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.
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.
who has put together a few websites & is not available
thing 3 times now. Internet explorer is just
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 :
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?
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!
O.k. Tom, I'm going to do this one more time... just for you. Sit up and
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
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
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
Learn about font sizes:
Learn how to use the usenet correctly:
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 -
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:34:08 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
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.
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
1. On your header "links" is lowercase and all the others are initial
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.
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!!
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:37:05 -0800, Stan Stansbury wrote:
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.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:17:02 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
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 here:
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 18:39:15 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
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.
:-) 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;"><span>text<br />
<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.
Post replies to the newsgroup.
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.
Doug Kanter wrote:
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.