I don’t review many sites these days because time and time again I am presented with the same shit. Someone’s blog with a regurgitated free WordPress theme, subtly modified enough to warrant removing the credit line but demonstrating no actual skill. Graphics/resource sites with MySpace layouts greased with the blood, sweat and tears of some poor bloody photographer’s hard work. Tutorials demonstrating code that is either deprecated, outdated or plain bad for you and your website. However, today I found a site that surpasses all others. A delightful blend of classic 1996 design, lightly fried with a serving of code bloat, served with a side order of fucking huge ego.
Honestly, I don’t think I have ever come across a site so eagerly marketed as the next best thing whilst being so awful at the same time.. and that’s saying something, because I had to read Crazy B’s site before I could write about her.
Without further delay, I take absolutely no pleasure in presenting to you: my review of Design by Treitner. Because web 2.0 is just far too trendy.
04 Feb at 10:04 pm
Thanks for that review. This guy really boosted my confidence in my skills. *hugs*
04 Feb at 10:24 pm
Agreed! I may have missed it (I was reading it quickly) but no mention of the awards he has received for his amazing web design skillz?
04 Feb at 10:26 pm
Aaron, I was left so speechless by the awards and their magnificence than all I uttered was “Awards. Awards. Awards.” I fail at life.
04 Feb at 10:31 pm
*looks* Wow. His Flash skills are about as developed as mine are now, after a one-hour class given by my brother-in-law.
04 Feb at 10:53 pm
As I commented on Snark. Wow that guy sure lives in the 90s. I type his address into google though and found out he’s a degree drop out and won’t take any critcism good or bad. Which kind of worries me :/
04 Feb at 10:53 pm
Users don’t read? I just read the whole thing! It’s a good review. :) Oh and look at the prices he’s charging. Ergh.
04 Feb at 11:47 pm
A lot of those portfolio samples behave like PowerPoint presentations. XD Do I see Photoshop’s rendered clouds and texture fills? XD Wow that takes a lot of knowledge and skill to do yourself. LOL Take it a step further and paint the clouds yourself! :)
05 Feb at 12:04 am
Wow! I think I actually have a shot at being considered good next to this guy. *goes to join his e-circle*
05 Feb at 12:22 am
That portfolio made me laugh out loud. He can’t be serious?!
05 Feb at 12:41 am
His site causes evil maniacal laughter. You know the sort that starts out with an innocent ‘Ahah…ahaha…ahahahaha’ and progresses to full blown cackling for hours on end?
05 Feb at 1:25 am
I started laughing out loud once I saw the prices and what he offers. The part about getting their own email links and meta tags was the most hilarious, topped only by his “portfolio.”
05 Feb at 1:36 am
Question: At the end of the article you criticize the use of the width and height attributes, saying to use those in CSS. (Saying nothing of having a different rule in CSS for each image you put on a page…) I’ve found that using the width and height attributes help the page from loading strangely because the browser knows how much space to give those images, so that text isn’t pushed down when it loads and realizes how big it is. If you put all that information in the CSS, would it still organize the page correctly before the images actually load?
05 Feb at 3:01 am
Hmm…I read your review, but his no way. I thought my design skills were bad, but after seeing his, I think my design skills are better then his. Plus, I would never pay his prices. I would go to Rilla and have her do it.
05 Feb at 3:09 am
I… I have no words. One of his sample websites says “DESIGNS YOU’LL REMEMBER.” Well, yes, but maybe not in the way he’s hoping. I cannot fathom why anyone, ANYONE, would throw money his way to receive some drop-shadowed text and brick textures for a website. Honestly? I am curious if he actually has paying clients and how much value they really place on their web presence. Also, am I really a dolt for using a Transitional doctype?
05 Feb at 3:20 am
…Impressive (in its awfulness)! Wait, Jem, you should make him an award, too! ;D Not a Pants Award necessarily (although he might be a good candidate) but a shiny, web 2.0 badge (in crap brown, to compliment his layout) declaring his the “Worst Valid Website… EVAR” (typo intentonal)! Actually, what *is* impressive is my use of parentheses. Three sets in one sentence; I think I should win something!
05 Feb at 4:16 am
Oh. Ogg. His site sure validates. But I thought I was in 1997 for a moment there.
05 Feb at 7:38 am
:) Aww, but I enjoyed clicking the choices in the first listed site in the portfolio. I especially liked the scarecrow head in the window.
05 Feb at 8:37 am
Erm… I never heard of these professional sites that fake their portfolios. I mean I always thought those were the unprofessional one. Since when do you need to have valid coding in order to have an opinion? Besides, what’s with all this showing off when he relies on a web page editor to generate his coding. I tried reading his content… but just how long winded can someone get?? And that’s coming from me, who is INDECENTLY “talkative”. I disagree with you about the Doctype. I’m fine with HTML 4.0 Transitional and target=_blank provided the person is using semantic coding and separates style from content. Ugh.. that site reminded of my first site… which I made using Netscape 4’s web page editor. Of course, I never claimed to be a web design expert at the time.
05 Feb at 8:41 am
Now, I for one never claimed that I’m good at designing but when I look at that guy’s website, I certainly feel an ego-boost coming up. His design is so horrible and so old-fashioned that I believe even my 3 year old cousin can come up with something better. If he actually believes someone is going to buy a design from him, then he’s definately hallucinating and needs professional help. Looking too much at his own webdesign probably triggered some form of insanity. It’s understandable.
05 Feb at 8:48 am
I love the way the background stretches and contracts with the size of the window. Also that the Valid CSS button is the first thing in the markup. Interesting choices there. It’s a classic case of zero design skills maried with divitis and the expectation that valid sites are better regardless. This person has just proved that web standards aren’t the whole picture and that “best practices” should come into the work somewhere too. As for the chat, I can’t believe there is at least three paragraphs of text per page, maybe the guy should be a writer rather than a designer. Finally, I do agree with Stephanie above, img elements with widths and heights alow the page structure to load, including the position and size of images, before the images have downloaded and, as such, aren’t presentational, but structural. Lose the border and the other inline style elements. Thanks for the review Jem, I hope Treitner learns from all of this.
05 Feb at 9:52 am
@Stephanie: Yes. As long as your stylesheet is where it should be – in the head of the document – it will load the stylesheet before anything else and maintain correct structure. I’ve demonstrated for you, see: https://www.jemjabella.co.uk/junk/test/test.html (works best on a slower connection, so you can see the gradual loading) @Meggan: no, of course not ;) You’re not claiming to be the world’s next best web designer though. @Vera: I disagree with you disagreeing with me :P Read this: http://24ways.org/2005/transitional-vs-strict-markup @Phil: Call it preference ;D Personally, I feel if a person has that many images that anything besides the basic layout structure needs specific pixel-based control (preferably in the stylesheet, of course), that the difference between presentational and structural is the least of their worries. Load time would be the biggest problem! As far as I’m aware the height/width attributes will still validate even with a Strict doctype, for what it’s worth :)
05 Feb at 10:12 am
Wow, this guy gives me confidence. I sometimes think I suck at web design, but he sucks.
05 Feb at 11:23 am
At least I feel confident that I’m not the worst at designing =] in Beach Front 2, as the page loads, it tells me that my patience will be rewarded shortly…with what, I imagine? I’m still eagerly waiting to be rewarded for waiting. lol. I enjoyed this review, and I’m sure a lot of your input on it, will help me in the future!
05 Feb at 11:56 am
Jem: oh spare me… you don’t have to use strict doctype to have a cross browser compatible layout,
05 Feb at 12:43 pm
Did you read the link Vera? Because it doesn’t talk about cross browser compatibility, it talks about forcing the strict standards that we should all code to – particularly those who claim they know what they’re doing. If people can’t be arsed to use Strict, and instead favour Transitional with deprecated tags and presentational elements, why bother even trying? You might as well whip out the font tags, code in tables and generate mark-up using Microsoft Word.
05 Feb at 1:01 pm
I’m glad I know how to at least code strict XHTML. And also I checked his prices page. His Standard Package is a freaky $320, and I won’t be arsed to pay for someone who can’t think of ‘fresh’ ideas, instead of those disgusting 1990 designs. His awards weren’t specifically that special. If he got first place then that would be worth mentioning, but a top 50? Tsk. If he was placed in CSS Galleries (like you!), then I’d say it’s worth mentioning, but this is sad.
05 Feb at 1:25 pm
Jem, yes I did read it. And for the most part I was following those standards. With the exception of align which I used for some hr and img tags, because IE6 is such a wonderful browser… But really, what does it matter what doctype you put on top if your code correctly? Would yo have harped on him so much if he had used lists, CSS rollovers, heading tags … but had the Transitional Doctype? I’m currently using the Strict doctype… and sincerely don’t see much difference from the way I coded before. And I don’t code that way because ZOMG the W3C are going to hunt me down, but because it’s the logical way of doing it. Separating style from content and using semantic coding is quite similar to basic OOP. There’s a reason why so many use it: it’s much easier to maintain. Now if you harp on him due to maintenance issues, and loading I agree. Then again, his coding is not even close to being correct.
05 Feb at 1:40 pm
I can position images and horizontal rules without using align.. that’s what CSS is for. …I can’t believe you’re even asking that question Vera. It shows a total lack of understanding of what a doctype is, and what it does. I honestly thought you knew about doctypes! Would you put a frameset doctype at the top of a non-frames page? Would you put an XHTML doctype if the code was “correct” but didn’t follow XHTMLs syntax rules? Would you put an HTML doctype at the top of an XML page? If you answered “no” to those questions, then surely you can see the point of a doctype? Yes – I’d have asked him why. If you’re going to do a job, do it properly or don’t do it at all. Exactly..!
05 Feb at 1:49 pm
I said correctly coded. Those examples are not proof of correct coding. IE 6 refused to align them correctly if I used float. I do know what doctypes are for, and I DO use them correctly. But I do all that because it’s easier for me to debug the coding. That whole article (and you) sound simply overtly pompous to me.
05 Feb at 1:55 pm
I read the review last night, just before midnight, in a semi-asleep daze, but I’m pretty sure I enjoyed it. :) Muahaha… Feast your eyes on my XHTML 1.0 TRANSITIONAL portfolio! (See http://portfolio.3till7.net/ — the ‘Valid XHTML’ link at the bottom).
05 Feb at 1:56 pm
Yes they are – the only thing that wouldn’t be correct is the doctype, but you said the doctype didn’t matter. You just proved my very point. Are we talking images or HRs now? That’s what I’m here for. (See site tagline: never bothered you before?)
05 Feb at 2:11 pm
It’s still not. I agree with your way of coding, I just don’t find your reasoning (or that shown in the article) enough. imgs. In the end it wasn’t really necessary to use either… but it’s a fact that if IE6 were dead we’d all be happier. No, they are not. I didn’t elaborate this because I thought you understood my point from the first comment. Suppose you code a tableless CSS layout, as shown in Tutorialtastic. That adheres to the Strict doctype if I recall correctly. For whatever reason you decide to put the Transitional doctype. It’s not incorrect. Your code does abide by the Transitional doctype’s rules.
05 Feb at 2:48 pm
That’s your problem, not mine :P I prefer IE6 to IE7 :( But why would you, if it was perfectly valid Strict? (And I didn’t say it was incorrect, I believe in my review I said that it was for “chickenshits”; take that how you will :P)
05 Feb at 3:28 pm
Because you insist on having new links open in a new browser… like Brenda. Or my personal example would be the way I set my copyright page. The italic text is supposed to be a sort of “subtitle” and the longer explanation should go below. I don’t think it’s a definition, therefore I don’t think I should complicate myself with definition lists.
05 Feb at 3:34 pm
But that’s interfering with the browser – something that is frowned upon. That’s why coloured scrollbars are bad, remember? (And is easily forced with JavaScript so that point is moot :p) I’m not really sure what your copyright page has to do with it, because the content is valid there whether you choose Strict or Transitional? Although, now I’ve actually looked at the page I personally would mark up the italic sections as headers – you can then style them as italic in the CSS. Pfft, using for non-emphasised items, and you were the one who mentioned semantics earlier! ;)
05 Feb at 4:11 pm
See? That’s exactly IT: they are not headers either. I don’t want to make another class for them because I would just needlessly complicate the code. That text is just a sort of summary. I wanted to have something like [li] don’t use my images [line break] These images include: blah blah blah… [/li] But that is not correct coding practice. Due to the fact that I often change the text in the copyright page, I don’t think it’s necessary to create an extra class for the emphasized text. My idea is, that sometimes things don’t neatly fit into one category or another. And I don’t think there’s a need to over complicate things. Yeah… my client really cares about that. He damn well wants colored scrollbars and pays me well. Am I an idiot to say “no sir. I’m sticking by my web standards”?? Yep, that’s our current situation.
05 Feb at 4:13 pm
Um invalid code, sorry. I can’t write novels in comment boxes. =P
05 Feb at 4:18 pm
There’s nothing invalid about line breaks in list items? You’re right, there’s no need to overcomplicate things, and that’s why we should all be using nice simple font tags and tables for layout :P Sometimes you just have to make a decision – “that data fits this way”, and so on. Do it unsemantically if you like, but don’t then preach to others about semantics while you’re doing it! Adding coloured scrollbars because a paying client demands it is one thing, adding coloured scrollbars because you’re an idiot and too stubborn to see how lame it is – that’s another totally different thing. There are plenty of sacrifices I have to make to please clients, but I wouldn’t defend their choices as “good” or “correct” if push came to shove. I somehow doubt a client would say “oh, please use a Transitional doctype, not Strict”, which is what this boils down to..
05 Feb at 5:09 pm
What do you think about the following reasoning? http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
05 Feb at 5:15 pm
Not according to the W3C validator. ^ that’s actually more complicated than divs. No my idea was this… just because I have one or two emphasized words every 3rd page, I won’t create a class for font-style: italic. I never said colored scrollbars are OK. I simply said that sometimes you make compromises. And I honestly don’t see it as such a crime to have strong, em, del every once in a while… You on the other hand seem to think that this is the equivalent of making a table layout.
05 Feb at 5:23 pm
@Merike: I’ve seen the article. I have no overriding preference between HTML and XHTML and there are plenty of people on both side who’ll argue the toss between the pros and cons. @Vera – If you’re having errors, the problem is elsewhere in your code. Line breaks in list items are fine. In fact, validate this very page – it’s littered with line breaks in list items – you will find it’s clear. That’s not what the protectors of table layouts say. I didn’t say you did. Which is exactly the kind of logic those who refuse to conform to semantics and standards use. I don’t think that using “em” is the equivalent of a table layout, but I do think that it’s mighty hypocritical to say it’s OK to do one thing and then go ahead and lambaste someone else when BOTH are against the very principles we (both) have been preaching about in our reviews for years. You simply cannot have it both ways.
05 Feb at 5:45 pm
WOW. he sure loves himself; and his designs aren’t all what he makes them out to be. anyway i can’t talk, i live off wordpress templates =X
05 Feb at 5:55 pm
OK… here’s an example. You want to write “So that’s what you mean”, wherein that’s should be italicized. The rest of the text should be normal. By your logic I shouldn’t use the em tag. So how do you suggest I go about it? Well I found it odd too. But after I removed the br tags (no other change whatsoever) the page validated as XHTML Strict.
05 Feb at 6:00 pm
How do you figure that? In that sentence I would put verbal emphasis on “that’s”, so of course you’d use the em tag.
05 Feb at 6:02 pm
Ouch, I think I misread it. You were comparing strict and transitional not HTML and XHTML. That’s a different story. I suppose strict associates to XHTML in my head automatically, because very many use either HTML with transitional or XHTML with strict.
05 Feb at 6:03 pm
No worries, it’s still relevant :D
05 Feb at 6:05 pm
Huh. That’s good to know, then. Thanks for the demonstration!
05 Feb at 6:14 pm
But that’s the type of use I was referring to… Yeah sure, my copyright page is not in a finalized state, because I’m mostly not certain what I want to say. So those sentences which are emphasized are not correct from a semantic coding POV, I agree with that. I guess, in the end we both agree that one should code in a Strict way, it’s just that our reasons differ slightly. *shrugs*
05 Feb at 7:20 pm
Jesus Christ, that is so sad. :( I really hope he doesn’t actually have any customers. Seriously, in that case they should come to me instead. I promise to make better layouts with better code for a better price, and be more humble to boot. My 12-year-old little brother could make better webpages this using Piczo, jeez.
05 Feb at 11:17 pm
reading you and vera debate was almost better than the review ^^ it was like ping pong back and forth.
06 Feb at 5:08 pm
I guess I’m a wuss cause I use transitional.
11 Feb at 6:14 pm
Everyone who does not do things your way and use a strict document should basically quit the web and find something else to pursue right? Anyone who enjoys getting any recognition for their work on the web and mentions it or posts an award should also give up because you say so, right? I am sure all those amazing web sites on the web rated the best, sporting an award of some type, and using a transitional doc type or something other than strict will be happy to know they can stop and get off the web. Everyone who has ever had any sort of problem getting a site to work properly in every browser and size should also quit the web, right.
11 Feb at 6:22 pm
Nice how you skipped over the other few thousand words of my review that wasn’t about your doctype or your awards, but yes.. yes, that is why you shouldn’t stay in web design. I’d roll my eyes if it wasn’t too much effort.