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

On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves <nfranc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi Folk

Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
me what you think.

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.

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

"Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
experts in the area of organisational behaviour."

Spell checker?
specialised = specialized ?
organisational = organizational ?
behaviour = behavior ?

Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.

John Hosking wrote:

There is no BG color declared, so I see my ugly default yellow.

Why did you choose a default that you think is ugly?

On 20 Sep, 02:28, windandwaves <nfranc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi Folk

Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
me what you think.

font-size: 14px; /*62.5%; */
No contrast pale grey on white.

I think your designer is an arrogant tosser who thinks that how it
looks for them on their Mac is more important than allowing your
customers to read and make use of the site.

windandwaves wrote:

On Sep 20, 2:26 pm, John Hosking wrote:


Thanks for your reply.

Which you quoted in full, including the sig. :-( And you're welcome.

What version of FF are you using and what operating system.

FF 1.0.7! But it's better although still not perfect on FF today
(scrollbars appear and diappear appropriately, our_staff page looks
good, except for extra line in upper-left), and also looks good in
Netscape 7.1. Both relatively old browsers, I know. Functions 100% in
Opera 7.23... ;-) All on WinXP.


--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

Harlan Messinger wrote:

John Hosking wrote:
There is no BG color declared, so I see my ugly default yellow.

Why did you choose a default that you think is ugly?

Well, it's not ugly for sites designed to match it or replace it. I
choose a non-white default mostly to show me when I've forgotten a BG on
my own pages. This yellow isn't really too bad, although it could be a
bit softer. Previously, I had a very pleasing blue, but some NG poster
had a site which used exactly that same blue for its BGs, and I couldn't
see what s/he was doing exactly.

I've stopped using lime green, though. ;-)

--
John

windandwaves wrote:

On Sep 20, 3:49 pm, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:
windandwaves wrote:

Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
me what you think.

The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
inaccessible at worst.

OK, fixed that. Thanks a million for pointing it out!

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.

--
Berg

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Harlan Messinger wrote:

John Hosking wrote:
There is no BG color declared, so I see my ugly default yellow.

Why did you choose a default that you think is ugly?

Mine's an ugly medium-light purple, and you would be surprised at how
often I see it on a page.

Mine is more practical, just "off white" enough to take off the glare
and be obviously not white, so it's quite noticeable when an author
forgets to set a background color.

The standard color choices in most browsers is pretty limited, but you
can be very precise if you're using a gecko browser. Set the color in
your user.js file

user_pref("browser.display.background_color", "#rrggbb");

--
Berg

"windandwaves" <nfrancken (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Hi Folk

http://www.winsborough.co.nz/

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?

--
Richard.

Peter J Ross wrote:

In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

entering the URL, the validator says:
"This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"

Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
what Accept: header is sent.

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.

The validator chooses the HTML version,

Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.

--
Berg

On Sep 20, 10:56 pm, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

Peter J Ross wrote:
In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

entering the URL, the validator says:
"This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"

Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
what Accept: header is sent.

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.

The validator chooses the HTML version,

Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.

Hmmm I would blame the CMS writers / coders myself. They can at times

make it quite hard to change the code that gets output to the UA.
Which means you end up with a complete tag soop type system.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz