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

[windandwaves]

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

 

[dorayme]

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.

 

[John Hosking]

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.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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://www.winsborough.co.nz/>

but forcing 1.1,
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...atically)&doctype=XHTML+1.1&group=0&verbose=1>
"This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
Failed validation, 43 Errors"

There are CSS errors:

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?

 

[Bergamot]

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.

 

[windandwaves]

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.

Thank you!
I fixed the ones that should be fixed - the rest are "hacks"

 

[windandwaves]

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]

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://www.winsboro...>

but forcing 1.1,
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.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...


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?

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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.

 

[Bergamot]

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.

 

[Peter J Ross]

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

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,

 

[rf]

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?

 

[Bergamot]

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


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.

 

[Chaddy2222]

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.


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.

 

[dorayme]

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]

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?

 

[windandwaves]

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