Work In progress - critique please?

"Mark Parnell" <webmaster (AT) clarkecomputers (DOT) com.au> wrote

DaKitty wrote:

I'll change the files to html anyway. The program I was using saved
them as jsp, and when I saw they are showing up in IE, I really
didn't pay much attention to why they got saved as JSP. Now I know.
I'll save them as html, like I wanted them to be in the first place.
That will fix the problem, right?

I can't see anything in those pages that requires them to be .jsp, so yes,
that should fix it.

okay, than a question...
The navbar is made with help of java script, the way it handles rollovers.
Does that mean you can't use the navbar buttons?

I do have a text navbar at the bottom, although, it's not functional at the
moment yet. I haven't gotten around to linking it yet, so it's only text at
the moment.
Oh, another question... Are you not a fan of Java script, and like to do
websites without it?

DaKitty wrote:

The navbar is made with help of java script, the way it handles
rollovers. Does that mean you can't use the navbar buttons?

I'll answer your question twice - firstly what I think you were asking, and
then what you actually asked ;-)

Java and JavaScript are two completely different creatures. JavaScript can
be contained in a normal HTML file. So renaming the file to .html won't
affect your JavaScript. .jsp files are designed for Java "Scriptlets" -
Java, not JavaScript. You have no Java (that I saw on my quick check,
anyway), therefore changing the file extenstions to .html is fine.

To answer the question how you asked it, yes I can use the navigation
buttons, even though I have JavaScript disabled in my browser (so I can
follow the links, I just don't see the rollovers). This is the way it is
meant to be.

Oh, another question... Are you not a fan of Java script, and like to
do websites without it?

There is nothing wrong with JavaScript, as long as your site functions
without it (which yours seems to :-) ). As long as it is used for adding
bells and whistles, not for essential features, it is fine. That way, users
with JavaScript disabled will still be able to use your site. You seem to
have succeeded there (which is unusual!). Good work!

Incidentally, rollovers can be done using CSS, so even users without
JavaScript get to see them ;-)

You should be providing alt text for your images, though.

http://validator.w3.org may help (for that and other things). (You will need
to add a Doctype declaration at the beginning of your documents though).

I noticed you have made your background darker. That's fine (the yellow is
much easier to read now), but now I can't read the black text at the bottom
of the page.

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

"Mark Parnell" <webmaster (AT) clarkecomputers (DOT) com.au> wrote

DaKitty wrote:

The navbar is made with help of java script, the way it handles
rollovers. Does that mean you can't use the navbar buttons?


I'll answer your question twice - firstly what I think you were asking,
and
then what you actually asked ;-)

Java and JavaScript are two completely different creatures. JavaScript
can
be contained in a normal HTML file. So renaming the file to .html won't
affect your JavaScript. .jsp files are designed for Java "Scriptlets" -

AHA!
I knew there was something there I didn't know.
Thank you for that explanation
I'm still relatively new to this, I think you can tell. Please forgive my
milion questions.
[looking up sheepisly]

Java, not JavaScript. You have no Java (that I saw on my quick check,
anyway), therefore changing the file extenstions to .html is fine.

With the little I know, I think all I have in there is java script.
As you can tell, I'm no coder, I rely on what HTML buildong programs put in
there. Once I get more hang of that, I'l get into more coding. I'm starting
to understand bits and pieces of the code as get into making things...

To answer the question how you asked it, yes I can use the navigation
buttons, even though I have JavaScript disabled in my browser (so I can
follow the links, I just don't see the rollovers). This is the way it is
meant to be.

Okay. When you do a rollover with java script disabled, what do you see, an
image place holder? Image name?
I'm thinking if I name the image in a more descriptive way, you will be able
to see the name of it on the rollover?
(well, I'm just making a guess here)

Oh, another question... Are you not a fan of Java script, and like to
do websites without it?

There is nothing wrong with JavaScript, as long as your site functions
without it (which yours seems to :-) ). As long as it is used for adding
bells and whistles, not for essential features, it is fine. That way,
users
with JavaScript disabled will still be able to use your site. You seem to
have succeeded there (which is unusual!). Good work!

Well, I always put that pure text navbar at the bottom. It doesn't bother
anyone or anything, many sites have it, and it just makes good sense to have
it. There have been times when for one reason or another the text would
upload, and non of the images do, in which case, you can't see the
buttons....
I've seen some new users download IE, and have "display images" or whatever
it's called option turned off...
I think there is a way to ad a description to the image place holder (at
least in IE) so that you can see a description, even if the image doesn't
load up.

Incidentally, rollovers can be done using CSS, so even users without
JavaScript get to see them ;-)

I still haven't fully grasped the CSS, actualy, they still give me a major
headache. I need to find a tutorial that starts with plain english first. Or
I need to find a friend that knows CSS well, and corner them IRL to explain
them to me, where I can barrage them with questions till it sinks in

You should be providing alt text for your images, though.

THat sounds kind of like what I started taling about above.
All images will have a text caption near them too...

http://validator.w3.org may help (for that and other things). (You will
need
to add a Doctype declaration at the beginning of your documents though).

I noticed you have made your background darker. That's fine (the yellow
is
much easier to read now), but now I can't read the black text at the
bottom
of the page.

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

DaKitty wrote:

"Mark Parnell" <webmaster (AT) clarkecomputers (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:3f0cbc08$0$23103$5a62ac22 (AT) freenews (DOT) iinet.net.au...

To answer the question how you asked it, yes I can use the navigation
buttons, even though I have JavaScript disabled in my browser (so I
can follow the links, I just don't see the rollovers). This is the
way it is meant to be.

Okay. When you do a rollover with java script disabled, what do you
see, an image place holder? Image name?

I see the original image - it just isn't replaced by the rollover image.

I'm thinking if I name the image in a more descriptive way, you will
be able to see the name of it on the rollover?

No. The only (?) time you would see the name of the image is if you are
using (e.g.) a text browser and there is no alt attribute set.

(well, I'm just making a guess here)

No worries.

Oh, another question... Are you not a fan of Java script, and like
to do websites without it?

There is nothing wrong with JavaScript, as long as your site
functions without it (which yours seems to :-) ). As long as it is
used for adding bells and whistles, not for essential features, it
is fine. That way, users with JavaScript disabled will still be
able to use your site. You seem to have succeeded there (which is
unusual!). Good work!

Well, I always put that pure text navbar at the bottom. It doesn't
bother anyone or anything, many sites have it, and it just makes good
sense to have it.

And the search engines will like it :-)

There have been times when for one reason or
another the text would upload, and non of the images do, in which
case, you can't see the buttons....

Another good reason to have appropriate alt text.

I've seen some new users download IE, and have "display images" or
whatever it's called option turned off...

Or blind users who use a speech browser, or users who use a text browser...

I think there is a way to ad a description to the image place holder
(at least in IE) so that you can see a description, even if the image
doesn't load up.

I think you're talking about the alt attribute. ;-)

I still haven't fully grasped the CSS, actualy, they still give me a
major headache. I need to find a tutorial that starts with plain
english first. Or I need to find a friend that knows CSS well, and
corner them IRL to explain them to me, where I can barrage them with
questions till it sinks in

Well worth the effort to learn. Ask brucie for some tutorials, and hang
around in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets for a while :-)

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

"Mark Parnell" <webmaster (AT) clarkecomputers (DOT) com.au> wrote

DaKitty wrote:
"Mark Parnell" <webmaster (AT) clarkecomputers (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:3f0cbc08$0$23103$5a62ac22 (AT) freenews (DOT) iinet.net.au...

To answer the question how you asked it, yes I can use the navigation
buttons, even though I have JavaScript disabled in my browser (so I
can follow the links, I just don't see the rollovers). This is the
way it is meant to be.

Okay. When you do a rollover with java script disabled, what do you
see, an image place holder? Image name?

I see the original image - it just isn't replaced by the rollover image.

So if I put an image name under "alt" attribute, is that what would

I'm thinking if I name the image in a more descriptive way, you will
be able to see the name of it on the rollover?

No. The only (?) time you would see the name of the image is if you are
using (e.g.) a text browser and there is no alt attribute set.

(well, I'm just making a guess here)


No worries.

Oh, another question... Are you not a fan of Java script, and like
to do websites without it?

There is nothing wrong with JavaScript, as long as your site
functions without it (which yours seems to :-) ). As long as it is
used for adding bells and whistles, not for essential features, it
is fine. That way, users with JavaScript disabled will still be
able to use your site. You seem to have succeeded there (which is
unusual!). Good work!

Well, I always put that pure text navbar at the bottom. It doesn't
bother anyone or anything, many sites have it, and it just makes good
sense to have it.

And the search engines will like it :-)
Yea. I have all that text and ther text that's in my banner in an invisible

metatag (I think that's what it's called), at least I think i do, it's in
the template, I'll have to look at the code for each page and see if it
shows up.

There have been times when for one reason or
another the text would upload, and non of the images do, in which
case, you can't see the buttons....

Another good reason to have appropriate alt text.

I've seen some new users download IE, and have "display images" or
whatever it's called option turned off...

Or blind users who use a speech browser, or users who use a text
browser...

I can understand that part for most websites, but, I'll be selling graphics.
I may not get any blind people looking at my graphics.
Npw, if I was a story writer... I'd be very concerned about blind users.
It's the target audiennce thing...

I think there is a way to ad a description to the image place holder
(at least in IE) so that you can see a description, even if the image
doesn't load up.

I think you're talking about the alt attribute. ;-)

I still haven't fully grasped the CSS, actualy, they still give me a
major headache. I need to find a tutorial that starts with plain
english first. Or I need to find a friend that knows CSS well, and
corner them IRL to explain them to me, where I can barrage them with
questions till it sinks in


Well worth the effort to learn. Ask brucie for some tutorials, and hang
around in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets for a while :-)

Ah, very cool. Thank you very much for all your help

DaKitty wrote:

"kchayka" <kcha-ns-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3f0c3938$1 (AT) news (DOT) sihope.com...
DaKitty wrote:

http://www.cb-design.net

I'm still little more partial to the dark background with light colored
text.

Can somebody explain to me how dark backgrounds became so popular? I
find it inherently more difficult to read light text on dark background.
Seems that the chosen colors never contrast enough, so I gotta make the
text size huge to read it. Is this supposed to be "art" or something?

Actually, for those of us who used computers back in 1980's, black
background with white, green or amber thext is the norm.

Actually, I was programming on dumb terminals back in the 1970's, so I
have no small experience with this. It is rather different than working
on a high resolution monitor. These days I spend even more time in
front of a screen than I did back then.

For me, dark background is still easier to look at for a long time, provided
there is enough contrast between the text and the background.

And there lies the problem with most sites that use dark backgrounds.
Various shades of gray seem to be the latest fad for either text or
background colors. They all suck for legibility.

Black background/green text being the most pleasant, long term.

It's tolerable for plain text in a monospace font, but that hardly
describes most web pages.

Kind of the same reason the theathers are dark when you go in and watch a
movie...

Are you suggesting I work in the dark so these pages will somehow be
easier to read?

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

"Mark Parnell" <webmaster (AT) clarkecomputers (DOT) com.au> wrote

DaKitty wrote:

So if I put an image name under "alt" attribute,


No - by definition the alt attribute is an _alternative_ for the image.
In
your case, if the image is of text, the alt text should be the same as the
text on the image. e.g. your first link button, "3D Modeling". That
image
should have alt="3D Modeling". Then any users that have image loading
turned off or are using a text browser, etc will see that text, even
though
they can't see the image.

Okay!
That's how I used it before. What do you know, I used it the right way the
first time around. Kewl!

Yea. I have all that text and ther text that's in my banner in an
invisible metatag (I think that's what it's called), at least I think
i do, it's in the template, I'll have to look at the code for each
page and see if it shows up.

The META description tag? You might want to check the spelling in that
;-)

Oh, no, you must have looked at it!
I'll double check. Usually I type it on the page itself, then after
spellchecking I paste it into a meta tag.
But, I'm notorious about getting into a hurry and making typos and blowing
off the spellchecker till the last minute.

Or blind users who use a speech browser, or users who use a text
browser...

I can understand that part for most websites, but, I'll be selling
graphics. I may not get any blind people looking at my graphics.
Npw, if I was a story writer... I'd be very concerned about blind
users. It's the target audiennce thing...


And it would be a little strange for them to have image loading turned off
if they are looking for graphics work, but you should still include alt
text
for your images anyway (it is required in the specifications).

I agree with you there

"kchayka" <kcha-ns-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote

DaKitty wrote:

"kchayka" <kcha-ns-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3f0c3938$1 (AT) news (DOT) sihope.com...
DaKitty wrote:

http://www.cb-design.net

I'm still little more partial to the dark background with light
colored
text.

Can somebody explain to me how dark backgrounds became so popular? I
find it inherently more difficult to read light text on dark
background.
Seems that the chosen colors never contrast enough, so I gotta make
the
text size huge to read it. Is this supposed to be "art" or something?

Actually, for those of us who used computers back in 1980's, black
background with white, green or amber thext is the norm.

Actually, I was programming on dumb terminals back in the 1970's, so I
have no small experience with this. It is rather different than working
on a high resolution monitor.

Yes, that comes into play too.

These days I spend even more time in
front of a screen than I did back then.

For me, dark background is still easier to look at for a long time,
provided
there is enough contrast between the text and the background.

And there lies the problem with most sites that use dark backgrounds.
Various shades of gray seem to be the latest fad for either text or
background colors. They all suck for legibility.

very true!

Black background/green text being the most pleasant, long term.

It's tolerable for plain text in a monospace font, but that hardly
describes most web pages.

true. Don't you love iot when they do a black background, and then start
mixing bright red with bright green???

Kind of the same reason the theathers are dark when you go in and watch
a
movie...

Are you suggesting I work in the dark so these pages will somehow be
easier to read?

Well, don't most people work in the dark
[oukay, I'm being really silly here]

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.