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

In article
<1190283014.470022.91930 (AT) 50g2000hsm (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

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.

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.

Now that you mention this sentence, never mind insisting on more
American spelling:

"a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?

(1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.

(2) "professional" when it goes on to say "psychologists" and
"experts"?

Perhaps OP not responsible for the text?

--
dorayme

In article
<1190288355.983107.240460 (AT) g4g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

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.

Withdraw that remark about the Mac! What the has this got to do
with Macs?

--
dorayme

On Sep 20, 10:10 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

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/andtell
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 ?

Correct... There are people out there who speak "real" english ;-)
lol - yes, new zealanders follow uk standards

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

On Sep 21, 10:07 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
1190283014.470022.91... (AT) 50g2000hsm (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewb... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:



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/andtell
me what you think.
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.

Now that you mention this sentence, never mind insisting on more
American spelling:

"a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?

(1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.

(2) "professional" when it goes on to say "psychologists" and
"experts"?

Perhaps OP not responsible for the text?

--
dorayme

correct.... thank you for pointing it out though

On Sep 20, 2:55 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:
Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
me what you think.

I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.

It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
images. What do they mean?

There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
will come along?

You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
purple.

I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
slow.

The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...2Fwww.winsboro...

but forcing 1.1,
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...borough.co.nz%...
"This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
Failed validation, 43 Errors"

There are CSS errors:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...s2&warning=2&u...

Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.

"although for [me] it does?"

No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.

Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
here... it works so lets not change it.

On Sep 20, 9:01 pm, Neredbojias <monstersquas... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:28:02 GMT
windandwaves scribed:

Hi Folk

Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
it does.

The only real difference I see (on the opening page) between ie6 and
Firefox/Opera is that there's more space between the bottom pic and the
centered line below in ie.

There's a j/s error - "object expected", too.

I dont think there is a problem with the script - is there?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

On Sep 20, 10:10 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

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/andtell
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.

Thank you! I have added a description with the images. Should be
clear enough now. There are two ways to approach this: 1. is
everything clear 2. can people find what they are looking for. I
think we have gone for option 2 and that should definitely be the
case. A bit of mystery has never hurt anyone ;-)

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.

On Sep 21, 12:16 am, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

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/andtell
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
Hi Berg

Totally agree, an oversight on my part... Still working on some
resizing issues...

On Sep 21, 12:56 am, 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.

--
Berg
This is under review....

On Sep 21, 10:52 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

windandwaves wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
here... it works so lets not change it.

To borrow a Jukka quote: "for some value of 'works'"

So you are not going to fix any of the errors?
I suppose that's pragmatic...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

I have fixed a few, but I think most people who need to see this
website will be able to read it more than adequately...