WSA Winner
Friday June 25th, 2004
Although it's nothing particularly groundbreaking, Shock Media Studio's site is nice and solid. Easy navigation (accessible without javascript), nice clean content area and some bright photos with subtle treatments (though perhaps a tad heavy on the shiny, happy people).
One small thing, easily fixed -- no background colour on the navigation items means you can't see them with images off.
NOTE: Has been updated with new URL containing Standards version.
Reviewed by Cameron Adams
#1
Clean and functional.
Works fine with CSS disabled. A great example of hybrid layout (table+css).
Posted by umberto caldera :: June 25th, 2004 at 08:15 AM
#2
Handsome looking site - I like the home page a lot - but why a WSA winner?
Has it been changed since you wrote the review? The source says Last Modified: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:27:20 +1000 GMT.
It uses tables throughout, so it does not meet the WSA selection criteria (content/design separation and tables only for tabular data). The drop down navigation relies on Javascript. And the inside page layout and portfolio navigaton breaks in Firefox.
Posted by Adrian :: June 25th, 2004 at 08:27 AM
#3
Image treatment is good and the overall look really eye catching but I see a lot of tables and inline styles. I'va always thought these were deprecated. >_>;
Posted by Neko :: June 25th, 2004 at 11:23 AM
#4
It's a nice site, well designed and put together. I agree it doesn't match the criteria but it would more than likely be a winner with or without the layout being designed with tables.
Without tables would be nicer, but it works fine with css disabled and a few fixes here and there. Nice choice.
Posted by Sam :: June 25th, 2004 at 11:24 AM
#5
Appropriate tags must be used to mark up data i.e. tables are for tabular data.
Hate to be a party pooper, but what's the point of having criteria if you're just going to ignore it? How are we supposed to take this site seriously if it doesn't even take its own selection process seriously? Kinda weak fellas.
Posted by Billy :: June 25th, 2004 at 02:17 PM
#6
Yes, I would have to agree with everyone here about the tables. I like the design and all but the tables were surprising to see on WSA considering they weren't used for their intended purpose. I was sitting there wondering to myself how they achieved the 100% stretch to the bottom of the browser without having enough content to push the div to the bottom. Then I checked out the source and saw tables in use. My hopes were smashed, I am a broken man now.
Posted by Teevio :: June 25th, 2004 at 02:49 PM
#7
Sorry about the confusion, I didn't realise that their CSS version was located at a different URL to the default site.
Fixed now.
Posted by Cameron Adams :: June 26th, 2004 at 03:04 PM
#8
I wonder about this site. Judging by the fixed width of the layout (>780px), it's designed to accomodate 800x600 screen resolutions. But when I resize my web browser to that size, the site doesn't sit centered in the browser and content is cut off to the right (Firefox 0.8). In IE 6 I get a horizontal scrollbar.
Shouldn't be difficult to remedy - but if you're going to go with a fixed width layout at least make sure it works.
Otherwise a pretty site; pretty average too.
Posted by coda :: June 26th, 2004 at 07:33 PM
#9
Ok I take most of that back, my Firefox was acting strangely ;) - but it still doesn't fit an 800x600 resolution.
Posted by coda :: June 26th, 2004 at 07:41 PM
#10
coda, you're right. The site doesn't fit into the 800x600 resolution range. For some reason they have the shadow of the body content in two table coloumns that are causing a scrollbar in both Mozilla and IE at 800x600.
It would however work if the body shadows were a centered background image as opposed to being backgrounds of table cells.
Posted by Sam :: June 26th, 2004 at 11:48 PM
#11
But then again they may not have been designing for an 800x600 audience.
Sheesh.. let me edit my comments Cam! =)
Posted by Sam :: June 26th, 2004 at 11:50 PM
#12
Sorry, but where is the standard version? The "v2" also uses tables in a non-standard way (not that I really mind). The site is sort of pretty in a corporate way, but hardly unique. And the left-nav arrows breaks in safari. Question mark.
Posted by David :: June 27th, 2004 at 04:41 PM
#13
Wow! I just saw in my stats that our site has been reviewed.
It's not even finished!
v2.shockmedia.com.au is a test bed for the redevelopment of our website and an example of WAI AAA compliance in a good design.
The hybrid use of one table is only because I wanted a 100% height, I spent hours trying to get it to work with no prevail. If anyone has any ideas let me know.
Thank you so much for this review and all the great comments. I think now it is time to put it live to top level domain.
Posted by Marc Greenstock :: July 1st, 2004 at 02:48 AM
#14
v2.shockmedia.com.au
On the site the footer goes pear shaped, and also i'll suggest you remove the dropdown menus since the left sidebar is doing the exact same thing but better and not taking up valuable space.
Overall the site v2 is merely touching the surface of what it can archieve.
The border on the right side is too big compared to the left side in firefox
0.9.1 and ok in opera 7.51.
And please remove those icons below the page to a decent location and explain what they do for the site.
All the best
Posted by jboy :: July 6th, 2004 at 10:55 PM
#15
You don't need a 100% height let the content flow naturally.
Again all the best
Posted by jboy :: July 6th, 2004 at 11:08 PM
Comments on: Shock Media Studios