|
opinions wanted
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've
re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking. I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thank you. -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
Your tables are overlapping each other. Still needs work bad!!
Tom J "Timothy" wrote in message m... Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& 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 |
opinions wanted
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 03:49:06 +0000, Tom J wrote:
Your tables are overlapping each other. Still needs work bad!! Tom J Which tables are those Tom? Could you site the page? Could you tell me which browser your using? -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
works fine for me. Using IE 6.0 with windows XP home.
"Tom J" wrote in message link.net... Your tables are overlapping each other. Still needs work bad!! Tom J "Timothy" wrote in message m... Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking. I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thank you. -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
Timothy wrote:
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& 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. No problem with Mozilla - renders very well. If Internet Explorer is hiccupping, too bad. Get Mozilla, it's free, better and safer than IE. The navigation frame (on the left sied) should be hierarchical: a few bars, each of which expands into few more, to whatever depth you need, the last level(s) linking directly to the pages. The navigation frame should show all header bars plus the current state of the expanded tree. You also need a link back to Home. So you css structure needs work, but o'wise the site looks good. You also are using a vey fast server - excellent! |
opinions wanted
Timothy wrote:
Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking. I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Morning, Timothy, I'm on Windows XP and Firefox 1.5 and it works fine. Good job. Yes, IE is non-compliant with standards, and a pain in the butt to write for. One way around it is to put a note on your site like: "This site is optimized for standards compliant browsers like Firefox or Opera", and a link to the download pages. That way people understand what's happening and you don't have to kill yourself making IE work. A few comments because I'm a professional tech writer, and just can't help myself: 1. On your header "links" is lowercase and all the others are initial capped. 2. On the Home, Information, and Photos pages you've got please Contact Us... those should be lower case like on the links page. 3. The explanation blurb on the links page seem long and mostly unnecessary I think. We can see that they're links, and the name of the page is links, so it doesn't seem to me that you really need to tell us what they are. 4. I would use a sans serif typeface because I think they're easier to read online and because people are just used to seeing them. HTH Stan Stansbury |
opinions wanted
"Timothy" wrote in message m... Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& 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. |
opinions wanted
Try changing font size or resolution. It works ONLY in the font size
and resolution it was made with. Any variation and it goes haywire. If he's successful I expect he'll have to pay for a few hours help, because as of now, there is so much wrong it would be hard to say where to start correcting it. Tom J who has put together a few websites & is not available "ronm" wrote in message .. . works fine for me. Using IE 6.0 with windows XP home. "Tom J" wrote in message link.net... Your tables are overlapping each other. Still needs work bad!! Tom J "Timothy" wrote in message m... 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 |
opinions wanted
"Stan Stansbury" wrote in message m... Yes, IE is non-compliant with standards, and a pain in the butt to write for. One way around it is to put a note on your site like: "This site is optimized for standards compliant browsers like Firefox or Opera", and a link to the download pages. That way people understand what's happening and you don't have to kill yourself making IE work. So, you think 80% of the people coming to that site will download a different reader? You have to be kidding. There are millions of websites and most of those millions can be viewed with all but the very oldest readers. For those of you that says it looks great on your computer, I can keep changing mine to get it to look ok, BUT if I went to a commercial site that required that - lost customer!! Tom J |
opinions wanted
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:17:02 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
snip 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. Thanks for your time Doug. Dunno what to say about the typeface. I didn't declare any font types, maybe I should. As far as the writing & grammar.... I's ain't no colleged educated man, but trying...lol -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:37:05 -0800, Stan Stansbury wrote:
Morning, Timothy, I'm on Windows XP and Firefox 1.5 and it works fine. Good job. Yes, IE is non-compliant with standards, and a pain in the butt to write for. One way around it is to put a note on your site like: "This site is optimized for standards compliant browsers like Firefox or Opera", and a link to the download pages. That way people understand what's happening and you don't have to kill yourself making IE work. A few comments because I'm a professional tech writer, and just can't help myself: 1. On your header "links" is lowercase and all the others are initial capped. 2. On the Home, Information, and Photos pages you've got please Contact Us... those should be lower case like on the links page. 3. The explanation blurb on the links page seem long and mostly unnecessary I think. We can see that they're links, and the name of the page is links, so it doesn't seem to me that you really need to tell us what they are. 4. I would use a sans serif typeface because I think they're easier to read online and because people are just used to seeing them. HTH Stan Stansbury Thanks for the comments Stan. It's great to be able to see the site throught someone else's eyes. It's the little things that people miss. I went and fixed #1 and #2. Never noticed the errors on the template... thus all the pages ended up with the errors. The whole point of the blurb on the links page is to explain why I've linked them and to drum up some link exchanges... if possible. Like I told Doug, I didn't declair a type-face. Guess I should. Again, thanks a bunch for your time. -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:34:08 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
Timothy wrote: 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. No problem with Mozilla - renders very well. If Internet Explorer is hiccupping, too bad. Get Mozilla, it's free, better and safer than IE. The navigation frame (on the left sied) should be hierarchical: a few bars, each of which expands into few more, to whatever depth you need, the last level(s) linking directly to the pages. The navigation frame should show all header bars plus the current state of the expanded tree. You also need a link back to Home. So you css structure needs work, but o'wise the site looks good. You also are using a vey fast server - excellent! I'm still rather new to css and a css drop down menu is a bit beyound me atm. Great idea... maybe in the next build 80) The css validates and I'm using Quanta plus for my editing. The css file is layed out like that by Quanta's css editor. 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. -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
"Timothy" wrote in message m... On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:17:02 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: snip 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. Thanks for your time Doug. Dunno what to say about the typeface. I didn't declare any font types, maybe I should. As far as the writing & grammar.... I's ain't no colleged educated man, but trying...lol -- http://resources.ywgc.com Look at the typeface he www.llbean.com Just one of thousands of sites where your eyes fly through the words without pause or fatigue. I'm no web designer, but I'm sure it can't be that hard to change your font. |
opinions wanted
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:56:23 +0000, Tom J wrote:
Try changing font size or resolution. It works ONLY in the font size and resolution it was made with. Any variation and it goes haywire. If he's successful I expect he'll have to pay for a few hours help, because as of now, there is so much wrong it would be hard to say where to start correcting it. Tom J who has put together a few websites & is not available 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. 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 |
opinions wanted
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:39:15 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
"Timothy" wrote in message m... On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:17:02 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: snip 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. Thanks for your time Doug. Dunno what to say about the typeface. I didn't declare any font types, maybe I should. As far as the writing & grammar.... I's ain't no colleged educated man, but trying...lol Look at the typeface he www.llbean.com Just one of thousands of sites where your eyes fly through the words without pause or fatigue. I'm no web designer, but I'm sure it can't be that hard to change your font. No it's not hard to change the fonts at all. Afaik, when font-type isn't declared the browser uses it's default. I've been told that people tend not to like the default font-type and font-size messed with. On my end the text is somewhat larger than you would find on other sites. I guess I'll throw a few pages into the sandbox and see what different fonts due for the page. Thanks for your time Doug. -- http://resources.ywgc.com |
opinions wanted
"Timothy" wrote in message m... 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 |
opinions wanted
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 |
opinions wanted
Timothy wrote:
That "fast server" costs me a $1.25 a day... hope someone will click a google advert or to to help off set the cost. Thanks for your time. How many clicks would you like? I'll wear my garden gloves too, just to stay on topic! It looks like your doing a fine job though, so good luck! Win 2000 Firefox 1.5 |
opinions wanted
Hi Doug and others,
Why are we giving free computer consulting assistance to this person? We should be handling gardening issues. It's just cluttering up our usegroup. Let him hire a consultant to fix his problems. Sherwin D. Doug Kanter wrote: "Timothy" wrote in message m... Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& 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. |
opinions wanted
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 m... Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just horrible are rendering css and well, my style was a bit lacking. I'm interested in if the navigation works well for people and more importantly if the navigation is logical and easy to follow. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thank you. -- http://resources.ywgc.com Everything renders nicely in Firefox. I agree with Stan about the typeface. Switch to a sans serif font. And, the writing & grammar could use some tweaking. |
opinions wanted
"Timothy" wrote in message m... Could you good folks look at my page and let me know what you think? I've re-built the !@#$%^& 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 |
opinions wanted
"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. |
opinions wanted
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. |
opinions wanted
I'm satisfied with the site
Joshua Peri "Timothy" ??? com... 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter