IE cannot open the Internet site ... Operation aborted

[Mika]

My instinct on this - but I have purist interests which might not
be always so practical - is that if you are having trouble with
Strict, there is something else wrong with your markup and css
that is best flushed out and dealt with.

You did read the thread and particularly my post I recommended?

I am very scared of any sites about shopping (I personally hate
shopping) so pardon me for not examining your site closely. But I
can say to you not to worry about small variations in looks
between browsers. If you want more consistent looks across
browsers, you need to attend closely to your margins and paddings
and override default browser settings that fill in where authors
say nothing. Some people go to the extreme of

* {margin: 0; padding: 0;}

which zeroes all element paddings and margins in one fell swoop.

At least know this and use Strict and experiment with different
browsers - when you have time - using this zeroeing to flush out
what might be happening. It is a powerful weapon. And free, no
need to go through any flashy shop door to purchase <g>

It's a good idea, maybe for another day. Everything looks good now so
if the formatting ain't broke, we ain't gonna fix it. Even if it is free

All that was wrong actually was the margins of tables show differenty by
design in Firefox, so it's not a code issue, it's just Strict is more
Strict.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:08:46 GMT
Blinky the Shark scribed:

Speaking of mouthsful...

http://blinkynet.net/sharks/stinkydent.html

I see your point. The "before" Stinky looks more like a failed patent
application for a back scratcher, at least to humans. However, maybe some
fish thought he might've been nibbling at oysters just a little too
enthusiastically.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:08:46 GMT
Blinky the Shark scribed:


I see your point. The "before" Stinky looks more like a failed patent
application for a back scratcher, at least to humans. However, maybe some
fish thought he might've been nibbling at oysters just a little too
enthusiastically.

You didn't confuse Before and After, didya?

 

[Mika]

"Cause for complaint" will be decided by the shops which are, as you
admit, *not* willingly signed up affiliates, if and when they become
aware of your actions. "It's right" does not equal "It hasn't been
discovered".

Every single shop is aware thank you very much, your assumption of "all" is
wrong. However 50% do not have an affiliate programme, therefore we list
them for free. Hence, most of them are willingly signed up affiliates. The
rest would if they could but they can't so they don't. Do you want us to
explain it any more so you can decide if it is okay or not?

If you can find me a shop who doesn't want to be advertised free of charge
on a website that gets as many hits per year as the actual real street, I'll
eat your shark stinkydent.

The site has been running for 1.5 years, with over 400 shops listed, and not
a single complaint. You really are quite blatently wrong. It is incredible
how we ask:

Q: IE cannot open Internet site ... Operation aborted
and get the response
A: You should be careful the shops on your site don't sue you

Er...

People! :-S

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Every single shop is aware thank you very much, your assumption of "all" is

Okay. "Most of them are willingly signed up affiliates" made it sound
from the outside (i.e., without your insider's knowledge) that some of
them had not opted in.

wrong. However 50% do not have an affiliate programme, therefore we list
them for free. Hence, most of them are willingly signed up affiliates. The
rest would if they could but they can't so they don't. Do you want us to
explain it any more so you can decide if it is okay or not?

No, explaining it adequately once, as you have just done, is...well,
adequate.

The site has been running for 1.5 years, with over 400 shops listed, and not
a single complaint. You really are quite blatently wrong. It is incredible
how we ask:

Q: IE cannot open Internet site ... Operation aborted
and get the response
A: You should be careful the shops on your site don't sue you

This is a discussion group. You got discussion. Were you thinking this
was alt.www.webmaster.helpdesk? Do you believe you are entitled to a
refund?

 

[Mika]

In alt.html, Mika wrote:

Firefox 2.0.0.9, JavaScript on:
"Please be patient while we teleport you there
(around 15 secs via fast broadband ...so a bit quicker than driving!)"

Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for whatever
that "progress bar" is supposed to represent.

Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again for us
please, now we are W3C certified.
Here is the link to our site: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

Since yours and the 1 other message reporting an issue that the others did
not have, we have tested on 6 other random machines, running XP or Vista and
various flavours of Firefox with JS *on*. Without exception *all* load the
page in 2-8 seconds via Broadband 2Mb/s and no problems whatsoever. This
follows the experience of users of the site, and 1.5 years past testing on
Firefox.

What is that row of four unidentified icons for?

Google Adwords not showing is a symptom of having JS disabled. To save us
hours more work in case it was off, please check again that JS is on when
you test.

There is a huge empty blue area below the "progress bar."

That is where the JS streetscape and map go, hence JS sounds disabled.

Done. Now W3C validated. Feels better.

Why isn't this site Strict instead of Transitional?

We tried this but it caused us many problems with different margin
formatting in different browsers. Transitional works, so makes sense to
use.

There's nothing wrong with my "system(s)".

Please check JS is on.

If not, are you running ad blocking software? If so we assume it is easy to
temporarily not enable it, and try the link again? Thanks.

You've posted your site in the past, and as I recall, each time someone
told you of problems, not the least of which was load times.

It is very hard to fix an issue which we cannot recreate on any broadband PC
in Europe and which nobody has reported. Hopefully you are able to help us
as you have reported it. Thanks for your assistance.

Mika

 

[Mika]

I had to disable javascript just to get the page to load into Firefox.

Ian can you please kindly check again now it is W3C certified CSS:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

JS must be *on* for it to load.

Thank you.

 

[VK]

Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for whatever

Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again for us
please, now we are W3C certified.
Here is the link to our site:http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution. At
the very bottom of your page (so to not be occasionally used by robots
in the index description) put something like:

><div style="position: absolute; z-index: 1; left: 10px; top: 5px;

width: 40%; border: thick double red; padding: 10px
10px;
background-color: yellow; font: bold larger serif;
color: red;"

><p>JavaScript on this page couldn't be executed, as a result some

elements may have
a limited functionality or they may be not parsed properly.</p

><p>If it is not currently possible to you to use JavaScript then

for the best user

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

{Beau wrote:] [please don't snip attributes, thanks.]

Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for
whatever that "progress bar" is supposed to represent.

[Mika wrote:]
Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again
for us please, now we are W3C certified [1]. Here is the link to our
site: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser [sic]"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution.

No, at the time, JavaScript was enabled. And it was ten minutes when I
posted that, but the progress bar never stopped 'progressing' for much
longer until I finally killed the page, probably over twenty minutes. I
think it was more likely a server issue at that time, simply not
delivering whatever content was supposed to be sent. I've noticed this
several times looking at his page.

As I alluded in some other post, it could have been that 'big pond'
betwixt the server and me.

[1] Still has errors which Mika doesn't care about.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:17:54
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

You didn't confuse Before and After, didya?

Nah, though it is fairly true that all fish look alike to me.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:20:14
GMT Mika scribed:

It is incredible how we ask:

Q: IE cannot open Internet site ... Operation aborted
and get the response
A: You should be careful the shops on your site don't sue you

Er...

People! :-S

It is incredible how we reply "Do this, do that," and you answer "Okay,
I'll do this but I don't wanna do that because it screws up something else
and the site _has_ been working successfully as-is for over a year..."

Fishbowl or arrogance - which is it?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:17:54
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:


Nah, though it is fairly true that all fish look alike to me.

Speciesist!

 

[Mika]

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution. At
the very bottom of your page (so to not be occasionally used by robots
in the index description) put something like:

Yes we thought he did too. We already had that warning on the page in
<noscript> tags and it displays correctly on FF.

Thanks.

 

[Mika]

{Beau wrote:] [please don't snip attributes, thanks.]
Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for
whatever that "progress bar" is supposed to represent. [Mika wrote:]
Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again
for us please, now we are W3C certified [1]. Here is the link to our
site: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser [sic]"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution.

No, at the time, JavaScript was enabled. And it was ten minutes when I
posted that, but the progress bar never stopped 'progressing' for much
longer until I finally killed the page, probably over twenty minutes. I
think it was more likely a server issue at that time, simply not
delivering whatever content was supposed to be sent. I've noticed this
several times looking at his page.

As I alluded in some other post, it could have been that 'big pond'
betwixt the server and me.

This is all very strange. You are the only confirmed visitor *with* JS
apparently enabled, who seems to have their JS blocked for AdWords and
Google Maps. Those are the elements you claim did not appear with JS
enabled, while you tested our site for 20 minutes.

Now you are saying that the fact our servers are in the UK somehow disabled
JS. :-S We use the UK's most reliable company, LiquidSix, who have a

>99.9% uptime.

We still think you had JS off. Please try it now with JS on and our new
validated code.

[1] Still has errors which Mika doesn't care about.

Strange people here. We have spent 2 days refining the code to be as W3C
friendly as possible. Why give us feedback, which we act on, if you are
then going to make bizarre comments like that? If you have nothing nice to
say, don't feel the need to respond.

 

[Mika]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:20:14
GMT Mika scribed:


It is incredible how we reply "Do this, do that," and you answer "Okay,
I'll do this but I don't wanna do that because it screws up something else
and the site _has_ been working successfully as-is for over a year..."

Fishbowl or arrogance - which is it?

Logic. If the site works perfectly which it does right now on any decent
broadband computer it was designed for, why change something because someone
here tells us to, if it breaks the site.

Remember you guys are all a minority to the general public, who don't know
or care if the word Transitional or Strict is at the top of a page as long
as it looks and loads right.

They also don't mess around disabling JS, installing Ad Blockers, etc.
generally speaking.

Over the past year we had 5.5 million page views in IE. 0.5m in FF. This
is why we cater for IE mostly, but the site is FF compatible also. And not
one complaint from FF users that the doctype is not 100% valid as there are
12 minor inconsistencies in the code! Come on, the site works as designed.

The only issue we do agree with is the load times can be high, however not
by broadband, which as we say, the site is labelled as being designed for.

What exactly else is there to complain about? We have taken on some
valuable advice here and the site is now CSS W3C validated and a lot cleaner
thanks to the input here.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

This is all very strange. You are the only confirmed visitor *with* JS
apparently enabled, who seems to have their JS blocked for AdWords

The Google Adwords/Adsense servers are in our HOSTS file. We never see
them, on any site. This is somewhat common. Google for "HOSTS file"

and Google Maps.

We use Google Maps all the time, and they are not blocked. We see your
map and never said we didn't.

Those are the elements you claim did not appear with JS
enabled, while you tested our site for 20 minutes.

Once again, the page was trying to load something (hourglass and your
progress bar) and it never finished.

Now you are saying that the fact our servers are in the UK somehow disabled
JS. :-S

We never said that. Stop making stuff up.

We use the UK's most reliable company, LiquidSix, who have a
99.9% uptime.

Well then we think it must have been that 0.01% ...

We still think you had JS off. Please try it now with JS on and our new
validated code.

We did not have JavaScript off. Get to realize that, chums.

[1] Still has errors which Mika doesn't care about.

Strange people here. We have spent 2 days refining the code to be as
W3C friendly as possible. Why give us feedback, which we act on, if
you are then going to make bizarre comments like that?

Bizarre? You yourself said (the "we" you refer to yourself as) that you
didn't care to fix the errors.

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...street.com/George-Street-Richmond/index.shtml>
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Result: Failed validation, 12 Errors

Why do you have target="_blank" on an <iframe> ?

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...street.com/George-Street-Richmond/index.shtml>
No errors now, but 146 warnings.

and you still haven't assigned a background color to: body { }
That should take you about ten seconds to fix.

If you have nothing nice to say, don't feel the need to respond.

"Your site is simply gorgeous, best site we've seen on the Web in years,
loads quicker'n a greased goose, and we'll shop there every day!!!1!!"

(Notice our use of "we" everywhere in our post. <g> Silly, ain't it?)

 

[Ed Mullen]

The only issue we do agree with is the load times can be high, however not
by broadband, which as we say, the site is labelled as being designed for.

FYI, the page took over 2 minutes to load here in Atlanta, GA on a 6
Mbps cable connection, current version of SeaMonkey.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.

 

[VK]

On Nov 24, 10:37 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"

The Google Adwords/Adsense servers are in our HOSTS file.
We never see
them, on any site.This is somewhat common. Google for "HOSTS file"

We use Google Maps all the time, and they are not blocked. We see your map and never said we didn't.

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and
may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be
targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries
made through the Services or other information.

17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the
Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.

17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of
the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the
Services.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Logic. If the site works perfectly which it does right now on any
decent broadband computer it was designed for, why change something
because someone here tells us to, if it breaks the site.

Because you don't know what these issues are going to mean in the
future. Remember Netscape 4? If you were missing an ending td, the
entire page would not render. Now, most browsers correct for that, but,
that doesn't mean that will always be so.

Remember you guys are all a minority to the general public, who don't
know or care if the word Transitional or Strict is at the top of a
page as long as it looks and loads right.

They also don't mess around disabling JS, installing Ad Blockers, etc.
generally speaking.

A lot of people install Ad Blockers, or they install a suite that has ad
blocking enabled by default (Kerio/Sunbelt Personal Firewall, Norton
Antispam, McAfee Internet Security Suite, Panda, AVG, etc). Other people
have host files enabled, and those also block ads, or they block certain
ip addresses. Some people have friends like me, who install things like
this to protect their computers from hackers and such.

Over the past year we had 5.5 million page views in IE. 0.5m in FF.
This is why we cater for IE mostly, but the site is FF compatible
also.

There should not be a compatiblity issue with _any_ browser.

And not one complaint from FF users that the doctype is not
100% valid as there are 12 minor inconsistencies in the code! Come
on, the site works as designed.

It works now, for some people. You have no idea what could be coming in
the future. This is the same thing that happened with Microsoft - DOS
had some minor inconsistancies, and Windows was built on it - we all
know how often Microsoft puts out patches.

The only issue we do agree with is the load times can be high, however
not by broadband, which as we say, the site is labelled as being
designed for.

I have broadband, and do a lot of online shopping - my groceries, ebay,
things for my home, etc. If a site doesn't load quickly, and isn't
simple to use, I'm gone - quick, and never to return. I can always
Google for the item I want and find it somewhere else.

There are still a lot of people who don't have broadband, or their
broadband is slow because of where they are. Basically, you are
discriminating against these shoppers. You need to be careful, you
could easily be sued.

What exactly else is there to complain about? We have taken on some
valuable advice here and the site is now CSS W3C validated and a lot
cleaner thanks to the input here.

Passing HTML validation means that you have completed the markup without
errors. I'm sure all this is done serverside, do you have errors in the
serverside coding as well? Things that will work, with "minor
inconsistencies"? How often are you going to have to go back and fix
something because it failed?

Your best bet is to start with a clean page, then start adding things
and validate each time. Right now, you're trying to fix spagetti - you
need to go one stand at a time. Yes, it's going to take longer, but it
will be worth it because your site will be pretty bullet proof in the
future.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:57:49 GMT
Blinky the Shark scribed:

Speciesist!

<grin>

Like that word. 'Never been called that before and I've been called a lot
of things. But the fact is that fish just don't have any civil rights.
They also smell and swim with their own poop so is it any wonder that
people generally consider them repulsive except in a frying pan? I
personally don't have anything against fish per se, but most of them are
still wet behind the ears and being so basically worthless doesn't
particularly lead the higher life forms to generate much thought about the
subject one way or the other. Fish themselves probably look at it as a
sort of prolonged version of "War of the Worlds" and realize their
inadequacies are just part of their miserable daily existence.