When working on a Photoshop mock up of the site, do you normally work from
the outside in (build the surrounding framework, perhaps centre the site
then start at the top of the page working down) or build from the inside out
(get each individual element on the page built then slot them into the
I will be out of the office starting 27/03/2007 and will not return until
28/03/2007.
For urgent Web assistance, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
else i will get back to you when i return.
NOTICE - This message
If you guys haven't seen already, phpbb re-did their boards in XHTML
strict, table-less design.
http://www.phpbb.com/community/
I'm curious mostly to your thoughts on how they did their main forum
listing.
definition lists inside of unordered lists.
code trimed:
ul class=topiclist
Well, they (the phpBB Group) didn't actually re-design the site or the
style for phpBB. Tom Beddard of tictoc design does pretty much all their
design work.
Regards,
Ryan Crocker
Training Support Specialist
Volvo Penta of the Americas, Inc.
Fax: 757-436-5182
Phone: 757-436-2800 x7733
Email:
Speaking of redesigns, http://www.newyorker.com/ is looking very nice
these days. Not a table in sight.
It doesn't quite validate due to some (presumably back-end-error)
weirdness:
misc:exposeBean var=platform bean=platform/
but other than that it looks like a good standards-based website.
misc:exposeBean var=platform bean=platform/
Never a good look to expose your beans in public...
Apart from that it seems to be just url encoding issues - great to see more and
more large sites moving to standards based code
Paul
Nice site. Looks like 1204x768 is becoming the new 800x600, but it's
something that is probably ahead of its time. Especially since two members
of my immediate family intentionally use the smaller resolution because it's
easier to see. Still, though, adoption of standards is a positive
John Horner wrote:
Speaking of redesigns, http://www.newyorker.com/ is looking very nice
these days. Not a table in sight.
but other than that it looks like a good standards-based website.
Yes, well, sort of...still the need (for me) to go through the drill of
ignoring their
hi everyone: i have some pop-ups that are part of a fairly old design
and have been working on updating the code as i go.
i've used onblur=window.close(); (in the body tag) to have the pop-up
close after it loses focus, but Tidy says, onblur is proprietary and
doesn't like it. is there
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
Nice site. Looks like 1204x768 is becoming the new 800x600, but it's
something that is probably ahead of its time. Especially since two members
I work at a newspaper... we are heading that direction for our next site
design iteration Content area will
Yeah the new web design at my australian government place is also currently
involved in a redesign and it is made for a 1024 screen (funny seeing the web
managers still use 800)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 28/03/2007 10:43 am
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
Nice site. Looks like 1204x768 is becoming
Thank to all who responded.
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
Well worth reading, although some would argue that Nielsen can be
overly strict in his approach to web usability.
I've heard that a lot, he himself state that his finding don't apply all
the time and they aren't a substitute for user testing.
12 matches
Mail list logo
