Good day,
I was hoping that some of you could test my site. It's address is:
www.resources.ywgc.com

I'm reassembling an old gardening site that I had and combined my old
photo site into it also. Killing 2 birds with one dot com address.

Does the color scheme work for you..?
Is the font size ok?
Is the navigation through out the site easy enough?
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:28:36 -0800, Timothy wrote:

Good day,
I was hoping that some of you could test my site. It's address is:
www.resources.ywgc.com

I'm reassembling an old gardening site that I had and combined my old
photo site into it also. Killing 2 birds with one dot com address.

Does the color scheme work for you..?
Is the font size ok?
Is the navigation through out the site easy enough?
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

404 ?

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:41:33 +0000, bigjon wrote:

404 ?

Thanks for the reply. The problem was with my dns host. I didn't add the
'www' part. All is working now.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

You should reconcile the names of the various links mentioned in the text
with the actual names of the links. You should be consistent. At the
present, most of the names do not match.

photo area / photographs

Information Area / Information

Bookmarks Area / Links

Site List / Site Map


"Timothy" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:41:33 +0000, bigjon wrote:

404 ?

Thanks for the reply. The problem was with my dns host. I didn't add the
'www' part. All is working now.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:40:15 +0000, Cereus-validus-........... wrote:

You should reconcile the names of the various links mentioned in the text
with the actual names of the links. You should be consistent. At the
present, most of the names do not match.
photo area / photographs
Information Area / Information
Bookmarks Area / Links
Site List / Site Map


Thank you for your time and suggestion. I've corrected the home page. Hope
this works better.

"Timothy" wrote in message
news
Good day,
I was hoping that some of you could test my site. It's address
is:
www.resources.ywgc.com

I'm reassembling an old gardening site that I had and combined
my
old photo site into it also. Killing 2 birds with one dot com
address.

Does the color scheme work for you..?
Is the font size ok?
Is the navigation through out the site easy enough?
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

The Contact page lists neither an address or a phone number, must
be out of business, no?

--

Travis in Shoreline (just North of Seattle) Washington
USDA Zone 8
Sunset Zone 5

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:27:50 +0000, Travis M. wrote:

The Contact page lists neither an address or a phone number, must be out
of business, no?

Good day Travis. I'm in business (and still even have work here in the wet
north west at this time of the year), but this isn't my business page.
This is my business page:

www.ywgc.com

I had a bunch of articles posted on my business site for my customers, but
I've decide to seperate the two.... and add my photos to the mix also. I
have 20 or so more articles to re-format for the new site and I have a
bunch of graphics work still to do, but I figured that I'd have some of
you good folks test the page to find any construction errors. I'm a linux
man and I do not have access to Internet Destroyer to see what it does to
my handy work.
Thanks for your time.

Timothy wrote:

Good day,
I was hoping that some of you could test my site. It's address is:
www.resources.ywgc.com

I'm reassembling an old gardening site that I had and combined my old
photo site into it also. Killing 2 birds with one dot com address.

Does the color scheme work for you..?
Is the font size ok?
Is the navigation through out the site easy enough?
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it. Here
are the results.

29 XHTML 1.0 Transitional errors
no CSS errors
no W3C WCAG level A accessibility errors

Let me know when you fix the XHTML errors, and I'll take another
look. To find the errors, go to
http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html and select "Show Source" so
that you can see the numbered lines.
--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my http://www.rossde.com/PGP/

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:59:21 -0800, David Ross wrote:
Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it. Here are
the results.
29 XHTML 1.0 Transitional errors
no CSS errors
no W3C WCAG level A accessibility errors
Let me know when you fix the XHTML errors, and I'll take another look. To
find the errors, go to
http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html
and select "Show Source" so that
you can see the numbered lines.

Good day David,
Thanks for viewing my site today. I was wondering who ran my site
through validator.... 80)

"Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it"

Is this to mean that you test all your site builds..... or the sites that
you use? While I strive to be fully compliant, it's not them end all and
be all of web design. When I run :
http://www.google.com/

through:

http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html

It returns :
Failed validation, 51 errors

Does this mean that you will not take google.com seriously?

In fear of starting a pointless arguement........
Thanks for your time.
Timothy

Timothy wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:59:21 -0800, David Ross wrote:
Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it. Here are
the results.
29 XHTML 1.0 Transitional errors
no CSS errors
no W3C WCAG level A accessibility errors
Let me know when you fix the XHTML errors, and I'll take another look. To
find the errors, go to
http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html
and select "Show Source" so that
you can see the numbered lines.

Good day David,
Thanks for viewing my site today. I was wondering who ran my site
through validator.... 80)

"Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it"

Is this to mean that you test all your site builds..... or the sites that
you use? While I strive to be fully compliant, it's not them end all and
be all of web design. When I run :
http://www.google.com/

through:

http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html

It returns :
Failed validation, 51 errors

Does this mean that you will not take google.com seriously?

In fear of starting a pointless arguement........
Thanks for your time.
Timothy

See my http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html. You
can skip to "Why Validate Web Pages?" and "Standards: Why and
How".

--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my http://www.rossde.com/PGP/

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:35:43 -0800, David Ross wrote:

See my http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html. You can skip
to "Why Validate Web Pages?" and "Standards: Why and How".

I orginally posted to the group to get a feel for the color, shape,
readability of the page and over all feel for the subject. I was fully
aware that the page was non-compliant, but my compliance error wasn't
going to effect the over-all structure of the page. All my page errors
were due to Quanta+ using the XHTML dtd by default.

While I agree with the statements on your page in general, it's an
idealistic view of the world in general. I personaly strive to be fully
compliant, but I understand that the majority of the web pages on the
internet are not and they are completely viewible in all major browsers.
Google, yahoo and msn all are non-compliant but completely viewible. Are
they full viewible by the disabled...? Don't really know, but it is a good
point.

For your peace of mind, you may now use my site as it is full compliant
(for the most part, not going to hack my image galleries. Konqueror's
image gallery maker creates bad but viewible code.).

Timothy wrote:

Good day,
I was hoping that some of you could test my site. It's address is:
www.resources.ywgc.com

I'm reassembling an old gardening site that I had and combined my old
photo site into it also. Killing 2 birds with one dot com address.

Does the color scheme work for you..?
Is the font size ok?
Is the navigation through out the site easy enough?
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thank you for your time.
Timothy

Okay, I finally got around to viewing some of your Web pages.
Generally, they are okay; but I have a few criticisms.

Your Contacts page might be better if you also included a postal
address.

Your use of an orange background (#ff9933) with white in some of
your boxes means that people with visual handicaps might have
trouble reading the text. This affect not only those with some
visual impairment but also those with color blindness.

In general, your links do not change color when their pages are
visited. Many will find this annoying.

Your home page now has 159 HTML 4.01 Strict errors versus 29 XHTML
1.0 Transitional errors previously. Your style-sheet now has 1
error versus no errors previously.

--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my http://www.rossde.com/PGP/

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:54:08 -0800, David Ross wrote:

Okay, I finally got around to viewing some of your Web pages. Generally,
they are okay; but I have a few criticisms.


O' I knew you would 80P ........

Your Contacts page might be better if you also included a postal address.


I really don't want my postal address out there in the wide internet like
that. I get enough junk mail and really don't want anonymous net trolls to
show up at my door. The resource pages are not to generate local customers
for my business.

Your use of an orange background (#ff9933) with white in some of your
boxes means that people with visual handicaps might have trouble reading
the text. This affect not only those with some visual impairment but also
those with color blindness.

Of course you have to view it when I'm playing with colors. I went and got
a web safe color wheel.... seems to make things worse for me. Way too many
choices. I'm sure the colors will change 5 more time before the end of the
night 80)

In general, your links do not change color when their pages are visited.
Many will find this annoying.

Your home page now has 159 HTML 4.01 Strict errors versus 29 XHTML 1.0
Transitional errors previously. Your style-sheet now has 1 error versus
no errors previously.

Whoa.....! How does the validator return that to you? When I check I get a
green light? The css error is really a work around for an internet
destroyer bug. Keeps the navigation tabs from jumping around in IE. Just
for full disclousre, many of the pages do not validate due to google
adsence's script code. They generate 4 errors and I'm not about to fix
them. Adsence forbids it.


--
http://resources.ywgc.com

Timothy wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:54:08 -0800, David Ross wrote:

Okay, I finally got around to viewing some of your Web pages. Generally,
they are okay; but I have a few criticisms.


O' I knew you would 80P ........

Your Contacts page might be better if you also included a postal address.


I really don't want my postal address out there in the wide internet like
that. I get enough junk mail and really don't want anonymous net trolls to
show up at my door. The resource pages are not to generate local customers
for my business.

Your use of an orange background (#ff9933) with white in some of your
boxes means that people with visual handicaps might have trouble reading
the text. This affect not only those with some visual impairment but also
those with color blindness.

Of course you have to view it when I'm playing with colors. I went and got
a web safe color wheel.... seems to make things worse for me. Way too many
choices. I'm sure the colors will change 5 more time before the end of the
night 80)

In general, your links do not change color when their pages are visited.
Many will find this annoying.

Your home page now has 159 HTML 4.01 Strict errors versus 29 XHTML 1.0
Transitional errors previously. Your style-sheet now has 1 error versus
no errors previously.

Whoa.....! How does the validator return that to you? When I check I get a
green light? The css error is really a work around for an internet
destroyer bug. Keeps the navigation tabs from jumping around in IE. Just
for full disclousre, many of the pages do not validate due to google
adsence's script code. They generate 4 errors and I'm not about to fix
them. Adsence forbids it.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.resources.ywgc.com

But now there are only 9 HTML 4.01 Strict errors. You must still
be tweaking the page.

Some of these errors might go away if your page were HTML 4.01
Transitional instead of HTML 4.01 Strict. I use HTML 4.01
Transitional because it takes much less markup to format a page
(e.g., doing things with deprecated tags and attributes instead of
doing EVERYTHING with CSS).

--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my http://www.rossde.com/PGP/