# Please critique our organization's website **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 16, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871 "2010-07-16T02:27:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/21 "2010-07-18T01:12:14Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > What specifically happens? On my Android phone, it works like I’d expect it – click to open menus, click again to go to pages. The only thing that seems to be missing are the hover effects, but there’s not a whole lot I can do about that. > > That said, I also implemented an alternate interface for mobile browsers. Reload the page on your phone… is the alternate one any better? Sorry, I suppose specifics would help, huh? Using Safari on my iPad, the mouse-over menus don’t do anything at all. I tried tapping them, but I get no response of any sort. I just reloaded in Safari, and I get the same behavior – no mobile interface, either. I fired up Opera mini though, and I do see the mobile interface there. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/22 "2010-07-18T08:17:32Z")
It has an odd magnification problem. Practically everyone I know magnifies the text of web pages at least, and this freaks out if your text size or zoom size reaches over 120%. It may just be a problem with Firefox I’m using, so I’d have people confirm. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/23 "2010-07-18T09:28:56Z")
I think it looks really nice, but something is making it scroll really slowly. It’s like it has some kind of dynamic feature that is constantly refreshing, or something, causing the scrolling to jerk and flicker. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/24 "2010-07-18T10:59:29Z")
I like the look and operation of it in general - there’s an awful lot you could have done badly wrong, but haven’t. The things that don’t quite work for me: The swirly logo top left is more saturated than the rest of the colours in the header, but I don’t think that’s a big problem. The Tree roots at the bottom of the page don’t align horizontally with the tree trunk at the top - also, they don’t quite stylistically match - the roots are more symmetric and stylised than the tree top - I’d have tried to make these two parts of the same thing, somehow. Something else is also wrong in the footer - the juxtaposition of the tree roots, the swirly coloured thng and the grass just looks weirdly wrong - too busy and unrelated. The swirly thing looks like a spillage. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/25 "2010-07-22T17:29:25Z")
It’s looking a lot better with the changes made. Good job! ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/26 "2010-07-22T17:56:45Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > Sorry, I suppose specifics would help, huh? Using Safari on my iPad, the mouse-over menus don’t do anything at all. I tried tapping them, but I get no response of any sort. > > I just reloaded in Safari, and I get the same behavior – no mobile interface, either. I fired up Opera mini though, and I do see the mobile interface there. Weird…! I’ll look into this; thank you. It’s hard because we live in a kinda technological wasteland and nobody I know has an iPad, but I’ll figure something out… > [@BigT](#): > > It has an odd magnification problem. Practically everyone I know magnifies the text of web pages at least, and this freaks out if your text size or zoom size reaches over 120%. > > It may just be a problem with Firefox I’m using, so I’d have people confirm. You mean using text-only zoom? I’m not sure many fixed-width pages can survive that. The newer browsers, however, typically zoom the whole page at once and that seems to work ok. I’ll look into making it work better with text-only zoom, but I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility at this point… maybe when our graphics guy comes back, we’ll look into redesigning it into a less graphics-intensive, free-flowing site. > [@GuanoLad](#): > > I think it looks really nice, but something is making it scroll really slowly. It’s like it has some kind of dynamic feature that is constantly refreshing, or something, causing the scrolling to jerk and flicker. That’s VERY odd. Is this on every page? What kind of system and browser are you running? > [@Mangetout](#): > > I like the look and operation of it in general - there’s an awful lot you could have done badly wrong, but haven’t. > > The things that don’t quite work for me: > > The swirly logo top left is more saturated than the rest of the colours in the header, but I don’t think that’s a big problem. It’s meant to be because that’s CCAT’s actual logo and the rest is just background fluff. > [@](#): > > The Tree roots at the bottom of the page don’t align horizontally with the tree trunk at the top - also, they don’t quite stylistically match - the roots are more symmetric and stylised than the tree top - I’d have tried to make these two parts of the same thing, somehow. Absolutely. Thanks for pointing that out. > [@](#): > > Something else is also wrong in the footer - the juxtaposition of the tree roots, the swirly coloured thng and the grass just looks weirdly wrong - too busy and unrelated. The swirly thing looks like a spillage. I was also worried about this in the back of my head, but wanted to see what people thought first. The opinions seem to be mixed… the swirly thing is actually a very recognizable piece of art inside the actual house and people like it a lot, so that will probably stay. The whole tree/root motif could probably go, though. > [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s looking a lot better with the changes made. Good job! Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![ThirdOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@ThirdOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThirdOne)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/27 "2010-07-22T19:23:15Z")
Definite improvements. While I like the tree and roots, because of their organic feel, I agree, they both could go. You already have a busy website with a lot to take in, and those aren’t necessities. The brown drop-downs look much better than the black, the font changes are also a big improvement. Much cleaner-looking - Good job! ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/28 "2010-07-23T02:44:43Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > [rant] > Wow. I just spent four hours cleaning up the perfectly-validated code and CSS so it’d work with IE7 and old Webkit browsers (Safari 3 and below) Thank you, Adobe Browserlab! > > “Web standards” my arse… this is just as hard as I remember it from the 90s… except now there isn’t just IE and Netscape; there’s IE, different versions of Gecko, different versions of Webkit, Opera, iPhone, Android, and who knows what else. > > Good times 🙂 > [/rant] Rules #1 through #100 - You never use Internet Explorer to ensure standards compliance. Rule #101 - Use Firefox with the Web Developer addon, the HTML Validator addon, the WAVE addon and the Qompliance addon, for starters to ensure standards compliance and accessibility. If you build it to standards, the other browsers should fall into line with minimal to no difficulty. BTW, look at your site now in FF. You’ve got problems. ---
**Author:** ![JKilez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@JKilez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKilez)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/29 "2010-07-24T03:19:05Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I think it looks really nice, but something is making it scroll really slowly. It’s like it has some kind of dynamic feature that is constantly refreshing, or something, causing the scrolling to jerk and flicker. I see this as well when using Firefox 3.6.6 on Windows XP SP3. It is noticeable enough that I would normally be wary of the page. The delay is not present when using IE7 on the same system. ---
**Author:** ![maisoui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@maisoui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maisoui)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/30 "2010-07-24T12:21:21Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > [QUOTE=maisou, It’s Not Rocket Surgery, ThirdOne, and others] > (Logo font issues) I tried a bunch of different fonts, but it was hard to find something that would look right spaced out over that distance (kerning? tracking?). How does the new font look? [/QUOTE] Again, I don’t know _ **why** _ but it’s much better. A week later, I know, sorry! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/31 "2010-07-24T12:57:22Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > It’s meant to be because that’s CCAT’s actual logo and the rest is just background fluff. Sure - but I think what I mean is that it looks as though you tried to make it blend, but missed the mark a bit - greater contrast (for example, by further muting or lightening the colours of the background fluff might look better. > [@](#): > > I was also worried about this in the back of my head, but wanted to see what people thought first. The opinions seem to be mixed… the swirly thing is actually a very recognizable piece of art inside the actual house and people like it a lot, so that will probably stay. Am I right in thinking it’s a circular painting that you have given a perspective transform for this template? If so, I think that could be the problem - it looks like a disc of something or other that has been inserted underneath the tree roots, which doesn’t make sense. I don’t think you necessarily need to lose the swirly thing, just think about where and how you’re going to present it. > [@](#): > > The whole tree/root motif could probably go, though. Shame - I liked the tree, or the idea of the tree - but there’s just something about the whole collection that seems disjointed or something - the tree roots are above the grass, the swirly thing was between the grass and the roots - my brain was trying to make sense of it as a coherent arrangement of objects. That said, I just looked at the site again and it looks so much cleaner without the tree - less is more. Still not sure about the swirly - maybe it’s just the way it’s blended and drop-shadowed over the grass - still looks like a spillage. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/32 "2010-07-26T07:48:19Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > Rules #1 through #100 - You never use Internet Explorer to ensure standards compliance. > Rule #101 - Use Firefox with the Web Developer addon, the HTML Validator addon, the WAVE addon and the Qompliance addon, for starters to ensure standards compliance and accessibility. > > If you build it to standards, the other browsers should fall into line with minimal to no difficulty. I built it for Firefox. I checked it with Chrome. Then I validated it – XHTML 1.0 Strict. Then I learned that Safari had problems – even when IE8 didn’t. The standards are nice, but they’re not perfect. And I dislike IE as much as anyone else, but to be honest it’s not always the problem these days. 6, sure, but 7 and 8 are pretty good. Redoing pages for touch and mobile is a much bigger headache. > [@](#): > > BTW, look at your site now in FF. You’ve got problems. I’ve been checking it with FF all along (it’s my primary browser). What’s the problem (or did you mean the scrolling issue)? > [@GuanoLad](#): > > I see this as well when using Firefox 3.6.6 on Windows XP SP3. It is noticeable enough that I would normally be wary of the page. The delay is not present when using IE7 on the same system. Egads. I’ll have to look into that. Thank you. > [@Mangetout](#): > > > [@Reply](#): > > > > It’s meant to be because that’s CCAT’s actual logo and the rest is just background fluff. > > Sure - but I think what I mean is that it looks as though you tried to make it blend, but missed the mark a bit - greater contrast (for example, by further muting or lightening the colours of the background fluff might look better. > > > [@](#): > > > > I was also worried about this in the back of my head, but wanted to see what people thought first. The opinions seem to be mixed… the swirly thing is actually a very recognizable piece of art inside the actual house and people like it a lot, so that will probably stay. > > Am I right in thinking it’s a circular painting that you have given a perspective transform for this template? If so, I think that could be the problem - it looks like a disc of something or other that has been inserted underneath the tree roots, which doesn’t make sense. I don’t think you necessarily need to lose the swirly thing, just think about where and how you’re going to present it. > > > [@](#): > > > > The whole tree/root motif could probably go, though. > > Shame - I liked the tree, or the idea of the tree - but there’s just something about the whole collection that seems disjointed or something - the tree roots are above the grass, the swirly thing was between the grass and the roots - my brain was trying to make sense of it as a coherent arrangement of objects. > > That said, I just looked at the site again and it looks so much cleaner without the tree - less is more. Still not sure about the swirly - maybe it’s just the way it’s blended and drop-shadowed over the grass - still looks like a spillage. Sorry. I’ll keep playing around with it after I get done with the content move. Don’t be sorry at all – thank you. And of course, looks being as subjective as they are, I’ll ultimately just have to make a choice one way or another, knowing that I can’t please _everyone_. Some people really like the spill, some people don’t. We’ll keep tinkering, especially if we can get our graphic artist on board. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/33 "2010-07-26T07:54:12Z")
> [@JKilez](#): > > > [@GuanoLad](#): > > > > I think it looks really nice, but something is making it scroll really slowly. It’s like it has some kind of dynamic feature that is constantly refreshing, or something, causing the scrolling to jerk and flicker. > > I see this as well when using Firefox 3.6.6 on Windows XP SP3. It is noticeable enough that I would normally be wary of the page. The delay is not present when using IE7 on the same system. I changed something and it seems a tiny bit faster on my system. How does it feel to you now? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/34 "2010-07-26T10:31:37Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > I changed something and it seems a tiny bit faster on my system. How does it feel to you now? A marked improvement. Not perfect, but less noticeable. ---
**Author:** ![JKilez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@JKilez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKilez)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/35 "2010-07-26T12:34:05Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > I changed something and it seems a tiny bit faster on my system. How does it feel to you now? Seems fast enough now. There is a slight delay, but I would not notice it if I was not already aware of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/36 "2010-07-26T17:43:20Z")
Where are all the moving GIFs and sparkling background and embedded MIDI files? 😃 Just kidding, it looks nice. Very reserved but professional, although I was never a fan of the non-moving background ---
**Author:** ![ThirdOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@ThirdOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThirdOne)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/37 "2010-07-26T19:08:29Z")
Much cleaner and wow, now I “get” the swirl at the bottom. Before, I had no idea there were fish and stuff. It now _looks_ like something, rather than just swirl of colors. ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/38 "2010-07-26T21:32:56Z")
I know nothing about website design, but you really shouldn’t store your spices over the stove like that. The heat and moisture aren’t good for them, and reaching over hot pots for a jar of spice is dangerous. End of highjack! ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871/39 "2010-07-26T21:40:41Z")
> [@kittenblue](#): > > I know nothing about website design, but you really shouldn’t store your spices over the stove like that. The heat and moisture aren’t good for them, and reaching over hot pots for a jar of spice is dangerous. End of highjack! Post website question, get free kitchen remodeling advice? Heh, this is awesome. I’ll let them know 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-critique-our-organizations-website/546871.md?page=1)