Cookie Magazine

at 04:02 on 20 September 2006, David B wrote:

I dont know what validator you where using, but this site doesnt validate using the FF plugin, which is very lenient as compared to say the w3cs validaor.

wow, lots of divs improper use of headings, tons of inline javascript that could easily be made external. huge white space under the middle two columns because there is so much info in the left column and its so skinny. i dont know the design is cool, but more attention should have been given to the spacing of information, and im only talking about the home page, the rest of the site...

If i had to rate it out of 10 i would give it a 6. its nice but as a designer trying to better understand semantics and proper code use, while managing asthetics, i am not sold on this design. there is no h1 you come across an h5 before an h3, jsut doesnt make sense. where there any p tags? over 40 divs, come on. i only see about 12 area that call for a div visually on the page, but this is one mans opinion, so dont take it to harshly.

at 05:51 on 20 September 2006, Rosano Coutinho wrote:

It looks pretty valid to me:

http://validator.w3.org/check?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cookiemag.com%2F

at 06:13 on 20 September 2006, David B. wrote:

http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cookiemag.com%2F&warnings=yes&spider=yes

to be fair about 30 or 40% of those errors are unencoded ampersands, but the errors that arent are jsut silly to me, 8 to 10 br's after each other. pages that cant be retrieved(maybe server pages, not sure)

but over and above validation, my other comments stand, do they not? again, im not tring to tear apart anyones work i can appreciate it for what it is, im just looking at it from a 'learning designer' perspective and it isnt a very good representation of what semantic standards based coding is all about.

again not to say I have anything better, but as an observer i dont feel this is a very well designed site, from visual grid work to the code under the hood...

at 15:37 on 20 September 2006, Ed Hall wrote:

Sorry to be off-topic, but I don't really understand this whole semantics arguement that so many people make. I really think people should rethink the terminology that they use. For all the reasons people argue semantics it's doesn't match up to what semantics means. From what I've learned semantics is the study of meaning, especially in language. What does a lot of div tags have to do with semantics?

Maybe I'm missing something but my attitude toward this "web semantics" stuff is quickly becoming negative. I would choose a word that is more closly related like redundant or superflous when there is a lot of div tags.

at 16:44 on 20 September 2006, David B. wrote:

you are right Ed, the word semantics used incorrectly and as a buzz word has little meaning. But when used correctly it does carry meaning.

generally speaking my understanding of semantics not only applies to the meaning given to an element via its id or class but also the structure of the document. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semantics&x=0&y=0

for me semantics as it relates to html is the study of the meaning of the language, in language (program, verbal, ect.) words and phrase carry different meaning and different weight. take for example; shout, yell, scream. all meaning to make a loud vocal noise, but with decidedly different emotional carries.

for me, and this again is just my opinion, its the same with the language of html h1-h6 carries more meaning than a div with a given id or class 'header', we would be quibbling over semantics to get into the actual meaning to the page, but as a human reading the code, using proper elements is easier to consume.

at 17:06 on 20 September 2006, Bill W. wrote:

Nitty gritty points aside, the site was clearly designed with standards in mind. As Eric Meyer puts it on his list of notable redesigns:

"I don't insist on perfect validation to include a site; demonstration of significant intent is generally enough."

http://meyerweb.com/eric/redesignwatch/

at 17:59 on 20 September 2006, Kyle Talbott wrote:

As a dad of two, subscriber of Cookie, and a semi-frequent commenter, I can say that the site is not that bad. As far as a print publication's online face goes, this is good but not nearly as usable as NYMag. Validation aside, visual heirarchy is wrestled here but not sucessfully won. Scale, color, type and lien weight could have given the content more presence. As it is now, most of the time the large, highly saturated ads overtake the body copy... ya know, the reason the users are supposed to be there... or do I have it wrong... is the site a spring board to referals and revenue that way?

Picking up the mag on the racks you get a clearer understanding of the brand, it is intelligent, elegant, playful and definately well laid out. Going online the brand loses nearly all of those attributes, traces of elements are found but don't have the same resonance.

My wife's going to keep my subscription but I have no reason go back to the site.

at 18:41 on 20 September 2006, David B. wrote:

@bill, so since eric meyer said that, it totally negates everything i said =) on a more serious note. validation is not the end all be all, its just a part of the process, if i gave the impression that validation is the crux of a sites design, then let me go on record saying that i dont think it is.

take uxmag.com for example. not that cookie should copy ux's formual but they have a similar grid scheme and ux site succeeds where cookie's fail because of the attention to grid and how the content needs to flow in the space created for it. that side bar on the home page is bugging me the most. i guess i just dont like to see all that white space which seems preventable.

@kyle i think your words speak more to what i was getting at from a visual point of view. i have seen (not a subscriber) actual cookie print mags and the design, though not directly translatable, can be better situated with more imphasis on the content.

Add a comment:

Keep the comment relevant, constructive and be polite.
A valid email address or URL to your site must be provided, or the comment might get deleted. Content seemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Avoid explicit language and words such as "sucks" and "ripoff". For more in-depth discussions use our forum. Email addresses are never displayed. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted - no need to use <p> or <br/>. Quotes & apostrophes are automatically converted to smart punctuation. Be careful when copying and pasting portions of entries or other comments. The following inline HTML elements may be used: <strong><em><pre><q><blockquote><code>. All other code will get removed before posting. Don't forget to close your tags.