General Cycling Discussion - "Bike FAQ" Website...

Well it is time...

I am starting to put together my new "bike" website which by the domain name I am thinking about is a nice Faq type website that will hopefully be easy to use, etc. I am just in the beginning phases but I wanted maybe some input here...

For those of you that do websites... it 800 x 600 still the best standard for web or should I be thinking about 1024 x 768? DSL vs Dialup?

I am also planning to host my race training journal there along with a bike racing FAQ from sources that I have gotten from here on bike forums and other bike sites...

Here is a start... my campy vs shimano banner!

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b91/my58vw/campyvsshimnano.jpg


Any other ideas? Topics? Maybe a links section...? Hmmm this should be fun!

I don't know jack about designing a web site, but I would strongly suggest using upper-case rather than lower-case letters for "FAQ".

I don't know jack about designing a web site, but I would strongly suggest using upper-case rather than lower-case letters for "FAQ".

Sorry, the domain name will more than likely be www.bikefaq.net or something simular.

Let me make it clear this website is not for self promotion, although I will have my blog and sechedule hosted there along with a few articles that I have published. It is more designed around the FAQ sections that I have written, simular to what is in the thread in the road cycling forums. I mainly have as a place where people can go to read more about the topics that come up not only here but all over the internet on things like

1. Campy vs Shimano
2. Pace line edicate
3. Bicycle Racing,

Etc.

I design mine to 1024x768 and above. I think most computer users out there have moved out of the 800x600 era by now. I have to remind myself to test all of my pages over on my laptop which is 1024 over my desktop which is running some insanely higher resolution.

In other topics - what are you planning on coding the site in? asp? aspx? jsp? or some other 'filthy cult language' as my favorate professor always called them. My site is mostly static html at this point with a mix of asp (using vbscript) though the next generation will most likely be aspx (.net using C#) if I ever build anything worthy of actually using it. Right now the best I've had time to build dynamically is my home/updates page, a guestbook, and a photo album on my jonandmargaret.com page.

oh, and I agree - BikeFAQ at least on the page. You can't really control how users will type it - though you can control how it shows up in the history and bookmarks. Just visually - well - better.

I thought the domain name was bikefag.net. I was wrong.

I don't know jack about designing a web site, but I would strongly suggest using upper-case rather than lower-case letters for "FAQ".
Yea I agree. He is not on "higher ground" with that one. No pun intended :)

I thought the domain name was bikefag.net. I was wrong.Yep, that 'q' sure looked like a 'g'......that was my very first impression I got when I saw the title....no biggie.. :p

bikefag... :lol:

BTW my area of specialty is Flash actionscript, although I am still looking at other possabilities for Languages including PHP...

you should probably go 1024x768 but there are still a lot of people out there on 800x600. I usually design for 800x600, but make the design liquid so it will work for any reasonable resolution.

I'd really try to stay away from flash as much as possible and go with html/css standards. You'd be amazed at the things you can do in css and occasionaly dhtml. Flash is slow, bloated, and doesn't work the way the web is "supposed" to work. Hit the back button? your animation starts over, you don't go back a page. Want to be indexed by google and other major search engines? Use html. Flash just shows up as a binary file. Want to cater to people with visual disabilities using screen readers and stuff? Don't use flash.

Really, don't create the whole site in flash. You can do almost everything flash can do with simple CSS and some dhtml sprinkled around. Parts of the site in flash are OK though. Also, if you really want to use vector graphics, the W3C has recommended Adobe's SVG over Macromedia.

Good design is easy if you know where things should go. Try to stay away from tables for layout purposes. Keep your content separate from the layout. You can do most of the layout stuff in CSS. That way if you want to change the site design in the future, you can just swap in a new stylesheet and not spend weeks recoding the site.

Look up Eric Meyer in google for some awesome tips using advanced CSS.


BTW, PHP is really nice for creating dynamic websites. You can conform to standards, because it will generate valid HTML. I've written a few sites in PHP/MySQL. If you need some help or have any design questions, feel free to ask me.

Oh yeah, I read it as bikefag at first too.... :)

oh DSL vs. Dialup. If you use good CSS, most of the high bandwith flash stuff will go away along with layout things that slow stuff down (background images and the like). The CSS version will be better on dialup vs the flash version, but you need to make the call as to who you will cater to.

How many vistors do you think will really come from a dial up connection vs a broadband connection. Is your audience mostly north american? if so, you can feel safe catering to the broadband crowd, otherwise you should optimise for dialup if possible.

Designing websites for a specific resolution is for noobs.
Real websites scale to whatever browser/window size the webpage is being displayed on.

Whenever you see a "designed for x resolution". Think noob.

I will look into CSS, thanks. My background in this area is in designing CD based things for teaching, demonstations, etc. I just reciently started thinking about web development. I endge towards designs that are easy to use, kind of like... a 5 year old could use it type thing.

The big issue is a web site needs to be able to display lots of information easily.

BTW you can not auto scale a web page for photos can you? I know you can scale the web interface but pictures are fixed resolution right? Even sites like apple.com do not scale all that well...

lol. bikefag.

I know...I thought it was bikefag at first too and thought "what the hell kind of drugs did he get himself into to make a website called bikefag?....I gotta see if he's willing to share!"

I third or fourth the bike *** bit, that is what it looked like to me. I still think it may be a good name, throwing back the insult. We called ourselves dramafags in highschool and were damn proud of it.

1. Campy vs Shimano
2. Pace line edicate
3. Bicycle Racing,

Etc.Those topics will certainly draw out the trolls

I thought it said bike *** too lol! How about BikeQuestions?

I thought the domain name was bikefag.net. I was wrong.
I thought it said bikefag also. I thought, what now? I wouldn't name it bikefaq use something else. Even bikestuff would be better.

Bike *** might get a lot of hits, but not the ones you intended.

BikePearls.net ?? (Pearls of knowledge)

Bike *** might get a lot of hits, but not the ones you intended.

BikePearls.net ?? (Pearls of knowledge)

Or how about "BikeFacts" or BikeFax"?

Latest statistics say that 54% of users are at 1024 x 768 resolution, 28% at 800 x 600, and 10% at 1280 x 1024. 1% at 640 x 480, so 71% are at 1024 x 768 or better.

For what it's worth, for all the noise you hear about alternatitive browsers, 81% are using Explorer.

Latest statistics say that 54% of users are at 1024 x 768 resolution, 28% at 800 x 600, and 10% at 1280 x 1024. 1% at 640 x 480, so 71% are at 1024 x 768 or better.



For what it's worth, for all the noise you hear about alternatitive browsers, 81% are using Explorer.

I bet these statistics are based on the *sale* of monitors, which has nothing to do what people use out there. In any event, its just arrogant to assume that everyone wants to open their browser wide and flood all 1024 pixels. What's the point of having a *windowing* system if everything has to opened up like wallpaper? If it looks good at 640, it will look good everywhere ... and fit everywhere ... probably including the new cell phone browsers that are showing up.

There are no reliable statistics on browser use, IMHO. Many people (like myself) find that they have to force their browser to "lie" in order to get certain sites built on non-W3C compliant proprietary technologies to let them in. The other distorting factor is the caching system used by the 800 lb gorilla (AOL) and similar systems. When you go through the raw logs yourself, rather than depending on "authorities" who have a pro-MS agenda, you see that you're actually getting a great diversity of browsers and (more importantly) search engine hits. Even if you accept the 80% figure, what business is willing to lose 20% of its business just so its webmasters can play with the latest ActiveX toys?

Sites that use Flash for their front door are just stupid. At least detect and provide an alternate home page. Even people running Windows may not have the most current version of Flash on their system, and may not even be able to install it due to work restrictions.

Sorry, I should have quoted my source.

EchoEcho (http://www.echoecho.com/)

"Stats derived from:

370.000.000 hits at
+500.000 different sites
during Feb, 2005"


Obviously there's no way to accurately track what people are using, but I think it's a decent guideline. I certainly respect your opinions, but I know that I personally can't stand to have a browser use only part of my screen. Always maximized. What's the point of having several windows tiled if you can only view one of them fully anyway? I will occasionally half screen a couple of windows if I'm trying to compare something for instance, but not often.

I thought the domain name was bikefag.net. I was wrong. Ditto.

Maybe bikeQs.com? Easy to say and remember.

For those of you that do websites... it 800 x 600 still the best standard for web or should I be thinking about 1024 x 768? DSL vs Dialup?

The site should dynamically re-size and display "nicely" from 800x600 to 1280x1024 at the least. Try re-sizing this window... see how it the forum changes nicely with your browser window? To me that is the only acceptable way to design a site. Last I checked my site stats, most visitors used 1024x768.

Keep the layout simple and high-contrast. Remember that some people with limited vision may be reading the site.

Spend a lot of time on your meta-tags on your fist page text, so that search engines properly index the site.

Domain names are not care-sensitive (but URLs are). So you can advertise the site as "bikefaq.net", "BikeFAQ.net", "bikeFAQ.net", etc.

re: DSL vs. Dial-up. Don't make the choice: design your site to be efficient regardless of connection speed. Graphics should be optimized for web use (jpg vs gif, correct compression setting, etc.). Use thumbnails and small images, link to larger images so people have the option to view them or not.

Finally, there are a lot of good bike info sites out there, so don't re-invent the wheel. Instead you can link many of the items to outside sources (but DO check with those webmasters first). Sheldon Brown's site, for example, probably has answers to most of the questions you are likely to include in your FAQ.

The site should dynamically re-size and display "nicely" from 800x600 to 1280x1024 at the least. Try re-sizing this window... see how it the forum changes nicely with your browser window? To me that is the only acceptable way to design a site. Last I checked my site stats, most visitors used 1024x768.

Keep the layout simple and high-contrast. Remember that some people with limited vision may be reading the site.

Spend a lot of time on your meta-tags on your fist page text, so that search engines properly index the site.

Domain names are not care-sensitive (but URLs are). So you can advertise the site as "bikefaq.net", "BikeFAQ.net", "bikeFAQ.net", etc.

re: DSL vs. Dial-up. Don't make the choice: design your site to be efficient regardless of connection speed. Graphics should be optimized for web use (jpg vs gif, correct compression setting, etc.). Use thumbnails and small images, link to larger images so people have the option to view them or not.

Finally, there are a lot of good bike info sites out there, so don't re-invent the wheel. Instead you can link many of the items to outside sources (but DO check with those webmasters first). Sheldon Brown's site, for example, probably has answers to most of the questions you are likely to include in your FAQ.

That is true, there are many sites out there with this type of information and I definitly do not want to reinvent the wheel. Now the best thing to do personally is to reference the material, i.e. have a link list at the bottom of the page "for more information", that way the "expressed written consent of the author" is necessary. There are not many sources for information such as which is better, campy of shimano? or What speed does cat 5 go, etc. People like sheldon brown have excelent info for the "advanced" cyclist, but not necessary for someone with the basic questions.

Target audience... newbees....

That said a website such as this needs to be a source of "unbiased" information, and unfortunitly forums like this are far from unbiased, EXPECIALLY with comments such as shimaNO etc. Being a registered parliamentarian I have learned to side in the middle, and that is what makes me good at writing things like this...

There are not many sources for information such as which is better, campy of shimano?

So which is?

neither... enough said here... (troll bait)

neither... enough said here... (troll bait)
Is that what you plan to write on your site, that "they are different brands suited for different applications, and some prefer one over the other", or are you going to take a stand on one or the other?

Seriously, which do you prefer? PM me if you don't want to post publicly and possibly start another long debate.