what do you think? review my site.... is it working in your browser

Discussion in 'HTML' started by windandwaves, Sep 20, 2007.

  1. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Hi Folk

    Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
    me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
    it does.

    Thank you

    Nicolaas
     
    windandwaves, Sep 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. windandwaves

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    windandwaves <> wrote:

    > Hi Folk
    >
    > Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
    > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
    > it does.
    >


    iCab says:

    http://www.winsborough.co.nz/mysite/css/layout.css
    CSS Error (8/12): Unknown CSS property ³overflow-y².
    CSS Error (9/36): Invalid property value
    ³-moz-scrollbars-vertical².
    CSS Error (282/16): Unknown CSS keyword ³(min-width:².
    CSS Error (282/26): Unknown CSS keyword ³:².
    CSS Error (282/31): Unknown CSS keyword ³){².
    CSS Error (282/32): Unknown media definition.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. windandwaves

    John Hosking Guest

    windandwaves wrote:

    F'ups to alt.html.critique

    >
    > Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
    > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
    > it does.


    I'm sorry, but I don't care for it. The contrast between text and
    background is too low for me. I imagine the designer of the site sitting
    at a gleaming new Mac with a large screen and bright display and sharp
    young eyes to view it all with. My conditions are ... different.

    The fancy meandering borders don't enhance the site, even when they're
    functioning properly. They don't look quite right on the main page
    (there's an extraneous thin horizontal line in the upper left), and on
    the "our staff" page (capitalization missing) it's a disaster (bits of
    curve and straight in various wrong positions).

    There is no BG color declared, so I see my ugly default yellow.

    The pictures of rocks and ferns and, I think, a basket seem to have much
    less to do with organisational development and more to do with the clip
    art you had available.

    The main page has (well, it looks like all the pages have) a permanent
    vertical scrollbar, even when there's nothing to scroll.

    HTML validates on the main page (great!) but the CSS has some errors
    (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator) which you should know about.

    Oh my. The CSS is, um, quite special looking. The repetitive patterns of
    code like

    #bottom{background: url(../images/homeBottom.gif) no-repeat; width:
    969px; height: 34px;}
    #about #bottom{background: url(../images/aboutBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
    #staff #bottom{background: url(../images/staffBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
    #consulting #bottom{background: url(../images/consultingBottom.gif)
    no-repeat;}
    #assessment #bottom{background: url(../images/assessmentBottom.gif)
    no-repeat;}
    #contact #bottom{background: url(../images/contactBottom.gif) no-repeat;}

    make me question the efficacy of the design. Especially when the results
    are as discombobulated as they are, it suggests some rethinking might be
    in order.

    Feel free to change font-size:14px; to font-size:100%;, since specifying
    font-size in pixels keeps IE <7 from resizing texts, which users will
    likely want to do, thanks in part to the low-contrast colors.

    Text upsizing in FF seems to work nicely, only overflowing the alloted
    spaces in a few areas.

    At the bootom of the pages, the "top" link goes to #home, and the "home"
    link goes to the main page, too, even when it's already there.

    Most of my testing was with FF, but in IE6 it looks a lot better. The
    lines and curves line up, and don't look broken. You didn't say what's
    "not working in IE6", so I'm done here. GL.

    --
    John
    Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
     
    John Hosking, Sep 20, 2007
    #3
  4. In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:

    > Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
    > me what you think.


    I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.

    It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
    images. What do they mean?

    There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
    will come along?

    You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
    purple.

    I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
    slow.

    The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
    <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsborough.co.nz%2F>

    but forcing 1.1,
    <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsborough.co.nz%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=XHTML+1.1&group=0&verbose=1>
    "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
    Failed validation, 43 Errors"

    There are CSS errors:
    <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsborough.co.nz%2F>


    > Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.


    "although for [me] it does?"

    No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
    Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
    and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.

    Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
    wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 20, 2007
    #4
  5. windandwaves

    Bergamot Guest

    windandwaves wrote:
    >
    > Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
    > me what you think.


    The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
    scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
    inaccessible at worst.

    Low contrast = low readability. All that white burns my eyes.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Sep 20, 2007
    #5
  6. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    On Sep 20, 2:25 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    > windandwaves <> wrote:
    > > Hi Folk

    >
    > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
    > > it does.

    >
    > iCab says:
    >
    > http://www.winsborough.co.nz/mysite/css/layout.css
    > CSS Error (8/12): Unknown CSS property ³overflow-y².
    > CSS Error (9/36): Invalid property value
    > ³-moz-scrollbars-vertical².
    > CSS Error (282/16): Unknown CSS keyword ³(min-width:².
    > CSS Error (282/26): Unknown CSS keyword ³:².
    > CSS Error (282/31): Unknown CSS keyword ³){².
    > CSS Error (282/32): Unknown media definition.
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    Thank you!
    I fixed the ones that should be fixed - the rest are "hacks"
     
    windandwaves, Sep 20, 2007
    #6
  7. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    On Sep 20, 3:49 pm, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > windandwaves wrote:
    >
    > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > > me what you think.

    >
    > The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
    > scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
    > inaccessible at worst.



    OK, fixed that. Thanks a million for pointing it out!
     
    windandwaves, Sep 20, 2007
    #7
  8. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    On Sep 20, 2:55 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:
    > In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:
    > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > > me what you think.

    >
    > I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.
    >
    > It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
    > images. What do they mean?
    >
    > There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
    > will come along?
    >
    > You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
    > purple.
    >
    > I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
    > slow.
    >
    > The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsboro...>
    >
    > but forcing 1.1,
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsborough.co.nz%...>
    > "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
    > Failed validation, 43 Errors"


    That is an interesting one. It validates when you let the validator
    choose. Bottom line is that the code validates (just take the source
    code and past it into the direct input for the w3 validator.

    >
    > There are CSS errors:
    > <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&u...>


    I have fixed the errors that I should have fixed. However, some of
    them are there as hacks for certain browsers...

    >
    > > Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.

    >



    Yes, well, I will have to check this out. It certainly works for
    me.....but some where having troubles.

    > "although for [me] it does?"
    >
    > No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
    > Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
    > and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.
    >
    > Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
    > wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?
    >
    > --
    > -bts
    > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    windandwaves, Sep 20, 2007
    #8
  9. windandwaves

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:28:02 GMT
    windandwaves scribed:

    > Hi Folk
    >
    > Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
    > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
    > it does.


    The only real difference I see (on the opening page) between ie6 and
    Firefox/Opera is that there's more space between the bottom pic and the
    centered line below in ie.

    There's a j/s error - "object expected", too.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 20, 2007
    #9
  10. On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves <> wrote:
    > Hi Folk
    >
    > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > me what you think.


    Very "i-pody" look. I like that. I like the overall design. I do
    agree, (I forget with who) that those images on the home page should
    somehow give me a clue what they are for.

    I don't have a problem with the gray on white background that some do,
    but I do have a problem with the content:

    "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
    business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
    people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
    experts in the area of organisational behaviour."

    Spell checker?
    specialised = specialized ?
    organisational = organizational ?
    behaviour = behavior ?

    Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 20, 2007
    #10
  11. windandwaves

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 20 Sep, 02:28, windandwaves <> wrote:
    > Hi Folk
    >
    > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > me what you think.


    font-size: 14px; /*62.5%; */
    No contrast pale grey on white.

    I think your designer is an arrogant tosser who thinks that how it
    looks for them on their Mac is more important than allowing your
    customers to read and make use of the site.
     
    Andy Dingley, Sep 20, 2007
    #11
  12. windandwaves wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >> The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
    >> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsboro...>
    >>
    >> but forcing 1.1,
    >> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsborough.co.nz%...>
    >> "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
    >> Failed validation, 43 Errors"

    >
    > That is an interesting one. It validates when you let the validator
    > choose. Bottom line is that the code validates (just take the source
    > code and past it into the direct input for the w3 validator.


    Note that (at least for me) when I use the normal way of testing by
    entering the URL, the validator says:
    "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"

    ...when in fact your page uses:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">

    So something is wrong. I can't find another XHTML 1.1 page to test with
    at the moment.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 20, 2007
    #12
  13. windandwaves

    Bergamot Guest

    windandwaves wrote:
    > On Sep 20, 3:49 pm, Bergamot <> wrote:
    >> windandwaves wrote:
    >>
    >> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    >> > me what you think.

    >>
    >> The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
    >> scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
    >> inaccessible at worst.

    >
    > OK, fixed that. Thanks a million for pointing it out!


    That's something you should test yourself before ever showing it to
    anyone else. It only takes a few seconds to test:
    - text zoom up and down
    - window resizing wide and narrow
    - combinations of small window large text and large window small text

    Do that in IE6/7 and Firefox at least. There's little reason to expect
    other browsers to behave differently than those 3, and *no* reason to
    wait for someone else to find errors related to resizing.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Sep 20, 2007
    #13
  14. windandwaves

    Peter J Ross Guest

    Re: what do you think? review my site.... is it working in yourbrowser

    In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    <> wrote:

    > Note that (at least for me) when I use the normal way of testing by
    > entering the URL, the validator says:
    > "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"
    >
    > ..when in fact your page uses:
    >
    > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
    >
    > So something is wrong. I can't find another XHTML 1.1 page to test with
    > at the moment.


    Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
    what Accept: header is sent.

    pjr@lenny:~$ curl -IH "Accept: application/xhtml+xml" http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
    [...]
    Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8

    pjr@lenny:~$ curl -IH "Accept: text/html" http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
    [...]
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

    The validator chooses the HTML version,

    --
    PJR :)
     
    Peter J Ross, Sep 20, 2007
    #14
  15. windandwaves

    rf Guest

    "windandwaves" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi Folk
    >
    > http://www.winsborough.co.nz/


    Yet another non fluid site from you.

    And why are you still specifying font size in pixels. Havn't you been told
    enough times that this is simply a bad design choice?

    And grey on white?

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Sep 20, 2007
    #15
  16. windandwaves

    Bergamot Guest

    Re: what do you think? review my site.... is it working in yourbrowser

    Peter J Ross wrote:
    > In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> entering the URL, the validator says:
    >> "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"

    >
    > Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
    > what Accept: header is sent.


    Why do people bother doing this for what is obviously plain HTML? There
    is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. In fact, it is problematic when
    you consider caching servers.

    > The validator chooses the HTML version,


    Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Sep 20, 2007
    #16
  17. windandwaves

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Sep 20, 10:56 pm, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > Peter J Ross wrote:
    > > In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> entering the URL, the validator says:
    > >> "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"

    >
    > > Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
    > > what Accept: header is sent.

    >
    > Why do people bother doing this for what is obviously plain HTML? There
    > is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. In fact, it is problematic when
    > you consider caching servers.
    >
    > > The validator chooses the HTML version,

    >
    > Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.
    >

    Hmmm I would blame the CMS writers / coders myself. They can at times
    make it quite hard to change the code that gets output to the UA.
    Which means you end up with a complete tag soop type system.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
     
    Chaddy2222, Sep 20, 2007
    #17
  18. windandwaves

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    > On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves <> wrote:
    > > Hi Folk
    > >
    > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > > me what you think.


    > but I do have a problem with the content:
    >
    > "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
    > business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
    > people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
    > experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
    >
    > Spell checker?
    > specialised = specialized ?
    > organisational = organizational ?
    > behaviour = behavior ?
    >
    > Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.


    Now that you mention this sentence, never mind insisting on more
    American spelling:

    "a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?

    (1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.

    (2) "professional" when it goes on to say "psychologists" and
    "experts"?

    Perhaps OP not responsible for the text?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 20, 2007
    #18
  19. windandwaves

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Andy Dingley <> wrote:

    > On 20 Sep, 02:28, windandwaves <> wrote:
    > > Hi Folk
    > >
    > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
    > > me what you think.

    >
    > font-size: 14px; /*62.5%; */
    > No contrast pale grey on white.
    >
    > I think your designer is an arrogant tosser who thinks that how it
    > looks for them on their Mac is more important than allowing your
    > customers to read and make use of the site.


    Withdraw that remark about the Mac! What the has this got to do
    with Macs?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 20, 2007
    #19
  20. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    On Sep 20, 10:10 pm, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves <> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Folk

    >
    > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/andtell
    > > me what you think.

    >
    > Very "i-pody" look. I like that. I like the overall design. I do
    > agree, (I forget with who) that those images on the home page should
    > somehow give me a clue what they are for.
    >
    > I don't have a problem with the gray on white background that some do,
    > but I do have a problem with the content:
    >
    > "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
    > business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
    > people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
    > experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
    >
    > Spell checker?
    > specialised = specialized ?
    > organisational = organizational ?
    > behaviour = behavior ?


    Correct... There are people out there who speak "real" english ;-)
    lol - yes, new zealanders follow uk standards

    > Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
     
    windandwaves, Sep 20, 2007
    #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. bredal Jensen
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    463
    bredal Jensen
    Jul 7, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    615
  3. Mark Shapiro
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    559
    Mark Shapiro
    Oct 8, 2011
  4. Jorge
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    146
    Jorge
    Nov 12, 2009
  5. David Mark
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    242
    David Mark
    Mar 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page