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

[windandwaves]

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?

correct.... thank you for pointing it out though

 

[windandwaves]

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.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"

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?

Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
here... it works so lets not change it.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
here... it works so lets not change it.

To borrow a Jukka quote: "for some value of 'works'"

So you are not going to fix any of the errors?
I suppose that's pragmatic...

 

[windandwaves]

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



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.

I dont think there is a problem with the script - is there?

 

[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.

Thank you! I have added a description with the images. Should be
clear enough now. There are two ways to approach this: 1. is
everything clear 2. can people find what they are looking for. I
think we have gone for option 2 and that should definitely be the
case. A bit of mystery has never hurt anyone ;-)

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

 

[windandwaves]

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.

Hi Berg

Totally agree, an oversight on my part... Still working on some
resizing issues...

 

[windandwaves]

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.

This is under review....

 

[windandwaves]

To borrow a Jukka quote: "for some value of 'works'"

So you are not going to fix any of the errors?
I suppose that's pragmatic...

I have fixed a few, but I think most people who need to see this
website will be able to read it more than adequately...

 

[windandwaves]

Just also wanted to thank everyone for their replies ..... MUCH
APPRECIATED. Although we do not always agree with you it is always
nice to have the experts comment on work.

 

[windandwaves]

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?

Hi Richard

I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:58:47
GMT windandwaves scribed:

I dont think there is a problem with the script - is there?

I didn't notice anything functionally amiss in that way, but I didn't spend
a lot of time trying to find it, either. Ie6 is usually pretty accurate in
identifying j/s errors.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:07:32 GMT
dorayme scribed:

"a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?

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

Bujwah.

"A specialized ornithologist dedicated to dealing with the bird-brains of
today's flighty world."

How does "specialized" at all indicate the nature of this dedication?

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:07:32 GMT
dorayme scribed:

How does "specialized" at all indicate the nature of this dedication?

When you were a baby, did you hurl that ball across the room if
you could not immediately find how to get the triangular piece
into the right hole? (Hint: it has a triangular shape)

 

[Andy Dingley]

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

Macs have different gamma behaviour to PCs, so on a Mac it might be
readable.

Mac users often fail to realise this, so Mac-based designers may
suffer from a worse form of "But it looks OK on my computer" syndrome
than the strain that affects PC-based designers.

 

[rf]

I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?

So what is this?

body
{
font-size:62.5%;
}


And:

li, p, h1, h2, h3, td
{
font-size:1.3em;
}

You have abandoned the stupidly small font size and have now made it 130% of
what I like.

What is wrong with omitting font size altogther. That way I get *exactly*
what I like, not what you think I might like.

Then again given your prior responses I don't expect anything at all.

 

[rf]

Hi Richard

Forgot to mention...

All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual content.
Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content into one page.

When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.

I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
things.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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

Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
they are spelled wrong. No need to go all anti American, it is not
like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)

 

[mrcakey]

Forgot to mention...

All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual
content. Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content
into one page.

When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.

I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
things.

Maybe you could pay him to design another version of the site just to
satisfy your own predilections and leave his perfectly useable, valid and
aesthetically pleasing site - designed the way he and his client want it -
for the rest of us.

It's always unsatisfactory to be at odds with a group of experts. It
usually means you're wrong. Maybe I am. But it seems that there is a
hegemony of thought that dictates the user knows best always. I'm sorry,
but a lot of users are very naive. For those that aren't, there are a
variety of options for rendering pages according to your own taste. Use
them.

Why is it that structured design in a visual presentation medium is
pilloried so? White space "looks nice". Whether you're selling services or
peddling content, there is no sin in presenting your web page the way you
want it to be presented. If it's accessible, valid, readable, logical and
degrades well when styling is unavailable, then I can't see the problem.

+mrcakey

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:32:04
GMT dorayme scribed:

When you were a baby, did you hurl that ball across the room if
you could not immediately find how to get the triangular piece
into the right hole? (Hint: it has a triangular shape)

You're damn right! I wanted instant gratification, and when the world
plotted against me, I got even. He he he, you wouldn't want to have been
one of my toys (-although according to some of my female friends, that has
changed a bit.)

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:44:37 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
they are spelled wrong. No need to go all anti American, it is not
like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)

Er, in order to take it over, you hafta know where it is...