Looking for some critique of my web page...

I made this page last fall after about two or three weeks of HTML instruction in my IT class in High School. I haven't updated it since then, so ignore the dates...

I used Dreamweaver for some, but ended up doing it mostly in HTML code. I was just wondering what some of you thought about it. Any and all critique is welcome. I have had a few people say the colors didn't work well...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/empireeurope/home.html

:EDIT: This works best in 1024x768 or higher resolution...I probably should have made it work for any, but meh...if viewed CORRECTLY, how does it compare?

*takes the gloves off*

there's a popup / banner due to crappy hosting.
the color scheme sucks.
the font is times new roman.
the text is all centered so it looks like an hour glass.
you have a counter.
rename home.html to index.html so that this URL will point correctly:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/empireeurope/
..

I would tell you how to improve but I have to go to work.

-Yeah, I know, I'm cheap.
-I've heard...
-What would you suggest? And why is Times New Roman a problem?
-I know, that's why I said to view it in 1024x768 or it wouldn't show right. At the time, I didn't think about it, but I know it's a problem.
-What's wrong with a counter?
-Yeah, I know, but before I put it up I'd had everything targeted to home.html and I was too lazy to change it all.

What I'm looking for is stuff in terms of my programming and/or layout. What colors usually work well?

Color: matter of preference, black on white I suppose is optimal, check the lounge forum for more on this.
Font: Check out this, may help: http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/index.shtml
hourglass: any resolution
counters: pretty lame unless you have like 1,000,000 visits
Programming / layout: ditch dreamweaver. Open NOTEPAD and a browser and point it to http://www.w3schools.com/, http://www.w3.org/, http://www.htmlhelp.com and maybe www.glish.com and www.alistapart.com. Followed by a touch of www.positioniseverything.net and www.csszengarden.com.

PS: there is a Reviews & Critiques Forum.

HTH. Good luck.

Great, thanks, I'll take a look...

I'm not actually planning to update this website, just wanting to know what to do correctly in the future. Thanks to both of you.

Keep this site around to compare to what you'll be doing in a couple of years. There are some basic things to avoid in web design, like too much text, text that's difficult to read, bad color schemes, but most of it will come to you as you progress. I learned alot about color on the web by checking this site

http://www.colormatters.com/brain.html

Times New Roman is kind of a cliche font. Everyone uses it but it is usually associated with amateurs.

Peace,
theo

there is nothing wrong in using times,
and actually he didn't set a font at all,
so you get the browsers default font which often is times.

and i wouldn't say its amateursish.

why? people that don't care about webdesign, ie, programmers, will usually use times but they have an excuse. Any 'professional' webdesigner would probably not use times. MSNBC used to have articles in times font but that has appeared to have changed recently.
The only good thing about times is that it is easier/faster to read because of the serifs (definition: serif.
we were raised on times so it is no surprise that is easier to read.

and, some article I found on google:
http://www.netmechanic.com/news/vol6/usability_no17.htm

the same "webdesigners" that thinks 8px fonts are easy to read

i often never suggest a font nor font-family on the pages i make,
i'll make it up for the users what they prefere as the default font.
so if you have a 20pt sans-serif font as you prefered font, you get that, that same with times. if times is your default you get that.
i see no problem with that.


the problem with suggesting a specific font, and making the page "only" look good with that font, is that one can't be sure everyone have that font.
like in the article that you pointed to suggests verdana,
here is some articles why one shouldn't use verdana,
or atleast be aware of if one are going to use verdana.
http://www.virtuelvis.com/archives/146.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

(note the typical "webdesigners" often makes these mistakes as described in these articles, which in my opinion is much more amateurish.)

- Is it just me, or is being 'easier/faster to read' far and away the most important thing when considering a font?

Now as it happens I typically use 'arial, helvetica, sans-serif' for my webpages, simply because I don't agree that serif fonts are easier to read. However, if you do think that serif is easier to read I don't see how you can say it's amateurish or bad design to use a font like Times New Roman.

With respect to font sizing, I always use the keyword sizes xx-small -> xx-large, thus allowing all browsers (even IE) to apply their text size adjustments that the user would almost certainly have set if they had a visual impairment.

Akh, you may be right when you say that it is not amateurish to use Times Roman. After all, it probably is the most widely used font. But it is not professional to fail to consider font types and looks as a part of the total design of the web page. There are ways to achieve the look and feel that you want for a site without depending on the browser's default choice. To let the browser choose for you is letting go of a part of design that you may not really want to let go of. Times Roman and other serif fonts are not easy to read just because we are used to them. They are easy to read because our eyes can follow the imaginary line that is created by the serifs. San serif fonts are more difficult to read because our eyes have to do more work aligning shapes, etc. Typography and fonts are a passion of mine and are probably one of the most overlooked parts of web design. You don't have to agonize over them, although some people do. You do have to consider them though.

There are many things to consider when deciding on a font. One thing is the amount of text that you have. One the page that we were looking at, there is alot of text. Too much text, I think. If there is a way to avoid that much text, you should do it. If you can't - use a font/size/color/placement scheme that helps the reader read. It's not about picking the font that will be good all the time, but picking the font that agrees and complements what you are trying to say and is readable.

I've read that serif fonts are easier to read on paper and sans-serif are easier to read on webpages and I'd have to say from my own entirely subjective viewpoint that is true.

As important as the font in readability is the line length, 15 to 20 words is good, more and your eyes have trouble skipping back to the start of the next line. Also having sensible blocks (paragraphs I suppose) makes the page more attractive to the eye.

Yes the page linked above has some beginner errors but nothing that can't be easily fixed.

I never gave all that much thought to font...at the time, all I wanted was to get the information online...But I see why it would matter.