Captious Pedants

I look forward to this review. I'm a reviewers nightmare. Each section of my domain has a different layout, theme, secrets, and feel.

I look forward to this review. I'm a reviewee's nightmare. I'm unbelievably bitter. And worry not, I have no rubric so I'll be able to accommodate how many ever layouts you have.

I must say, you have an interesting approach to a design in terms of composition. Aligning text to the right makes the content hard to read. If it were not a quote and thus, a design device, I would have reprimanded you for your decision. Due its relative insignificance to the bigger picture, however, I won't dwell on it.

The quotation in itself, however, means absolutely nothing to me. As a first-time visitor to your site, and thus someone who has no idea what your site is about, I cannot put the quote into the context in which it can be appreciated. Having been thrown off in the first 10 seconds, I don't have any motivation to venture further.

Contrary to your belief, web design isn't art and shouldn't be. It's design. I would venture to say that design is a branch of art in regards to aesthetics; however, the critical difference between the two disciplines is that design serves a purpose whereas art doesn't.

People argue that art is a form of expression, a way to communicate, and an intellectual activity. While all of that may be true, it doesn't perform an immediate and measurable service. Industrial designers design chairs on which we may sit. Architectures design blueprints from which houses may be built. Web designers create layouts on which content may be placed. Sculptors create solids that take up space. We can't put our hats on Bernini's David and complain it's a bad hat rack when it falls off because it was not designed to be a piece of furniture. On the other hand, it's art. We derive a certain pleasure from its visual presence, but there is no tangible use in it. While a Web layout may be visually appealing, it needs to accomplish a few things--mainly, it needs to present your content. If we generalize it to art, certain people, like you, would ignore critical aspects of web design. Functionality, for example.

In other words, if those characteristics are taken away, web design would be no longer be web design. It's no different from fashion design aside from the fact that it's online. But since technology is so advance now, you can do fashion design on the computer. How would you tell the difference then? Maybe the shirt will have sleeves. But fashion design is also a form of art if we go by your logic, so technically we can take away the sleeves and then the body. Which part of it is still a shirt then? I do hope I'm driving this point home, because the rest of the review will be based off your understanding the difference between art and design.

Assuming we're on the same page now, I have a problem with your navigation. The hover effects bother me. Even though my focus is on link A, my attention is drawn to the link my cursor was previously on. Since it takes a while for the effects to die off, my mouse could be on link D but link A would still be flashing if my mouse trailed through links A, B and C. If you are unwilling to sacrifice your artistic venture, you can create a fading background for the active link. That way, you keep a bit of "magic" but all the attention is on your active link.

The second problem I have with your navigation is the foolish names you've given the links. Be creative if you want to, but the navigation is the not the place to be poetic. I expect to know where I'm going right off the bat. How would you like to go into an elevator only to find that the buttons are labeled as 21 different animals? You won't know which floor you're on unless you try pressing them all. Rather than having "remit" trigger "domain information," consider reversing the order. Have "domain information" as your link and "remit" as an image hover at the top. Again, you get to keep your bells and whistles without inconveniencing your users. If it were me, I'd ditch the hover. Then again I'm a designer, not an artist.

From a "literature" point of view, while each individual (link) word holds a world of meanings on its own, the collection in general makes no sense. With your being a person of such depth, I do believe this is a mistake. Certainly it's possible to effectively convey an atmospheric message in a logical manner.

Furthermore, what's with the superfluous characters before each file name? You've already had your fun with cryptic words. As if confusing me with bad title bars and link names aren't enough, you need to control my address bar as well. You really are throwing your visitors into the dark.

It is somewhat difficult for me to review your code when you block right click. I suppose you're afraid of thieves. Most paranoid artists are, even though there are people like me who like to right click to open their links in a new window. But that matters not now that I have Firefox to do all my evil biddings.

Since Remidica is a personal site (as opposed to a graphic site, for example), I'd normally be a little more lenient. But the 8-line copyright note is like a divine invitation for your coding to be ripped apart.

Looking at your coding, I arrive at 1 of 2 possible conclusions:

1. Butchering XHTML was an artistic decision.
2. Coding in XHTML was an impulsive move to be trendy and whatnot.

If you had a sincere interest in learning standards, some of the first things you would have learned would be:

• A DOCTYPE should be the first thing in an XHTML document, not an 8-line copyright note. It tells standard compliant browsers how they should render your web page.
• All tags should be in lowercase. That is because XHTML is the "bridge" between XML and HTML, and the Web is moving forward to more versatile XML documents which dictates the use oflowercase tags.
• All similar coding should be clumped together. That means, all your javascript should come together within one set of script tags, and that should be dumped in an external JavaScript file. (By the way, you mention in your copyright that scripts belong to you unless otherwise noted, but I have the strong suspicion that you did not write these JavaScripts.)

XHTML isn't just about valid coding, it's about semantics and accessibility and all those designs decisions that need to be made when you're developing a Web site. Ditching the JavaScript and tables would be the second step after learning the syntax. Use tables for tabular content and CSS for styles.

Right now the layout as whole doesn't even align to the screen vertically. You may therefore employ CSS positioning to align your navigation and "content" into place. This is one technique to create what you're trying to achieve:

The HTML:

<div class="wrap"> <div class="content">

<!-- Content here -->

</div> <div class="navigation">

<!-- Navigation here -->

</div> </div>

The CSS:

#wrap { margin: 0 auto 0 auto; /* "0 auto 0 auto" as opposed to "0 auto" for Opera to recognize the values. */ position: relative; width: 500px; }

#content { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 100px; width: 400px; }

#navigation { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100px; }

#navigation a:active { /* Only affect the active link within the #navigation DIV container. */ background: url(images/fading.gif) left top repeat-x; /* Where "fading.gif" is the image with the fading effect */ }

The concept of this technique may be explained in further detail at Segment7's Absolute and Relative Positioning and Listamatic. You can even have an image appear on hover at a different place on the page via CSS; visit css/edge's pureCSSpopups 2 for 2 more examples.

A few notes on your stylesheet:

• The four style blocks for your links can be condensed to one block if the selectors are combined to a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active. Since you have a background for the hover, you may override or add additional properties to a:hover in an additional style block just as you have done for your body selector.
• It's padding: 5px. Note the unit after the digit. Units are important and they must follow immediately after the number. Since all four sides have the same figure, it can be condensed into one value.

Content

Despite how you see your site, I'm going to treat the rest of the pages as... well, pages rather than sub sites, and I will hold you responsible for what you say if I find the opportunity.

remix

The links needs to be brought to the forefront simply because this is a Web site layout and the navigation needs to be easy to locate.

Your style declarations may be dumped into your initial stylesheet. If you're afraid of confusing them, you can simply "divide" it with CSS comments. It'll save you the trouble of updating the pages of your "sub site" if a change needs to be made.

• "domain registration": The header for the page really should be the same as the navigation text. It's a matter of directing your visitors. Even art has structures--axis, line of action, negative and positive space, etc. This comment extends to the rest of the site (the whole site). As a side note, there's no use in mentioning "Buck Host" if you do not link to it.
• "f.a.q.s": "FAQ" stands for Frequent Asked Questions. The plural form is already taken into account.
  • I don't understand why you talk about yourself in third person on the first page, but in first person on this page.
  • You want to inspire others to create a mess of a web site of many sub sites that appear to have no order?
  • Why can't Web design be an art form and a hobby? Is art a religion if not a hobby, or a job, or an activity, or something that you can pass time with?
  • In the long run, you will find that it is not the design of the website that brings visitors back, but the content.
• "link buttons": While the 7th link button grabs attention, it's not the attention you're after. It's annoying. You can't even pay one of my fellow pedants to put that on her site, and that's really not what you're after when you create link buttons. You can't even read the title of your site on the second link button. Your marketing needs work if you plan to go into Web design.

adrift

You mention on the submission form that this is a personal website and yet you dedicate the second link of it to your 404 page.

geisha

Each section of my domain has a different layout, theme, secrets, and feel. My domain is how I feel web design should be: art. Not just hold pictures of me, have real long unnecessary text of how my day went with my friends, talk about everything sad little detail about what I like and don't like, and all the other crap a normal personal domain has and you see over and over again.

This page fails to deliver a theme or a feel. You have this woman sitting in what appears to be an armchair. The background is lined with a concrete-textured wallpaper (real wallpaper, not the desktop wallpaper). Tree vines appear out of no where, and this whole fiasco is wrapped in a teenage version of a Victorian style frame.

Even then, it's not horribly bad until you start creating text boxes with a dashed border. What am I supposed to feel here?

(BTW, you don't need a master table around your DIV containers. This layout is rather easy to reproduce in CSS, again by a fixed DIV container and nested one with fixed dimensions for your banner.)

I was hoping the content will enforce some kind of atmosphere like the quote did on the main page, but then I read your introduction. "I was born exactly 2,379,036 digits into the full number of PI counting after the decimal point..." A bit technical for your pink layout, don't you think?

For someone who hate sites with pictures, daily recounts and "all [that] other crap a normal personal domain has", you decide to rip text an online name analyzer. I almost mistook it for your writing since there was no indication of quotations anywhere.

For the record, I'd rather see a picture of you rather than ramblings about your weight and shoulder blades. I don't visit personal sites often, but descriptions about your appearance, your friends, your boyfriend, your dreams and career goals are exactly what I see on typical personal domains. And correct me if I'm wrong, but describing your preferences for movies, pizza, and wrestling is a detail account of what you like and don't like.

Advice: as a Web designer, you can't sacrifice your client's product in the name of art.

communiqué

You'll forgive me if I don't know how to appreciate your poems.

As for your design:

• Even if I knew how to appreciate poems, I wouldn't be able to when the serif text is so small that it's almost illegible. Ah, the greatest debates of mankind: art or literature. Something needs to be sacrificed.
• The solid box and 2px border destroys the delicacy brought by the flower. Especially when I expend 2 or more problems and width is not the same.
• The rule of thumb about headers is that headers are supposed to be larger and more distinct than the body text. They are convenient resting points for the eyes in a long page of intimidating text. Check points, so to speak. A design aspect.
• The purpose of the flower is defeated, and so is the feel and theme of the page, when I scroll down. Since the last poem I read doesn't automatically disappear when I click on the link to another, I'm assuming you're allowing the visitor to open multiple pieces at a time. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to fix the background so that it doesn't scroll when the page scrolls?
• Small note: I'd do something to distinguish the date when the poem is written. Bold it, perhaps. It's easy to mistaken it as a line in the poem. I pay attention to detail.

inquisition

This is the FAQ under a different guise. I see no reason why it needs a page of its own, as well as why it's under "geisha" when questions are not limited to you, but the site itself.

vanity

Pictures of yourself. A typical personal domain. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but despite your (unreadable) attempt at justifying your profound existence, the photos you've provided suggest that you're webcam-emo sans the gothic make-up.

A more personal and meaningful way of indulging your vanity would be to take a pictures from the important events of your life and write accompanying snipplets to describe them. They don't even have to be long; a vignette or a haiku would do. Have substance. Camera capturing your soul? It sounds like one of those meaningless marketing messages that appears like it's something to think about, but isn't. If you were a photographer, with a stretch of imagination and a leap of faith, I can accept your logic. But with 9 suggestive pictures of yourself against the glare of the monitor, I don't buy your fear of losing a part of your life when a photograph is taken. Furthermore, since you have a collection of poems, a little written piece might tie your site together.

If you're being ironic, you're not delivering it very well. The grungy border and butterfly brush are especially overused. And lighten the text to white to balance the white border you have around your images. Once again, I suggest throwing your style declarations into a stylesheet.

secrets

I suppose I'm not meant to understand this.

I've seen sites that do provide snapshots of life. 3 seconds, no comfort is a written an example whereas Colors Across the Sky is a visual one. Both of which are strictly personal, but they also mean something to me. I actually get something out of it; a glimpse into this person's life. I don't understand 3 seconds, no comfort in the same way as the author, but I'm able to find an intuitive meaning for myself. From a web design point of view, they are examples that are practical and functional without losing the contents' significance.

What I find in "secrets" are general messages that make don't relate to me at all. I doubt that they relate to you, either. "Something that is or is kept secret, hidden, or concealed, a mystery; a reason or explanation not immediately or generally apparent" sounds like a dictionary definition. In fact, it is! Taken right from Dictionary.com! I'm beginning to wonder how much of the writing on your site actually your writing.

I do like the third image, though. I do hope that is an image of you that you've used. Something like this for "vanity" would be ideal.

lithium

I like how you claim to create a different look and feel for each section of your website, but you're using the same header "design" as you've used on "communiqué". Usually, if you can use the same design element on two totally different setting, it's either a very versatile technique, or you don't have much of a characterized setting to begin with. A rose and a girl who seemed to have overdosed herself are definitely two different settings. Personally, I don't think "&__head text" makes a nice header for anything. Annoyance is the only value the ampersand and underscore provide. Was juvenility the theme?

I wonder why "Emotional Roadkill" isn't stylized like the rest of the links, and I'm getting rather tired of viewing your source through the toolbar. Anti-right click scripts are painfully easy to overcome; they're not worth the trouble. And it seems to be a script generated by another site as well.

excuses

Of all your layouts, this has to be the most annoying. Links should not change sizes, especially the navigation links. Visitors generally don't appreciate having to try to click on your links more than once.

I see no reasons for the i-frames except for the ease of changing pages. Then again, I don't see the need for different pages since each category of links have at most 10 links. They can easily be combined onto one page in 2 columns. Even if you combined with "lithium" (which you should do anyways), the page still wouldn't be horribly long. You'll save yourself work and your visitors time. Furthermore, the scrollbar that is generated is extremely unattractive. For someone who values art as greatly as you do, I would think that is a strong enough motivation to ditch the "frames".

Your sudden use of <p class="header">Text</p> makes me suspicious of whether or not you really know what you're doing. Especially when you've been using one of the 7 headers on all the other pages.

juxtaposition

"I see web design as a form of art, not a hobby as more and more people see it now days."

You consider art to be superior to hobbies, yet you can't be bothered to stylize your contact form. As a hobby, I have gone through the trouble of stylizing all the elements on my page. Again, you will benefit from an external stylesheet where all these little details such as presentation can be organized.

the tomes

Most people in the art community like to think that they are outside of the market of commercialism. They like to think they're "pure". They aren't of course. You are also of this opinion if your "domain information" and your review request were any indications. Having that said, if you managed to buy yourself a domain, why are you still using a free guestbook populated with ads? 15 guestbook entries isn't hard to transfer or even ditch altogether. And gray, white, black and red isn't as great of a colour scheme as many people believe.

The biggest problem with your site is the confusing architecture. You're not a reviewer's worst nightmare because you have a lot of designs; you're their worst nightmare because your site is so damn hard to navigate. I have no idea where I'm going. You insist on ridiculous link titles, and you take away all my navigation aids such as the file name, the status bar and the title bar. It's like a poorly designed maze in a local carnival with broken mirrors and peeling paint. Or was that the theme you were going for?

It seems to me that you think your site is different from all the other personal websites out there. It isn't. You're doing everything everyone else is doing and somehow, you think you're nobler because you've thrown together a few extra layouts, none of which reinforces your goal of manufacturing different themes and feels by the way. In fact, it's even less personal than some of the most typical sites I've been on due to your taking writing from other sites and trying to pass them off as your own thoughts. Both Dictionary.com and Kabalarian Philosophy allows republication of their material for personal use provided that the user does not claim (explicit or implied) ownership. By integrating their text seamlessly and without credit on your site, you are plagiarising. It's all in the name of art, isn't it?