SITE CHECK: http://www.portprophecy.com

I would greatly appreciate some comments and suggestions on my recently
launched website @ http://www.portprophecy.com . I'm particularly
interested in how the site looks in browsers other than IE 6 and
different resolutions. Thanks in advance.
Derek Taylor
http://www.portprophecy.com

webmaster (AT) portprophecy (DOT) com wrote:

I would greatly appreciate some comments and suggestions

Don't multipost, pick an appropriate group and post there (and only
there). alt.html.critique is an appropriate group for these queries

--
Spartanicus

webmaster (AT) portprophecy (DOT) com wrote in
news:1104427986.002038.262800 (AT) z14g2000cwz (DOT) googlegroups.com:

I would greatly appreciate some comments and suggestions on
my recently launched website @ http://www.portprophecy.com
. I'm particularly interested in how the site looks in
browsers other than IE 6 and different resolutions. Thanks
in advance. Derek Taylor
http://www.portprophecy.com

I'd say that if you stick to standards then you will not need
to ask such questions..

--
KHaled

e-mail: khaledihREMOVEUPPERCASELETTERS at fusemail dot net
(correcting antispam crap..)
please start your subject line with the string "==NG=="

webmaster (AT) portprophecy (DOT) com wrote:

I would greatly appreciate some comments and suggestions on my recently
launched website @ http://www.portprophecy.com . I'm particularly
interested in how the site looks in browsers other than IE 6 and
different resolutions.

Why did you wait until your site was launched? Would you overhaul it

based on our criticism?
You can download and install other browsers yourself.
And Windows makes it relatively easy to change resolutions.

The menu items could use some space from the main query bar. It looks
crammed together. Use a sans-serif font for the menu items; serifs
actually reduce legibility on the typical 96dpi monitor.
The forced font size, 10pt, is almost too small to read. And the light
text on dark background aggravates readability: on CRTs the background
bleeds into the text obscuring it. Use a bold font weight for light-on-dark.
The use of points (pt) prevents IE from resizing text for those who
find the small text too difficult (think of people over 40).
Add "sans-serif" to you CSS font-family.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

KHaled <me (AT) localhost (DOT) home> writes:

webmaster (AT) portprophecy (DOT) com wrote in
news:1104427986.002038.262800 (AT) z14g2000cwz (DOT) googlegroups.com:
I would greatly appreciate some comments and suggestions on
my recently launched website @ http://www.portprophecy.com
. I'm particularly interested in how the site looks in
browsers other than IE 6 and different resolutions. Thanks
in advance. Derek Taylor
http://www.portprophecy.com


I'd say that if you stick to standards then you will not need
to ask such questions..

The last several site templates I've put together all started out with
standard-compliant HTML and CSS. They worked fine in some
browsers. After testing and reworking repeatedly, they worked in all
the browsers I had available to test in without doing something silly
and/or illegible, and were still standard-compliant HTML and CSS.

However, the chance of any (moderately complex or more) template
displaying properly (properly not meaning 'the same', obviously) in
all browsers prior to testing is fairly low.

That's not to say that standard-compliant code isn't a good idea, just
that having it doesn't negate (or even reduce much) the need for
multiple-browser testing.

--
Chris

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Chris Morris wrote:

[...]

webmaster (AT) portprophecy (DOT) com wrote in
news:1104427986.002038.262800 (AT) z14g2000cwz (DOT) googlegroups.com:
I would greatly appreciate some comments and suggestions on
my recently launched website @ http://www.portprophecy.com

[...]

However, the chance of any (moderately complex or more) template
displaying properly (properly not meaning 'the same', obviously) in
all browsers prior to testing is fairly low.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you... but that shouldn't be
taken as any kind of encouragement to the original poster to produce
invalid markup or stylesheet (stylesheet - what stylesheet?)

That's not to say that standard-compliant code isn't a good idea,

I'm confident that you agree with me, but I think you could have put
the point more strongly. I'd also counsel against relying on "Quirks
mode", at least for newly-created pages, or any existing pages that
are being seriously worked on.

just that having it doesn't negate (or even reduce much) the need
for multiple-browser testing.

I think it'd be fair to say that it reduces the amount of work
involved in repairing (and repairing the knock-on effect of repairs!).

Happyy New Year.