I am a web designer by trade in addition to usually build the pages that your designer presents myself with. However for this web site I am working on I have to do my own design and was wonderring plainly could get many input
I am attaching a jpeg on the home page in progress.
I am most worried about how exactly to handle the actual navigational elements that we want to lay in addition to the birch bark along at the top..
Thanks for any input.
idk. the graphic links can do little for seo if they are marketing their particular camp. also this header graphic is definitely well outside the actual theme. if you utilize a graphic, utilize a span display: it’s unlikely that any; for link text so the graphic doesn’t slice your seo. google won’t like the approach i suggested the tag but right up until they start cleansing their mess they have no room to say anything.
Good point to the span. I dont for instance using graphics for links women and men client is extremely adement about this sort of design.
You’re right about the actual header clashing, I’ll replace this that has a different texture and see might know about get.
Dorky’s got a point to the SEO angle. Search engines likes text… it really is pretty well most Google understands. Invisible tags, even though, tend to have ignored (not often, but quite often).
The most obvious little bit of text I can visualize putting in there to begin with is… well, the name in the camp. What do you find it It’s a pleasant looking camp web page, but… what’s the camp And where do you find it And why would anyone desire to go there Including Dorky suggested, lose the very best image, and then you can extend the center background for for more textual content.
Appears to be pretty cool overall, though.
Thanks on your input to this time.. I have made some changes and recommendations the result! Anyone have any ideas for make the nav at the top pop a bit more
Nonetheless, let me know what you think.
In keeping with the weathered wood theme within the signpost navigation, I would use a much more " rustic" almost font, maybe one who looks likes the actual signs were remember to brush painted. Then tie inside top nav utilize the same font in place there.
Just what AlphaMare said. I’m also undecided that the " signpost" nav is necessary now that you have the top nav. Seems somewhat redundant website. Maybe if that were in tiny plain text to the bottom of that page, but not where you have it now.
Once more, that area work extremely well for the ordinary text you’re likely to need at some point.
I furthermore dislike the image navigation.
Explain towards camp owners the issues with website handiness:
Evaluating Webpages for Accessibility: Overview
Can certainly a visually inable person use their site
Can an individual navigate their site which has no graphics enabled
Thanks for any inputs guys,
This shall be the entry web site only. After the following, the common elements within the page will be on the large image up. They wanted real estate page without plenty of content, just a web page that kids wish and allow them to access the important spots inside the site.
The redundant nav is not likely to be on the last version, most of the links will change for the reason that site progresses, most are just placeholders.
I’ll add some smaller text links from the footer, this is probably a photoshop work up for now so I did not include those people.
So far as accessibility, this is a high end camp and in addition they have told me personally multiple times, its clients all have got broadband and brand new computers.. lol, so it isn’t worried about being accessible to opportunity seekers without graphics enabled and/or without high speed broadband.
I’ll try a much more rustic font to the navs, anyone know of worth keeping that looks great, but is continue to easy to read
i consider alpha about the actual font.
SO, I have followed your font notion!
Here is the updated screenshot.
Do you like thinking about a different rustic font for that camp name
Also, when this is a working site, I am thinking of keeping the headernav + the overhang roof thingy in view and have your website scroll under the roof away from site.
I believe the client want that touch.
font looks much better. can’t say much within the scroll. i like simple design.
I think you will be misunderstanding the way the definition of " accessibility" is used as it pertains to web design. We’re not chatting here only related to how (what sorts of computer, broadband, etc) people will access coursesmart, but that the website be made on the market to everyone. Visually and reading impaired people use the web at all times – if your website can’t be interpreted through the technologies they use, it is inaccessible to them.
For a website to comply with accessibility standards, they should at the very least have the following:
- (X)HTML Validation in the W3C for this content
- CSS Validation in the W3C for this layout
- Access keys already a part of the HTML
- Semantic Net markup
- A high contrast version in the site for people who have low vision
- Alternative media for every multimedia used on the webpage (video, flash, acustic, etc. )
You can read more concerning this on the W3C web page
Now, one particular might say… definitely, only 2% in the users are blind and work with a screen reader.
That may be true, nonetheless my point is definitely two things:
1) ANY camp should continue to have an attainable site.
2) Start by making it accessible and testing it, you’ll increase your SEO just by making it accessible.
Convenience forces semantics:
Semantic HTML PAGE – Wikipedia, that free encyclopedia
this is most easily cured by way of browser filter that appears to compatible browser rather then incompatible and gives an html ver for incompatible browsers in addition to a link for the html ver from the full ver. i wouldn’t have confused here and make the principle site accessible then also build a strong alt. if you the route regarding accessibility, decide on weather for making the current ver dumb down to ie6 standards or when you would rather provide an accessible ver. don’t aim to do both.
ps. singular of my web sites offer an web coding ver. i’m harmful
All good points!
I will placed a generic cont