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

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.

Thank you

Nicolaas

In article
<1190251682.837448.241860 (AT) q3g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
windandwaves <nfrancken (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. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
it does.

iCab says:

http://www.winsborough.co.nz/mysite/css/layout.css
CSS Error (8/12): Unknown CSS property ³overflow-y².
CSS Error (9/36): Invalid property value
³-moz-scrollbars-vertical².
CSS Error (282/16): Unknown CSS keyword ³(min-width:².
CSS Error (282/26): Unknown CSS keyword ³:².
CSS Error (282/31): Unknown CSS keyword ³){².
CSS Error (282/32): Unknown media definition.

--
dorayme

windandwaves wrote:

F'ups to alt.html.critique

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't care for it. The contrast between text and
background is too low for me. I imagine the designer of the site sitting
at a gleaming new Mac with a large screen and bright display and sharp
young eyes to view it all with. My conditions are ... different.

The fancy meandering borders don't enhance the site, even when they're
functioning properly. They don't look quite right on the main page
(there's an extraneous thin horizontal line in the upper left), and on
the "our staff" page (capitalization missing) it's a disaster (bits of
curve and straight in various wrong positions).

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

The pictures of rocks and ferns and, I think, a basket seem to have much
less to do with organisational development and more to do with the clip
art you had available.

The main page has (well, it looks like all the pages have) a permanent
vertical scrollbar, even when there's nothing to scroll.

HTML validates on the main page (great!) but the CSS has some errors
(http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator) which you should know about.

Oh my. The CSS is, um, quite special looking. The repetitive patterns of
code like

#bottom{background: url(../images/homeBottom.gif) no-repeat; width:
969px; height: 34px;}
#about #bottom{background: url(../images/aboutBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
#staff #bottom{background: url(../images/staffBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
#consulting #bottom{background: url(../images/consultingBottom.gif)
no-repeat;}
#assessment #bottom{background: url(../images/assessmentBottom.gif)
no-repeat;}
#contact #bottom{background: url(../images/contactBottom.gif) no-repeat;}

make me question the efficacy of the design. Especially when the results
are as discombobulated as they are, it suggests some rethinking might be
in order.

Feel free to change font-size:14px; to font-size:100%;, since specifying
font-size in pixels keeps IE <7 from resizing texts, which users will
likely want to do, thanks in part to the low-contrast colors.

Text upsizing in FF seems to work nicely, only overflowing the alloted
spaces in a few areas.

At the bootom of the pages, the "top" link goes to #home, and the "home"
link goes to the main page, too, even when it's already there.

Most of my testing was with FF, but in IE6 it looks a lot better. The
lines and curves line up, and don't look broken. You didn't say what's
"not working in IE6", so I'm done here. GL.

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

In article <46f1da2e$1_5 (AT) news (DOT) bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John (AT) DELETE (DOT) Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:

windandwaves wrote:

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.

Feel free to change font-size:14px; to font-size:100%;

OP should know this by now. I forget if he has a reason for not
following this excellent advice, at the very least, in respect to
% rather than px.

--
dorayme

On Sep 20, 2:26 pm, John Hosking <J... (AT) DELETE (DOT) Hosking.name.INVALID>
wrote:

windandwaves wrote:

F'ups to alt.html.critique



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.

I'm sorry, but I don't care for it. The contrast between text and
background is too low for me. I imagine the designer of the site sitting
at a gleaming new Mac with a large screen and bright display and sharp
young eyes to view it all with. My conditions are ... different.

The fancy meandering borders don't enhance the site, even when they're
functioning properly. They don't look quite right on the main page
(there's an extraneous thin horizontal line in the upper left), and on
the "our staff" page (capitalization missing) it's a disaster (bits of
curve and straight in various wrong positions).

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

The pictures of rocks and ferns and, I think, a basket seem to have much
less to do with organisational development and more to do with the clip
art you had available.

The main page has (well, it looks like all the pages have) a permanent
vertical scrollbar, even when there's nothing to scroll.

HTML validates on the main page (great!) but the CSS has some errors
(http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator) which you should know about.

Oh my. The CSS is, um, quite special looking. The repetitive patterns of
code like

#bottom{background: url(../images/homeBottom.gif) no-repeat; width:
969px; height: 34px;}
#about #bottom{background: url(../images/aboutBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
#staff #bottom{background: url(../images/staffBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
#consulting #bottom{background: url(../images/consultingBottom.gif)
no-repeat;}
#assessment #bottom{background: url(../images/assessmentBottom.gif)
no-repeat;}
#contact #bottom{background: url(../images/contactBottom.gif) no-repeat;}

make me question the efficacy of the design. Especially when the results
are as discombobulated as they are, it suggests some rethinking might be
in order.

Feel free to change font-size:14px; to font-size:100%;, since specifying
font-size in pixels keeps IE <7 from resizing texts, which users will
likely want to do, thanks in part to the low-contrast colors.

Text upsizing in FF seems to work nicely, only overflowing the alloted
spaces in a few areas.

At the bootom of the pages, the "top" link goes to #home, and the "home"
link goes to the main page, too, even when it's already there.

Most of my testing was with FF, but in IE6 it looks a lot better. The
lines and curves line up, and don't look broken. You didn't say what's
"not working in IE6", so I'm done here. GL.

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

Thanks for your reply.

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

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.

Low contrast = low readability. All that white burns my eyes.

--
Berg

On Sep 20, 2:25 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
1190251682.837448.241... (AT) q3g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com>,

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

iCab says:

http://www.winsborough.co.nz/mysite/css/layout.css
CSS Error (8/12): Unknown CSS property ³overflow-y².
CSS Error (9/36): Invalid property value
³-moz-scrollbars-vertical².
CSS Error (282/16): Unknown CSS keyword ³(min-width:².
CSS Error (282/26): Unknown CSS keyword ³:².
CSS Error (282/31): Unknown CSS keyword ³){².
CSS Error (282/32): Unknown media definition.

--
dorayme

Thank you!
I fixed the ones that should be fixed - the rest are "hacks"

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!

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"

That is an interesting one. It validates when you let the validator
choose. Bottom line is that the code validates (just take the source
code and past it into the direct input for the w3 validator.

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

I have fixed the errors that I should have fixed. However, some of
them are there as hacks for certain browsers...

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

Yes, well, I will have to check this out. It certainly works for
me.....but some where having troubles.

"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

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.

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