Back With A Revision: Hobby Site Options

[markfh11q]

I posted an earlier version of the some type of content a while ago here, but a lot has changed since then. Namely, I have put a lot more focus on content, ease of updating/appending pages, and service speed.

The site is done in static XHTML files, but what is on the surface is not indicative of what is used to generate these files.

I created a simple desktop "development" environment that handles includes and templating via separate files from the actual content. That way, I can still focus on content first and foremost rather than worrying about the design of each page and making sure all of them are uniform, without having to resort to server-side scripting or non-compliant technologies like iframes. Basically, the content is saved in very semantic HTML in separate files, and in the same directory structure as the finished web site. The same goes for the includes (menu, header, footer). The templating is handled via a valid XHTML template file with comment-strings such as <!-- {page_title} -->, with the same directory structure as the rest of the site. When it comes time to update the site, I simply copy the "source code" (all of these separate files and directories) into the same directory as a script I wrote in batch and command-line PHP, which handles the rest and produces the static XHTML files that I then upload to the site.

The design is very simple... and I like it that way. Really, I would be happy simply emulating this site's simplicity, but I guess I just have too much web designer still left in me (although I'm surprised I was able to drop PHP and server scripting in favor of this static approach).

I'd like a few suggestions as to the layout and structure of the site. "Sections" are accessed via the menu, and individual pages in these sections accessed through the section page.

As far as the presentation goes, this is about as extensive I go with images for design and "skin".

Take a look at it and tell me what you think. There are a few minor bugs with the template which I plan to work out (remember, I'm focusing on content more), but other than that all that's left to do is add a few more features to increase accessibility (sitemap, etc.). Content will then be the only thing updated/added.

Thanks for looking.

LINKY ---> http://www.spudstalker.net/

[Natechs]

Looks nice. However it is hard to read the navbar. Maybe add a darker font for the lettering

[markfh11q]

Thanks. I'll incorporate that into the next compile. I guess I can't see it since I know what they say already (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Yvil]

Looks good, just a bit plain, but very clear (what, as you state on the homepage, is what it's supposed to be)!

Only bad point I found so quick:
On your homepage's first paragraph of text you end with something like "blahblah, and blahblah".
No comma's before "and"! :-D

[markfh11q]

*Bump*

I've updated my template. I figured that I had enough content, and it was easy enough to add new content, that I could afford to do this.

I made every bit of the template myself using XHTML/CSS and GIMP for graphics. It is fluid, and will work all the way from a resolution 800 to 1600px wide.

Please critique the template. I've got everything else down-pat, but you guys are the experts with design and presentation...

LINKY --> http://www.spudstalker.net/

[Make_It_Spiffeh]

It works, I have a high resolution, and the website spanned to the whole width of the page. Load times were excellent. There is evidence of know how with design (which is my huge thing) but it still is a little basic.

[bigsilk]

I would suggest limiting the width of the page, having the 'content' center and about 800 px. It doesn't look like the page would end up with scrollbars. I just think it looks more 'professional'. Also, if someone has to resize their page, they won't lose their place when reading your content.

It's great to see you're using CSS.

And who knew there was so much to spudgunning?

Adam

[thescientist]

i like it, good job with the rounded corners.

[Rufus]

No comma's before "and"! :-D

It is true in this case, but that statement is far to ambiguous given all of the rules for commas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)