EarlyBird Entries

They are in order as I received them in gmail (even though the times are not 100% in order). If you are looking for your entry, hover over each link, and the link path should contain some recognizable part of your email or name.

For some browsers, we put "false" for the instances when the desired result just didn't happen. We understand that there could be some differences for browsers like IE6, but if it just looked wrong, we had to list it as "false".

Entry Timestamp IE6 IE7 FF2-Win FF2-Mac Safari Validates Size (kb) Markup Notes Design Notes
01 July 14, 8:44am True 70
  • looks great with styles off
  • uppercased the img-replacement spans - i'm not a big fan of doing what text-transform:uppercase; can do for me.
  • heavy use of dl/dt/dd - each result is its own dl. even in the dig deeper section (ul within a dd).
  • some a tags not wrapped in block level tag on lines 123, 124
  • CSS is well done
  • style imgs are completely pngs. i wonder how this looks in ie6. answer:great. go pngs!
  • The fixed width is an okay approach, but the design does not fill the page like I'd like. It just kind of cuts off. Feel free to take a little liberty in interpreting how the design would behave in a browser.
  • Page holds together well when font size is increased, which is nice.
  • The search form looks okay, except that the text a user inputs into it looks off. It's a little high and could stand to be a little bit bigger. I wish the input had the glow just on focus, as indicated in the design comp layer labeling, but that's not a deal breaker.
  • Logo: I like that the logo image does not include the grey bar that spans the top of the page. Nice move to separate the logo from the page design, since I would consider the logo to be content. However, I'd like to see the logo, or at least an h1 with the page's title indicated when styles are turned off.
  • Spacing looks consistent. Nice solid job there.
  • I wish the Search Result headings were links. The "more" link isn't quite enough for me.
  • Footer doesn't extend to the bottom of the page. It would look better if the red was what ended the page, instead of going back to white before closing off the page.
02 July 14, 1:32pm True 55
  • used ul for search results (instead of dl)
  • used form fieldset legend label combo for dig deeper - i like it.
  • for the footer chunk, used p br/ br / instead of li's. No! and no links there either!
  • CSS is ok. targeted fonts with "HelveticaNeueLT Std Lt", helvetica; which looks bad on my system.
  • all images are gifs, which is ok except that i wish the logo didn't have the header bar on it.
  • Liquid layout is done well, keeping right column set to a specific width is okay, too.
  • I wish the logo didn't have the grey bar embedded in the graphic, but it's not a deal-buster.
  • The Search form looks broken. If the design didn't use the exact same form design I would have been fine with it as long as it looked good.
  • Headlines are in weird places. Not sure if that was intentional or if the designer couldn't get a hold of his CSS well enough.
  • The line-height of the text is a little too much. It creates weird spacing as text wraps around the thumbnails. It also isn't quite readable, especially in combination with the wide width on larger monitors when window is maximized (not that I maximize my window except to test CSS Off entries).
  • Spacing is a bit irregular, especially above the "Grubs" heading.
  • Search again area should have links, but none are present. Be sure to look at the content closely and see if something should be a link.
  • "By 7:25 am" etc., should probably be bold text, or strong, or whatever. Need to differentiate between text weights to increase readability/scan-ability.
  • "Get Reviews" links aren't base-aligned with headings ("Worms" and "Grubs").
  • Used an okay font choice to replace Helvetica, but Helvetica should be in there because it's such a nice font and helps create the mood for this design, especially with options like text replacement and sIFR.
  • Layout/readability begins to fall apart on bumping up font-size two notches.
03 July 14, 1:38pm True 52
  • used all caps for headers instead of uppercasing it in the CSS
  • looks ok with styles off
  • used the <button> tag for search instead of <input>
  • used <div> for each search result with an hr in the div, followed by a

    for the hour. I'm not sure I favor this approach - I would think all related information should be contained together, not separated and treated like siblings.

  • <p class="indent"> - why not <p class="related">?
  • CSS is ok
  • logo is a part of a huge graphic instead of being by itself. :(
  • On initial page load, everything looks okay.
  • Not keen on putting everything on such a bland grey background. Try harder to integrate design into browser window.
  • Not thrilled about using the entire grey bar as part of the logo, though some may argue that the bird doesn't constitute the logo. Anyway, the bird is the logo and should be its own image.
  • Spacing in search results looks fine, but the "Grubs" section is inconsistent with the rest of the page, especially the headline for "Nightcrawlers".
  • Bumping up font size breaks readability immediately.
  • Letter spacing in search form i interesting but probably not necessary. It may cause field to be too small where search terms fill it up too fast.
  • Footer below Search Again doesn't use the content in lists or as links, so that's a bummer.
04 July 14, 4:54pm True 56
  • headers are in normal case, but the word "search" is in all caps - why?
  • well done search result in ul format
  • good "dig deeper" section
  • good foot
  • welldone CSS file
  • This person put a lot of thought into directory structure
  • images look really good, all done with gifs
  • I like that the logo is a link. That's a nice consideration.
  • Fixed/Liquid hybrid is interesting. I would have tried it centered and elastic.
  • No down-arrow for "Sort By: Relevance"
  • Spacing is a little tight, but still very regular, so it's pretty nice.
  • Bumping up font size twice breaks layout.
  • Skipped the "Get Review" for the "Grubs" section.
05 July 14, 5:30pm True 292
  • lots of scripting, and page size is large, but the entrant dotted his i's and crossed his t's with implementation
  • example code:
    <a href="/search?q=polish+worms&sort=relevance&dir=up" class="current">Relevance</a>
  • well done ul result list, with more query string links in the result info section
  • terrific dig deeper section
  • great footer
  • CSS is good
  • images are ok, but logo has gray bar in it
  • thought put into directory structure
  • First impression: very nicely done.
  • I like the focus effect for the search bar. Very slick.... I like the toggle effect for the "Relevance" link, although it's funny to imagine wanting the least relevant results, but is feasible.
  • I like that the search result headings are links, and the hover effect is tasteful. I also like the addition of the active effect.
  • Spacing is nice and regular, with ample breathing room, but not too much. Very well done. I might have pushed the " By 4:45 am | Find Similar Worms by Region, Season, Flavor, Size" line a little closer to the line above it, so as not to have it get confused with the result heading below it.
  • Wish the logo was treated as content and visible with styles off.
  • Bumping font size up breaks the yellow box, but still manages to be readable.
  • I personally like the black hovers on the links throughout. That's what I would have done.
  • Finally, someone threw in a joke, as requested!
  • Overall, the page holds together very nicely, and is a very few keystrokes away from being flawless.
06 July 14, 6:15pm False 120
  • well organzed. I wonder what class="dupa" means.
  • good job with ul for result list, and good footer section
  • i could see using h3's rather than strong for the dig deeper area, but that's not a big deal.
  • css is readable and organized ok
  • images are all jpgs, even the ones that should be gifs :(
  • Liquid layout is problematic. On large monitors, the gap between main content and sidebar is too great. You end up with a huge white column in the middle of the page. Ick.
  • Text input is styled nicely with regards to font size.
  • This and others need to try and align the footer text (EarlyBird WormSearch Beta v0.1) with the rest of the page. Make sure spacing is regular between elements.
  • I wish search result headings were links.
  • I wish the logo didn't have the grey bar behind it.
  • I *love* the hover color for the links. Great choice!
  • Font size looks a little small on initial page load, but that's okay. Spacing is fairly regular.
  • Line-height under Search Results is too tight. Hard to read and distinguish between list items.
07 July 14, 6:48pm True 60
  • interesting - using an ordered list for the search results. are they ordered? yeah - kinda.
  • now that I look under the hood more, it's a combo of ordered list and definition list. it kinda makes sense, but also seems nesty.
  • dl's for dig deeper (misspelled "digg").
  • a ul for refine results doesn't resonate with me.
  • why div within the form of "wormSearchAgain" ? seems pointless. its not targeted in the css to offer anything. it's just extra markup for no reason.
  • good footer section
  • if I had a big monitor, this would be the way I would do my CSS file - every declaration on one line!!
  • images are good
  • I like the attempt at making the repeating background work in the top-right. It could have used a little more photoshop work to make it seamless, but i appreciate the effort. Would have been nice to see this approach in a centered version, too.
  • I like the text replacement on the logo; also, it could have been embedded in the content of the page as an img tag.
  • The teal hover color is a good choice, but comes across as Christmasy with the whole red-green thing. I'm not a fan, but it's definitely a valid choice based on the pallet of the design.
  • Wish Search Results headings were links.
  • Overall, the spacing is nice and regular. Solid job. Looks good.
  • Design maintains relative integrity upon font-size increase. Adding elasticity would have been a nice touch in addition to this.
08 July 14, 6:57pm True 68
  • "<!-- huh, no <html> ? huh, no <body> ? -->" - huh, no best practice?
  • dls for search results
  • good point on his blog (or was it in the comments) about text-indent for image replacement (if images are off, people see absolutely nothing. we should link to a list of various image replacement techniques that gives pros and cons of each.
  • good footer area
  • good dig deeper area
  • wellorganized and readable css file
  • good use of images, and good organization
  • I like the fixed-centered layout. Would have been slick if it had some elasticity as well, but this was a good choice in the designer's opinion.
  • Text does not wrap around the thumbnails when font size is increased. What if no thumbnail is there? What would it do then?
  • I like the links and hovers on the search results headings.
  • Site maintains readability very well on font-size increase.
  • I like the logo as content on the page, plus it didn't incorporate the grey bar from the top of the page.
  • Using img for headlines is okay, but I would have done something else.
  • The addition of the submit button in the sidebar was a welcome addition, but not necessarily required in our world of AJAX. It could have been hidden with Javascript and we would have accepted it.
  • The dotted graphic in the bottom left disappeared but you'll hear me say this time and time again. Its absence doesn't hurt the design, so it's perfectly fine not being there.
09 July 14, 7:00pm True 107
  • well done ul for search results
  • all markup looks ok
  • dl for dig deeper, dl and dt/ dd
  • ul's for bottom menu
  • ie6 js png fix
  • readable CSS - well done
  • lots of ie6 hacks
  • all pngs for images
  • Fixed width is okay, but the page doesn't fill the screen like it should. The dotted line thingies are stuck out there while the rest of the page extends all the way.
  • Headings for the main sections disappear with styles turned off.
  • I am not the biggest fan of the hover effect ion the footer, but it's acceptable and minor in the bigger picture.
  • Wish search result headers were links.
  • Spacing in search results is a little off and doesn't line up well with bottom of thumbnails.
  • This and others: I like the use of css to style the thumbnails.
  • Headers don't align very well with content. Look at the first "D" in Dig Deeper; it should align with the "R" in Refine. Same with Search Results and the Yellow box/ "W" in Worms. Keep things aligned uniformly!
10 July 14, 8:25pm True 57
  • divs for search results.
  • whoever said comma delimmited words was a "unordered list" was just trying to show how flexible css could be, but it's still not practical. it's prose, not bullets.
  • lots of br's in dig deeper
  • footer area looks ok. uses <li class="column"> then a nested list under each column.
  • rounded corners javascript being used.
  • very well organized and concise css
  • good job with images
  • Alignment issues throughout; very inconsistent: for example: Main Headings are not aligned with content; yellow box has very irregular text alignment.
  • What's the deal with the drop-shadow effect in the main section headings? I'm not a fan, but it was a good thought.
  • The green background-color hover doesn't work on the red background. Sorry.
  • Font Choice for main headings isn't a good choice.
  • Font size is a little small and makes readability a concern, especially when browser is maximized on large monitors.
  • With styles off, the skip to main content doesn't work and I'm not sure what Skip to Upcoming Events refers to?? Makes me wonder if this was repurposed markup?
  • Text input styling needs a little more work: letters butt right up against input field and are a little high/not center vertically…
11 July 14, 9:39pm True 73
  • html is organized ok, i wish sections were tabbed, but to each his own.
  • div / form / fieldset for top search when I think just div /form or form/ fieldset would've worked fine.
  • uls for results..nested ul for related - I think that's good.
  • good dig deeper section - form with fieldsets, legends, and labels, nothing more.
  • subsearch area - i have same comment as "top search" area.
  • footer area is <li>'s for the columns, with paragraphs and break tags for the content within the columns.- not sure I like that.
  • well organized CSS file - very well done.
  • organized image directory
  • If it's going to be fixed width, sometimes it makes sense to cut off the design and not stretch to fill the screen, but with this design, it feels like there's no reason to not fill the screen with the grey bar at the top and the red bar at the bottom.
  • The Search button is a little off from the input field.
  • Text alignment and line-height spacing is spot on…great job!
  • I really like that the "Related Worm" is nested underneath its parent. I can tell thought was put into that. I wish the little "related" icon was visible with styles turned off.
  • I also like on this entry (and others) that the image thumbnails used CSS to style to grey line around the images instead of including it as part of the image. To take it a step further, if the thumbnail were a link, it could even have had a nicce little hover effect (from grey to black, for example).
  • The logo and h1 for the logo was done very well... keeping the bird and the grey bar separate was a good idea, and throwing in the words "Early Bird" above the logo illustration was sharp as well.
  • I wish the bottom used li elements for the links, and that they were treated as links.
  • On two font-size bumps the page remains readable, but loses a little integrity with regards to the yellow box.
12 July 14, 9:50pm True 38
  • i'm using the html posted on the author's blog because something didn't come out right in the zip i received.
  • divs for search results.
  • your div classes are "buggy". just kidding. however, I do find that when you repeat classes for every div on the same level, a classname is probably not needed.
  • as personal preference, i much prefer this author's p class=meta for meta info about each search result rather than the ul li that many other people employed, though I can see the thought behind the other method.
  • ul li for dig deeper
  • li for columns , nested ul for content of those columns. "nav-container" chosen for the classname.
  • commented out "ads". i assume that was first iteration of the bottom columns.
  • s508 is a neat classname for the skip to content.
  • css file is organized
  • (I went off of the entrants own hosted version, which can be located at (http://blog.neatlysliced.com/html/cssoff/july/) as it appeared to be a glitch that didn't let the logo come through, while everything else looks similar.)
  • It's fine that the search box doesn't have the glow. It doesn't look bad, but it would have been easy to add the rust-colored border. Overall, this is not a major concern for me as a judge, though. Moving on.
  • Switching to hypertext for the headings is risky when the font dictated is as distinct as Helvetica Neue, but again, it doesn't look bad. The right column doesn't match the left column. Is this an oversight or intentional? If intentional, it's not a good design choice.
  • The yellow box scales well. Nice work.
  • The spacing is consistent and well-done. Easy to scan the page.
  • I wish the top-right dotted image thingy was stuck the the right side of the browser with the top grey bar and ditto for the bottom left one.
  • The rust-colored bar at the bottom is a little narrow. It could use some more padding. As a matter of fact, the spacing from "Search Again" down is a little odd/inconsistent.
13 July 14, 9:57pm True 60
  • html is organzied well
  • used ul li for resutls
  • fieldset for search
  • "get reviews of" is a tag outside of h3.
  • dig deeper doen well, used dl, dt, dd and groupled all fields under a dd. looks very clean.
  • bottom links are done with dl dt dd combo. the columns are the dl's.
  • clear fix divs require a div div approach for search again and footer. I'm wondering if that's necessary.
  • ie7 css file is empty. why have it?
  • css is well organized here, too.
  • images are ok, too -- all gif and jpg
  • The grey line down the side is an interesting choice. I'm not sure what I think about it. First impression is that it doesn't work for such an airy, white-space driven site, though.
  • Search Box looks good.
  • Bumping font-size up works great. The yellow box could use a little bit bigger top-half, so font size can bump more than once without it breaking. But it still remains readable. Even adding a yellow background would help to maintain the intergrity a little better, used with a right and left border.
  • Headings in the footer look a little big, but spacing down there is great.
  • "Dig Deeper" could be nudged a few pixels to the left to better line up with the text beneath it.
  • Spacing between Search Results is a little crammed. The time (3:15 am, etc.) looks a little big. It competes with the search result heading (Nightcrawlers, Butter Worms, etc.)
14 July 14, 10:09pm True 56
  • I never knew this one: 
    <script type="text/javascript">
//IE6 img flicker fix
  try {
    document.execCommand('BackgroundImageCache', false, true);
  } catch(e) {}
</script>
  • this version looks terrific with no styles (that kinda sounds like a backhanded compliment, but I don't mean it that way)
  • div id="AjaxFilters". Is that an appropriate id? I can see it being so. Maybe it's hidden entirely if the browser doesn't support ajax. Sidenote: Should the markup for this filter be built using javascript instead of hardcoded in the html?
  • ordered list for search results. "Related" result keeps numbering scheme.
  • dig deeper - form fieldset legend label and button (as opposed to input). Now that I look closer, no input tag was used for search - it's button too. and i see that a javascript function called "ajax" hides the buttons for refining searches.
  • dl for columns in footer.
  • double div for searchagain
  • double div for footer. Is everyone doing this? Did I not notice?
  • well ordganized css file. must turn off word wrapping for it to make sense, but it very much makes sense.
  • images are fine
  • Search button is a teensy weensy bit off.
  • The scan-ability of this age is pretty good. Good work.
  • Bumping font more than once causes content to start disappearing.
  • Good job sticking the dotted graphics in top and bottom to their respective corners. Well done!
  • Overall, this page is designed well.
  • It was a good move making the thumbnails links, but why not make the results headings links as well?
15 July 14, 10:17pm True 42
  • html could benefit from some vertical whitespace.
  • <noscript>
  • results are shown with ul li ul li approach
  • i'm not sure if the dig deeper needs every fieldset to be in an li tag. it seems overdone.
  • columns are created in the bottom with a single dl, and each dt/dd combo is given the class "first", "second", "third", or "fourth". I don't like this approach.
  • well organized CSS file.
  • mildly organzied images
  • The content is centered and the footer is left-justified! Not cool. BUT...great job with the centering, because, the graphics in top and bottom corners stay stuck to the edges of the browser window, and that works great!
  • Wish the links in the footer were links. Interesting choice with the dl in the footer...not sure what I think about that.
  • Search box looks good.
  • Good job with the markup behind the related search result for Earthworms high in nutrition. Maybe something besides a p to wrap the word "related" in would have been a better choice? Like and h4?
  • Bumping font size up, the page keeps readability intact, but keep going and you begin to see some wierdness…
  • Line-height in search result descriptions is a little too much, but overall, the spacing is solid and regular. Good work.
16 July 14, 10:29pm True 29
  • html looks good
  • looks good with css off
  • ul and li for results. nested ul for related.
  • dig deeper - no li's for each label set (which is fine)
  • divs make the four columns in the bottom, with an h3/ul combo for the content of those columns.
  • cool script for creating the "more" link.
  • css file looks good
  • gif/jpgs for images
  • Search box looks great, maybe it needs a little more padding inside when you type in it though.
  • The page stays in great shape when you bump up the font size.
  • Spacing is a little odd where line-height is concerned. The headings are closer to the first line of the description that the description lines are to themselves.
  • Some hover states wouldn't hurt this design, but again, they aren't required and I'm not deducting anything for their absence, as this design (and the concept of search) is very utility-driven and hovers aren't really required.
  • The liquid layout is nice, and I see the margin grows with it as the page expands. I think it works, but I'd worry about the page beginning to lose readability on larger monitors.
  • I got some weird character in the footer area in "They probably aren't"
17 July 14, 11:20pm True 57
  • with css off, the page doesn't look as structures as many of the other submissions
  • divs used to separate search results. ul is used within each div for the bottom details
  • dig deeper - li for each input and label
  • ul li column nested ul li for each group
  • print style sheet - print version looks terrific
  • focus effects for the search box - nice!
  • most pngs for the images (except for bg_footer and bg_header). good organization
  • Line-height on this page is a little too tight, and in combination with the liquid layout the page's scan-ability is pretty low.
  • Bumping font size quickly breaks the yellow box, but the page remains at least readable.
  • Search box looks really good with the glow on focus! If the default text were "Search" it woul make sense to hide the text on focus, but not on a page that shows search results. But I say again, good work on the box!
  • Aside from the line-height, which is very minor and easy to fix, this page is pretty solid.
18 July 14, 11:25pm True 42
  • ul results nested ul category nested ul related.
  • used special character &darr; (↓) to show sort order - nice.
  • fieldsets legends, and inputs for dig deeper.
  • hidden "search for" label in front of search
  • bottom columns created from divs, with h2/ul's making their content. all html looks good.
  • thoughtfully sectioned CSS file
  • all images are gifs, noticed the logo doesn't overlap the top gray bar in firefox. our early bird can't fly that high.
  • Squaring the yellow box is fine, but it really needs the padding and other design considerations applied to the version with the rounded corners. I like the down-arrow.
  • The feel of the page is lost on this design because several of the key design elements are missing or modified. For example, the font for headings, the search button image, and the grey bar at the top of the page.
  • The spacing throughout search results, though regular, is not conducive to scanning the page.
  • I wish search results headings had links. For example, there's no way to get at the results for "Caterpillar" under the "Grubs" section.
  • In the red bar, the shadow is missing. Also, the text on the left should probably line up with the text on the rest of the page (ie: directly under the left-justified text all the way down the page).
  • The colors look a little dark on this page to me, as well.
  • I feel like I've been a little hard on this one, so I'd like to add in that this page is very light in size, partly because of the less images, and that overall, the page is intact. The designer just needs to focus a little more effort on helping the design of the page stay intact. Some useful tools for this are a color picker and "MeasureIt", but Firefox extensions.
19 July 14, 11:29pm True 33
  • used &#9660; (▼) for sort order - nice.
  • ack! inline styles! form style="float: right; margin: -2.8em 1.5em 0 0; padding: 0;"
  • divs for search results.
  • uls for dig deeper
  • div class="links for columns in bottom. why not just "div" ?
  • css is completely left justified. not so readable. organization of css file is off. (example: generic <p> tag styling is the last thing listed in the css file - should probably be one of the first things, instead).
  • The search box looks off; the glow isn't quite working out and the word "Search" isn't ventered vertically.
  • The line-height throughout the page is a little too tight. Increasing the leading a little would increase readability / scan-ability.
  • I like the hover effects for the thumbnails!
  • The font choice for the main headings is a good attempt at emulating the image-based headings from the comp, but again, it's hard to replicate the tone, or mood, created by the use of the Helvetica Neue font.
  • The spacing in the footer is a little odd. A lot of space between the heading and the lists, but then the line-height on the lists is very tight.
  • The shadow is missing in the red footer, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. It decreases filesize, yes, but then again, it's one of those little touches designers like. It added a sense of depth to the page that's not missing.
  • Good job handling the logo by keeping the grey bar out of it.
  • The liquid layout, left-justified, works. I like that the dotted graphics stay stuck to the sides of the browser window.
20 July 14, 11:44pm True 114
  • a print style sheet is referenced, but I don't see it.
  • divs used for search results
  • uls for for dig deeper. you know, i'm glad everyone so far is using labels for the checkboxes in the dig deeper section.
  • div class="footer-more-info" for bottom columns. why not just "div"?
  • with a table of contents on the CSS file, how can i not say this is organized?
  • design flourish images are named "distress". hope it didn't cause too much anguish!
  • Very nice job with the search box.
  • Overall, this page is put together very well. The spacing, read-ability, scan-ability is very high...only exception to this is how the liquid layout detracts from the readability, only on large monitors, by creating really long lines of text. I'd like to reiterate again, though, that the spacing throughout this page is very consistent, and it's obvious careful attention was paid to it.
  • No distinction between regular worms and related worms with styles turned off :-(
  • I like the hovers in the footer, how they go from grey to black. Understated, but just enough to let you know something happening.
  • The page stays readable when font size is bumped up, but the gold box doesn't grow vertically at all.
  • I would like to comment on the fact that the "log in or register" links are marked up at the bottom of the page. This type of information makes sense at the top of the page to me, but I can see it working as the last bit of content as well. Anyway, I'm not sure what my thoughts are on this placement, but I thought I'd at least bring it up for possible discussion.
21 July 14, 10:16pm True 39
  • tabbed html, very easy to find my way around here.
  • lots of empty divs for creating corners, makes me wish css3 was here!
  • definition lists for search results
  • combo of dl and ul for the dig deeper. no forms/fieldsets here. this can be ok if we assume all is ajax based and there is no submit button.
  • li tags to create bottom columns. nested uls for links.
  • well organized css.
  • the ie stylesheets make heavy use of expressions. ie can be smart! i question its necessity.
  • compact pngs put to good use
  • Holy cow! Elastic layout! It works very well. Awesome! This approach is the one I had in mind when I designed the page. Good job reading my mind!
  • Aside from the "D" in "Dig Deeper" all the spacing seems to remain consistent and lined up. This page is easy to scan.
  • The search form looks great. I like that the logo file doesn't have the grey bar embedded in it.
  • The hover effects are well done throughout.
  • Overall, this design is executed extremely well. It is obvious great attention to details was paid by the coder.
  • I am a little worried, however, that there are no form tags in the markup.
22 July 14, 11:55pm True 59
  • for those of you using hidden elements like "skip nav" and search labels set to display:none, I notice.
  • ordered list for search results. nested order for related.
  • forms/fieldsets/uls for dig deeper
  • li's for colunns, nested ul for content of columns.
  • there is such a thing as over-organizing your CSS. I can see going to this extreme for a huge web site, but this is just a search page. ocd {take:pills;}
  • well organized image directory.
  • This page seems very blocky and crowded to me. It doesn't remain true to the airy, whitespace driven layout of the comp. The font-size is a little larger than it needs to be.
  • I am fine with the choice to forego the rounded corners in the yellow box. Good choice to save time.
  • The hover effects are nice.
  • I wish the search result headings were links. For example, how would someone learn more about Caterpillars, which had such a short description that no [more...] was required?
  • I like the big font in the input box. It could use a little padding, though.
  • There is a small sliver of lighter grey between the darker grey and red of the footer. It looks like an oversight.
  • "Log in or Register" gets a little lost without the framing element of the grey bar across the top. The grey borders down the sides help that a little, but seem out of place in the upper part of the design, like the designer just choppped off his page and said, "I am stopping here!" At the footer, on the other hand, the grey line works, in combination with the grey and red blocks of text.
  • Overall, this design could benefit from more careful attention to details like spacing, padding, and whitespace.
23 July 14, 11:58pm True 117
  • ordered list for search results.
  • had to use the tag break to get around IE list item spacing issues. (Jennifer found a neat way around that: http://blog.neatlysliced.com/2007/03/ie6-extra-element-paddingmargin/).
  • ul li for dig deeper. used form tag just for dig deeper, too. no button.
  • very good readability of the html - good use of tabs and line breaks.
  • i like the way closing of divs is commented : example <!-- /deeper -->
  • bottom links are li for the columns and h3/p for the contents. I don't understand the TODO comments.
  • css file is organized, but scannability is still a bit difficult with all the line breaks. at least its consistent with how the html tags were broken up.
  • The logo file does not blend in with the grey stripe at the top of the page.
  • The invisible link at the top center of the page ("Jump to Search results") freaked me out. It's helpful, so why hide it?
  • The choice of using hypertext for headings and the search button is valid, but not using the designer's image-font causes the page to lose a little something in terms of design. Since it wouldn't have added too much weight to the page, I'd have kept it.
  • The Search Result headings are a little small and decrease scan-ability.
  • The liquid layout makes reading a chore on larger monitors with the screen expanded.
  • With styles turned off, I like the approach to text-replacement that shows the "related" result. That said, I'd have liked to have seen it indicated by the markup as well, like as a nested list.
  • The links in the footer aren't links, and they're bold. Not sure that I like that. It's fine to have the headings in the footer be links to the appropriate categories, but the links should really be links as list items, not paragraphs.
24 July 15, 12:01am True 62
  • hr class="accessibility". odd classname for an hr. oh, i see now (looked at the css)
  • divs for search results list, with dl making up individual result. each div uses "clearfix" class. if you find yourself repeating classnames, there may be a better way to accomplish this.
  • dig deeper - fieldsets and inputs -- no list items or dl's.
  • div class="col" for bottom columns. Why not just #sitemap div - no need for "col" classname.
  • good print version.
  • css files are very well organized.
  • I like what this page looks like. I hadn't thought of using this approach to filling the browser, and honestly, I think it works. Maybe the red at the footer should have extended to the bottom, but I appreciate the extra effort of making the drop shadow along the bottom of the design in addition to the sides.
  • The search result headings could probably have been bold.
  • The line spacing is good throughout. Careful attention was paid to that.
  • I like the addition of the "contributor"...
  • Where is the image for the caterpillar result?
  • I like the "Update Search Result" graphic. Just not sure it matches the design of the page. But the graphic is spot on for understanding what it is supposed to do.
  • There is a problem with the footer that needs to be addressed. I'm on FF Win right now and can't get to the "Join the Project and Sign up for Updates" links.
  • This entrant obviously had fun with this contest! But for someone with such a good sense of humor and imagination, I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't a joke inserted in the final column of the footer, as requested :-(