www.online-soccerforum.com

Hello everybody,

I'd like you all to take a look at my new website www.online-soccerforum.com that I'm hoping you'll like. The name speaks for itself!!! The site's anout soccer and its main purpose is the forum. You can also download some cool wallpapers as well as play games. You can also talk about anything else other than soccer like the latest videogames, other sports or check out my trade rumours board...always interesting. It's really up to you guys. New features will be added, so don't forget to check regularly. I only have one registered user so far, but I'm hoping that other people will join!!!

That's about it, so check out my website and give me some feedback, pls. It also wouldn't hurt if you sign up.

Web Standards Man (myself) reviews and grades sites in 4 categories:

• Code Validation [ 0 = None, 1 = Some attempt, 2 = Transitional, 3 = Strict, 4 = XHTML1.0 Strict / 1.1 ]
• Aesthetics [ 0 = You can guess, 1 = FrontPage Themes, 5 = CSSZenGarden or better ]
• Accessibility [ 0 = Negative usability (eg JavaScript generated menus), 1 = None, 2 = Alt text, etc.../ some attempt, 5 = True content/appearance separation and renders fine in Lynx and Jaws
• Coding Practices [ -1 = Low-End WYSIWYG tools used obstienciously, 0 = Tables for layout, etc..., 5 = Semantic XHTML w/ CSS ]

so lets see how your site scores up:

Code Validation
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...cerforum.com%2F

Gets 198 Errors when validated as the DTD states, XHTML1.0 Transitional... a lot of the initial erros are caused by poorly nested header tags

Number of errors drops to 144 when DTD is overridden to HTL4.01

The site's source code shows absolutly no attempt at following the spec... constant use of the <font> tag says it all

Score: 0/4

Aesthetics

For color-coordination you get 4/5, I like the blue/grey combo
However, your header graphics seem more "corporate" orientated, I fail to see how a blurred photo of an office complex relates to soccer
There are a few issues with double-borders too

The images don't blend well into the page

Score: 3/5

After a quick review of your sites code... the score is reduced by 2 points...

This ring any bells?


*cough* MS FrontPage *cough*

Final score in Aesthetics: 1/5

Accessability

None of your images have alt="" text, as required by spec and chosen DTD, lack of ANY semantic code, you didn't even use <ul> for the nav or lists.

Score: 1/5

Coding Practices

Since it appear you used FrontPage to geneate the code for you, rather than developing it properly, you get -1.

Although putting phpBB in would require a bit of manual modification, the validator still threw 42 errors up (for the DTD specified as HTML4.01 Trans), so for putting in an ounce of effort to code manually, you get a point added

Score 0/5

Total Score: 2/19