Adam Ducker wrote: > First Glance: The page looks good. Loads quickly. A little busy with > graphics for my taste but that's a personal preference. The page > resizes nicely in large and small windows.
Gotcha. With regard to the images, it's a Flash conversion and was very image intensive. I've managed to cut the image usage to a third with this new design...if you can imagine. > CSS: Looks good to me. No real opinion on it. Groovy. > Different Browsers: The text looks the same in all browsers mostly. > That's the hard part I think. IE 6 has some issues though. I don't > like that the opacity for the main body sections don't work the same in > Firefox as in IE and the solutions to fix it make for bad CSS in my > opinion. I try to stay away from opacity for this reason but the > examples are out there. In the end though the difference degrades > nicely and there's no loss of use so you'd be fine. Hmm. Interesting. I see no discernible difference in the opacity. I thought the use of gradient and rgba would provide more consistent results than opacity. More research is required, I suppose. > Looks good for me on Safari in windows. This helps me avoid mac a lot > of times. For a look on other browsers try this link if you haven't > before: http://browsershots.org/ I've never really had much problems coding for Safari. I've used browsershots before and gave em another try here (thanks for the reminder). > Without Images: Looking at a page without images (disable them using > the Firefox web developer tool bar) shows you what it might be like on a > brutally slow connection. Pretty good in this view, though I loose the > page title and the top links are unreadable in this instance so you > might take a look at that. You might switch to an IMG tag with ALT and > TITLE attributes to fix that. I'm so unhappy with all the solutions for image replacement and thoroughly disappointed that there's no standard method which works consistently without bloating markup or style. One would think there would at least be a simple JS solution for detecting whether or not a user has images enabled. Anyway, I'll look into another solution. > Without CSS: Your HTML is good. You've used H1, H2 tags well and ULs > too. One problem is your top links aren't at the top of the page when > styles are disabled though, so this could cause trouble some users with > disabilities. Thanks. I chose to put the HUDs at the bottom because I consider them auxiliary information and thought the main content of the page should come first. I'll have another session with my methodology in this case though and see it it stands up to scrutiny. > Overall a really good page. The things I've outlined aren't show > stoppers for the most part but may make your site more usable. Thanks! I'm thoroughly interested in making it more usable and will give your points some time and attention and see if I can work out some compromises. Thanks, Adam, for your time and feedback. It's much appreciated. --Bill -- /** * Bill Brown * TheHolierGrail.com & MacNimble.com * From dot concept...to dot com...since 1999. ***********************************************/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
