the reading area is just too wide to be comfortable. Or are you still viewing in VGA mode, 640x480? My screen is 1280 wide. If you put text in columns rather than using the entire page, it is easier to read. > Good idea, although I don't think one can cut 95% :-) 90% then ;) > The view out of my office window is very picturesque. Maybe I use that. Sounds excellent. >> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.analogconsultants.com >> > > Thanks! That is an interesting tool. Although, even ONSemi comes up with > 139 errors ... Browsers are very forgiving and fill in the blanks (errors) with default values, or just ignore parts (other errors) when it gets too fuzzy. Most of the time that works pretty well. Some errors are worse that others. The idea is to keep the reported number low ;) That w3.org checker is very strict. >> And once your website looks better, you have to make sure it can be >> found. Did you ever tried to find yourself, not using your name as >> a search parameter? >> > > I did. Google and Yahoo found it. Also lots of others. But it's certainly > not search-optimized yet. As you said elsewhere, a lot of business comes from other places. But a nice and sober website doesn't hurt and does not have to cost a fortune either. You don't have to tell your visitors everything, they won't read it anyway. Make it a bit of a teaser, one that gives an immediate rough and truthful impression in seconds, and an even better one after a couple of minutes of reading. All the extra is a waste of time, if you ask me. Just enough info to make them grab the phone, that is enough. OTH, if you're already loaded with work, there is little need to improve it. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Rich Grise on 28 Sep 2006 15:14 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:57:42 +0000, Joerg wrote: > ... > My site is more of a little stake in the ground, didn't want to have > that dreaded "under construction" sign. Word of mouth is what creates > biz for me, not advertising. I mostly need it for email and FTP > transfers. Sounds unbelievable but many companies (including some big > ones) do not have FTP capability. Sometimes they are stunned when I then > give them space on my site and it really works. Very nice for > tele-conferencing. I finally got around to viewing your source. Don't use Microsoft Word to make a web page. You can code that in raw HTML, especially with a site as lean and clean as yours: http://werbach.com/barebones/ I'd guess that the majority of errors that that checker reports are artifacts of letting Microsoft get their claws into your site. ;-) As far as catching searches, try a keywords tag in the header: <meta name="keywords" content="analog,analog design,consultant, consulting,design,[etc...]"> With your keywords as a quoted, comma-separated list. (leave out the '[etc...]'. ;-) ) Good Luck! Rich
From: John Larkin on 28 Sep 2006 16:24 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:49:38 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message >news:451b8067$0$11073$e4fe514c(a)dreader24.news.xs4all.nl... > >> The second link, "Where can Analog Consultants..." gives me a >> dull page with a long lecture. It is unreadable, as it prints >> too wide, all over the screen from left to right. After reading >> the first paragraph, I feel lectured, and what hangs is that I >> probably have wasted a lot of money, and am facing a redesign >> from scratch. > >At least you aren't paying for it. I got some sample CDs (Learn VB .Net, >Learn VC# .Net) and was appalled by them. They start off with some guy >reading text to you at a monotonous tone and it goes downhill from there. >The user interface is badly designed and has bugs in it. > Well, buy the books. Borders has the VB.NET Foundation book set, shrink-wrapped about 2 feet long, for about $400. John
From: Joerg on 28 Sep 2006 16:43 Hello Frank, >>That's what I was planning to do. Some I am allowed to disclose. >>Schematics are a big no-no though and I really don't want to fake >>anything. Also wanted to compile the list of publications although that >>usually doesn't draw much from non-academic circles. > > Schematics just for decoration purposes. It doesn't have to be > readable. Some schematics, on your desk or computer monitor, > when photographed and reduced to 200x300 pixels clearly shows > a schematic, but totally unreadable. That is fine. > Ok, some more fluff then. It's a good idea as long as it doesn't increase the download data chunks too much. After all, there are still folks on this planet who don't have broadband like we do. A lot of them. Plus those who use handheld devices. But I guess you don't mean something like this: http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/tca280lmtr.pdf Did that one when I was a kid, pre-CAD days. Someone in a German group needed it. The ink on most of my first schematics had become fuzzy after a move across the ocean. Don't ship your household stuffs in January if the container ship takes a northern route :-( > >>>The first paragraph ("It isn't possible to furnish...") is displayed >>>as 3 lines and a 4th line with just one word. That is what I call >>>impossible to read. Newspapers print their articles in columns, because >>>otherwise they would also become unreadable. >>> >> >>Ok, tried again. I cannot make that error happen no matter how odd I twist >>the shape of the browser window. What's your browser? > > > It's not an error, the reading area is just too wide to be comfortable. > Or are you still viewing in VGA mode, 640x480? My screen is 1280 wide. > If you put text in columns rather than using the entire page, it is > easier to read. > I use 800x600 on this PC. But now I switched it to 1024 wide, then pushed the window size from full to zip and back. No busted line wraps here for that page (or any other). > >>Good idea, although I don't think one can cut 95% :-) > > > 90% then ;) > How about 25% :-)))) > >>The view out of my office window is very picturesque. Maybe I use that. > > Sounds excellent. > http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/offview.jpg Oh, and that rotten top rail is replaced now so I guess I have to take a new picture... > >>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.analogconsultants.com >>> >> >>Thanks! That is an interesting tool. Although, even ONSemi comes up with >>139 errors ... > > > Browsers are very forgiving and fill in the blanks (errors) with default > values, or just ignore parts (other errors) when it gets too fuzzy. Most > of the time that works pretty well. Some errors are worse that others. > The idea is to keep the reported number low ;) That w3.org checker is > very strict. > > >>>And once your website looks better, you have to make sure it can be >>>found. Did you ever tried to find yourself, not using your name as >>>a search parameter? >>> >> >>I did. Google and Yahoo found it. Also lots of others. But it's certainly >>not search-optimized yet. > > > As you said elsewhere, a lot of business comes from other places. > But a nice and sober website doesn't hurt and does not have to cost a > fortune either. You don't have to tell your visitors everything, they > won't read it anyway. Make it a bit of a teaser, one that gives an > immediate rough and truthful impression in seconds, and an even better > one after a couple of minutes of reading. All the extra is a waste > of time, if you ask me. Just enough info to make them grab the phone, > that is enough. OTH, if you're already loaded with work, there is > little need to improve it. > Well, it needs to be improved anyhow and I appreciate feedback about it like you gave me here. It's just like that garage where I do the machine part of prototyping. Sometimes my wife goes in there and says that it's now time to tidy it up. You never know when someone shows up and actually sees it so it's better to keep it spiffy. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
From: Joerg on 28 Sep 2006 16:56
Hello Rich, >>... >>My site is more of a little stake in the ground, didn't want to have >>that dreaded "under construction" sign. Word of mouth is what creates >>biz for me, not advertising. I mostly need it for email and FTP >>transfers. Sounds unbelievable but many companies (including some big >>ones) do not have FTP capability. Sometimes they are stunned when I then >>give them space on my site and it really works. Very nice for >>tele-conferencing. > > > I finally got around to viewing your source. > > Don't use Microsoft Word to make a web page. ... Yeah, I know that's one of the problems. MS-Word can introduce lots of bugs. The most smacking blunder was when it used auto spacing and IE (their own product!) blew up on it. Unbelievable. > ... You can code that in raw > HTML, especially with a site as lean and clean as yours: > http://werbach.com/barebones/ > > I'd guess that the majority of errors that that checker reports are > artifacts of letting Microsoft get their claws into your site. ;-) > But writing straight HTML is almost like writing assembler code. I am currently poring over a stack of assembler pages. No fun for an analog guy. Filter stuff no less, yech. I'd prefer a simple writer. Have to look, I think one came with my hosting package. The ideal scenario would be if such a writer could also read web pages (including hyperlink jumps). Word can do that nicely but none of the others I tried could which is a bummer if you want to try things out. > As far as catching searches, try a keywords tag in the header: > <meta name="keywords" content="analog,analog design,consultant, > consulting,design,[etc...]"> > With your keywords as a quoted, comma-separated list. (leave out the > '[etc...]'. ;-) ) > Thanks, I'll try that. Although I do become a bit annoyed if I run a Google search and then lots of pages come up that really don't contain the words I was looking for in their bodies. It's becoming more prevalent these days. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com |