What do you think?

What do you think of this design so far?

http://www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk

(only the bottom two links are working by the way)

Thanks,

Richard

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:57:04 +0000 (UTC), Mike Terry wrote:

What do you think of this design so far?

http://www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk

(I suggest you) fix the HTML.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk>
Then kake it HTML 4.01 strict and move the styling to CSS.

Speaking of styling, your invalid (even for 3.2) font style for copyright..

<FONT face=Verdana color=#c0c0c0 size=1>

Both the font face and size could be improved.
Face - 'Verdana' by changing it.
Size - '1', a % value is safer "90%".
( Oh, and.. add quotes to the color string - color='#c0c0c0' )

HTH

Mike Terry wrote:

What do you think of this design so far?

http://www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk

Google won't know what you do.
<http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailymaidserv ice.co.uk%2F>

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk/faq.html>

You are setting your font size at 10px. That's too small, and further,
all IE users will not be able to resize it. You should also set the
font size once, in body, to 100%, then use other sizes for things like
headings and legalese. Get rid of "ms sans serif".

body {
font-size: 100%;
font-family: sans-serif;
}

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Nice and clean, exactly how I like it.

Let us know when you go live and I'll set up a link on my two sites for you.
I'm based just outside Bournemouth, so I am always willing to help out local
business.

Gary

_______________________________
TLC Garden Buildings
http://www.3leggedcross.co.uk

Web Design and Site Optimisation
http://www.cleanandfast.co.uk

Further to my last post, your site design lends itself very well
to be converted to table less CSS.

Have a look at

http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/

to see how you can produce the same menu effect without the
Javascript or tables.

Gary
______________________
TLC Garden Buildings
http://www.3leggedcross.co.uk

Web Design and Site Optimisation
http://www.cleanandfast.co.uk

Excellent - thanks for your comments and suggestions. I'll be sure to let
you know.

Thanks,

Richard

"TLC" <stevensgt (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote

Further to my last post, your site design lends itself very well
to be converted to table less CSS.

Have a look at

http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/

to see how you can produce the same menu effect without the
Javascript or tables.

Gary
______________________
TLC Garden Buildings
http://www.3leggedcross.co.uk

Web Design and Site Optimisation
http://www.cleanandfast.co.uk

Thanks. I'll take a look into it.

Richard

"Andrew Thompson" <SeeMySites (AT) www (DOT) invalid> wrote

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:57:04 +0000 (UTC), Mike Terry wrote:

What do you think of this design so far?

http://www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk

(I suggest you) fix the HTML.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...dservice.co.uk
Then kake it HTML 4.01 strict and move the styling to CSS.

Speaking of styling, your invalid (even for 3.2) font style for
copyright..

FONT face=Verdana color=#c0c0c0 size=1

Both the font face and size could be improved.
Face - 'Verdana' by changing it.
Size - '1', a % value is safer "90%".
( Oh, and.. add quotes to the color string - color='#c0c0c0' )

HTH

Mike Terry wrote:

What do you think of this design so far?

http://www.thedailymaidservice.co.uk

You need alt tags.

have a look at your site with images turned off. Anyone using a text or
brail browser gets very little information.

--
Cheers

Jim

junk wrote:

You need alt tags.

<alt>This content is between alt tags.</alt>

Is that what you meant?

In article <opsikot1yg6v6656 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>, Neal
<neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

junk wrote:

You need alt tags.

alt>This content is between alt tags.</alt

Is that what you meant?

I'll bet it wasn't. There may have been a time when I called elements
tags. I know! "alt" is an attribute. I do understand the mistake since I
see it every day in these groups. I suppose it's from people attempting to
learn HTML from bogus sources on the net. Or from coming from the sloppy
outside world where precise syntax is often not required as it is in
computerese.
Lets see now, Um ...
HTML: elements with or without attributes.
CSS: rules that have selectors and declarations. And the declarations
have properties and values.
That's nine definitions total.
Easy peasy as someone we know would say, and yet a small minority of
people who publish on the web know them. A small minority take the time or
see the importance of being precise.
A small minority have actually read the HTML and CSS specs. If we all did,
there would only be esoteric discussion of complex issues.
I'd feel left out :-(

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>