For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
Interesting - thanks for the review. Everything I've heard about this
little gauge has been positive!
One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 184.108.40.206 or Safari 2.0.4,
both for Mac OSX). The text and photos are laid out much to wide for
the browser window, so I have to scroll side to side to read each
line. Don't know anything about web design, so I can't suggest what
might be wrong, but I thought I'd provide some user feedback.
Well, I certainly agree with you on ultimate responsibility. And I'm
sure there are lots of well-bahaved sites created with front page. But
I also suspect that it is much easier to create IE-specific
non-standard html in frontpage than in many other authoring tools.
But this is just speculation, subject to change based on comments from
web authoring experts. One has posted here pretty much confirming my
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Well, a former "web authoring" expert, who was on the beta before VM FP 1.0
was released some 14 years ago, long before MSFT and most of today's "web
authoring experts" could spell "www", still says bullshit.
It's a tool, and like any other tool that is perhaps too easy to use in the
hands of the plentiful and ubiquitous dufus of today, it is often misused
... and, just like in woodworking, irrational kneejerks will continue to
blame the tool because of the brand.
In this particular case it may have been operator error. But do you deny that
in the interest of "productizing" Microsoft has added several nonstandard
"extensions" to the HTML generated by Front Page?
The original statement that use of FP made it more likely that other browsers
could not read a page so generated was and is true. It's happened all too
often. It even happened way back when IE and Netscape were the only choices.
Of course they did ... and you knew that before you posted the question. But
then, so did Netscape. IIRC, at the time there was no reasons to not to, and
all for the most practicial of reasons, reasons that were at the time in the
spirit of the original specification - to solve immediate problems with a
That said, many of those reasons have now grown to a signifcance that rivals
that of relgious fundamentalism.
About the only time I've ever seen any browser I use, and I've used them
all, to "not read a page" at all was with bullshit like "Flash" ... much
worse than MSFT ever was in subverting the www HTML spirit, IMO.
I don't really don't use IE, except as a check when I do my little ww web
page these days, mostly I use FF by choice. All my FP webs have always been
read handily by any browser I use since day 1.
There is simply no excuse in blaming the tool if they don't.
Yes, it's the operator.
Yes, I use FrontPage.
No, it doesn't produce pretty-perfect code. But, I just don't have
the time to muddle around hand coding everything. And, I've seen some
pretty ugly (and mostly non-functional) hand coded pages too. Bottom
line, I'm responsible for the code on my site no matter how I decide
to generate it. So, I apologize for the mishap.
There are a whole bunch of photos showing the results of each angle
test. I wanted a way to give people easy access to them without
forcing everyone to go through each photo. So, I used a FrontPage
photo gallery. I re-did the page using smaller photos (for those who
wish to view the page using a 640x480 display) and corrected an
oversight in the table definition (a fixed width when it should have
Try it now and let me know if it works any better.
I have a 1400x1050 monitor (Firefox 220.127.116.11/Linux), and the page
is not wide enough. The paragraph starting with "I used my Starrett
AG16LM angle set as standards for the testing." is three lines long,
and I have to scroll back and forth 5 times to read three lines.
I have my default font set to "16"
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
I enjoyed your test and can care less what the page looked like. It
got the information across.
If folks want to see what a REALLY basic page can look like, try this:
The first page you'll hit is as fancy as it gets, but it works great.
Ed is selling stuff ... you aren't.
Contrary to casual appearances, Ed is not running these tests as a
public service ... he's making a case for why you should buy his device
in preference to the Wixley device. And ... except in one extremely
limited circumstance ... he's right.
But making the reader work for the information is likely to kill his
sales pitch ... and his sales.
Your viewers apparently need your site more than you need them. If the
situation were reversed, your web site design would change or you would
go out of business.
I think Ed understands something about our comments that you do not. I
think he understands that our comments are intended to help him make a
buck. I, personally, would like for him to get feeelthy stinking rich so
he could buy stuff from me. ;-) Lots of stuff!
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
is probably the culprit.
My day job is connected to web geeking. I see a page this bad (abused
<blockquote>, <font>, <table>) and I really can't bear to look at it.Post a link to c.i.w.a.h / alt.html.critique and you might get some
suggestions or even a makeover.
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.