Testing on mac

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    latest browsers (and IE7). Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)

    Thanks,

    www.richardfisher.com
     
    Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Helpful person

    Synbot Guest

    "Helpful person" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    > latest browsers (and IE7). Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    > and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > www.richardfisher.com


    http://browsershots.org/
     
    Synbot, Jun 9, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009
    #3
  4. Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009
    #4
  5. On 2009-06-09 17:02:16 +0200, Helpful person <> said:

    > I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    > latest browsers (and IE7). Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    > and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > www.richardfisher.com


    I've checked it with Firefox and iCab, and it looks fine in both.

    If you make the window too narrow the "click" menu eventually
    disappears, but only if the window is narrower than anyone is likely to
    make it. If you make the window very wide it stops using the extra
    space when it becomes wider than anyone is likely to make it.

    Changing the font size (up or down) has the results you'd expect.

    It degrades gracefully if you disable the style sheets.

    iCab says the HTML and CSS are valid. (I haven't checked with a
    validator, but presumably you've done that yourself.)

    All in all I'd say there are no problems.


    --
    athel
     
    Athel Cornish-Bowden, Jun 9, 2009
    #5
  6. Helpful person

    SAZ Guest

    In article <55a44e08-c777-4bd8-9938-9d386ff25a81
    @q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, says...
    > On Jun 9, 11:15=A0am, Helpful person <> wrote:
    > > On Jun 9, 11:03=A0am, "Synbot" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > >www.richardfisher.com

    > >
    > > >http://browsershots.org/

    > >
    > > Thanks but that doesn't show me what happens when the viewport size,
    > > zoom or text size changes.
    > >
    > > www.richardfisher.com

    >
    > It also shows a wait time of 27 minutes with an expiration time of 25
    > minutes!
    >
    > www.richardfisher.com
    >

    You're asking alot of others. Even if they report problems, you'll be
    trying to fix them "blind" and relying on others again. The cycle could
    go on forever.

    Do what I did - I just bought 4 year old iMac for $150 from a friend
    that was upgrading. He was happy to be rid of it so it wouldn't collect
    dust in his basement. You can also try ebay or craigslist.
     
    SAZ, Jun 9, 2009
    #6
  7. On Jun 9, 12:16 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <> wrote:
    > On 2009-06-09 17:02:16 +0200, Helpful person <> said:
    >
    > > I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    > > latest browsers (and IE7).  Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    > > and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)

    >
    > > Thanks,

    >
    > >www.richardfisher.com

    >
    > I've checked it with Firefox and iCab, and it looks fine in both.
    >
    > If you make the window too narrow the "click" menu eventually
    > disappears, but only if the window is narrower than anyone is likely to
    > make it. If you make the window very wide it stops using the extra
    > space when it becomes wider than anyone is likely to make it.
    >
    > Changing the font size (up or down) has the results you'd expect.
    >
    > It degrades gracefully if you disable the style sheets.
    >
    > iCab says the HTML and CSS are valid. (I haven't checked with a
    > validator, but presumably you've done that yourself.)
    >
    > All in all I'd say there are no problems.
    >
    > --
    > athel


    Thanks very much. By the way, the only reason for the "click" links
    is to stuff the page with keywords for search engines. Although it is
    challenging to make the page look acceptable it seems to help. (I
    also make the web link my signature to increase links for search
    engines. It might help, although it cannot hurt.)

    www.richardfisher.com
     
    Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009
    #7
  8. On Jun 9, 12:20 pm, SAZ <> wrote:
    >
    > Do what I did - I just bought 4 year old iMac for $150 from a friend
    > that was upgrading.  He was happy to be rid of it so it wouldn't collect
    > dust in his basement.  You can also try ebay or craigslist.- Hide quoted text -
    >


    Good idea, thanks for the suggestion.

    www.richardfisher.com
     
    Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009
    #8
  9. Helpful person

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jun 9, 10:02 am, Helpful person <> wrote:
    > I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    > latest browsers (and IE7).  Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    > and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)
    >


    You might like to download Safari for Windows to your PC, free from
    Apple. While it might be a bit different from Safari for Apple, it is
    about as close as you likely will get on a PC. Screen shots are useful
    for static pages, but they leave a lot to be desired for pages with
    dynamic content - for example if you have to submit a form to the
    server and the server uses script such as php to change the page
    depending on what you submitted. Buying a cheap used Apple computer as
    suggested by others also likely is a good option if you need to check
    how Apple responds on many pages..
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jun 9, 2009
    #9
  10. On Jun 9, 1:55 pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 10:02 am, Helpful person <> wrote:
    >
    > > I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    > > latest browsers (and IE7).  Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    > > and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)

    >
    > You might like to download Safari for Windows to your PC, free from
    > Apple. While it might be a bit different from Safari for Apple, it is
    > about as close as you likely will get on a PC. Screen shots are useful
    > for static pages, but they leave a lot to be desired for pages with
    > dynamic content - for example if you have to submit a form to the
    > server and the server uses script such as php to change the page
    > depending on what you submitted. Buying a cheap used Apple computer as
    > suggested by others also likely is a good option if you need to check
    > how Apple responds on many pages..


    I have downloaded safari for windows and my web site looks OK.
    However, I suspect there are quite a few differences using a Mac. I
    agree that buying an old Mac is probably the best idea.

    www.richardfisher.com
     
    Helpful person, Jun 9, 2009
    #10
  11. Helpful person

    SAZ Guest

    In article <4588e3e2-14ee-4a75-a795-233d1f971d04
    @j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, says...
    > On Jun 9, 1:55=A0pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > > On Jun 9, 10:02=A0am, Helpful person <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > I have tested my web site to the best of my ability on a PC with the
    > > > latest browsers (and IE7). =A0Can someone please look at it with a Mac
    > > > and let me know if it looks OK? (at least not broken.)

    > >
    > > You might like to download Safari for Windows to your PC, free from
    > > Apple. While it might be a bit different from Safari for Apple, it is
    > > about as close as you likely will get on a PC. Screen shots are useful
    > > for static pages, but they leave a lot to be desired for pages with
    > > dynamic content - for example if you have to submit a form to the
    > > server and the server uses script such as php to change the page
    > > depending on what you submitted. Buying a cheap used Apple computer as
    > > suggested by others also likely is a good option if you need to check
    > > how Apple responds on many pages..

    >
    > I have downloaded safari for windows and my web site looks OK.
    > However, I suspect there are quite a few differences using a Mac. I
    > agree that buying an old Mac is probably the best idea.
    >
    > www.richardfisher.com
    >

    There are differences when using Safari on a Mac. In my mind, it's well
    worth the $150 for a used machine.
     
    SAZ, Jun 9, 2009
    #11
  12. Helpful person

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 09 Jun 2009, Helpful person <> wrote:

    > I have downloaded safari for windows and my web site looks OK.
    > However, I suspect there are quite a few differences using a Mac. I
    > agree that buying an old Mac is probably the best idea.


    ....if one has the space.

    Btw, Safari for PC works surprisingly well IMHO and is quick, too.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Jun 9, 2009
    #12
  13. Helpful person

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    SAZ <> wrote:

    > I just bought 4 year old iMac for $150 from a friend
    > that was upgrading.


    It is good to help a friend out. For just looking at your own sites (on
    a home server even), leave your friends in the lurch and go for an eight
    year old for close to $0.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 9, 2009
    #13
  14. Helpful person

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Helpful person <> wrote:

    > By the way, the only reason for the "click" links
    > is to stuff the page with keywords for search engines. Although it is
    > challenging to make the page look acceptable it seems to help.


    I was wondering about those. With a motivation like this, perhaps a much
    more compact design would be the way to go with drop down menus, they
    are, after all, just one level (make sure the top level is a link
    itself).

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 9, 2009
    #14
  15. On Jun 9, 6:50 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >  Helpful person <> wrote:
    >
    > > By the way, the only reason for the "click" links
    > > is to stuff the page with keywords for search engines.  Although it is
    > > challenging to make the page look acceptable it seems to help.

    >
    > I was wondering about those. With a motivation like this, perhaps a much
    > more compact design would be the way to go with drop down menus, they
    > are, after all, just one level (make sure the top level is a link
    > itself).
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    I hate drop down menus (as a user). Just a personal preference. It
    would also be difficult to stuff as many useful words into drop downs.

    When first writing this web site using Frontpage (what a mistake) it
    was just to be my shop window. However, I have got many contracts
    from people googling.

    www.richardfisher.com
     
    Helpful person, Jun 10, 2009
    #15
  16. Helpful person

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Helpful person <> wrote:

    > On Jun 9, 6:50 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > >  Helpful person <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > By the way, the only reason for the "click" links
    > > > is to stuff the page with keywords for search engines.  Although it is
    > > > challenging to make the page look acceptable it seems to help.

    > >
    > > I was wondering about those. With a motivation like this, perhaps a much
    > > more compact design would be the way to go with drop down menus, they
    > > are, after all, just one level (make sure the top level is a link
    > > itself).
    > >

    > I hate drop down menus (as a user).


    Not keen on them myself, I was considering a lesser than two evils
    situation. I also had in mind not a dropdown on the main strip menu but
    a neater facility to substitute to your own to the right...

    Think about it, for your hidden motivation entirely, the user is
    lumbered with a possibly confusing complexity right away. Is it really
    worth it? I'd say don't do either. Never mind all the keyword stuff.

    Make the site good to use and forget everything else entirely. I'd say
    most people would hate a one level dropdown less than being faced with
    so many possibilities. This way they can quickly move their mouse away
    and forget the sight and just click on the main and clear top links.
    Perhaps it is very psychological. One has a better impression of a house
    if the mess is out of sight in cupboards etc <g>

    By the way, I forget now, you might dispense with what is obvious, your
    sub-heading: "We specialize in the following services:"

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 10, 2009
    #16
  17. On Jun 9, 8:05 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > Make the site good to use and forget everything else entirely. I'd say
    > most people would hate a one level dropdown less than being faced with
    > so many possibilities. This way they can quickly move their mouse away
    > and forget the sight and just click on the main and clear top links.
    > Perhaps it is very psychological. One has a better impression of a house
    > if the mess is out of sight in cupboards etc <g>
    >
    > By the way, I forget now, you might dispense with what is obvious, your
    > sub-heading: "We specialize in the following services:"
    >
    > --
    > dorayme
     
    Helpful person, Jun 10, 2009
    #17
  18. On Jun 9, 8:05 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > Make the site good to use and forget everything else entirely. I'd say
    > most people would hate a one level dropdown less than being faced with
    > so many possibilities. This way they can quickly move their mouse away
    > and forget the sight and just click on the main and clear top links.
    > Perhaps it is very psychological. One has a better impression of a house
    > if the mess is out of sight in cupboards etc <g>
    >
    > By the way, I forget now, you might dispense with what is obvious, your
    > sub-heading: "We specialize in the following services:"
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    All good advice, thanks. However, for now I'll stick with the present
    format although I will remove the sub heading.

    www.richardfisher.com
     
    Helpful person, Jun 10, 2009
    #18
  19. On 2009-06-09 20:34:47 +0200, Helpful person <> said:

    > [ ... ]



    > I have downloaded safari for windows and my web site looks OK.
    > However, I suspect there are quite a few differences using a Mac. I
    > agree that buying an old Mac is probably the best idea.


    Not too old, however. It needs to be able to run OS 10. (On the other
    hand a machine old enough to run OS 9 (or Classic in pre-Intel versions
    of OS 10) has the advantage that you'll see what users who haven't
    updated their machines are seeing.)


    > --

    athel
     
    Athel Cornish-Bowden, Jun 10, 2009
    #19
  20. Helpful person

    SAZ Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > SAZ <> wrote:
    >
    > > I just bought 4 year old iMac for $150 from a friend
    > > that was upgrading.

    >
    > It is good to help a friend out. For just looking at your own sites (on
    > a home server even), leave your friends in the lurch and go for an eight
    > year old for close to $0.
    >
    >

    I originally had an 7 or 8 yr old Mac with OS9 that I got from a client
    for free, but Safari is far OSX only. All I could get was Netscape and
    IE for Mac, probably the crappiest browsers ever built.
     
    SAZ, Jun 10, 2009
    #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. Brian van den Broek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    874
    Jeremy Bowers
    Apr 3, 2005
  2. Brian van den Broek
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    408
    Brian van den Broek
    Apr 5, 2005
  3. Chris

    Testing and Load Testing

    Chris, Mar 4, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    342
  4. John Maclean
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    364
    Martin P. Hellwig
    Apr 13, 2010
  5. Avi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    512
Loading...

Share This Page