Work In progress - critique please?

"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote

"DaKitty" <Imgonna.com (AT) something (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:y0vOa.91480$Pc5.81702 (AT) fed1read01 (DOT) ..
(I hope I'm in the right forum)
Work in progress:
http://www.cb-design.net

I want to have an image on the main section of the page that changes as
I
roll over the menu buttons. I was somewhere how to do it, maybe a year
ago,
now that I want to use it, I can't figure it out.

I'm still tinkering with the text content, graphics/pictures layout will
come after I have the text done (to a certain point).
The more I look at it, the more I think the grays are too light if I'm
going
to use yellow text. I think I need to go darker.

Ideas, suggestions, comments, Please?

Tables for layout (unnecessary).

What do I use instead?
(I'm new to this)
Actually, I did some HTML about 4-5 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

A *huge* amount of javascript to do the rollovers where a couple of lines
of
CSS would do.

Still learning CSS, any "plain english" tutorials that you would recommend?
I don't know how to do rollovers with CSS. Actually, I still don't have a
really good handle how CSS work.

Pictures of text. Not nice to blind/partially sighted people or search
engines.

Well, my target audience is going to be people that are asking for graphics
and Engineering related work. Unfortunately, blind or partially sighted
people are not likely to be interested in evaluating my graphics for hire.

Mailto does not work.

Huh, which one? I tried both from my and and they seem to be working. I'm
puzzled now?

That yellow on grey gets tiring after a while.

Yea, I agree there. I have to make the gray very very dark, or use very
llight gray with maybe black text. I'm still tinkering with the color
scheme vs. readability. It will have both, yellow and gray on it, just in
different values.

Cheers
Richard.

"West" <not (AT) this (DOT) one> wrote

"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote in message
news:mBxOa.441$TX6.6518 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

"West" <not (AT) this (DOT) one> wrote in message
news:xlxOa.21967$pK2.33334 (AT) news (DOT) indigo.ie...


"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote in message
news:FTwOa.391$TX6.3961 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

"DaKitty" <Imgonna.com (AT) something (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:y0vOa.91480$Pc5.81702 (AT) fed1read01 (DOT) ..
(I hope I'm in the right forum)
Work in progress:
http://www.cb-design.net

[snip]
Pictures of text. Not nice to blind/partially sighted people or
search
engines.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "pictures of text"

There is a *lot* wrong with pictures of text.

Your browser, as well as probably every programme you use has icons?
What's on most of those icons -- pictures of text?
Yes, a small number of apps allow for resizing of icons, but only one
alternative!

You choose to snip the important part of my post --
"...but if "pictures of text" are being used for navigation, an
alternative
text-based nav system should be provided"


The text is not resisable in many browsers (including the most used
one).
This is an accessibility problem for partially sighted people.

The text is invisible to blind people who use aural browsers or screen
readers.

Most importantly the text is invisible to search engine spiders.

Of lesser importance but still an issue - a picture of some text is
invariably orders of magnitude bigger than the raw text it replaces.

Pictures of text is fine for a logo where the font will usually not be
installed on the viewers system and may even be a hand crafted graphic.
For
content however, no.


There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "pictures of text"

They're not most suitable for a broad audience.
In my case, I'll just take the risk of every 100th client maybe not being
able to reads ALL of the website.
Most of my non computer savvy clientele will be (and already is) asking me
for a paper sample of what CB-Design does.

If I was making a site like Yahoo, or EBay, intended for use by a very broad
audience, I would go with no graphic text.
Still, even those places use a lot of graphics and graphical ads and popups,
so the %-age of text only users is getting smaller and smaller.

"Farlo" <hall.j.m (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote

"DaKitty" <Imgonna.com (AT) something (DOT) net> wrote:

http://www.cb-design.net

The raster lines and colors are making my eyes bleed.

STOP the paaaiiin! Make it sttttoooppppp!!!!

Well, don't spend so much time reading it!
[just kidding]

I agree, the color scheme needs changing.

I'm still little more partial to the dark background with light colored
text.
AND, the final page will have pictures to tell and be the focus of the
story, rather than the text.

DaKitty wrote:

"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote in message
news:FTwOa.391$TX6.3961 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

Mailto does not work.

Huh, which one? I tried both from my and and they seem to be working. I'm
puzzled now?

It might work on your computer, but it won't on a lot of others.

http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Thanks for that info.

Just a question, to clarify that I understood...
Basically, those who do not use IE or outlook are very likely to not be able
to use the mailto.
People who do have it, are not likely to have a problem?

So the issue is not that my "mailto" is not functioning the way a mailto is
intended to function, but rather the presumption that mailto will work on
everyone's system configuration is what is not working?
Boils down to the purist functionality when considering a very wide target
audience?


"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote

DaKitty wrote:


"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote in message
news:FTwOa.391$TX6.3961 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

Mailto does not work.

Huh, which one? I tried both from my and and they seem to be working.
I'm
puzzled now?

It might work on your computer, but it won't on a lot of others.

http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

DaKitty wrote:

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:7616134.EIqbHxCAaN (AT) geoffball (DOT) ..

[mailto: doesn't work.]

It might work on your computer, but it won't on a lot of others.

http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

[top-posting fixed.]

Just a question, to clarify that I understood...
Basically, those who do not use IE or outlook are very likely to not be
able to use the mailto.

It could potentially work on any computer, as long as the user has the
mailto protocol setup to work with an email program. IE, I believe, even
has an option allowing mailto to work with Hotmail, although I doubt it
works too well. The problem (well, it's not a problem, more like the
_reason_) is that many people don't have it configured.

People who do have it, are not likely to have a problem?

People who have it configured won't have a problem.

So the issue is not that my "mailto" is not functioning the way a mailto
is intended to function, but rather the presumption that mailto will work
on everyone's system configuration is what is not working?

I think that's correct, although I'm not sure if it's actually an official
protocol. You're definitely correct on your presumption, though.

Boils down to the purist functionality when considering a very wide target
audience?

No. It's not an issue of a wide target audience. It's not even a purist
issue. The fact is, it's not going to work on a lot, maybe even a majority
of your visitors' computers, so you shouldn't even consider using it. Use a
server-side form instead (there are many, many free ones).

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://68.145.145.156:8080/
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote

DaKitty wrote:

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:7616134.EIqbHxCAaN (AT) geoffball (DOT) ..

[mailto: doesn't work.]

It might work on your computer, but it won't on a lot of others.

http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

[top-posting fixed.]

Just a question, to clarify that I understood...
Basically, those who do not use IE or outlook are very likely to not be
able to use the mailto.

It could potentially work on any computer, as long as the user has the
mailto protocol setup to work with an email program. IE, I believe, even
has an option allowing mailto to work with Hotmail, although I doubt it
works too well. The problem (well, it's not a problem, more like the
_reason_) is that many people don't have it configured.

People who do have it, are not likely to have a problem?

People who have it configured won't have a problem.

So the issue is not that my "mailto" is not functioning the way a mailto
is intended to function, but rather the presumption that mailto will
work
on everyone's system configuration is what is not working?

I think that's correct, although I'm not sure if it's actually an official
protocol. You're definitely correct on your presumption, though.

Boils down to the purist functionality when considering a very wide
target
audience?

No. It's not an issue of a wide target audience. It's not even a purist
issue. The fact is, it's not going to work on a lot, maybe even a majority
of your visitors' computers, so you shouldn't even consider using it. Use
a
server-side form instead (there are many, many free ones).

What if 99% of my target audience is using IE and outlook?
..

DaKitty wrote:

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:2239053.YLdo63i75D (AT) geoffball (DOT) ..

DaKitty wrote:

[mailto:]

Boils down to the purist functionality when considering a very wide
target audience?

No. It's not an issue of a wide target audience. It's not even a purist
issue. The fact is, it's not going to work on a lot, maybe even a
majority of your visitors' computers, so you shouldn't even consider
using it. Use a server-side form instead (there are many, many free
ones).

What if 99% of my target audience is using IE and outlook?

That would never happen.

Even if it did, you'd have no way of knowing it.

Even if you could, they wouldn't all have their systems configured for
mailto to work as you wanted it to.

Even if they did, you'd still have 1% of users who couldn't contact you. Use
a server-side form, and that number would be 0%. Isn't that better?

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://68.145.145.156:8080/
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote

DaKitty wrote:

"Geoff Ball" <geoff.ball (AT) shaw (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:2239053.YLdo63i75D (AT) geoffball (DOT) ..

DaKitty wrote:

[mailto:]

Boils down to the purist functionality when considering a very wide
target audience?

No. It's not an issue of a wide target audience. It's not even a purist
issue. The fact is, it's not going to work on a lot, maybe even a
majority of your visitors' computers, so you shouldn't even consider
using it. Use a server-side form instead (there are many, many free
ones).

What if 99% of my target audience is using IE and outlook?

That would never happen.

Even if it did, you'd have no way of knowing it.

Even if you could, they wouldn't all have their systems configured for
mailto to work as you wanted it to.

Even if they did, you'd still have 1% of users who couldn't contact you.
Use
a server-side form, and that number would be 0%. Isn't that better?

What is your market research experience as it relates to Civil Engineers,
Environmental Engineers, Architects and Land Developers?
How does their system setup differ from the run of the mill web user?
What are their web surfing and emailing habits like?
Are they more likely to go for the personal touch, or are they more inclined
to fill out forms, when considering buying a custom product worth between
$5000 and $30,000.
Are they more likely to fill out a form, email you, fax you or phone you?
Is there an industry standard software universal to just about all of them
that demands a certain system setup?

If you're buying a house, are you more likely to fill out a form, or get the
address of the real-estate agent, and talk to him directly?
What does the high dollar item buying psychology tell you about the habits
of those making significant purchases?

DaKitty wrote:

[Numerous explanations about why the mailto protocol sucks ass.]

What is your market research experience as it relates to Civil Engineers,
Environmental Engineers, Architects and Land Developers?

I don't do market research.

Are they more likely to go for the personal touch, or are they more
inclined to fill out forms

"Error: There is currently no program configured to handle this request."

Yeah. That's the personal touch, all right.

Are they more likely to fill out a form, email you, fax you or phone you?

When selling something for $30K, would you want even 1% of your users to be
unable to contact you?

If you're buying a house, are you more likely to fill out a form, or get
the address of the real-estate agent, and talk to him directly?

It's not like the form or email is going to be the last step in buying the
house. You'd be seeing him directly before you purchased it, I'm sure.

What does the high dollar item buying psychology tell you about the habits
of those making significant purchases?

Where is this going, and what does it have to do with the crappiness of
mailto?

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://68.145.145.156:8080/
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post