BlameThePixel!

After finishing a huge re-design of my Worms Nightclub website that completely changed the way it looked, I thought of making this thread.
Web designers have all sorts of differente tastes in terms of site designs. Soem like light text on dark backgrounds, some like different shades of one bright colors, and some just like having twenty random colors all over the place. Some like big, bold font, and some prefer very small font.

What do you like to see in a web design?

I like black & gray backgrounds with pretty small light gray text. I also find udnerlined links ugly , and like links to rollover from gray to white. Sometimes I'll add the occasional color, but for some reason, mostly colorless pages appeal to me. I get most of the color from the logo.

Also, what do you think of my site's design? Too boring? Think I should change it back to the old design? (link below my sig

apart from the fact that the frame doesnt work and that all links open ina new window - it's fine.

Which frame? I use two. And, which browser are you using? If you're seeing it in FireFox, then I'm not surprised; for some reason, only one frame appears in FireFox, but it works fine in IE. It really pisses me off, because the design that looks great in IE isn't displayed correctly in the so-called best browser available.

that would be bcause your coding is shit. IE is a crap browser so it will attempt to render all kinds of shit markup - If your site is horribly wrong in firefox - it's usually cos of a mistake you made.

Validation: not even close - the page is about 15 lines long and throws 7 errors - no doctype and no charset is unsurprising, and if you'd bothered to validate then you'd know why firefox chokes.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.jediknightiifans.com/wnightclub/

Wow, my site is an insane amount of things wrong when I try to vailidate it..

They were still wrong before you validated it...

Thank God I'm not alone...

True, but mine is displayed propertly in both browsers, (IE and Firefox) so that's all that matters to me.

Ohhh, it looks really nice in IE. Hopefully you can get it working for firefox.

Thanks, but I wish I knew where to start. For example, instead of calling my hard-worked-on site shitty and telling me I did everything wrong, having ReadMe actually help me out would be nice.

try reading the post, it says read the validator, read the validation errors, they say that you haven't closed the <iframe> tags.

Parhpas if you put soem effort into fixing your own mistakes instead of complaining that others are doing it for you, you might just get somewhere.

NB: I have zero respect for people who fail to make or even attempt to make proper valid websites - especially those who cannot fix them when instructed how to.

Line 455, column 147: reference to entity "MID" for which no system identifier could be generated?
It's giving an error for a url?

you have an &. you need to change it to &amp;.

The page now works in FireFox.

i dont really have a specific taste or scheme that websites should be, more just as long as the colours go together and it dosnt suck. Otherwise i'm fairly tollerant. Though i do like this Ultra-Compact Inverted ^^

Olospo.net

when you use an ampersand symbol ('&') in html, it is thought to be the beginning of a character entity, this begins with an & and ends in a colon (';')

in a URL when you do index.htm?page=1&mid=5
the parser sees the & and assumes that 'mid' is the entity, it doesnt find a colon or an entity matching 'mid' so it throws an error, Any and all ampersands in html should be written as &amp; to be valid.