"Chuck" writes:
There were suggestions like "validate your site", "don't use Frontpage",
"it is not the best idea to use JS in the navigation", "there is crappy
code in the bottom of the page"
_I_ call that constructive, YMMV
CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is the way the criticism is worded.

I beg to differ, but I think that the difference between constructive
and destructive criticism is this:
Destructive criticism just points out what is bad (as in, for examle,
"your HTML code sucks").
Constructive criticism not only points out weaknesses, but also offers
help as to how to avoid or alleviate those weaknesses (as in, for
example, "your HTML code sucks, because you are using an inferior tool
to produce it; if you use this other tool, your code will be better").

In my book, the wording of the criticism may be wise or not-so-wise,
in terms of the probability of getting across the point of the
criticism, but it does not make a difference as to whether the
criticism is constructive or destructive. Just my $.02.

Sounds like to me that most people have been a little harsh on Jay.

That may be, but IMHO also has nothing to do with whether or not the
criticism is constructive or not (and, BTW, even less with whether or
not the criticism is justified or not).

Regarding the original topic, Jay, I personally find your site easy to
navigate and not overly flashy, so from my perspective, thumbs-up with
regard to ergonomy. Furthermore, your page is usable with my trusty
w3m web browser, which does not support any JavaScript, let alone any
fancier stuff, and better yet, your page is also decently useful in
text mode, which earns top marks on my list. ;-) However, I also think
that the HTML code that FrontPage creates is crappy and a waste of
resources, in the sense that a lookalike web page could be created
with less effort in terms of network bandwidth or computing power. (I
realize that one might argue that nowadays, anybody without a DSL
flatrate and a 3 GHz processor and 512 MB of RAM is just plain an
old-fashioned fart who lives in the past, but then again, I also think
that such a line of arguing is a general excuse for all sorts of
purposeless waste of resources, so there is good reason to reject this
argument, IMHO.) So, I second the advise that you ought to do
yourself a favor by getting better HTML editing software.

With regard to the rest of the discussion, I think everybody is
entitled to a little leeway when approaching a new field of
experience. I am sure most of us started our aviation careers with
some pretty bumpy landings (I certainly did ;-)). But we also all
practised until we got decent landings, so as long as you realize that
you can still improve your web page (at least to the point where it
conforms to existing HTML standards), you are good to go, in my
opinion.

Finally, I would like to refer you to a newsgroup where there are
people that have more knowledge on the subject and are more likely to
have valuable thoughts and hints regarding your web page, so maybe
you'd get more qualified comments than mine at
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html or even
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design.

Cheers,
Toby.
--
You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.