Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
I also realize that ZenGardens is sorta frozen in space and time and Eric would have done some things differently if he was doing it today - I found that real interesting reading in the csszengardens book. I think you mean Dave [Shae] (not Eric) Cheers Nathan - Original Message - From: Donna Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome when designers rely on the background image and define colour for their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback background colour. Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many cases how one can push the boundaries using CSS. I would not hold it as a model for what should or shouldn't be implemented on a production site. Hi Patrick: In this case there is fallback colour. Its perfectly readable w/out the background image, at least it is when I hide background image w/ the webdev toolbar in Firefox. and from what i've observed when it is loading. okay okay *smile* maybe zengardens is not a good example, I mainly mentioned it because I was familiar with it, of course, and knew that others would be on here, also. I also realize that ZenGardens is sorta frozen in space and time and Eric would have done some things differently if he was doing it today - I found that real interesting reading in the csszengardens book. I think there are issues w/ this design but I can't see how the background image is particularly an issue - if it was embedded in the html, altogether different, obviously. so okay, I'm a newby and can't believe I'm arguing with you experts (maybe because its too hot here in Maine even though its much better than a lot of the U.S.) but nobody has convinced me that the background image here is a problem. cheers Donna ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Donna Jones wrote: Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome when designers rely on the background image and define colour for their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback background colour. Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many cases how one can push the boundaries using CSS. I would not hold it as a model for what should or shouldn't be implemented on a production site. Hi Patrick: In this case there is fallback colour. Its perfectly readable w/out the background image, at least it is when I hide background image w/ the webdev toolbar in Firefox. and from what i've observed when it is loading. A Newb from Maine? Perish the thought. -- °¿° ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Mugur Padurean wrote: Hello, reality check here. Quoting the US and Australian available IT infrastructure, as a good reason for building huge web pages, is wrong for at least three reasons: I surely didn't mean to be doing that, please see below. 1. Over 90% percent of the world population do not live there and do not have dial-up access or other types of network access of such quality. In Romania where I am living dial-up access it's ... frustrating. So it's cable sometimes, ADSL if way too expensive and other means of network access are are inaccessible due to cost or limited area of availability. What about laptops ? Or wireless access? Both are much slower but in wide spread use. Did you know in my country you are charged by the megabyte ? Technology is NOT spread uniformly all over the world, and making your page smaller it's a better, smarter and fair approach than waiting for the world to catch up with you guys. I'm surprised you don't care but that's another story. Hi Mugar: glad to have a reality check, especially from Romania. ah, I care! and I wasn't saying that *I* make big pages, I try to keep mine really small. That's one reason I still have dial-up, so I don't forget what its like for everyone else. In the city (small to moderate) I live in a lot of people have cable. It was a test city early on for their cable I have never used broadband, some for security reasons, but mainly I don't want to lose touch with how fast things load, or not, that I'm designing. That said, I hadn't thought very much about how the IT structure, in general, probably makes a BIG difference in how dial-up works, so glad to have those thoughts in my brain. I generally connect at 53K and I bet that may be better than a lot of people on dial-up. I had known how in most (a lot) of Europe you are charged for download time. BUT, in this particular site we're discussing, the designer thinks they are targeting local businesses and they probably have figured that out, so odds are no one from anywhere else but Australia will even want to visit this site; and they're targetting businesses which, apparently, are on broadband. and their html is under 4K, which you have to admit is pretty slim. and the same graphic is in the background on every page, so its just one download. 2.Is technology evenly spread in your countries ( US and Australia)? Is there no place in those countries where Internet access makes you wanna kill that evil designer that put a 4 Mb flash intro on your favourite site ? I bet you all live in big cities, don't you ? Lucky guys .. well, medium size as I said. But, I do think technology is not spread out evenly, I know its not in Maine (n. U.S.). I think probably most of the major population areas can get broadband but if you're not in a city its pretty spotty. 3. Australia and U.S are two countries where going big with your pages will cost you more, as in bandwidth cost (etc), and in the end will lead to loosing clients. Isn't it ? I think a site has to be really very active for bandwidth costs to kick in. I know with anything I've ever done it hasn't been an issue; of course, its something to keep in mind. maybe the newsletters at Maine Humanities might all of a sudden become wildly popular. :-) Otherwise we will end up with a web full of 10 Mb pages with embedded databases, wallpaper backgrounds, tag soup and proprietary technologies ... oh, wait ... we already have that! Damn ... Cute. So, I agree with everything you say as a general principle. I'm 3/4ths Luddite, after all. its just in this particular case, the separation of the image from the html - is not building big *pages*. at most it is one big page but what feels seems different in this instance is that the image is in the background so the image is not even necessary to see the page and load the page. Of course, the general principle is that that contributes to over-all bloat but some people have already said that e.g. in the case of csszengardens that there are legitimate reasons for breaking that rule - I would just argue the same for this website (other design problems aside). they know their audience, its local, its on broadband. cheers Donna ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Hello, reality check here. Quoting the US and Australian available IT infrastructure, as a good reason for building huge web pages, is wrong for at least three reasons: 1. Over 90% percent of the world population do not live there and do not have dial-up access or other types of network access of such quality. In Romania where I am living dial-up access it's ... frustrating. So it's cable sometimes, ADSL if way too expensive and other means of network access are are inaccessible due to cost or limited area of availability. What about laptops ? Or wireless access? Both are much slower but in wide spread use. Did you know in my country you are charged by the megabyte ? Technology is NOT spread uniformly all over the world, and making your page smaller it's a better, smarter and fair approach than waiting for the world to catch up with you guys. I'm surprised you don't care but that's another story. 2.Is technology evenly spread in your countries ( US and Australia)? Is there no place in those countries where Internet access makes you wanna kill that evil designer that put a 4 Mb flash intro on your favourite site ? I bet you all live in big cities, don't you ? Lucky guys .. 3. Australia and U.S are two countries where going big with your pages will cost you more, as in bandwidth cost (etc), and in the end will lead to loosing clients. Isn't it ? Do you know what's the easy way to achieve a pixel perfect design on any browser ? Yes, tables ! Or is it not ? We here, all know that's not really true and we stand for it. And for usability and ACCESSIBILITY. And accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology availability or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to raise awareness first and give an impulse to all of us to build a better web. A web for everyone, everywhere ! Otherwise we will end up with a web full of 10 Mb pages with embedded databases, wallpaper backgrounds, tag soup and proprietary technologies ... oh, wait ... we already have that! Damn ...
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Mugur Padurean wrote: Hello, reality check here. Quoting the US and Australian available IT infrastructure, as a good reason for building huge web pages, is wrong for at least three reasons: I surely didn't mean to be doing that, please see below. 1. Over 90% percent of the world population do not live there and do not have dial-up access or other types of network access of such quality. In Romania where I am living dial-up access it's ... frustrating. So it's cable sometimes, ADSL if way too expensive and other means of network access are are inaccessible due to cost or limited area of availability. What about laptops ? Or wireless access? Both are much slower but in wide spread use. Did you know in my country you are charged by the megabyte ? Technology is NOT spread uniformly all over the world, and making your page smaller it's a better, smarter and fair approach than waiting for the world to catch up with you guys. I'm surprised you don't care but that's another story. Hi Mugar: glad to have a reality check, especially from Romania. ah, I care! and I wasn't saying that *I* make big pages, I try to keep mine really small. That's one reason I still have dial-up, so I don't forget what its like for everyone else. In the city (small to moderate) I live in a lot of people have cable. It was a test city early on for their cable I have never used broadband, some for security reasons, but mainly I don't want to lose touch with how fast things load, or not, that I'm designing. That said, I hadn't thought very much about how the IT structure, in general, probably makes a BIG difference in how dial-up works, so glad to have those thoughts in my brain. I generally connect at 53K and I bet that may be better than a lot of people on dial-up. I had known how in most (a lot) of Europe you are charged for download time. BUT, in this particular site we're discussing, the designer thinks they are targeting local businesses and they probably have figured that out, so odds are no one from anywhere else but Australia will even want to visit this site; and they're targetting businesses which, apparently, are on broadband. and their html is under 4K, which you have to admit is pretty slim. and the same graphic is in the background on every page, so its just one download. 2.Is technology evenly spread in your countries ( US and Australia)? Is there no place in those countries where Internet access makes you wanna kill that evil designer that put a 4 Mb flash intro on your favourite site ? I bet you all live in big cities, don't you ? Lucky guys .. well, medium size as I said. But, I do think technology is not spread out evenly, I know its not in Maine (n. U.S.). I think probably most of the major population areas can get broadband but if you're not in a city its pretty spotty. 3. Australia and U.S are two countries where going big with your pages will cost you more, as in bandwidth cost (etc), and in the end will lead to loosing clients. Isn't it ? I think a site has to be really very active for bandwidth costs to kick in. I know with anything I've ever done it hasn't been an issue; of course, its something to keep in mind. maybe the newsletters at Maine Humanities might all of a sudden become wildly popular. :-) Otherwise we will end up with a web full of 10 Mb pages with embedded databases, wallpaper backgrounds, tag soup and proprietary technologies ... oh, wait ... we already have that! Damn ... Cute. So, I agree with everything you say as a general principle. I'm 3/4ths Luddite, after all. its just in this particular case, the separation of the image from the html - is not building big *pages*. at most it is one big page but what feels seems different in this instance is that the image is in the background so the image is not even necessary to see the page and load the page. Of course, the general principle is that that contributes to over-all bloat but some people have already said that e.g. in the case of csszengardens that there are legitimate reasons for breaking that rule - I would just argue the same for this website (other design problems aside). they know their audience, its local, its on broadband. cheers Donna ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 26/7/05 4:18 PM, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology availability or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to raise awareness first and give an impulse to all of us to build a better web. A web for everyone, everywhere ! I agree that those are the ideals we should try to achieve. And Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] also wrote: Hello, reality check here. But part of the reality is that many websites have a specific target market. One site I work on has a very narrow, highly specialized market. My client knows his customers and potential customers. They are all on broadband. They have to be for their industry. As such, I was instructed to design the site for broadband access. The client is the one calling the shots and paying the bill. We, as designers, give advise regarding the pros cons of various requests by the client and may recommend other alternatives. But in the end, the client has the final say. That is the reality. -- But we can still try to make the site as accessible as possible within the client-defined framework. Hope Stewart ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
True, but how do you keep your site local on the web? And what if my bussiness in Romania on dial-up finds your services in Australia (aimed at local broadbanders) so attractive that wants to do business with you? Hey, maybe this way i can get my business on the broadband level but here in Romania ! What, you were planning to turn me down ... becouse i'm on dial-up in Romania? quote But part of the reality is that many websites have a specific target market. One site I work on has a very narrow, highly specialized market. My client knows his customers and potential customers. They are all on broadband. They have to be for their industry. / quote They have a specialized target in terms of industry, i agree, but not in terms of locations of their target clients ( i hope ). If i'm in the same bussiness in Romania (and i can pay) will they refuse me? quote But in the end, the client has the final say. / quote No the client does not have the final say. He has the initial one ... and it's our job to take them from the Dark Ages of thinking to 21st Century of doing business on the net. :)
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
quote what feels seems different in this instance is that the image is in the background so the image is not even necessary to see the page and load the page. / qoute Why put it there then ? If it's not needed then make it go away ! And voila ... you just turned a broadband only into a everyone everywhere page. :) I think that using images to beautify the page is questionable but not necessary wrong. No client wants a huge page where the first thing you see it's a giant forest, nor do they want a text only version. There is some degree of balance between content and visual composition elements to be desired, i think. There were like 5 links 20 words and a 800 by 600 pixels image of a forest ! And it's not the forest that i don't see fit in that page. I liked the forest ... I'm gonna use it as my ... oops, not gonna say that :) quote they know their audience, its local, its on broadband. / quote Wow, I don't care how much it costs I WANT THAT TECHNOLOGY that will keep my site being accessed, for all eternity, by anyone else but who I want to ! It will make an incredible spam filter ... Pardon my joke but why make a website if all they need it's a brochure (of course I know why, don't you ?). That's more likely to obtain the desired effect ... don't you think ? I know these posts become an exercise in free web thinking and i guess it's time to move them off line. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Teach me a lesson or two :) Let's spare the others ;)
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 26/7/05 7:07 PM, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True, but how do you keep your site local on the web? And what if my bussiness in Romania on dial-up finds your services in Australia (aimed at local broadbanders) so attractive that wants to do business with you? Hey, maybe this way i can get my business on the broadband level but here in Romania ! What, you were planning to turn me down ... becouse i'm on dial-up in Romania? The site is not aimed at local broadbanders. It is aimed worldwide at large corporations and multinationals like Exxon Mobil, Petrobras, Woodside LNG, Qatar Petroleum, China Petroleum Corp, Egypt Petroleum Co, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Nigeria LNG Ltd, Shell, PEMEX. These are some of my client's customers. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
It does not matter who is it you aimed for. I CAN ACCESS IT. And i don't mean me Mugur, but me, another multi-national, with headquarters in another part of the world with local to ISP broadband connection but no broadband outside the country, witch happen to be common practice in some countries around the world. You have to understand that whether you approach it purely abstract, or pragmatic or any other way designing and efficient fast loading graphically rich web site it's possible, and a good idea. Would your client want to expand his/her/their business ? Would he/she/they like more customers? Would he/she/they want a better web/brand exposure ? Size does not make up for quality, nor does flash for dynamic engaging content, nor does a beautiful site for well plan business ! Would you sent your client to war (for big bucks) with slow, clumsy outdated weapons from the 20th century?
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf - please close this thread
Mugur Padurean schrieb: Would you sent your client to war (for big bucks) with slow, clumsy outdated weapons from the 20th century? We shouldn't use war metaphors in a thread that has all qualities of an holy war. After reading all possible relevant and irrelevant objections, I would prefer to see this thread come to an end. Thank you. Ingo -- http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way its going to happen. Basically, unless theres some fancy new way to encode the image, I dont see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and Ill implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldnt restrict how we work. Also, Im not assuming as you suggest we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isnt a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">).
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
The problem is youre designing for a technology [DSL], not accessibility. May I suggest a handheld stylesheet to alleviate some of the problem with a large media screen footprint? Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) Sent: 25 July 2005 07:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way its going to happen. Basically, unless theres some fancy new way to encode the image, I dont see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and Ill implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldnt restrict how we work. Also, Im not assuming as you suggest we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isnt a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">).
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Edward, The full stylesheet is only served for media=screen. For media=print and media=handheld they currently just get the raw page, which due to the mark-up works quite well anyway. Is this what you mean at all? Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 5:08 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The problem is youre designing for a technology [DSL], not accessibility. May I suggest a handheld stylesheet to alleviate some of the problem with a large media screen footprint? Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Mugur, I hope you are not upset with me. Not at all. J I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, Ive been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, Ive never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 5:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Your absoutely right when you say our creativy shoud not be restricted by any means. Still, the comment i made was targeted at half of your image that looks to me that coud go safey without affecting your overal design. I'm talking about the part behind the content. No offence but at this point it looks more like a wallpaper to me (in size at least). However this is your choice and in no way am I trying to be critical on that issue, afterall, design it's a subtle thing and i may not read your message right this time. I just expressed a not very well expained opinion, nothing more. I hope you are not upset with me. On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going to happen. Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work. Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Hi Tatham, Perhaps you should consider the bandwidth cost of serving such a 'large' page. Perhaps it's not an issue if your site has a small target audience, but if your site will attract many many visitors, it will eventually become a burden, and more expense to the client. You are right that networks are evolving, but some parts of the world are slower to evolve :-) Kind regards, Stephen Scott, Webmaster, eCosway.com Sdn Bhd -Original Message-From: Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 25 July, 2005 5:16 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Mugur, I hope you are not upset with me. Not at all. J I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, I've been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, I've never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur PadureanSent: Monday, 25 July 2005 5:25 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Your absoutely right when you say our creativy shoud not be restricted by any means. Still, the comment i made was targeted at half of your image that looks to me that coud "go" safey without affecting your overal design. I'm talking about the part behind the content. No offence but at this point it looks more like a wallpaper to me (in size at least).However this is your choice and in no way am I trying to be critical on that issue, afterall, design it's a subtle thing and i may not read your message right this time. I just expressed a "not very well expained" opinion, nothing more. I hope you are not upset with me. On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size... which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going to happen. Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes - I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work. Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest - we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mugur PadureanSent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea.Maybe this will help you:http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages.Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute.I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow - and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in w
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Quote: only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Youre assuming everyone has DSL at low contention. As you mention, networks are evolving, more so wirelessly where bandwidth is even more of a premium which is justification enough to serve lightweight pages. Quote: I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Sorry bud but 150Kb is just too heavy. Fact! By all means create a heavy front page as youre the developer but dont forget the high bandwidth disclaimer in the footer of the template. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) Sent: 25 July 2005 10:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Mugur, I hope you are not upset with me. Not at all. J I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, Ive been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, Ive never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
G'day I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Well, you probably fail to take a few things into account. Like people leaving a slow loading site rather than complaining. Like the cost of bandwidth. Like availability of broadband. I could go on, but I think we're far enough off-topic already. But how about cutting down the size of your emails and making them plain text? No need to repeatedly quote 40k of text with all that Micro$oft formatting in it. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 7/25/05 2:50 AM Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: But how about cutting down the size of your emails and making them plain text? No need to repeatedly quote 40k of text with all that Micro$oft formatting in it. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design 100% agreement here. *Please* no more rtf/html posts here! I delete rtf/html posts immediately and other people do too I know for a fact. B-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
You would have thought that a web standards group would be using a more web standards compliant email client like Thunderbird ? Rick Faaberg wrote: On 7/25/05 2:50 AM "Bert Doorn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: But how about cutting down the size of your emails and making them plain text? No need to repeatedly quote 40k of text with all that Micro$oft formatting in it. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design 100% agreement here. *Please* no more rtf/html posts here! I delete rtf/html posts immediately and other people do too I know for a fact. B-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 7/25/05, Chris Cowling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You would have thought that a web standards group would be using a more web standards compliant email client like Thunderbird ? Targetting email clients is like targetting browsers, which is soo 90. And don't forget the few of us who are on web mail (Gmail, Yahoo mail etc.) Prabhath http://nidahas.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 25 Jul 2005, at 4:02 PM, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote: Regarding the CSS errors - they are all IE hacks * html is your friend. It validates and only IE loads it, and you can group 'em together as a block rather than polluting individual rules. Hide your PC only hacks from Macs using the commented backslash hack. Also noticed you are hiding a min-height declaration from IE which isn't needed -- IE doesn't support that property. On large pages: I'm not going to bother checking any of those monster size pages you quote elsewhere, but at a guess I doubt any of those pages are primarily single images. And on creativity: delivering work within the constraints of the medium is creative, a 150k photo of trees for a financial (?) consultancy... strictly a matter of opinion. If your client is in a competitative market, which isn't the business of giving away desktop pictures =), you really want to design a page at least one-third that size. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
This article only discusses reducing the HTML size. which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going to happen. I'm not sure i understand what all the feedback regarding the background image is about either. it seems to me that the size of the html is what matters, its not like the page is dependant on the background. i'm half a planet away, n. U.S., the html loads real well, then the background comes in in about half a minute (i'm on dial-up, too). I downloaded the background image to see if I could optomize it to smaller but it seems like its already as small as it will go. I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is abandoning smaller dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed that and just not loaded yet. regards Donna Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes - I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work. Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest - we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: * most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia * the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts * because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow - and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total * because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection - just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well * many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: * microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k * sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k * yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k * ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k * news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Sites where designers can show off their chops cater to a specific audience - other designers who want to be thrilled by a primarily visual experience. There is nothing wrong with eye candy sites for people interested in eye candy, but using such examples as an argument in support of creating really big web pages for every/any site is flawed. One size does not fit all, and in fact the entire design industry is built on this truth. Remember design is about creatively solving business problems, not the business of expressing your creativity. There are many sound reasons not to create large web site pages, some of which are discussed in this thread already, and I suggest that where a peer review of a design repeatedly invokes the same criticism that there is probably something in that criticism. I don't know of anybody in the real world (broadband or not) who has asked for a bigger slower web. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 4:30 AM, Donna Jones wrote: I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is abandoning smaller dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed that and just not loaded yet. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Hi Terrence: in checking the speed report (under Tools in FF), the site comes through with flying colors - under 4K. http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php?url=http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel quoteTOTAL_HTML - Congratulations, the total number of HTML files on this page (including the main HTML file) is 1 which most browsers can multithread. Minimizing HTTP requests is key for web site optimization. /quote best Donna Terrence Wood wrote: Sites where designers can show off their chops cater to a specific audience - other designers who want to be thrilled by a primarily visual experience. There is nothing wrong with eye candy sites for people interested in eye candy, but using such examples as an argument in support of creating really big web pages for every/any site is flawed. One size does not fit all, and in fact the entire design industry is built on this truth. Remember design is about creatively solving business problems, not the business of expressing your creativity. There are many sound reasons not to create large web site pages, some of which are discussed in this thread already, and I suggest that where a peer review of a design repeatedly invokes the same criticism that there is probably something in that criticism. I don't know of anybody in the real world (broadband or not) who has asked for a bigger slower web. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 4:30 AM, Donna Jones wrote: I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is abandoning smaller dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed that and just not loaded yet. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Donna Jones wrote: I'm not sure i understand what all the feedback regarding the background image is about either. it seems to me that the size of the html is what matters, its not like the page is dependant on the background. i'm half a planet away, n. U.S., the html loads real well, then the background comes in in about half a minute (i'm on dial-up, too). Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome when designers rely on the background image and define colour for their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback background colour. in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many cases how one can push the boundaries using CSS. I would not hold it as a model for what should or shouldn't be implemented on a production site. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Hi, The background image only renders across 3/4 of the viewport in Safari 2.0. On Jul 24, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Tatham Oddie ((Fuel Advance)) wrote: Hi all, I’ve just placed the first page of a new site on our test-drive server: http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/ Which is a redo of: http://www.broadleaf.com.au/ There is also a mock up which shows how it is meant to look: http://fueladvance.com/broadleaf/HomePagePreview.jpg I have tested in IE6 and FF1.0.6PC and it seems to work fine. If a few of you could take a look in other browsers that’d be great. Also, any design / coding suggestions would be greatly appreciated. J Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Thanks Donna, that's funny. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 10:03 AM, Donna Jones wrote: Hi Terrence: in checking the speed report (under Tools in FF), the site comes through with flying colors - under 4K. http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php?url=http:/ /testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel quoteTOTAL_HTML - Congratulations, the total number of HTML files on this page (including the main HTML file) is 1 which most browsers can multithread. Minimizing HTTP requests is key for web site optimization. /quote best Donna ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome when designers rely on the background image and define colour for their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback background colour. Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many cases how one can push the boundaries using CSS. I would not hold it as a model for what should or shouldn't be implemented on a production site. Hi Patrick: In this case there is fallback colour. Its perfectly readable w/out the background image, at least it is when I hide background image w/ the webdev toolbar in Firefox. and from what i've observed when it is loading. okay okay *smile* maybe zengardens is not a good example, I mainly mentioned it because I was familiar with it, of course, and knew that others would be on here, also. I also realize that ZenGardens is sorta frozen in space and time and Eric would have done some things differently if he was doing it today - I found that real interesting reading in the csszengardens book. I think there are issues w/ this design but I can't see how the background image is particularly an issue - if it was embedded in the html, altogether different, obviously. so okay, I'm a newby and can't believe I'm arguing with you experts (maybe because its too hot here in Maine even though its much better than a lot of the U.S.) but nobody has convinced me that the background image here is a problem. cheers Donna ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">). Matthew Vanderhorst Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote: Hi all, Ive just placed the first page of a new site on our test-drive server: http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/ Which is a redo of: http://www.broadleaf.com.au/ There is also a mock up which shows how it is meant to look: http://fueladvance.com/broadleaf/HomePagePreview.jpg I have tested in IE6 and FF1.0.6PC and it seems to work fine. If a few of you could take a look in other browsers thatd be great. Also, any design / coding suggestions would be greatly appreciated. J Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">).
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote: Hi all, I’ve just placed the first page of a new site on our test-drive server: http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/ Which is a redo of: http://www.broadleaf.com.au/ There is also a mock up which shows how it is meant to look: http://fueladvance.com/broadleaf/HomePagePreview.jpg I have tested in IE6 and FF1.0.6PC and it seems to work fine. If a few of you could take a look in other browsers that’d be great. Also, any design / coding suggestions would be greatly appreciated. J Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com http://www.fueladvance.com Tatham, 22 captures at this URIhttp://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=178496 Font-zoom, among other things, will be a problem in any browser, at any screen resolution, until you let-go her go to do her own thing... I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) Regards, David Laakso -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
I'd remove all the » in each list item and replace this with an image on the item bullet points. Also adding a label and/or legend on the search field (and hiding it with CSS if desired) would increase usability. Personally I'd also 'no-repeat' the bg image as it doesn't look as good on pages with a lot of content. I just noticed that there is something disabling the scroll-bars. Which is not good when the browser window is smaller than the content or the font-size is increased. This makes the site hard to use. Rowan ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Matt, Ive fixed the background, and will reupload shortly. Unfortunately all of our workstations are widescreen laptops, so while we run higher res, were still only 900px high. Thanks for noticing. Regarding the CSS errors they are all IE hacks, and besides having to add extra stylesheet documents I dont see a way to make the validator happy. Im really not interested in the whole conditional comments thing because they declarations get split up and things just get confusing. If you know of a similar hack to _property:value; that achieves the same outcome and validates, please let me know and Ill change it. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 2:52 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">). Matthew Vanderhorst Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote: Hi all, Ive just placed the first page of a new site on our test-drive server: http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/ Which is a redo of: http://www.broadleaf.com.au/ There is also a mock up which shows how it is meant to look: http://fueladvance.com/broadleaf/HomePagePreview.jpg I have tested in IE6 and FF1.0.6PC and it seems to work fine. If a few of you could take a look in other browsers thatd be great. Also, any design / coding suggestions would be greatly appreciated. J Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Rowan, Thanks for your feedback. I'd remove all the in each list item and replace this with an image on the item bullet points. Done. Also adding a label and/or legend on the search field (and hiding it with CSS if desired) would increase usability. Done. Personally I'd also 'no-repeat' the bg image as it doesn't look as good on pages with a lot of content. Done. I just noticed that there is something disabling the scroll-bars. Which is not good when the browser window is smaller than the content or the font-size is increased. This makes the site hard to use. In progress. Rowan Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didnt really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case were only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">).
