"Timothy" wrote in message
news
Tom... WTH are you talking about? There are _no_ font-size
declarations
anywhere in the site. The fonts are 100% their size and render as
such.

That's the reason you need help. You are using default fonts and sizes
and they don't fit all. Did you even look at it by clicking on View at
the top and then change the size of the font. In case you don't know,
a large % of veiwers do just that. Now as for it validating, sure if
all the html is correct it will validate, but that sure as heck don't
make it work when viewed by a different setting than what it was
designed with. None of my pages validate and I don't care, because,
I'm more interested in everyone that goes to the sites see what they
came for. I WILL NOT post sites here because they are not related to
this group, & this is my last comment on this thread because it is no
longer related - if it ever was!

Tom J

The widest of pages on the the site are no bigger than 800px. The
site
holds it's shape at 150% in opera on my 2 machines. I tested the
page on 2
local machines, 1 box is a linux machine running a 1024 X 768 and #2
is a
winders laptop that is a 640 X 480. To top it all off I used :

http://www.anybrowser.com/ScreenSizeTest.html

I tested it on every size screen they offer. All hold their shape.
You
state that theres sooo much wrong with the site but...
1 It fully validates as html 4.01 strict.
2 The css is fully compliant.
3 The site holds it's shape at 150% on 2 different screen sizes.

So you seem to be able to talk the talk, so post a few links to YouR
sites
and lets see if you can walk the walk. Btw, still think those nntp's
I
posted are bunk..? Or did you figure out how to configure your
newsreader?

--
http://resources.ywgc.com

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:21:52 +0000, Tom J wrote:

That's the reason you need help. You are using default fonts and sizes
and they don't fit all. Did you even look at it by clicking on View at
the top and then change the size of the font. In case you don't know, a
large % of veiwers do just that. Now as for it validating, sure if all
the html is correct it will validate, but that sure as heck don't make
it work when viewed by a different setting than what it was designed
with. None of my pages validate and I don't care, because, I'm more
interested in everyone that goes to the sites see what they came for. I
WILL NOT post sites here because they are not related to this group, &
this is my last comment on this thread because it is no longer related -
if it ever was! Tom J

O.k. Tom, I'm going to do this one more time... just for you. Sit up and
pay attention.

The page renders fine at 150% of default. The default size of the text is
controlled by _YouR_ computer, not my code. If the text is too small in
your browser, then you should expand the text size to 125% -150%. The page
will/does hold it's shape. If my text is too small, then so is google,
yahoo, msn...ect, must be too small for you also. Look into getting
glasses.

Many people enlarge text on web pages because the page builder set a font
size. 80% on my box isn't the same at your box. Hence the reason for
leaving the text size alone and not forcing the end user into using a
certain size.

If none of your pages validate, then people _arn't_ seeing what they came
for. Only people using browser X see it correctly. People using browsers y
and z are just screwed. You won't post your "sites" because you either:
A: You don't have one and your talking out your butt or
B: Your sites are crap and don't render correctly.

Really, feel free email me the links. I would love to learn how to do it
right. Love to see what perfection looks like.

As far as this not being a on-topic posting, again you show how little you
know about the usenet. This post is about a _gardening_ site. This is a
gardening group. I'm an (somewhat) active user and this post is by no
means off topic or spam. Feel free to lart me to teranews if you like, but
they'll round file your email. Btw, top posting is considered incorrect
posting etiquette.

Learn about font sizes:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html

Learn how to use the usenet correctly:

http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php

--
http://resources.ywgc.com

Timothy wrote:
That "fast server" costs me
a $1.25 a day... hope someone will click a google advert or to to help off
set the cost.
Thanks for your time.


How many clicks would you like? I'll wear my garden gloves too, just to
stay on topic!

It looks like your doing a fine job though, so good luck!

Win 2000 Firefox 1.5

Hi Doug and others,
Why are we giving free computer consulting assistance to this person? We
should be handling gardening issues. It's just cluttering up our usegroup. Let
him hire a
consultant to fix his problems.

Sherwin D.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Timothy" wrote in message
news
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've
re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible
are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking.

I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more
importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all
suggestions are welcome. Thank you.

--
http://resources.ywgc.com


Everything renders nicely in Firefox. I agree with Stan about the typeface.
Switch to a sans serif font. And, the writing & grammar could use some
tweaking.

Oh, stop, will ya? Your news reader's Mozilla, right? Collapse the thread so
you only see the first message. No more clutter.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Hi Doug and others,
Why are we giving free computer consulting assistance to this person?
We
should be handling gardening issues. It's just cluttering up our
usegroup. Let
him hire a
consultant to fix his problems.

Sherwin D.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Timothy" wrote in message
news
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think?
I've
re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just
horrible
are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking.

I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more
importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and
all
suggestions are welcome. Thank you.

--
http://resources.ywgc.com


Everything renders nicely in Firefox. I agree with Stan about the
typeface.
Switch to a sans serif font. And, the writing & grammar could use some
tweaking.

"Timothy" wrote in message
news
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've
re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible
are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking.

I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more
importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all
suggestions are welcome. Thank you.

--
http://resources.ywgc.com


Hi Timothy,
I use IE 6.0 and if those bolded words on the front page text are links they
did not work for me. The links up on top worked OK for me though. If these
are not hyperlinks, then you might wish to consider making them so, as this
user assumed that they were when clicking on them.

Also after I try to click on , say, 'Information', the cursor gets stuck
there and if I click on a lower paragraph it all lights up like I dragged
the cursor through it all.

Other than that it all renders nicely for me. No overlapping tables or such
here. Nice.
Tomes

"Timothy" wrote:
On my end the text is somewhat larger than you would find on
other sites.
http://resources.ywgc.com

:-) On the page with the photos, use a div to contain the photo
and text instead of a span. Something along the lines:

div style="text-align: center;vertical-align:middle;"spantextbr /
img src="xxx.jpg" //span/div

The span tag is an inline element, whereas the div tag is a
block element. Typically block elements have x and y dimensions
while inline elements have a line-height and flow left-to-right, top-
to-bottom (unless you work in another language where flow goes
in an opposite direction).

By employing a vertical-align:middle you center the thumbnail
and associated caption in the middle of the div element.

Don't know if anyone else mentioned this, so here it comes...

It doesn't look like you're using a right column. And you've
provided a fixed size for the right most container (the content).
Things will work better if it's set to "auto". The way it works,
layouts typically involve two or three columns. Your site
appears to layout as two columns. And the content column
should be set to width:auto; while the left column retains a
fixed size. For three columns, the middle content might get
a width:auto while the right and left get fixed width's.

Hope this helps.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the newsgroup.

Doug Kanter wrote:

Oh, stop, will ya? Your news reader's Mozilla, right? Collapse the thread so
you only see the first message. No more clutter.


My news reader is Netscape. The only clutter I see around here is all this
stuff about improving this guy's web site.

Sherwin D.

I'm satisfied with the site
Joshua Peri
"Timothy" ???
??????
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've
re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible
are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking.

I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more
importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all
suggestions are welcome. Thank you.

--
http://resources.ywgc.com