A few questions and a critique request

Discussion in 'HTML' started by sagejoshua, Oct 24, 2005.

  1. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    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
     
    sagejoshua, Oct 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sagejoshua

    Neredbojias Guest

    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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sagejoshua

    dorayme Guest

    > From: 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?
    >


    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...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Oct 25, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <BF83C15C.19771%>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > > From: 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...


    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

    --
    <http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
     
    Leonard Blaisdell, Oct 25, 2005
    #4
  5. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:02:52 +1000, dorayme <>
    wrote:

    >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, Oct 25, 2005
    #5
  6. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:18:36 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
    <> wrote:

    >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, Oct 25, 2005
    #6
  7. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:52:56 -0700, Neredbojias
    <> wrote:

    >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
     
    sagejoshua, Oct 25, 2005
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    sagejoshua <> wrote:

    > 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

    --
    <http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
     
    Leonard Blaisdell, Oct 25, 2005
    #8
  9. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

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

    >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
     
    sagejoshua, Oct 25, 2005
    #9
  10. sagejoshua

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:

    > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:52:56 -0700, Neredbojias
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 25, 2005
    #10
  11. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:39:07 -0700, Neredbojias
    <> wrote:

    >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
     
    sagejoshua, Oct 25, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    sagejoshua <> wrote:

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


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

    >
    > 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

    --
    <http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
     
    Leonard Blaisdell, Oct 25, 2005
    #12
  13. sagejoshua <> said:

    > 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.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Oct 25, 2005
    #13
  14. sagejoshua

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:

    > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:39:07 -0700, Neredbojias
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >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?


    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.

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


    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 25, 2005
    #14
  15. sagejoshua

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

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

    > 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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 25, 2005
    #15
  16. sagejoshua

    kchayka Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:

    > With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:
    >
    >> http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/nojs.php

    >
    > 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:
    <URL:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/>

    > 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.

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Oct 25, 2005
    #16
  17. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:52:36 GMT, Travis Newbury
    <> wrote:

    >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, Oct 25, 2005
    #17
  18. sagejoshua

    sagejoshua Guest

    On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:41:05 -0700, Neredbojias
    <> wrote:

    >With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:
    >
    >> > "We're a people-centered design company."

    >> 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.



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

    Josh
     
    sagejoshua, Oct 25, 2005
    #18
  19. Neredbojias wrote:

    > With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:39:07 -0700, Neredbojias
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>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?

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


    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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 25, 2005
    #19
  20. sagejoshua

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    > > With neither quill nor qualm, sagejoshua quothed:
    > >
    > >> http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/nojs.php

    > >
    > > 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:
    > <URL:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/>
    >
    > > 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.


    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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 25, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fao, Sean

    Critique Request: CheckBoxColumn

    Fao, Sean, Feb 15, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    516
    Fao, Sean
    Feb 15, 2006
  2. Cynthia Turcotte

    critique request

    Cynthia Turcotte, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    478
    Chris Leonard
    Sep 13, 2003
  3. Andrew Cameron

    Critique request: x01

    Andrew Cameron, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,367
    picayunish
    Sep 17, 2003
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    555
  5. Murali
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    572
    Jerry Coffin
    Mar 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page