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

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:32:04
GMT dorayme scribed:

"a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?

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


How does "specialized" at all indicate the nature of this dedication?

When you were a baby, did you hurl that ball across the room if
you could not immediately find how to get the triangular piece
into the right hole? (Hint: it has a triangular shape)

You're damn right! I wanted instant gratification, and when the world
plotted against me, I got even. He he he, you wouldn't want to have been
one of my toys (-although according to some of my female friends, that has
changed a bit.)

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

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:44:37 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

On Sep 20, 6:26 pm, windandwaves <nfranc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
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.

Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
they are spelled wrong. No need to go all anti American, it is not
like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)

Er, in order to take it over, you hafta know where it is...

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

In article
<1190367877.896067.60440 (AT) y42g2000hsy (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
they are spelled wrong.

....like that was easy to guess huh?

No need to go all anti American, it is not
like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)

er... you have done the opposite and put poor NZ in Coventry for
its refusal to allow US nuclear warships into its ports years
ago. If you had known this, you would have been more careful
about saying things, being the sensitive guy you are...

--
dorayme

In article
<1190363463.122410.159000 (AT) y42g2000hsy (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

On 20 Sep, 23:08, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

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

Macs have different gamma behaviour to PCs, so on a Mac it might be
readable.

Mac users often fail to realise this, so Mac-based designers may
suffer from a worse form of "But it looks OK on my computer" syndrome
than the strain that affects PC-based designers.

Well, gee, I am glad I asked, this is quite a good point of yours
actually. I have had one of my many screens set to more PC like
gamma to see stuff, especially how to prepare some pictures even
before looking at things on a Winbox. The business of text
contrast did not occur to me specifically when reading you.

--
dorayme

In article <XlMIi.320$H22.163 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.

The web is not about *you*.

--
dorayme

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:09:25 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

The web is not about *you*.

It is. It's about him, and about you, and about me, and even about
Jukka.

If you do it right, it meets _everyones'_ goals. Good design doesn't
exclude people who'd be equally happy with bad design. Many people even
recognise good design when they see it, without even realising that
they've seen it. The canard that "technically correct design must also
be aesthetically poor design" is a falsehood. If you have good design
and good implementation, you can make everyone happy without having to
exclude anything.

Neredbojias wrote:

Ie6 is usually pretty accurate in identifying j/s errors.

Hmmm... I've always thought IE was terribly vague in its error messages.
The JS Console in gecko browsers is much more informative.

--
Berg

In article <v9j8f31mg4a30eg8g9n69nhlhjfdermg60 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:09:25 +1000, dorayme
doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

The web is not about *you*.

It is.

It's not.

It's about him, and about you, and about me, and even about
Jukka.

Poor choice of examples, but you are getting there. Take me, for
instance, when I go to a site, it is usually for info and frankly
I just want that info in as plain a manner as possible. But that
is me. Maybe it is others too, but I mean *real plain* for me
will do and that is unlikely to be others choice. As often as
not, when vanilla is shown here, folks here complain about how
plain it is. There are not too many around here, I fancy, that
understand where windandwaves is coming from. Go read my post
where I lament about his not being able to marry his design goals
with a more fluid implementation. This is not a silly and
ignorant dismissal of his goals.

If you do it right, it meets _everyones'_ goals.

I have two views on this and what you go on to say.

(1) I agree.

(2) Dream on, mate.

--
dorayme

[snip]

Poor choice of examples, but you are getting there. Take me, for
instance, when I go to a site, it is usually for info and frankly
I just want that info in as plain a manner as possible. But that
is me. Maybe it is others too, but I mean *real plain* for me
will do and that is unlikely to be others choice. As often as
not, when vanilla is shown here, folks here complain about how
plain it is. There are not too many around here, I fancy, that
understand where windandwaves is coming from. Go read my post
where I lament about his not being able to marry his design goals
with a more fluid implementation. This is not a silly and
ignorant dismissal of his goals.

[snip]

Simple. If you don't like what you see, and you like a plain look, just tell
your browser that you want it plainer. TAKE CONTROL.

1. Use Firefox
2. Select View / Page Style / No Style from the menubar.

While this is checked you need never see another fancy stylesheet-ed page.

If this is *too* plain for your liking, just create a user stylesheet in
Firefox...

http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/ht...userfirefo.htm
http://www.squarefree.com/userstyles...le-sheets.html

You see? Lots of options. Take control of your browser if you don't like
what you see, thus freeing the rest of us to get on with the job of
satisfying our clients, and the vast majority of users

In article
<46f463aa$0$28214$5a62ac22 (AT) per-qv1-newsreader-01 (DOT) iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" <asdf (AT) asdf (DOT) com> wrote:

[snip]

Poor choice of examples, but you are getting there. Take me, for
instance, when I go to a site, it is usually for info and frankly
I just want that info in as plain a manner as possible. But that
is me. Maybe it is others too, but I mean *real plain* for me
will do and that is unlikely to be others choice. As often as
not, when vanilla is shown here, folks here complain about how
plain it is. There are not too many around here, I fancy, that
understand where windandwaves is coming from. Go read my post
where I lament about his not being able to marry his design goals
with a more fluid implementation. This is not a silly and
ignorant dismissal of his goals.

[snip]

Simple. If you don't like what you see, and you like a plain look, just tell
your browser that you want it plainer. TAKE CONTROL.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here? I was saying something,
not asking for advice.

--
dorayme