O/T: Web Design

Page 1 of 2  
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about below?
http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry, no experience with their stuff.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote the following:

It's a good design, but that's not why you wanted me to visit the site, is it?
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"willshak" wrote:
> It's a good design, but that's not why you wanted me to visit the site,

As a matter of fact, that kind of input was exactly what I was interested in getting.
Thank you.
Have you used the stuff?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Best business advice I ever got was 'stick to your knitting'. What is their Knitting? If you say 'software development', you got it wrong. Their 'knitting' is marketing and selling a bunch of stuff that never made it to number one or even number ten. Some of it may even be packaged freeware. A company with a very similar name recently lost a class action suit for sending customers "FREE SOFTWARE" that was, in fact, not free. Be wary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"LDosser" wrote:

I can relate.

They bought out some utility software I used several years ago from an outfit in Denver, and moved it.
Somebody updated it and they are selling it under their logo.
I bought the updates and have been happy with them.
Long ago recognized that my days engineering things were best kept in the "funzie" category, I've moved on to other things.
Appreciate the comments.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're welcome.
You might also take a look here: http://www.tucows.com /
I've found some useful bits and pieces there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"LDosser" wrote:

what.
If you wanted the Harbor Freight of web design programs, where would you look?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

tucows
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Haven't used them. Won't. Flash sucks rhino.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org shows 139 errors and 55 warnings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

Would that be Timothy's great-grandson, or what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL -- obviously I meant leery... Next time, I'll just write "wary" or "cautious" -- I know how to spell those!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Miller" wrote:

Interesting.
Thank you.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're welcome. And for those who may not know it, w3.org is the web site of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which is the body that develops standards for the internet -- IOW, w3.org is *the* authority for what meets standards and what doesn't.
But wait -- there's more: This particular design outfit is using the HTML 4.01 Transitional document type on their pages. The standards for Transitional are a *lot* easier to meet than the standards for Strict, yet they still have nearly 200 errors and warnings. (For comparison purposes, www.ibm.com shows no errors, no warnings, checked against XHTML 1.0 Strict.)
Further still, the site uses the JQuery JavaScript library, which... ummmm... has a few problems. Do a Google Groups search on comp.lang.javascript for "JQuery" if you're curious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 5, 6:53pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating incorrectly.
Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx ) has 395 Errors, 34 warning(s) Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http:// www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s) www.google.com has 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)
I found it hard to find a website with few errors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and what's not.

So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!) Imagine my surprise.

Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.

So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.

That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to) standards. :-) Some succeed, though: ibm.com -- zero sony.com -- zero w3.org -- zero mit.edu -- zero xkcd.com -- zero navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial craigslist.org -- one error, one warning
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 6, 8:27am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Nice try...
Sony.com is their opener which directs to ---> http://www.sony.com/index.php which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s) w3.org is not clean either but better. Try --> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch / 5 Errors http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s) xkcd.com store ---> http://store.xkcd.com/ ---> 798 Errors, 29 warning(s) http://xkcd.com/about/ ---->5 Errors, 31 warning(s) http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp --->21 Errors, 28 warning(s)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

s)http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp --->21 Errors, 28 warning(s) That wrapped funny after posting. Here it is again:
Sony.com is their opener which directs to ---> http://www.sony.com/index.php which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)
w3.org is not clean either but better. Try --> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch / 5 Errors
http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
xkcd.com store ---> http://store.xkcd.com/ ---> 798 Errors, 29 warning(s)
http://xkcd.com/about/ ---->5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp --->21 Errors, 28 warning(s)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OTOH, with the exception of w3.org, none of those sites are attempting to advise people on web page design, either... I stand by my original comment, that I'd be suspicious of a web design service that can't get its *own* pages right; there's rather little reason to believe they'd do any better for a customer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.