Hi Folks!


I hope you are all doing well.


I have a website that I've created and I'm wondering if I can ask for
some quality Q & A and some feedback on it. The program is for order
taking for restaurants.


I'd like to have some comments on it. But pleez don't tell me it needs
more graphics!!!


Here's the example, feel free to order to your hearts content.
www.OrderingMadeEasy.Com/


If you are feeling really ambitious pleez go to the administrators'
segement, the URL is www.1369.com/Login.htm


The User ID is bambino and the Password is bino (it is case sensitive).



I'd like to hear your comments on performance, ease of use, and any
other topic you choose. Please don't prove your un-professionalism by
making up dumb-ass criticisms. OK? It requires javascript and that is
the way I want it.


If you like the program then tell your local restaurant owners and
cafeteria managers...if you think it sucks then tell me and especially,

tell me why.

Thanks-In-Advance,

Bob Sweeney
671 686 1310

On 9 Nov 2005 22:53:00 -0800, Go1369@Yahoo.Com put finger to keyboard
and typed:
I think you've just proved your own unprofessionalism by a) creating a
site which requires javascript and b) advertising it in a uk.* group
when it's primarily aimed at US readers. But, anyway, here are a few
of the things I spotted that need fixing

1. You have a couple of serious spelling errors on the front page. You
have some more on other pages.

2. All the links are javascript Yes, I know that you said that you
want it that way, but do you also want to mke your site inaccessible
to search emgines? Where do you think your traffic is going to come
from?

3. Clicking on "Order Now" opens a popup window that's set to full
screen with the resize button disabled in IE. Why? Why are you
allowing Firefox and Opera users to resize the screen, but not IE
users? What about people who prefer to run web pages in a window
rather than full screen, anyway - this is a web application, not a
kiosk application, so removing their choice is extremely bad practice.

4. More javascript that interferes with context menus on IE. You must
really hate IE users :-)

5. I won't even mention validation.

Is that enough to be going on with?

Mark
--
http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"When you lose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown"

In post <news:1131605580.943139.307790@g44g2000cwa.googleg roups.com>,
Go1369@Yahoo.Com said:

[as i said in alt.html, alt.html.webedit and alt.www.webmaster]

fix your errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Transitio nal
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...1&profile=css2

no one cares what you want, its what your /visitors/ want that matters. i
don't have JS available so the page is just a useless pile of shit. i bet
you haven't even checked the site in browsers other than IE, wait let me
guess, its only for IE and thats the way you like it. moron.

i would never do them such a disservice.

it sucks

its extremely amateurish rubbish. i'm sure you're very proud of it but
seriously it is crap. i would dump the lot, start again.

for a start:

· learn html, css and a server side language of your choice.
· semantically markup the pages.
· make JS optional, use as much as you like if you want but if its
unavailable then go server side.
· test in browsers other than IE
· learn the basics of UID+HCI

come back in 12-18 months if you work hard you may be close to having
something worth looking at but i would still doubt it would be of a
satisfactory commercial standard. theres a hell of a lot you need to learn,
not just how to throw a few pages together.

you may need to read these:

How to post from Google:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

How do I quote correctly in Usenet? - Quoting and Answering
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html

you do need to read these:

Crosspost, don't multipost
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

Why and how to crosspost
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html


--
l i t t l e v o i c e s

Mark, thanks for spending a few moments of your valuable time
commenting my website. I really appreciate it and value your ideas.

I take a ot of heat from people who say I shouldn't use javascript, but
I'm pretty sure that about 95% of browsers have javascript enabled as a
default.

I'm not trying to be all things to all people....in any business you
have to try to sell to the largest majority...trying to sell to
everyone is too expensive. This is a fact. Maybe I erred in saying "it
requires javascript and that is the way I want it"; I should have said
it requires javascript and that is a decision I made based on the
majority of browser defaults.

It's nothing more than a decision I made and because I wrote this
program, it reflects many decisions that you might not necessarily
agree with.

One for sure is this...the full screen....I know I was "wrong" to
design it like that....but I did it for a very good reason and I would
do the same thing all over again.....It's one thing to talk about
issues here in the newsgroup and another to design a "real life
program" that users, some of whom are very unsophisticated, will be
using.

You cannot say something is "extremely bad practice" if you don't first
ask why they did it that way.

I don't want to use search engines, this program should be used by
people that live near the restaurant. My intention is for restaurants
in your area (and every other area in the world), to let me set up
their restaurant with an order taking system to take orders that go
directly to them. I am out of the loop. I'm just providing the "home
page" and menu and the ability to collect the orders and manage the
menu and create reports of usage.

Sorry for the misp-spelled words, I really need to fix them!

Cheers...and best regards,

Bob Sweeney


Mark Goodge wrote:

On 14 Nov 2005 00:10:36 -0800, Go1369@Yahoo.Com put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Browsers do, maybe. But search engines don't. As I said before, where
do you think your traffic is going to come from?

Most users are used to web pages that don't open full screen.
Sophisticated users can cope with that sort of thing. Unsophisticated
users can't - it will be unfamiliar, and put them off.

How are the people who live near the restaurant going to know that the
site is there?

Mark
--
http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - RSS feeds and Google Adsense tools
"I need someone to hide under, should the sky fall on my car"

Go1369@Yahoo.Com wrote:

Let me put it this way.

It takes _more_ effort to make links Javascript only rather than
traditional HTML. It doesn't make them work better. It means that some
people will not be able to access those links. It means that search
engines will not index your site properly.

You are spending more on creating a site that does less. That's not a
good use of anyone's money.

Yes, most browsers have JS enabled by default, but that doesn't mean
that all users leave it turned on. And there is a profusion of pop-up
blockers around, some of which work by disabling any Javascript links
of this form.

Sure, I can sympathise with webbers who don't make all aspects of a
site fully accessible where they have used non-accessible methods for
good reason[1]. There _are_ times when Javascript and other non-HTML
tricks are the most efficient way to achieve something, and _then_
there is an argument for saying "We think it gives us better value to
write off 5% of potential customers than to spend the extra making the
site accessible to them". But with Javascript-only links, there _is_
no such trade-off.

Sometimes you can. Not necessarily in this case, but sometimes you
can.

That assumes they know (a) that the site is there, and (b) the URL for
it. How often are both of those going to be true? Someone looking for
a local restaurant, has heard about this online website thingy that
some of their mates have used - tries to find it on Gooogle - and
can't. One customer lost.


[1] I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them. That depends on the
nature of their site and business, and the expected demographic. But I
can see an argument for that.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Go1369@Yahoo.Com wrote:

Then you haven't been paying proper attention.

100% of web clients (browsers *and* indexers and suchlike) are
HTML-enabled, nor do they turn that off for security reasons. You
can't get a greater majority than that.

Well, Google seem to have "sold" their essentially web-based product
to "everyone", and they don't seem to have made it dependent on
client-side javascript. Is that a clue for you?

This is a decision you made based on lack of understanding of the web
situation. Fine. If I was in business I'd *love* to have a
competitor like you, who's so stubbornly determined to make Important
Decisions without first studying the facts, and sticks to them no
matter how many try to point out where the error lies.

I'm not saying anything against *optional* javascript, even though I'd
rarely use it myself. But making important features of a web site
dependent on it, which is what you're discussing here, is something
else.

Bye.