I was hoping that some of you could test my site. It's address is:
I'm reassembling an old gardening site that I had and combined my old
photo site into it also. Killing 2 birds with one dot com address.
Does the color scheme work for you..?
Is the font size ok?
Is the navigation through out the site easy enough?
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thank you for your time.
You should reconcile the names of the various links mentioned in the text
with the actual names of the links. You should be consistent. At the
present, most of the names do not match.
photo area / photographs
Information Area / Information
Bookmarks Area / Links
Site List / Site Map
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:27:50 +0000, Travis M. wrote:
Good day Travis. I'm in business (and still even have work here in the wet
north west at this time of the year), but this isn't my business page.
This is my business page:
I had a bunch of articles posted on my business site for my customers, but
I've decide to seperate the two.... and add my photos to the mix also. I
have 20 or so more articles to re-format for the new site and I have a
bunch of graphics work still to do, but I figured that I'd have some of
you good folks test the page to find any construction errors. I'm a linux
man and I do not have access to Internet Destroyer to see what it does to
my handy work.
Thanks for your time.
Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it. Here
are the results.
29 XHTML 1.0 Transitional errors
no CSS errors
no W3C WCAG level A accessibility errors
Let me know when you fix the XHTML errors, and I'll take another
look. To find the errors, go to
<http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html and select "Show Source" so
that you can see the numbered lines.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:59:21 -0800, David Ross wrote:
Good day David,
Thanks for viewing my site today. I was wondering who ran my site
through validator.... 80)
"Before I give any serious attention to a Web page, I test it"
Is this to mean that you test all your site builds..... or the sites that
you use? While I strive to be fully compliant, it's not them end all and
be all of web design. When I run :
It returns :
Failed validation, 51 errors
Does this mean that you will not take google.com seriously?
In fear of starting a pointless arguement........
Thanks for your time.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:35:43 -0800, David Ross wrote:
I orginally posted to the group to get a feel for the color, shape,
readability of the page and over all feel for the subject. I was fully
aware that the page was non-compliant, but my compliance error wasn't
going to effect the over-all structure of the page. All my page errors
were due to Quanta+ using the XHTML dtd by default.
While I agree with the statements on your page in general, it's an
idealistic view of the world in general. I personaly strive to be fully
compliant, but I understand that the majority of the web pages on the
internet are not and they are completely viewible in all major browsers.
Google, yahoo and msn all are non-compliant but completely viewible. Are
they full viewible by the disabled...? Don't really know, but it is a good
For your peace of mind, you may now use my site as it is full compliant
(for the most part, not going to hack my image galleries. Konqueror's
image gallery maker creates bad but viewible code.).
Okay, I finally got around to viewing some of your Web pages.
Generally, they are okay; but I have a few criticisms.
Your Contacts page might be better if you also included a postal
Your use of an orange background (#ff9933) with white in some of
your boxes means that people with visual handicaps might have
trouble reading the text. This affect not only those with some
visual impairment but also those with color blindness.
In general, your links do not change color when their pages are
visited. Many will find this annoying.
Your home page now has 159 HTML 4.01 Strict errors versus 29 XHTML
1.0 Transitional errors previously. Your style-sheet now has 1
error versus no errors previously.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:54:08 -0800, David Ross wrote:
O' I knew you would 80P ........
I really don't want my postal address out there in the wide internet like
that. I get enough junk mail and really don't want anonymous net trolls to
show up at my door. The resource pages are not to generate local customers
for my business.
Of course you have to view it when I'm playing with colors. I went and got
a web safe color wheel.... seems to make things worse for me. Way too many
choices. I'm sure the colors will change 5 more time before the end of the
Whoa.....! How does the validator return that to you? When I check I get a
green light? The css error is really a work around for an internet
destroyer bug. Keeps the navigation tabs from jumping around in IE. Just
for full disclousre, many of the pages do not validate due to google
adsence's script code. They generate 4 errors and I'm not about to fix
them. Adsence forbids it.
But now there are only 9 HTML 4.01 Strict errors. You must still
be tweaking the page.
Some of these errors might go away if your page were HTML 4.01
Transitional instead of HTML 4.01 Strict. I use HTML 4.01
Transitional because it takes much less markup to format a page
(e.g., doing things with deprecated tags and attributes instead of
doing EVERYTHING with CSS).
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.