validation best comes from an experienced Critic!

#1

www.bankchargesrefunded.co.uk

The second page called bankchargesrefunded.asp has failed w3c validation!

any help to be able to resolve this would be much appreciated

Please also be as honest as possible with your Critique.

Regards
Malcolm Whyte

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...doctype=Inline

#2

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:14:54 +0200, malcolm
<malcolm.whyte (AT) malcolmk (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

<URL:http://www.bankchargesrefunded.co.uk/>

Ehm.... Fix it first.

<URL:http://www.pretletters.net/_test/common_mistakes_with_html4-01-strict_pages.html>

--
______PretLetters:

Quote:

#3

On Tue, 2 May 2006 21:14:54 +0100, malcolm wrote:

Quote:

www.bankchargesrefunded.co.uk

The second page called bankchargesrefunded.asp has failed w3c validation!

any help to be able to resolve this would be much appreciated

Please also be as honest as possible with your Critique.

Regards
Malcolm Whyte

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...doctype=Inline

What is wrong with the error explanations on the check page you provided?

What is to Critique? Microsoft Word or Front Page?

--
buy, bought, bye

#4

Constructive advice

thanks

"Barbara de Zoete" <trashbin (AT) pretletters (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:14:54 +0200, malcolm
malcolm.whyte (AT) malcolmk (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

URL:http://www.bankchargesrefunded.co.uk/

Ehm.... Fix it first.

URL:http://www.pretletters.net/_test/com...ict_pages.html

--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |

#5

[ Please do not top post:
<URL:http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> ]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:29:36 +0200, malcolm
<malcolm.whyte (AT) malcolmk (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Barbara de Zoete" <trashbin (AT) pretletters (DOT) net> wrote in message
news

p.s8xxm2cfl8uz2z (AT) zoete_b (DOT) ..

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:14:54 +0200, malcolm
malcolm.whyte (AT) malcolmk (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

URL:http://www.bankchargesrefunded.co.uk/

Ehm.... Fix it first.

URL:http://www.pretletters.net/_test/com...ict_pages.html

--
______PretLetters:

[ Please delete the signature block by hand if your news client, or what
ever it is you use to post on usenet, doesn't do that for you ]

Quote:

Constructive advice

Well, it is. Throw out what ever you used to create this with and start
over. The 'fix it' refers not to the validation errors (that should speak
for themselves), but to all that did pass validation. It is bad coding. As
bad as it can get. So fix it first. It's useless to correct the errors if
it still leaves you with a complete mess.

--
______PretLetters:

Quote:

#6

Not top posting! Sorry.

Why start again when the best course of action is to find the errors,
understand the errors and then fix them! This makes so much more sense to me
than what you are suggesting!

I used just that method when validating the 1st page.

#7

malcolm wrote:

Quote:

Constructive advice

1. Dump FrontPlague
2. Stop using justified text
3. Stop using tables for layout
4. Learn CSS
5. Note how the design falls apart with a simple increase in font size
6. Survey for 'amount of bank charges' will not accept £ or $ signs.
7. Got tired of looking

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

#8

On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:59:28 +0200, malcolm
<malcolm.whyte (AT) malcolmk (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

Quote:

Not top posting! Sorry.

[ Please *do* quote; see previous URL ]

Quote:

Why start again when the best course of action is to find the errors,

Only *if* that was the best course of action. Which it isn't. But, hey, if
you know best, good luck with it.

--
______PretLetters:

Quote:

#9

But experienced critics have the blinkers on!

Opera Version 8.54 Version Displays the site as it should.

Netscape 8.1 Version Displays the site as it should. 4.3% of all sessions

Internet Explorer 6.0 Version Displays the site as it should.60.9% of all
sessions

Firefox Version 1.5.0.0 Version Displays the site as it should 10.1% of all
sessions

Windows 98

Windows XP

Windows 2000

and others all display the site as it should!

The stats for the site suggest that MSIE 6.x is the most popular browser for
this particular site! with 60.9% of all sessions

Why should we even bother with this site critique when the only suggestion
is to start over again? When the site does what it says on the tin!! DISPLAY
AS INTENDED.

have you actually been on the site?

are you really that interested in helping the site?

have you had bank charges?

Do you want to retrieve bank charges?

www.bankchargesrefunded.co.uk displays as it should and delivers what you
want!

UK ONLY

Thanks for all your interest.

Malcolm Whyte

A site that Displays to your users in the manner intended and has the
desired effect should surely be considered a worthy site in my opinion! ?

#10

"kchayka" <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote

Thank you kchayka, your post has been considered to be the most helpful so
far.

I have to say that I am using frontpage and fireworks to develope the site!
and why not if they do the job advertised ?

is this just some sort of "hand coded desinger" sort of thing?

my audience gets what they are looking for? why start from the begining
again?

People that are worried about UK bank and credit card charges can login or
register and recieve all the help they need about charges in the uk imposed
over the last 5 years (upto 6 in england)

your style of critique is out of date with the latest technology and will
with out doubt become outdate with todays browsers.

should the site not display as it should pls hightlight this and let me
know... my users care about the end result not some bit of code!

M