[css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
Hi gang: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Thank you. tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Nice. But, those using sidebars are likely not to appreciate it so much. It requires a lot of viewport width or a smallish default text size to avoid horizontal scroll. -- Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.Ephesians 5:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
tedd wrote: Hi gang: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Thank you. tedd Sweet! Has David Laakso seen this site? Nothing constructive to add, however, some of your images seem to need the background changed to match the wrapper div. Regards, Rahul. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
At 8:20 PM +0530 4/27/06, Rahul Gonsalves wrote: tedd wrote: Hi gang: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Thank you. tedd Sweet! Has David Laakso seen this site? Interesting that you should ask -- he's provided much design direction. All my taste is in my mouth, and the way the design looks is to his credit. The man is a master at this! tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
At 9:54 AM -0400 4/27/06, Felix Miata wrote: On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Nice. But, those using sidebars are likely not to appreciate it so much. It requires a lot of viewport width or a smallish default text size to avoid horizontal scroll. At 10:24 AM -0500 4/27/06, David Merchant wrote: Must agree with both reviewers: 1. I use a sidebar virtually 100% of the time and so I have to scroll horizontally to see all of this Web page. On the Catalog page, for instance, I do not see the Price radio buttons at all. Funny how, for many people, the eye notices a vertical scrollbar readily and thus realizes there is more to the Web page, but doesn't notice too readily at all a horizontal scroll bar. Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)? Thanks. tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
At 1:23 PM -0400 4/27/06, David Laakso wrote: On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed: Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)? Thanks. tedd I prefer 780 min with 1200 max feeding same to the 'evil one' with 'ie expressions. Felix will, I hope, provide the method he feels is best. I believe all three of us have the same goal, although our method of achieving it is different. It is good to have more than one opinion. It is our users who ultimately determine which opinion is best; and, therein, the dilemma. David Yes, and here's one more consideration -- what zoom level (1-10) is considered 100% on a Mac? I wrote a sci fi story one time about a person who was lost in time and couldn't figure out where the present was -- that's how I am with zoom levels on my Mac. What does the rest of the world see by default? tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
The main page title bar says Ancient Title. Think you mean Tile :) On 4/27/06 5:55 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi gang: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Thank you. tedd __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)? Some may disagree with this, but I try to aim at using WebTV's (MSN TV) browser's usable screen area as a max measurement: 544 for the width (I haven't succeeded with all my pages yet). As we all know, it is hard, really, to declare a max, as people can have their desktop taskbars horizontal or vertical, regular height(width) or double or greater; their browser have sidebars, they have several toolbars, or have their toolbars set to have large icons with text beneath the icons; and of course can have the browser set at some size other than full window; etc, etc, that even on a 1280 x 1024 screen still can have problems with a Web page designed for 800 x 600. TTFN, David -- Director of Integrated Technology CATALyST Louisiana Tech University catalyst.latech.edu __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
On 4/27/06, David Merchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip a max measurement: 544 for the width TTFN, David /snip 8^O 544!? Max!? Wow! What's that look like at a 1600x1200+ resolution? -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
On 06/04/27 12:32 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed: At 9:54 AM -0400 4/27/06, Felix Miata wrote: On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Nice. But, those using sidebars are likely not to appreciate it so much. It requires a lot of viewport width or a smallish default text size to avoid horizontal scroll. At 10:24 AM -0500 4/27/06, David Merchant wrote: Must agree with both reviewers: 1. I use a sidebar virtually 100% of the time and so I have to scroll horizontally to see all of this Web page. On the Catalog page, for instance, I do not see the Price radio buttons at all. Funny how, for many people, the eye notices a vertical scrollbar readily and thus realizes there is more to the Web page, but doesn't notice too readily at all a horizontal scroll bar. Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)? None. Let it be whatever size it needs to be. Web browsers are designed to do a good job of precisely that. What you as designer need to do is think about the way the browser and your users work and merge that understanding into the look and function you're after. So, you've decided your design looks best at a 900px overall width, say using your own default browser default text size as your P text size. If that's 16px, divide 900 by 16 to get 56em. That's your width, no more, no less. That gives you the perspective that you already decided works best. Size all your container widths to add up to about 56em wide. Then when a visitor comes along with bigger text and a bigger window, it should look about the same, because the all the relationships are unchanged. If he has a bigger window but the same text size, the perspective will remain unchanged, and still look the way you wanted, as it should with smaller text and a similar window size. Other users will have either narrower windows with the same text, or other combinations that want to squeeze your design, changing the perspective. By keeping that overall 56em width, these people will get a horizontal scroll. It's your job as designer to figure out just how much scroll is compatible with good function and accessibility, which may be zero, and make design adjustment(s) compatible with both your design and good function and access. Those adjustments may very well including permitting a reduced width, in order to allow a squeeze in place of a scroll for viewers with larger font-size to viewport width ratios. Only a lot of experimenting with different viewport widths and text sizes will permit you to make good decisions here, though asking opinions here can't hurt any. In the end, there is no magic across the board magic minimum or maximum. Using either creates a limitation. Limitations on the web are usually unnecessary at best, and destructive to user satisfaction, accessibility, and usability at worst. -- Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.Ephesians 5:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
I suspect the large font size must be due to selecting Georgia as the first choice? Just a question, as a newbie ( still! ), what does the lge class do; as in ...span class=lge nbsp;|nbsp; /span... I didn't see it defined in either style sheet? Really liked the clean design, especially after reducing the text size! J. Chaffin -- I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. --- Mark Twain __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
8^O 544!? Max!? Wow! What's that look like at a 1600x1200+ resolution? Well, I actually try to make them fluid, so for larger resolutions the sites don't look bad, but 'tis hard to make sites completely fluid (at least for me) and so at some point when reducing window down, the page isn't going to look to fabulous, so I figure if I reduce down to 544 and it still works, I'm moderately happy with the result. I figure for lower resolutions, that's handheld territory, which I then use emulators for and if the site - some handhelds are good at reducing Web sites on their own to fit into the screen, others reduce images or allow folk to turn image support off (which I understand most do, which is why folk need to have good alt text for their images). I'm still trying to learn how to code for handhelds. Listapart recommends avoid using pixes for anything larger than 5px, to use ems or percentages for anything larger (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pocket/). One day I'd like to implement something like link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=handheld href=mobile.css / for any mobile visitors, but that's some time off I'm afraid. Anywho, I'm in the midst of major overhaul of our sites, and there are days I want to go back to paper (not really, but momentarily I do). TTFN, David -- Director of Integrated Technology CATALyST Louisiana Tech University __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
-Original Message- From: tedd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:55 AM To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com Hi gang: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Thank you. tedd Might look into image replacement or sIFR for the headings - some nasty anti-aliasing occurring: http://i3.tinypic.com/wknyba.jpg (Default IE/FF/Opera on XP SP2) __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
At 3:59 PM -0400 4/27/06, Tom Livingston wrote: On 4/27/06, David Merchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip a max measurement: 544 for the width TTFN, David /snip 8^O 544!? Max!? Wow! What's that look like at a 1600x1200+ resolution? I personally think that in trying to accommodate the smallest screens, you're losing the larger screen audience. tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
Felix hath said: Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)? None. Let it be whatever size it needs to be. -snip (good stuff) -- Those adjustments may very well including permitting a reduced width, in order to allow a squeeze in place of a scroll for viewers with larger font-size to viewport width ratios. Only a lot of experimenting with different viewport widths and text sizes will permit you to make good decisions here, though asking opinions here can't hurt any. In the end, there is no magic across the board magic minimum or maximum. Using either creates a limitation. Limitations on the web are usually unnecessary at best, and destructive to user satisfaction, accessibility, and usability at worst. My take on this screen size things is a bit different and I'm sure there are those who will disagree, but here goes. According to w3c, only 20 percent of the viewing audience has a screen size of 800 x 600 and that figure is dropping at a rate of 5 percent per six months (10 percent per year). As such, in two years, the narrow-screen user number will drop below a detectable amount. Furthermore, not trying to be elitist, but our target audience has money to burn, so I don't think there will be many who will be both frugal in purchasing a larger monitor size and yet be generous with a vanity tile purchase. Of course, I may be just trying to rationalize not redoing the layout, which as you know, is not trivial. Many thanks to all you hawk-eye's that caught things I would not have ever seen. tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
On 4/27/06, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: only 20 percent of the viewing audience has a screen size of 800 x 600 and that figure is dropping at a rate of 5 percent per six months (10 percent per year). As such, in two years, the narrow-screen user number will drop below a detectable amount. Do I detect some sloppy math here? In two years would be 20% times 90% times 90% or 16.2% - still very detectable as far as I can see. In fact at that rate it still won't fall below 10% until the 8th year from now, and it will still be over 5% in 13 years, at least if Excell is still doing math right. -- Ed Seedhouse __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
Ted, Nice job on this site. Here is what I like and what I suggest IMHO What I like (strengths): 1. Color choices and blending is easy on the eyes. 2. Clean design, not a lot of clutter and overload of useless content. 3. Catalog form is concise and clear. What I suggest: 1. older 12 Laptop users with 800x600 screens will struggle with minimum web page settings. Consider fixing min width to accommodate these guys, I would suggest 760px min width. Max width of 960px is plenty big. Larger screens are sharing browser windows with other apps. 2. More along the lines of less is more, why repeat the logo and navigation links at the bottom, it is not adding anything valuable, save web page realestate and eliminate both at the bottom. 3. Move navigation links say towards the right into the header banner. 4. Put your phone number on the header banner, make it easy to find your contact number. 5. Add a simple php breadcrumb script below the header banner left aligned to help viewer know where they are. Just email me if you would like to use mine. 6. Add price in caption of Catalog form results. 7. Add shipping, return, privacy, terms of use, policies - commercial Ecommerce sites must haves. deano -Original Message- From: tedd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:55 AM To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com Hi gang: Please review the following site: http://ancientstones.com Suggestions and comments welcomed. Thank you. tedd Might look into image replacement or sIFR for the headings - some nasty anti-aliasing occurring: http://i3.tinypic.com/wknyba.jpg (Default IE/FF/Opera on XP SP2) __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
