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

Your tables are overlapping each other. Still needs work bad!!

Tom J

"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

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

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
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

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!

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

"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.

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
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

"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

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

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

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

"Timothy" wrote in message
news
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.

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

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:39:15 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


"Timothy" wrote in message
news
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