Re: Okay, try again...

You seem to pay as much attention to these posts as you do to

the alleged requests from your clients (as seen in other posts, which I
don't approve of, but do support my claim).

Okay...I've tried not to respond to these snide comments, but lack of
self-control has now taken over. Geoff, that comment was completely
uncalled for. I came here politely asking for a critique on usability of
the webpage, not your opinion of something you don't have first-hand
knowledge of.

Almost all of those who bitch about lack of support are those who have not
followed directions to get support (the last guy I saw complaining about not
getting a ticket reply was someone who forgot he used an @earthlink email
account...and was looking for an answer on his @domain.com email address).
Do you think he ever came back to usenet and said "oops, my fault. sorry
for saying AH sucks!" Of course not. Very few ever do...although there are
some posts to that effect.

....or who, like Kathy Painter, is upset that we no longer offer our older
"Option" accounts, which we've been telling customers for MONTHS are
obsolete for what the majority of them want to do with them. We've offered
free upgrades to Cpanel accounts, and offered to refund or bend over and
kiss ass, if we have to. We can't help you if you don't want help or if you
don't like the fact that we aren't supporting something that we can't
gaurantee to be a quality service (the Option accounts).

Its really getting to be a bit much to see people come in here and whine
about the old Option servers "going down" ...when we've been warning,
begging, pleading, telling people who have yet refused to let us help them
move to a better server. The overwhelming majority of those on Cpanel
servers are happy and paying less $$ for more features. We are taking VERY
pro-active measures to phase out the Option servers. Those who are refusing
to let us help them move have no right to bitch about the old servers being
unstable.

I know "mob mentality" makes it the cool thing to zing affordablehost - but,
its completely unfair to give everyone else a politely constructive
critique...and basically try and shame me in public for asking for the same
courtesy. I'm trying to fix the site, per the instructions here that I
understand. The menu/navigation being the overwhelmingly most important
thing that I understood to be the problem...which I completely have redone.
I now understand that the colors conflict...and I will go and work on that
now. The font size will require a complete new layout...which I will do
once I get the navigation under control.

No, AffordableHOST isn't perfect and we do not have 100% customer
satisfaction all the time. We do offer a decent service for a decent
price...and the vast majority of our customers refer others to us. We have
almost a ZERO ad budget, because its not needed. Word of mouth keeps us
growing strong every year.

Is this still alt.html.critique....or has this evolved into
alt.what-I've-heard-about-your-business.critique???

PS: To the guy from usenet who thought it was cute to come into our
chatroom last night and try and engage me into an argument, about "customers
complaining on usenet". That was very childish. Whatever you were trying
to accomplish, didn't happen. Several current customers, as soon as you
left, basically called you an "ass" and "didn't seem to really want help".
Again, if you're reading this and still want help I'd at least need to know
the domain name, servername and other details. "My site is down and you
guys suck" doesn't tell me a thing (traceroute? domain expired? nameserver
issue? email work?) and pretty much tells me that you are just spewing BS.

Okay, I'm done venting...and promise not to reply to plethora of resonses
that this post is bound to generate. Feel free to rip me to shreds, if it
will make you feel better. :-)

--Tina

"Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <tina (AT) affordablehost (DOT) com> wrote in message on
7/8/03:

...or who, like Kathy Painter, is upset that we no longer offer our older
"Option" accounts, which we've been telling customers for MONTHS are
obsolete for what the majority of them want to do with them.

Tina,

I offer my sincerest of apologies to you and your company. * Call me a
loser.* Call me a whiner. I am extremely sorry that I have created such
grief for you.

1) I'm just a Loser. I guess I either did not read the notices thoroughly
enough or did not understand what you were trying to tell me in the switch
over to CPanel.
2) I do know I went to log on to my class and couldn't find my stat's page.
And, your homepage had changed enough that I could not find what I needed. I
felt left out in the cold.
3) When you asked for advice on the website I truly believed I was offering
to you good sound advice. Many others echoed the same thoughts I had. In no
way shape or form did I intend the criticism to be cruel. Call me a *Loser*
again. It must surely have come out that way. Please accept my apologies.

Prior to the changeover I was extremely happy with AffordableHost. Since the
change I felt lost and didn't know what to do. I didn't know if I should
switch providers or what.

In addition, I tried to give constructive criticism to you but I do not
believe you feel it is constructive.

Call me a Loser.
My name is "Kathy Painter" and I offer to you my sincere apologies.

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

You seem to pay as much attention to these posts as you do to
the alleged requests from your clients (as seen in other posts, which I
don't approve of, but do support my claim).


Okay...I've tried not to respond to these snide comments, but lack of
self-control has now taken over. Geoff, that comment was completely
uncalled for.

Still no doctype, you're not escaping entitites, and your character encoding
sent by the server differs from that in your meta tag. You still haven't
changed anything I suggested, which is why I think my comment was fine. I
didn't say myself that your customer support was bad; instead, I said that
you listen to the posts here about as much as you *allegedly* do to your
clients. As you've quoted above, I don't agree with all the
AffordableHost-bashing that goes on here. But it did support the claim I
was making.

I came here politely asking for a critique on usability of
the webpage

I gave you a critique, and you haven't fixed anything I suggested.

not your opinion of something you don't have first-hand
knowledge of.

I never said I did. I think you misread my post before, as not once do I
bash your company.

...or who, like Kathy Painter, is upset that we no longer offer our older
"Option" accounts, which we've been telling customers for MONTHS are
obsolete for what the majority of them want to do with them. We've
offered free upgrades to Cpanel accounts, and offered to refund or bend
over and
kiss ass, if we have to. We can't help you if you don't want help or if
you don't like the fact that we aren't supporting something that we can't
gaurantee to be a quality service (the Option accounts).

This comment would've been better suited in an email to her (as I'm sure you
sent before, maybe multiple times), not posted to a newsgroup for all to
see.

I know "mob mentality" makes it the cool thing to zing affordablehost -
but, its completely unfair to give everyone else a politely constructive
critique...and basically try and shame me in public for asking for the
same courtesy.

I've given you a constructive critique 3 times now, and nothing's changed on
your site since.

I'm trying to fix the site, per the instructions here that I understand.

See my previous posts for suggested fixes.

The menu/navigation being the overwhelmingly most important
thing that I understood to be the problem...which I completely have
redone. I now understand that the colors conflict...and I will go and work
on that now.

The blue on grey looks much better.

The font size will require a complete new layout...which I will do
once I get the navigation under control.

May as well get rid of the tables too, while you're fixing the font sizes.

Okay, I'm done venting...and promise not to reply to plethora of resonses
that this post is bound to generate.

If it's a post offering to help improve your site, I suggest you *do*
respond. At least then we know you're listening.

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

Still no doctype, you're not escaping entitites, and your character
encoding
sent by the server differs from that in your meta tag. You still haven't
changed anything I suggested, which is why I think my comment was fine.

I'm working on this a piece at a time, trying to get the individual stuff
sorted out. As I said, I fixed the navigation issue and wanted to know if
that + the font issue was better.

For what its worth, I don't understand the font issue...other than it isn't
working right. Some people said 'don't use pixels' ...so I used the .72em
font...which seemed to piss off even more people...so I went back to pixels.

I am about to try the ONE alternative that someone suggested...which was use
100% (which I've never heard of, but willing to try).

As soon as I get the navigation and font correct, I'm going to work on the
rest of the stuff based on everyone's suggestions. Am I correct in assuming
the navigation is now good?

--Tina

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

For what its worth, I don't understand the font issue...other than it isn't
working right. Some people said 'don't use pixels'

Absolutely the correct advice

...so I used the .72em font...which seemed to piss off even more people...

It only pissed people off because it's so freakin' small. You must be
using a pretty low screen resolution if that size looks anything
approaching "normal". Using em or % units is the right thing to do,
except it should be 1em or 100%.

so I went back to pixels.

With my browser default font size, 12px the equivalent of .67em, which
is even smaller than the .72em you were using. <sigh>

I am about to try the ONE alternative that someone suggested...which was use
100% (which I've never heard of, but willing to try).

100% = 1em = the user's default font size. It's the only value that's
right for body text.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

Some people said 'don't use pixels'

For text, pixels are a bad idea, as resolutions differ too much for them to
be half-decent on the web. It's much better to use a resizeable unit, such
as % or ems.

so I used the .72em font

Much better than pixels.

which seemed to piss off even more people...so I went back to pixels.

It wasn't using ems that pissed them off; it was using .72 em. You were
suggesting a font that was more than a quarter smaller than the user's
default font size.

I am about to try the ONE alternative that someone suggested...which was
use 100% (which I've never heard of, but willing to try).

That would be good, although you could've just used 1 em (which is
identical).

As soon as I get the navigation and font correct, I'm going to work on the
rest of the stuff based on everyone's suggestions.

That'd be good.

Am I correct in assuming the navigation is now good?

Yeah, the colours are a lot better.

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

kchayka wrote:

With my browser default font size, 12px the equivalent of .67em, which
is even smaller than the .72em you were using. <sigh

How'd you calculate this?

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

"kchayka" <kcha-ns-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

For what its worth, I don't understand the font issue...other than it
isn't
working right. Some people said 'don't use pixels'

Absolutely the correct advice

...so I used the .72em font...which seemed to piss off even more
people...

It only pissed people off because it's so freakin' small. You must be
using a pretty low screen resolution if that size looks anything
approaching "normal". Using em or % units is the right thing to do,
except it should be 1em or 100%.

so I went back to pixels.

With my browser default font size, 12px the equivalent of .67em, which
is even smaller than the .72em you were using. <sigh

I am about to try the ONE alternative that someone suggested...which was
use
100% (which I've never heard of, but willing to try).

100% = 1em = the user's default font size. It's the only value that's
right for body text.

Ah, okay...that I understand! I'll have to wait until I can work on the
layout a bit better...but I think 100% font will not be too difficult to
work with, from a layout standpoint.

--Tina

"Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <tina (AT) affordablehost (DOT) com> wrote

"kchayka" <kcha-ns-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3f0b6475$1 (AT) news (DOT) sihope.com...
Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

For what its worth, I don't understand the font issue...other than it
isn't
working right. Some people said 'don't use pixels'

Absolutely the correct advice

...so I used the .72em font...which seemed to piss off even more
people...

It only pissed people off because it's so freakin' small. You must be
using a pretty low screen resolution if that size looks anything
approaching "normal". Using em or % units is the right thing to do,
except it should be 1em or 100%.

so I went back to pixels.

With my browser default font size, 12px the equivalent of .67em, which
is even smaller than the .72em you were using. <sigh

I am about to try the ONE alternative that someone suggested...which
was
use
100% (which I've never heard of, but willing to try).

100% = 1em = the user's default font size. It's the only value that's
right for body text.


Ah, okay...that I understand! I'll have to wait until I can work on the
layout a bit better...but I think 100% font will not be too difficult to
work with, from a layout standpoint.

--Tina

I'm replying to myself...heh...but the font issue should now be fixed!

Anyone disagree?

Now for the rest of the issues. Give 'em to me slow, and use small words
with simple descriptions.

--Tina

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

"Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <tina (AT) affordablehost (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:vgmst43lvf8lbb (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com...
I'm replying to myself...heh...but the font issue should now be fixed!

Anyone disagree?

Now for the rest of the issues. Give 'em to me slow, and use small
words with simple descriptions.

Fonts are much better. I assume that you are going to add the menu bar to the Order & Support pages

too.

--
Duende
-----
What is the difference between genius and stupidity?
Genius has limits. - Albert Einstein.