Help with website problems

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Josh, Dec 11, 2004.

  1. Josh

    Josh Guest

    I just put up a website and it still is going through some refinements (I
    did it in 4 days). It's my first website that is meant to generate profit
    so I want to make sure everything is in order. The design and code are
    still being tweaked but I needed to get something online ASAP.

    It looks fine in Firefox, Netscape 4.79, and IE 6, but terrible in Netscape
    6. Can anyone shed some light on what the problem might be? I don't have
    access to a Mac so don't know if the design breaks on IE for Mac or Safari
    either.

    Also, another company inserted code into the reservations page which breaks
    the design once you start going through the reservations process. Is there
    any way to make the right-hand table cell be able to expand without having
    the left table cells (navigation) split apart vertically? I tried to come
    up with a quickfix (seen on the template used for the 'links' page, where I
    just stretched the right table cell to make a lot of room for the
    additions). At the moment I am waiting for the other company to re-insert
    their code into my 'stretched' template. I'd like to find a better-looking
    solution.

    The URL is http://www.thesouthb*e*a*c*h*h*o*stel.com. (just remove the
    asterisks -- Although unlikely, I don't want this post to come up on search
    engines with those keywords).

    Thanks,

    Josh
    Josh, Dec 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Josh

    Jan Faerber Guest

    Jan Faerber, Dec 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    says...
    > The URL is http://www.thesouthb*e*a*c*h*h*o*stel.com. (just remove the
    > asterisks -- Although unlikely, I don't want this post to come up on search
    > engines with those keywords).


    Yea, let me rush right out and do that

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Josh

    Josh Guest

    "Jan Faerber" <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:p6Fud.89519$...
    > Josh wrote:
    >
    >
    > > The URL is http://www.thesouthb*e*a*c*h*h*o*stel.com. (just remove the
    > > asterisks -- Although unlikely, I don't want this post to come up on
    > > search engines with those keywords).

    >
    > ok - I promise not to type your correct url here in my answer.
    >



    (What answer?)

    I had this happen before with another thread where newsgroups that are
    posted on websites would come up on internet searches.
    Josh, Dec 11, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    says...
    > > > The URL is http://www.thesouthb*e*a*c*h*h*o*stel.com. (just remove the
    > > > asterisks -- Although unlikely, I don't want this post to come up on
    > > > search engines with those keywords).

    > > ok - I promise not to type your correct url here in my answer.

    > (What answer?)
    > I had this happen before with another thread where newsgroups that are
    > posted on websites would come up on internet searches.


    There, no more worries....

    http://www.thesouthbeachhostel.com

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 11, 2004
    #5
  6. While the city slept, Josh () feverishly
    typed...
    > The URL is http://www.thesouthb*e*a*c*h*h*o*stel.com. (just remove the
    > asterisks -- Although unlikely, I don't want this post to come up on
    > search engines with those keywords).


    If the site isn't ready to go live, then put it in a "development" location
    on your server (eg, www.yourserver.com/development/southbeachhostel). When
    you are satisfied that it can go live, then put it in a place where it can
    be referenced by the "official" address.

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Dec 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Josh

    Neal Guest

    nice.guy.nige:

    > If the site isn't ready to go live, then put it in a "development"
    > location
    > on your server


    And you can set robots.txt for that directory so the spiders do not index.

    If you are on a server where you do not have the authority to do this, you
    have some other options. The option of munging the address is a last
    resort, and the degree you munged this one is over the top by the order of
    7. One included error would be sufficient.
    Neal, Dec 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Josh

    Neal Guest

    Travis Newbury:

    > http://www.....com


    You're not very nice, Travis. He did not want this page indexed. It's ok
    to tell him how to go about it, but you've just done the Internet
    equivalent of outing a homosexual in a redneck bar.

    Why did you feel that was necessary?
    Neal, Dec 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Josh

    Josh Guest

    I do want the site to be indexed -- it is these newsgroup postings that I
    don't want indexed. What kind of newsgroup is this where someone asks for a
    little advice and gets this kind of bad attitude? I thought this was
    supposed to be a helping environment.

    The site is already generating 10% of all bookings within two weeks of going
    online. It just doesn't look good in Netscape 6.

    Netscape 4 is ok. Firefox is ok. IE 6 is ok. Opera is ok.

    I only had a few days to do it so the design is not finished and there are
    some minor adjustments I have to do to the code. But I don't know why it
    doesn't display well in Netscape 6.

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Thank you



    "Neal" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > nice.guy.nige:
    >
    > > If the site isn't ready to go live, then put it in a "development"
    > > location
    > > on your server

    >
    > And you can set robots.txt for that directory so the spiders do not index.
    >
    > If you are on a server where you do not have the authority to do this, you
    > have some other options. The option of munging the address is a last
    > resort, and the degree you munged this one is over the top by the order of
    > 7. One included error would be sufficient.
    >
    Josh, Dec 12, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    says...
    > > http://www.....com

    > You're not very nice, Travis. He did not want this page indexed. It's ok
    > to tell him how to go about it, but you've just done the Internet
    > equivalent of outing a homosexual in a redneck bar.
    >
    > Why did you feel that was necessary?


    How is that like outing a homosexual in a redneck bar? Why do you think
    it makes a difference?

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Josh

    Neal Guest

    Travis Newbury:

    > Why do you think
    > it makes a difference?


    OP noted he did not want site indexed for "these keywords" and therefore
    munged the address. But now OP says he does want site indexed. I don't
    really know what he wants now, so I'll run away and hide.
    Neal, Dec 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Josh

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Neal scribbled in the mud:

    > so I'll run away and hide.


    Say hi to brucie when you get there.

    --
    Mr. D?
    Never trust a cat to do a dog's job.
    Duende, Dec 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Josh

    rf Guest

    rf, Dec 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Josh

    Josh Guest

    "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
    news:fOTud.69940$...
    > Josh wrote:
    >
    > > It looks fine in Firefox

    >
    > No it doesn't:
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/temp/sbh.jpg



    It only does that in Netscape 6 on my computers here but I can't figure out
    why. All 4 computers here display it fine in Firefox. I'm not sure why it
    is having problems.
    Josh, Dec 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Josh

    rf Guest

    Josh wrote:

    > "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:fOTud.69940$...
    > > Josh wrote:
    > >
    > > > It looks fine in Firefox

    > >
    > > No it doesn't:
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/temp/sbh.jpg

    >
    >
    > It only does that in Netscape 6 on my computers here but I can't figure

    out
    > why. All 4 computers here display it fine in Firefox. I'm not sure why

    it
    > is having problems.


    <sigh/>

    Point firefox to your site.

    In the firefox menus at the top of the browser choose view>text
    size>increase, or just pound on Ctrl+ a few times. This is called changing
    your font size.

    If *that* is what you consider to be broken with Netscape 6 then it is
    because Netscape 6 has a larger default font size than the other browsers,
    or somebody, sometime, has hit Ctrl+.

    The real problem is that your design is broken. It should adapt to any font
    size your viewer may choose (within reason) just as it should adapt to any
    window size your viewer may choose (which it does not).

    By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops people using IE
    from easily changing their font size and do *not* say that you don't want
    them to because it breaks your design :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 12, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <uY2vd.70358$>, rf@.invalid
    says...
    > By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops people using IE
    > from easily changing their font size and do *not* say that you don't want
    > them to because it breaks your design :)


    So design is meaningless on the web? Then should everything be just
    plain text?

    Nope, just don't buy it. But to each his own.

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Josh

    rf Guest

    Travis Newbury
    > In article <uY2vd.70358$>, rf@.invalid
    > says...
    > > By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops people using

    IE
    > > from easily changing their font size and do *not* say that you don't

    want
    > > them to because it breaks your design :)

    >
    > So design is meaningless on the web? Then should everything be just
    > plain text?


    How could you possibly read this into my comments?

    Design is *not* meaningless on the web. However the design should *adapt* to
    what the medium is, that is it should adapt to whatever the user has set as
    their preferred viewing environment.

    If this means that a design does not work when a viewer simply changes their
    font size then the design is broken.

    Specifying pixels for font size is also broken design. The author can have
    no idea at all what the viewers preferred environment is, what size their
    screen is, how many pixels are on that screen, how far away that screen is
    from the viewer or how good the viewers eyes are.

    A "pixel" design might look good on the authors screen but it will be
    incorrect for a large proportion of viewers.

    Invariably those who specify pixels for font size also specify way too few
    of them. I get around this neatly by simply ignoring the specified font size
    on the odd occasion when I use IE (usually because the author has also
    crafted the site so it only works in IE). Modern browsers allow me to change
    my font size at will.

    Another manifestation of this is the "fixed width" design. This would be
    fine if every screen out there was exactly the same as the authors. This is
    not the case.

    The web is not a peice of paper, it calls for different design philosophies.
    In some ways designing for the web is *harder* than designing for a piece of
    paper. One can at least measure a peice of paper with a rule. It is not
    possible to *measure* the viewers browser.

    > Nope, just don't buy it. But to each his own.


    Are you sure you are not simply trolling? You gave me that impression in
    that other thread about the stupid design.

    However, assuming you are not then yes, to each his own. My "own" is
    designing web pages for the viewer, on their browser and on their system,
    not mine.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Josh

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > rf@.invalid says...
    >
    >> By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops people using IE
    >> from easily changing their font size and do *not* say that you don't want
    >> them to because it breaks your design :)

    >
    > So design is meaningless on the web? Then should everything be just
    > plain text?


    That's not quite what Richard said, is it?

    Well-written, accessible HTML can be much more readable and useful than a
    text/plain document. HTML allows the author to add illustrative images,
    bulletted lists and headings to break up long segments of text and to
    explicitly associate expansions for abbeviations with the abbreviations
    themselves.

    Of course, HTML also *allows* you to do make a document *less* readable,
    but that doesn't make it a good idea.

    I have a kitchen knife. It *allows* me to stab myself in the knee. I'm not
    going to do it though.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Dec 12, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <h44vd.70409$>,
    rf@.invalid says...
    > > > By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops people using

    > IE
    > > > from easily changing their font size and do *not* say that you don't

    > want
    > > > them to because it breaks your design :)

    > >
    > > So design is meaningless on the web? Then should everything be just
    > > plain text?

    >
    > How could you possibly read this into my comments?


    Well the line "By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops
    people using IE from easily changing their font size and do *not* say
    that you don't> want them to because it breaks your design :)" headed
    me in that direction, lurking here for the last 3 years helped form that
    opinion too...

    > Design is *not* meaningless on the web. However the design should *adapt* to
    > what the medium is, that is it should adapt to whatever the user has set as
    > their preferred viewing environment.


    Well an adaptable design may be good for some sites, but It is not the
    holy grail of Web design. Design, as well as accessibility and
    usability are important. And depending on the reason the site exists,
    the pendulum will swing from one side to the other. It's really not a
    big deal. (and definitely nothing to argue about) There is a happy
    medium out there for every site. The web is way too big for the "one
    size fits all" philosophy I see here a lot.

    > > Nope, just don't buy it. But to each his own.

    > Are you sure you are not simply trolling? You gave me that impression in
    > that other thread about the stupid design.


    Not trolling at all. Just stating an alternative viewpoint on the
    importance of design. Sorry, I am a Graphic Artist first, Web developer
    second. The last 15 year designing layout for different mediums (the
    last 4 on the web) have contributed to my beliefs. I guess I think
    design is more important than some of you do.

    > However, assuming you are not then yes, to each his own. My "own" is
    > designing web pages for the viewer, on their browser and on their system,
    > not mine.


    And that is well and good. My own is layout and design are important
    too.
    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 12, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    says...
    > > So design is meaningless on the web? Then should everything be just
    > > plain text?

    > That's not quite what Richard said, is it?


    Never said it was what he said. It is a question, see the "?", that's a
    question mark, it means it is a question.

    > Of course, HTML also *allows* you to do make a document *less* readable,
    > but that doesn't make it a good idea.


    Well we disagree, marketing, design, and the feel of a site are
    important too. I believe there is a balance of acceptability,
    usability, design, and marketing. But hey, I guess we disagree. I
    personally think most Web developers have little or no design skills at
    all. This is why every "Look at my great accessible CSS site" tend to
    look exactly like every other one. Blocked text, a few pictures, 2 or 3
    uneven columns. (Usually with one long thin column that contains more
    text than the others.)

    With time, more graphic designers will learn the abilities and
    limitations of an all CSS design and then they will start to look good
    too. But until then we will continue to disagree.

    > I have a kitchen knife. It *allows* me to stab myself in the knee. I'm not
    > going to do it though.


    The analogy is dumb and irrelevant.

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 13, 2004
    #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. Flip
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    433
    Karl Seguin
    Nov 22, 2005
  2. Shawn

    Website on a website.

    Shawn, Jan 15, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    483
    Shawn
    Jan 15, 2006
  3. sck10
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    414
    Michael Kolias
    Apr 13, 2006
  4. Adrian Wood

    Update website via website?

    Adrian Wood, Feb 22, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    696
    Adrian Wood
    Feb 25, 2004
  5. A Leon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    481
    A Leon
    Mar 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page