Help with website problems

[Josh]

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

 

[Jan Faerber]

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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

 

[Josh]

Josh wrote:



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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

(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

 

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, Josh ([email protected]) 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

 

[Neal]

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]

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?

 

[Josh]

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

 

[Travis Newbury]

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?

 

[Neal]

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.

 

[Duende]

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.

 

[rf]

It looks fine in Firefox

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

 

[Josh]

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.

 

[rf]

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

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[rf]

Travis Newbury

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.

 

[Toby Inkster]

[email protected] says...


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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.