did I FINALLY get it right? Page review request.

[Craig Phillips]

Hello, everyone.
Several weeks back some of you were nice enough to examine my new page in
different browsers and report problems. Per your comments, I made the
adjustments suggested.

If you have a moment, please take a look... especially if you're a Mac user.
Please let me know if you encounter problems.

The whole page is now embedded in a table, so the main table doesn't
fragment and I'm using style sheets.
http://www.relicsofthepostage.com/craig-phillips/index.htm

Thanks again.
Craig

 

[Lauri Raittila]

Hello, everyone.
Several weeks back some of you were nice enough to examine my new page in
different browsers and report problems. Per your comments, I made the
adjustments suggested.

You really asked in this group? Either message was ignored, or somebody
didn't fix the site. One reason could be that there is better groups to
ask critiq.

If you have a moment, please take a look... especially if you're a Mac user.
Please let me know if you encounter problems.

The whole page is now embedded in a table, so the main table doesn't
fragment

I see. So you fix problem by making it worse?

and I'm using style sheets.

To make it sure that person looking the site will not be able to do that
in font size he thinks best. Well, that didn't affect me, I don't allow
such things.

http://www.relicsofthepostage.com/craig-phillips/index.htm

Blurred grey on light gre links, made with images to ensure noone with
normal monitor will be able to read em. Especially, since images don't
have alt attributes, so turning them of in hope of seeing something is
even worse.

Fixed width that is bigger than my window. And propbly smaller than most
of other peoples.

I never knew there were 14 months in a year. And I suppose it was not
last updated on 1910 either. So I can guess what you meaned.

Are you sure that people can't find address of your site in address
field? Or why do you have url there so many times?

It is next to impossible to guess that "design inquiries" is link, as the
URL before it is not (so I didn't bother hovering it). ©2004 is also
nice. (I found that link by using keyboard navigation.)

You have "alternatives" link that link to current page (JS on - I first
thought it was because I had JS of, but turning it on had no effect.)
Neither does resume of hadshot links work. (and saving headshot in GIF
format seem pretty stupid)

I looked code:IMG SRC="images/spacer.gif" WIDTH=12 HEIGHT=1 more than I
woould like to see. Of course it is not valid, or even near correct.

Most of the graphics were nice. (Exept those text links)

 

[Craig Phillips]

I know, I know... there are no alt tags on the images and style sheets
prohibit font size variance. However, the fixed width for the main table is
necessary for proper graphic layout. Unless someone's using a Commodore
VIC20, I doubt that I'm going to encounter anyone who sets their screen
resolution lower than would comfortably accommodate a width of 600. (You
can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) The site isn't intended
for high volume traffic so if I estrange an outdated user I'm not that
concerned.

Yes-- there are dead links because I wanted to make sure that things were
formatting correctly before I filled in every detail.

The reason I asked for help before and now is because I wanted the basic
structure of the site to be interpreted well by the standard platforms. I
think my coding is good, but I wanted input. When I posted before my sliced
image was fragmenting and the tables were spreading such that the "look" was
disturbed. I think that's been fixed.

Craig

 

[Lauri Raittila]

I know, I know... there are no alt tags on the images and style sheets
prohibit font size variance. However, the fixed width for the main table is
necessary for proper graphic layout.

I don't think so. Maybe you should try it

Unless someone's using a Commodore
VIC20, I doubt that I'm going to encounter anyone who sets their screen
resolution lower than would comfortably accommodate a width of 600. (You
can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) The site isn't intended
for high volume traffic so if I estrange an outdated user I'm not that
concerned.

Well, I never said screen resolution. And yes, I do use <600 px wide
screen. All real content fits in it. (when I use my 20kB userstylesheets)

Your site is not exeption, as long as I have images disabled. but then I
can't use the site.

The reason I asked for help before and now is because I wanted the basic
structure of the site to be interpreted well by the standard platforms.

I think my coding is good, but I wanted input.

Your coding is horrible. There is no escape from that.

When I posted before my sliced
image was fragmenting and the tables were spreading such that the "look" was
disturbed. I think that's been fixed.

Well, you fixed problem wrong way. So that it most likely is worse than
it was before. "Look" is not much worth, if it requires unreadable text,
horizontal scrolling, etc. that will drive most people away, unless they
are really interested. And if they are really interested, they don't care
if site looks ugly.

(And, I can't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to make it look
nice with suitable equipment whitout wrapping it in table.)