A few questions and a critique request

[sagejoshua]

I Just did a re-design of my company website, www.snakebirdstudios.com
First of all, could I get a little feedback? What looks good? What
don't? What works, doesn't, etc. I'd appreciate it.

Secondly, it has a few mysterious bugs. It always looks ok in IE.
However, look at it in Firefox. The height get miscalculated on the
first view. If you refresh, it gets the value correctly. Also,
sometimes on the first view of the design page, the absolutly
positioned footer doesn't make it all the way to the bottom of the
page. Refresh it, and it's fine. Then it won't do it again unless you
clear the cache. And this is only in Firefox. What gives?

TIA for any help.

-Josh

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:

I Just did a re-design of my company website, www.snakebirdstudios.com
First of all, could I get a little feedback? What looks good? What
don't? What works, doesn't, etc. I'd appreciate it.

Secondly, it has a few mysterious bugs. It always looks ok in IE.
However, look at it in Firefox. The height get miscalculated on the
first view. If you refresh, it gets the value correctly. Also,
sometimes on the first view of the design page, the absolutly
positioned footer doesn't make it all the way to the bottom of the
page. Refresh it, and it's fine. Then it won't do it again unless you
clear the cache. And this is only in Firefox. What gives?

TIA for any help.

-Josh

Koneechi juan. Somebody else was having similar trouble with Firefox
and Toby Inkster supplied a solution for a loading delay of the html
until the css was read first. This shouldn't be more than a few days
back so you might want to retro research.

 

[dorayme]

I Just did a re-design of my company website, www.snakebirdstudios.com
First of all, could I get a little feedback? What looks good? What
don't? What works, doesn't, etc. I'd appreciate it.

Secondly, it has a few mysterious bugs. It always looks ok in IE.
However, look at it in Firefox. The height get miscalculated on the
first view. If you refresh, it gets the value correctly. Also,
sometimes on the first view of the design page, the absolutly
positioned footer doesn't make it all the way to the bottom of the
page. Refresh it, and it's fine. Then it won't do it again unless you
clear the cache. And this is only in Firefox. What gives?

I have looked high and low for this website of yours. It is like
trying to find God, hard to know where really to start...

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

From: sagejoshua <[email protected]>

[/QUOTE]

I have looked high and low for this website of yours. It is like
trying to find God, hard to know where really to start...

I got to it. The Firefox problem is also a Safari problem. And mousing
over the menu makes me queasy. The text of the menu slightly changes
position on mouseover.
I apologize to the original poster, because I didn't see the original
post. The menu text shift is also seen in MacOpera.

leo

 

[sagejoshua]

I have looked high and low for this website of yours. It is like
trying to find God, hard to know where really to start...

It's at http://www.snakebirdstudios.com

Does it not work for you?

-Josh

 

[sagejoshua]

I got to it. The Firefox problem is also a Safari problem. And mousing
over the menu makes me queasy. The text of the menu slightly changes
position on mouseover.
I apologize to the original poster, because I didn't see the original
post. The menu text shift is also seen in MacOpera.

The menu text is supposed to shift. It's supposed to drop a little as
you mouseover. See how the shadow remains in the same place?

Is it not effective?

- Josh

 

[sagejoshua]

Koneechi juan. Somebody else was having similar trouble with Firefox
and Toby Inkster supplied a solution for a loading delay of the html
until the css was read first. This shouldn't be more than a few days
back so you might want to retro research.

Hmmm. Here's what came up with:

<?
// Firefox CSS bug:
if(eregi("firefox",$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])){
header("Link:
<http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/bin/snakebird.css>; REL=stylesheet");
sleep(1);
}
?>

It don't fix nothing... Arrr, I hate quirks. I know that's kind of a
ghetto broswer detection, but it should work, no?

- Josh

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

The menu text is supposed to shift. It's supposed to drop a little as
you mouseover. See how the shadow remains in the same place?

I didn't even notice until you pointed it out.

Is it not effective?

No. Text shifting is not. Don't do it, seriously. Perhaps shadow
shifting is. I've never noticed it before and wouldn't have until you
pointed it out.
Your site is perfectly suited for strict validation instead of
transitional. Go for it! That will probably solve your Safari-Firefox
problem. Validation doesn't make compatible sites across all browsers.
And that's forgetting the ancient ones which I do.

leo

 

[sagejoshua]

No. Text shifting is not. Don't do it, seriously. Perhaps shadow
shifting is. I've never noticed it before and wouldn't have until you
pointed it out.

You know, I've got to agree with you there. I changed it to
stationary. There wasn't enough of a reason to have the depression
effect. It makes the page feel more stable.

Validation doesn't make compatible sites across all browsers.
And that's forgetting the ancient ones which I do.

What do you mean?

sagejoshua

"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it" -M Hedberg

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:

Koneechi juan. Somebody else was having similar trouble with Firefox
and Toby Inkster supplied a solution for a loading delay of the html
until the css was read first. This shouldn't be more than a few days
back so you might want to retro research.

Hmmm. Here's what came up with:

<?
// Firefox CSS bug:
if(eregi("firefox",$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])){
header("Link:
<http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/bin/snakebird.css>; REL=stylesheet");
sleep(1);
}
?>

It don't fix nothing... Arrr, I hate quirks. I know that's kind of a
ghetto broswer detection, but it should work, no?

- Josh

Okay, I tried it (http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/) in Firefox 1.5, beta
2 and did not have the problem but did in the current "Mozilla". I'm
almost certain it's something in your javascript because I used to have
similar reactions diddling with Moz and javascript together - especially
regarding preloads and replacements.

 

[sagejoshua]

Okay, I tried it (http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/) in Firefox 1.5, beta
2 and did not have the problem but did in the current "Mozilla". I'm
almost certain it's something in your javascript because I used to have
similar reactions diddling with Moz and javascript together - especially
regarding preloads and replacements.

Ahhh soo...

It seems you may be right. Check out
http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/nojs.php

I removed all references to js, and it seems to have solved the
poblem. How about for you?

Hmmm... this only calls for more tweakage. I'll get on it tommorow.
Thanks for the keen eye, grasshopper.

Josh

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:50:23 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell


What do you mean?

Well, it's certainly hard to tell from what I said. I meant that
validation does not guarantee that sites will look acceptable for all
browsers. Older browsers will give poorer results to newer CSS
constructs. Newer browsers can nail your idea or suck badly.

leo

 

[Travis Newbury]

www.snakebirdstudios.com

Hire a writer to write your content. For example:

"We're a people-centered design company."

What the hell is a people centered company. It is a bull shit
saying that means nothing. It will turn off anyone looking for a
professional job.

Through our interaction with you — in person, over the phone, and
through email — we create a custom tailored web presence to meet
and exceed your expectations and requirements.

Yea, right... More pretty words that mean nothing.

Everything revolves around human interaction. From the most
preliminary planning, our goal is to provide attractive,
functional, and accessible web sites. We understand that the true
measurement of a web site's effectiveness is the user's
experience, and we design with successful visitor interaction as
top priority.

Bla bla bla.. same thing here. A bunch of pretty words that may
impress mom and pop, but will turn off a company of any substancial
size. Lose the pretty words, and hire someone that does writes
text for a living.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:

Ahhh soo...

It seems you may be right. Check out
http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/nojs.php

I removed all references to js, and it seems to have solved the
poblem. How about for you?

Nope. It's like I'm getting a double bottom in Mozilla (-or perhaps it
screen-prints prematurely too low and then doesn't fully erase.) I'll
betcha it's a Moz bug, though. The best rendering engine *mechanics*
are still in IE.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

What the hell is a people centered company. It is a bull shit
saying that means nothing.

Oh yeah? What about a mortician? Or a cryogenicist firm? Even a
simple adult web site is primarily concerned with getting to the center
of people.

 

[kchayka]

With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:


It's like I'm getting a double bottom in Mozilla (-or perhaps it
screen-prints prematurely too low and then doesn't fully erase.) I'll
betcha it's a Moz bug, though.

More likely than a bug is the excessive absolute positioning and all
those px dimensions. There is no need for most of it.

A tip for the OP: open your page in the moz/FF DOM inspector and look at
both CSS style rules and computed styles for various elements. You may
find your own answers there.

And rather than reinvent the wheel, take a look at some already
tried-and-true CSS templates. Even if you don't use one, study the
techniques used. For some examples, see:

The best rendering engine *mechanics* are still in IE.

Sure, if you believe that non-conformant rendering and seriously broken
overflow behavior is A Good Thing. I don't happen to agree with that.

 

[sagejoshua]

Bla bla bla.. same thing here. A bunch of pretty words that may
impress mom and pop, but will turn off a company of any substancial
size. Lose the pretty words, and hire someone that does writes
text for a living.

Ouch. It stings, it stings. Thanks, though. Reminds me of all those
fiction workshops. Was that English major for nothing? Oh well... I
was a bastard when it came to critiques, too. Nothing feels better
than thinking, 'this friggin sucks.'

Care to share some writing that you admire. A few sites for
inspiration?

Thanks for the honesty.
Josh

 

[sagejoshua]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:


Oh yeah? What about a mortician? Or a cryogenicist firm? Even a
simple adult web site is primarily concerned with getting to the center
of people.

Hehehe. Nice. I'm going to quote that on my business testimonial
page.

Josh

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:




Nope. It's like I'm getting a double bottom in Mozilla (-or perhaps it
screen-prints prematurely too low and then doesn't fully erase.) I'll
betcha it's a Moz bug, though. The best rendering engine *mechanics*
are still in IE.

Since your example page thumbnails are all the same size, 200 x 145,
just for ha-ha's, try putting the dims for the images in the html so the
page doesn't have to reflow...

<img src="images/noga.jpg" alt="North Georgia Mountain Realty, LLC"
width="200" height="145" border="0">

and see if the problem persists.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:

More likely than a bug is the excessive absolute positioning and all
those px dimensions. There is no need for most of it.

A tip for the OP: open your page in the moz/FF DOM inspector and look at
both CSS style rules and computed styles for various elements. You may
find your own answers there.

And rather than reinvent the wheel, take a look at some already
tried-and-true CSS templates. Even if you don't use one, study the
techniques used. For some examples, see:


Sure, if you believe that non-conformant rendering and seriously broken
overflow behavior is A Good Thing. I don't happen to agree with that.

Not what I meant; perhaps I used an ambiguous word. IE's architectural
rendering algorithms, as we know, suck, but its dynamic refresh ability
(in regard to screen printing and such as is required, for example, on
resize) surpasses that of any other browser. Ergo, IE may render a page
wrong, but it renders it "better" nonetheless.