threebirds

On the page: http://www.food-lover.com/gallery.html It's taking a long time to load this page because the thumbnails are NOT sized properly. Some are okay and some aren't. The one's that aren't --are very large. 100K+ This lack of image optimization is bogging down the page load. Very, very slow. On your HOME page, you have two dropcaps that are the same size. This implies that both columns are of equal importance. If you emphasize them the same, people won't know which one to start reading first. Make one larger for emphasis. It is a little issue that is causing visual confusion. Small but important.

Your image work is rich and has lots of texture. But on the invisible side, the images are slowing down the load time. Investigate optimization alternatives like different image formats without compromising your art. Designers tend to think viewers care about image quality. It's actually down the list somewhere after speed, usability, navigation, and content. Yes. Even on portfolio sites. Viewers expect a little longer load time on portfolio sites but not as long as your HOME page is presently. The HOME page is NOT your portfolio. It's the pages that come after that. So viewers still have high expectations on that first page for load time. It's taking 15 to 30 seconds to load the HOME page. You're target should be 7 seconds on highspeed or less. At 30 seconds, usability testing has shown, you've lost half your visitors already. Bail out. Speed is a transparent credibility feature. Viewers only notice slow sites not fast ones. You're code looks beautiful. I'm jealous. The page tile says design portfolio but it doesn't appear on the page. I'm a designer and on the HOME page I can't tell what it is you are "selling." After that on linked pages, it's obvious. The HOME page should tell me what you do, who you are, and why I should care. Just the title isn't sufficient. It's good for the search engines but not enough for a viewer. Make me want to explorer and discover. If you want design work, consider a "Hire Me" link and page. This has been shown to improve portfolio websites response. Assuming you want work, of course. Here's and example of how to optimize some images on the HOME page. The HOME page is the most critical. The background image is about 90K PNG. I switched it to a low color depth in GIF to half the file size, for me the effect is the same with much faster loading. You might also be creative with a smaller tiling effect that gives similar "theme" results. The full-width banner images could be reduced to 30% of original weight by converting to high quality JPEGs. Small images like "think_sm-resizecrop-214-117.png" could be reduced 10 fold by using GIFs. Those are just some examples. Also, another way to speed up your pages is using GZIP-PHP to compress the code on-the-fly. Do you have PHP functions on your server / host? If so, I can tell you how to do this. My challenge to you is finding out how fast you can make this site really load. Visitors will love you for it.

You've shown some great design technique on the HOME page. It's beautiful work. But it's not communicating what the viewer should do next. I'm overwhelmed (over-communication creates confusion.) This is a matter of emphasis. "If you emphasize everything, you emphasize nothing." I don't have a fast solution on that. When a site has a "search field" in the top right corner (the right place), it's a subliminal indicator the site is "bloated." Doesn't matter if it is or not, it's like a sign saying, "There's just too much stuff here. You're going to need help finding anything." Is this feature really necessary for your portfolio website? Frequently, we think it adds credibility but in reality it can put people off "scent." I'll look a little deeper beyond the HOME page in a moment. More comments coming.

Thelma and Friends- I've enjoyed the stimulation of your company and minds. I've bigger fish to fry now so I won't be back for awhile. I haven't been so well pounced other than by religious fanatics. I'm sure Thelma won't miss me and my anti-establishment rebel attitude. I did generate quite a bit of good content for the search engines in your behalf. While Thelma tried hardest to get my goat, it was just all too predictable. She just couldn't stay out of it militarily or emotionally. I can smell the smoke all the way from Texas. To those who actually found and solved website browser related problems, you're the best and I have gratitude for your brilliance and willingness to help. Thanks. - End of File-

No duh? What's your point? That wouldn't have fixed IE6 either. IE6 is dog food. What's your point? Am I supposed to feel embarrassed? Does this mean I'm stupid? Does it mean I can no longer support my family doing websites? Does it mean the site doesn't work? Are you secretly emotionally distressed about sloppy coders who are eager to get paid? Or do you just like the intellectual duel of putting people down? GASP! You can do that? What if I deliberately chose not to? Will the web fall apart? Ouch! Was that slander? Or libel? You're making fun of my old age and debilities aren't you? Look. I'm bleeding. Sob! Please stop! I didn't come here to teach coding. Or learn coding. I came here to breath the fresh air of tolerance and peace while having a Framed site reviewed. Thelma, you've gone over the edge. Get a grip. You're so easily provoked. I really bugs you that I can code crap and get paid for it. Doesn't it? It sort of destroys the whole illusion of your "web profession." It's like doing dentistry with a saw and hammer. There is no regulatory agency to prevent "quacks" like me from delivering usable websites with shortcuts, workarounds and hacks. No accreditation. And to the unsavvy client it appears to be extraordinary performance and magic, because they don't know diddly about the "invisible" side of the web. Can you believe I just got a government grant to build websites for small businesses? That makes the steam boil, eh? Because of my track record in real-world measurable results! In the end, it's all about credibility, isn't it? I have none with you because I don't live by your rules. That's not how I measure you. I just see you as extremely judgmental. I have no time to do it "perfect" like you. Life is short.

Absolutely yes. Everyone's life and time are a precious commodity. I charge for the exchange of my skills and mind. I and my clients want customized results fast. Otherwise, without Frames, my delivery would be longer (lead time), my client?le would pay more, I'd then lose my competitive edge. The very disposable nature of my web products wouldn't be possible. More time is spent on what really matters: presentation, content, and information scent. I sell my clients what they need, but within boundaries, not what is the vanguard of the day. I screen my customers. I turn away 50% of my walk-ins because my solutions are NOT what they need. The rejects are either unpleasant or micromanagers. Or they may be unprepared or can't supply me content fast enough. All of them know nothing about optimization, coding, or hosting, or SEO, etc. I provide all that for them in a Frames package. This site took 45 days- start to finish for me and a story researcher. No content was provided. But I can build a multi-page website where the content is prepared in advance in less than 8 hours and charge $500 to $1700 for it. Do the math. $62/hour on the low end. I get paid $350 per page for one page scrolling websites. which I deliver in less than 24-hours. That is what HTML Frames do for me. It's all about optimizing production process for profitability. It leaves me time to waste on forums and dreaming. Frames are fast and simple.

When you sent that screengrab of the scrollbar error, I about choked. I'd never seen so much "chrome" on an IE browser window in my life. At least 30% of the screen was gobbled up. You must've been going for a worst case scenario. Tell me you don't normally browse on that tight of a screen. You've been the shining example on this forum of getting past emotion and getting down to brass tacks. Real results. Thanks.

I just wanted you to know the solution to this horizontal scrolling problem. I did finally get my hands on the same build of IE6 you are using. Thanks. Couldn't have troubleshot the problem without it. It wasn't a percentage setting bug as thought. The solution was removing this line of code: It was at the top of all the errant pages. This code had been inserted by a WYSIWYG Linux when editing some of the pages. I thought it was benign --not so on IE6. All fixed. Thanks so much for your insights. You cracked it.

Just a note of irony: As pointed out on this forum, I had a horizontal scrollbar error that would occur in IE6. The pages that had the error had: as the first line of code. After removing this, the error disappeared. Have a nice day!

This is a better reply. You actually are teaching now instead of trashing. Much better. You do know of the provisions for future XFRAMES, correct? http://www.w3.org/TR/xframes/ The implementation is the same minus the negatives. This is the workaround of the future and a better solution. Then I will discard HTML Frames as will others. XFrames will be the fad for a moment. But this is somewhat off topic. The topic is not about Frames viability in the future --but rather about a critique of a simple website that's essentially "disposable" once it has served it's purpose gathering market data. This is actually the prime goal. This is no web monument. This is built for a product in transition. Testing an old product in a new market. The site message will change. Frames, in this case, provide a minimum lowtech investment. The site will be later repurposed. This is where the true innovation really is for the client-- saving money. The site "perception" is credible (even if it has no credibility in the IT community.) It serves it's purpose well for it's market. It is deliberately "clunky" looking. More like newsprint than 100% rag letterhead. This communicates something to the audience about it's volatility and urgency. It's the site "body language" --a certain user comfort in no-slickness and no pushy overselling. No site bloat. Coming here for a review was to have extra eyes give harsh critiques knowing the limitations of Frames. I got what I wanted. The site is improved. The invisible code is not. I don't care about which brush I paint with. Some artists can paint with a spoon or their feet. It only makes their output more unique. Uniqueness has monetary value in differentiating products and services. Frames are weird and rarely used. That is the strategy. Something is different on a subliminal level. But it doesn't feel uncomfortable or strange to the uninitiated.

Thanks for the screenshot' date=' it's very helpful. I apologize for misleading you, I haven't fixed that problem yet. Tonight? What the image shows is the same problem described in many places online with various workaround solutions. So this confirms the cause. Thanks. Incidentally, what is your IE6 verison number? I'd really like to know so I can reproduce the error.[/quote'] I tested using IE 6.00.2900.2180 build I also tested in IE8, Opera, Safari and Chrome which seems to render just fine. Regardless of the statistics, it's too bad that all the browsers do not render the code the same way when coded correctly. I'd just be happy when IE6 falls off entirely but it still looks like a few years away before that happens. You really have gone the extra mile. Thanks. I appreciate you making me look good in my clients eyes.

Such absolutism! That's terribly sad news for a lot of big sites who still use this outdated Frame technology. Do you think web committees can actually get them to discard something so entwined in the web today? Especially seeing as how these companies are the biggest players on the W3C committee? No need to answer that. You must believe this "idealism" or you wouldn't say frames have no future --even if they are still used in the present. I came here for a review and I got it. The prejudice against Frames was expected. I've had this Frame discussion with some brilliant people and I don't expect any converts from IT or programmers. It's just not the nature of their personalities to "break the rules." The DOCTYPE is easily implanted in the code but it is NOT needed for a functioning site. You're as overzealous about standards as I am about tricks and shortcuts. You've contributed nothing new to this post. Just old knowledge and setting me up as a dumb Luddite martyr. Thanks.

here. Thanks for the screenshot, it's very helpful. I apologize for misleading you, I haven't fixed that problem yet. Tonight? What the image shows is the same problem described in many places online with various workaround solutions. So this confirms the cause. Thanks. Incidentally, what is your IE6 verison number? I'd really like to know so I can reproduce the error. Thanks for letting me know the fix worked. I did change this last night. About browser statistics. Here's what this market (users) actually have been using on a gateway page the client had me set up for downloads on another URL. Here's the percentages: 1. MSIE 52.7% 2. Firefox 39.2% 3. Safari 7.4% 4. Opera 0.6% Unfortunately, no data between IE6 and IE7. Oh, well. But it does show how this market chooses to browse. We've beat this dead horse long enough. You found problems that needed fixing (besides the Frames issues.) That's why I came here. You have a good brain. Thanks for lending it to me.

Thanks, Eric. You're a tolerant person. There are many ways to solve a problem. There is no one right, perfect way. I've gotten what I need from my review and the site is improved. That was the goal.

Yes. That is a solution. But a simple change of percentage will fix the problem on all browsers. No sniffing required and no problems or complexity. A low-tech (no-tech) solution. Hmm? You have the same size monitors and settings I have. Any ideas why you are seeing "NAVBAR" folding? That is your belief. Got any numbers? "I believe" Firefox is stronger than people realize and still gaining ground fast. So picking and choosing data that supports our feelings / intuition is okay? That works for me.

Okay. sounds good to me. Give me your pitch (or send me to a link) that convinces me of the alternative benefits. Enlighten me to why you think PHP includes would simplify my project turnaround time. You missed the "dynamic image resizing" made possible by embedded Flash. Change the browser screen size and watch how the it resizes to fit any window on-the-fly. A liquid site. That's THE major benefit. No vacuous space in the middle of the screen like many liquid sites. You were originally not participating in this review. What made you change your mind?

Fascination would be not be a serious "pro" argument. If you have couple a pages personal website with no intentions to have good accessibility and SEO, it is your personal choice, use frames. But if you seriously considering building good professional website, you would prefer clean minimalistic HTML with CSS styling template which you implement either in CMS or make your few pages website using PHP includes. T- This was a definite bash on Frames and slam on my "fascination" being interpreted as unprofessional or childish. I'm not really interested in opinions of HTML frames technology. And if you don't have a fascination, you don't have much purpose or meaning in your job. Killing me with Facts would be a better tactic. There is no evidence CSS produces less code or lighter sites or even simplicity. You need to do some real-world value analysis. Frames aren't for every site. Everyone knows that already. Just small sites that need to be built fast and efficiently. You have no data for your defense. Nothing has contributed more to site bloat than Adobe Dreamweaver CSS --except embedded Flash videos. There is nothing wrong with fascination with ideas or concepts. It propels us to greater creative thought and innovation. As usual, I'm disappointed in the lack of right-hemisphere thinking in the "coding" world. Yes, there are people who can do front-end and back-end, right and left, whole brain thinking. But it requires limiting the project scope and toolset. My self-imposed limits seem to bother programmers. Why? Don't they realize it's limitations that make creativity into an asset. Creativity is the inverse of dollars. C=1/$ Saying Frames can NOT generate "good SEO" is absurd. I've already stated the SEO on this site is excellent. Check it out for yourself. Google on "Thermal Resistivity." Have you ever compared Flash site SEO to Framed site SEO? (Frankly, I think SEO is dead. Not Frames. Google's plugged all the holes for exploitation. Well, most of them anyway.) Dear Beginners in Web Design: WARNING! Do NOT ever use Frames without adult supervision. Frames frighten "real" professionals. If you can design something with Frames and make as much money as they do, not only do you make them look stupid, but you destroy the entire fantasy fee structure of web services. Not to mention their professional confidence. Frames only reduce prices. So please do NOT use Frames or even try to convince your small business clients that Frames may have potential. Frames are only a creativity tool and shortcut to fast, low-cost web products. Don't waste other "programmers" higher education. Don't even try. Frames are only used by retards and fools like Google and Amazon. Just because they are successful doesn't mean they are smart. I can't believe it. "Just for personal sites with no intentions of good accessibility and SEO!" Um? Have you ever visited Google Images? This isn't a hobby. It's how I make my living people. I'm making money not art. Wake up! Look at legacy stuff and see how you can milk it. The learning curve is practically zero, the ideas are proven or have known workarounds, and the tools are all free. Sites can even be built using 10-year-old computers you buy for under $100. That's the whole idea. Fast entry level into making stuff people really want and need. Flash and Frames were both created in the late 1990's. Browsers and search engines have adapted to Frames. Yes. It's possible to support you and your family with a business overhead of less than $100 per month and no debt for capital expenditures. And, in a beautiful rural setting. Peaceful. Imagine it while I live it.

Just wanted to say thanks. There were three errors previously overlooked or discounted before your review: 1. Top nav breaks in FX. This was an easy fix. Reduce the font size. It wasn't "broken" but did word wrap. 2. You get a horizontal scroll in IE6. This remains a mystery. I saw this once on a machine in the lobby of a Portland, OR. hotel a few weeks ago. Obviously running IE6 from what you've said. I downloaded IE6.0 and can't get an error. In fact, I downloaded a bunch of version and can't get this horizontal scroll error. Install multiple versions of IE on your PC free http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE v3.0, 4.01, 5.01, 5.5, 6.0, I already had v7.0 The culprit is IE6 for sure. According to online forums, this problem occurs in Frames and CSS with 100% width embedded tables. The cheapest fix is making the table width 99%. I will install that but I have no way of knowing if it's fixed or not since I can't see it broken. Can you tell me the "exact" version of IE6 you tested on. Maybe I need an "updater." My version 6.0 is the annoying one where Flash files had to be "allowed" on each page before loading. Gak! 3. FIX ASTM links under the left image column. This was easy. I just moved the subnavigation over to the right scrolling column. Much improved. Thanks. Here's some stats below. As I mentioned, this was built for 1024 x 768 viewing. It is operable down to 600 x 800 px. Display Resolution http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp The current trend is that most computers are using a screen size of 1024x768 pixels or more: Date Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown Jan09 57% 36% 4% 0% 3% http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Browser Statistics 2009 IE7 IE6 IE8 Fx Chrome S O April 23.2% 15.4% 3.5% 47.1% 4.9% 3.0% 2.2%

I'm assuming by "breaks the NAVBAR" you means it "wraps" in Firefox. This I have seen on some small browsers. What is your screen resolution? Are you on a 15" portable monitor? and do you have your browser window open full or less? It should adapt on-the-fly. I assume your extra "chrome" is FF tools and plugins. Thanks for being specific. I thought this problematic page was fixed. But obviously it needs a more "serious" fix. I don't like that navigation anyway. Again, I'm curious about your screen size. While this site works on 600x800 px., it was designed for 1024 x 768 px. That is the audiences typical resolution or higher. Highspeed Desktops. Okay. Bad form for me. This is useful info. I have seen this on one computer screen. But not on any engineers screens. I'm not sure why this is occurring. I can't get it to replicate on my hardware- Mac OSX or WINPC XP. It may be browser specific IE6 voodoo. Thanks. I'll find a workaround. This is a deliberate "usability" sacrifice for "story continuity." The client (company) knows this is occurring and has no problem with it. Where they start is being forced. This has to do with presentation and usability compromises. This workaround is fine for the clients needs. And solves Frame isolation problem. We'll see how it affects site dumping with Google Analytics. I don't think it will be significant. But you point is noted. Printing these webpages is not part of the design criteria. But thanks for noticing this known Frame limitation. Thanks. I've been around for a long time, too. High tech engineering and marketing for 35 years. And the best is still to come! Did you test the "liquid" stretchiness? It's a transparent feature but worth playing with just to see it happen. The text size was a deliberate choice for the aging market. 100% Easy-to-Read Standard 100E2R. http://informationarchitects.jp/100E2R/ Simplicity was a primary goal. Focusing on just one product message. No site bloat. I don't feel abused. I'm like a leatherback sea turtle. My shell is not hard but I can handle criticism. Especially when it changes or improves my designs. That's the goal. If I didn't think you were capable of better, I wouldn't have wasted the "IQ" smile. You have a high IQ and are capable. I didn't want to be brushed off with the obvious limitations of Frames. You were pulling your punches because you thought I was the same old dummy that wanders in wanting to know if his ill-conceived website can be salvaged. That is not my case. This is not my first Framed Hybrid website. I wanted a serious review. I think you almost covered the bases. And I expect more comments will flow in --sadly, mostly negative. That's what I need most. Slamming or ignoring W3C HTML Frame standards is not a review. Most site visitors never know they are on a Frame site, nor will they care. No one has mentioned "speed" another transparency feature. People only notice slow sites, not fast ones. Oh, well. Optimization wasn't addressed but I already know where I stand on that topic. So, no problem. HTML Frames is part of the W3C standard. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/framesetdtd.html Nice try edging me out on a technical foul. I have always had a fascination of Frame possibilities. Thanks for your advice and critique. I've been advised by Guru designers not to do programming because coding is too complex and everchanging and overwhelming. I say, "Set severe limitations and work within those bounds." This forces creative thinking and simplicity. I used to restrict my pages to 35K page weight. At 75K, I feel like I'm working in a cathedral instead of a one-room cabin. Average Internet page weight is now around 350K. What an absolute waste of bandwidth!

Thanks for the look. This website actually is a liquid site with dynamic resizing images. Try it on 15", 17" and 21" monitors and it automatically adjusts to the browser window size. Surely, you find this transparent feature unique. There are others but invisible to users. That's what transparency is all about. So it's not "fixed position." I'm very curious to learn how you bookmarked your Framed pages. CSS, JS, PHP? Let me know, please. This would be useful information. A sample snippet would be a joy. How painful was the coding experience? Or a URL would be great.

Bashing on Frames is ubiquitous on the web. It's dogmatic and prejudiced. I'd like to hear something refreshing for a change. This seems like a good forum for thinking people. Am I right? You said: Thank you for not bashing Frames. Now I will critique your IQ. TKG, What do you think the goal is for this website? Getting people to link to it or bookmark it? Obviously not. That is a known limitation of HTML Frames. The main goal is only to get them to request a quotation on the signup form. That's it. You made an erroneous assumption that bookmarking was a primary goal. It isn't. Thanks for reporting on something so obvious. You could NOT remember how to navigate a seven page website? You were taken back to the HOME page, right? Did that strain your brain? Such small sites do NOT require any sophistication for users. The user isn't that dumb. Did you notice this is targeted at an industrial market of ENGINEERS? Try dropping in on a lonely FRAME for this site from Google sometime. See where that takes you. (HOME again!) Wouldn't it be more dangerous NOT having any navigation? Web engineering is about compromise. This website was built in less than 45 days-- start to finish. That includes content generation and image research. Turnaround time is very important. But the question still remains: Does the website offer answers to problems? Is it presented in a logical way? Is it functional? Is it readable? Is it attractive? Does it feel different? Those are the questions I'd like to hear addressed by you --NOT whether HTML Frames are good or bad or if Frames are antiquated. Those are unresolvable and a matter of coding preference. That stuff has been rehashed a million times. This is NOT a question on the inappropriateness of Frames but under what "limitations" and "criteria" are HTML Frames a good solution. I propose this site may have more merit than is apparent to programmers who were taught in school never to use Frames. Ever. Thanks for looking. Take another look, please, but this time take off your "regulatory" hat and look for the positive results. This site has been up for only a few weeks and already has every content page listed and ranked by Google. It already has visitors. But what does the web community have to say? I'm listening to you and asking for new eyes. The site already "owns" the organic keyphrases for Google front-page for several targets. "Google can read nested Frames?" Yes. That broken-spidering falsehood is actually taught on the web in tutorial sites with posting dates as recent as 2008. Gads! Myths do not die. What kind of load times are you seeing on this non-PHP website? Are they good and fast? Is page variety an asset or a liability (in other words, like template, CSS Dreamweaver, cookiecutter boredom)? In navigating, what seems awkward? What is boring? Do YOU really know how to review a websites merits? I look forward to hearing your opinions on these topics --not Frames. Don't just shove me off into the "newbie-idiot-Frame" pile. I'm looking for "unseen-by-me" improvement. I know the limitations of Frames that I don't want to waste time on. Those are resolved for me. Thanks for tolerating my insolence. Show me you are the expert this forum claims you are. That's my challenge to you. Show me some credibility.

Thelma- Thank you for NOT visiting this website. I've grown quite bored with the disrespect paid to a legacy technology that is still used by Google image, About.com, and many smaller sites like GoDaddy stats to display advertising and dynamic content. Frames will evolve into XFRAMES and few will know how to use them. An edge for fellows like me. Here is a link that might interest you instead: http://www.thefwa.com/articles/hybrid1105.html It explains the virtues of Framed Hybrid websites. You may find you have a different opinion but I doubt it. Frames are not a universal tool. They are only good for special applications. They still require discernment, appropriateness, and good taste. Just like any technology -like overzealous Flash sites especially. Here is another reference more biased because I wrote it: http://www.pagepipe.com/Framed-Hybrid.pdf It's a 56K download.

If you simply want to bash on HTML Frames, skip this request. Don't even look. It's only for Framed Hybrid innovators and early adopters. I'm looking for review on content, usability, speed, navigation, design, and presentation. Not coding technique or method. Just front end. http://www.thermalresistivity.com/ Thanks for your time and interest-- Threebirds web engineer