View Full Version : 1-800-MOW-MY-LAWN Website

02-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Check out our website and let me know what you think

02-10-2009, 10:16 AM
Honestly, this site needs ALOT of work. Looks like a corp. site that was modified for a lawn biz, or is it even a lawn biz? What exactly are you doing with this site?

There are problems with the design as well. If you are going to use a strict DTD then it needs to validate.

1) Code is not valid. Please validate!!

HTML: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

2) Mixture of hardcoded style, inline style, linked style is a NIGHTMARE.
Separation of style and content is the recommended way to maintain your code.

3) Limited or no document structure/outline


4) Limited or no accessibility compliance

WCAG/Sec508: http://www.cynthiasays.com/fulloptions.asp

02-10-2009, 10:51 AM
lol, wow. You must be a web guy. Can you explain to me what all of this means and why it matters since when you go there it all works and looks fine why it is so bad? I have seen plenty of posts were a few people talk about all these problems with a particular page but I go to it and it seams great to me. Yes it is a Corp. site. I just don't understand, It all works and I have got nothing but great reviews from people on how it looks. No it was not done professionally but that is a cost we can not incur right now. I guess I was looking for opinions more on how it looks and design in general as opposed to all this mumbo jumbo that most people don't understand or know why it is important. Thanks for your input.

02-10-2009, 11:22 AM
lol, wow. You must be a web guy.

I develop web applications in my free time when I actually have any. There is a difference between a designer (dime a dozen) and a developer.

IMHO, the site is scattered, with no coherent design. I am also seeing problems with firefox and the menu, but that could be due to one of my extensions (or not).

Why do the items in my copy and paste response matter?

With respect to accessibility:



With respect to site/code maintenance.


With respect to SEO:


If you need more let me know. :)

Flow Control
02-10-2009, 12:00 PM

Is there a good, better and best type of HTML or XHTML validation that would be the best style for the future.

02-10-2009, 12:47 PM
Any flavor of XHTML is your best bet for future proofing.
Personally I validate my code to a strict DTD (XHTML 1) or XHTML 1.1.
You could also start doing some HTML5 and CSS3 coding for browsers that support it.

If you want to go down the XML/module path and/or allow for maximum flexibility with current doc types, then XHTML 1.1 & CSS2.1 + CSS3 (where supported) and optionally XSLT (for XML docs) is where you should be right now IMHO.

Browser HTML Support (http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-html)

Browser CSS Support (http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-css)

Browser DOM support (http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-dom)

Flow Control
02-10-2009, 09:39 PM
My site is currently: HTML 4.01 Transitional

Can and should I try to comply with XHTML 1.0 or similar ?


02-11-2009, 01:36 AM
My site is currently: HTML 4.01 Transitional

Can and should I try to comply with XHTML 1.0 or similar ?


That is up to you ... and if you do, I would shoot for XHTML Transitional first, then check it using the strict DTD override the validator supplies to see where your other errors are. If you want to learn something about coding HTML then I would definitely say yes, go for it.

Team-Green L&L
02-19-2009, 12:30 PM
Sites looks like it needs someone who can design it. Anyways, did you say you are an LS sponsor now? I took a look at the sponsors page and didn't see your link. That would be an intelligent link to have for as much as it is costing you to be a sponsor here. What type of sponsorship did you get?