Flash in the can

I just love the car graphic.

The colors are really consistent and well put together. Red black and grey, it really looks good, nice harmony.

The header is maybee a tiny bit to extensive, and the thingies on top of it should be links.

The small buttons really dosnt fit all that well together with some of the big graphics in the header for instance...

butt hell... i·m lovi¥n it!

I think the header graphic is kind of neat, and the color scheme seems to fit well. I agree about the small navigation buttons, and I never liked buttons like that (I'm glad that trend went away for the most part).

What is the deal with all the '//' everywhere!? Not sure I get the point of that.

Pretty, but ther is a lot of whitespace. Overall, it's a decent site.

XHTML is not valid: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//flashinthecan.com/

I have been enriched by some of the comments I've read. Some constructive ideas have been already applied like image maps on the header graphic(text boxes) and the list instead of paragraphs for the speakers. Thank you!

The CSS menus did not work due to the fact that the text was getting over the edges of the images(70s style car radio buttons) if the text was to be resized by the user.

So thanks to Javascript that the deadline was met and the client happy.

All pages validate 95% of the time. Presently the only reason some pages don't validate is due to an embedded Flash object which stays as of now a problematic issue as you can read on ALA article and discussions:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

Thanks everyone for your input!

´Presently the only reason some pages don't validate is due to an embedded Flash objectª

Flash is not a w3c standard, pages with flash can't be standard.

The home it's not standard compliant and not validate.

I thought that on Stylegale are reviewed standard sites, not nearly standard sites.

Loads of bugs as mentioned before. The colour scheme doesn't do anything for someone that is colour blind. When will people wake up to the fact that certain colour schemes such as the grey red combination all look the same to a colour blind person. The buttons don't go with the overal grungy look and the text layout is incredibly messy and could have been tidied up far better. This site just looks thrown together - sorry.

Thats ok joos, everyone has their own opinion. Thanks for sharing yours. And gianluca, does it say standardsgala in the title? IMO, flash is ok as long as its not required.

stylegala:

gianluca, does it say standardsgala in the title? IMO, flash is ok as long as its not required

gianluca:

no, title it's stylegala ;-)

but in submission criteria [1] I read this (emphasis added by me):

-- The site must be built with web standards and preferably validate as XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01 compliant using the W3C validator --

[1] http://www.stylegala.com/about/#submission_criteria

Flash in the can is built with web standards. The flash is purely presentational and does not exclude the rest of the site to be standard compilant. Nuff said.

As the client on this project, I'm very happy with the site. Very great comments here though. Very interesting.

As to the point about colour blindness, i myself suffer from red-green colorblindness, and think the colors used on the site work fine. i can see them just fine.

I really like the header graphic, and the color scheme. But I agree the text is a bit messy. For me, the sidebar takes up too much room, even though its only used on a couple of pages. Thus the content is squashed into a long box with no room for margins.

The design really grabbed me though, maybe that was the point!

(If you can't use flash & still design with web standards, then something is defiantly wrong with the standards!!)