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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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:
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
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
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
@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
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Hi All
I've been working on a re-design of my web site and I know the code is
still
rough. However, I think I could use some outside eyeballs on the design.
You know how things are when you look at it for too long...
http://www.tdrake.net/joan/index-liquid.html
very
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Hi All
I've been working on a re-design of my web site and I know the code is
still
rough. However, I think I could use some outside eyeballs on the design.
You know how things are when you look at it for too long...
http://www.tdrake.net/joan/index-liquid.html
p.s.
Hi All
I've been working on a re-design of my web site and I know the code is still
rough. However, I think I could use some outside eyeballs on the design.
You know how things are when you look at it for too long...
http://www.tdrake.net/joan/index-liquid.html
I was trying to keep it liquid
: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:59 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] site check please
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
http://www.tdrake.net/joan/index-liquid.html
I really like the look of that one - but...
- Scrolling left isn't easy, so maybe try this adjustment:
body { padding-left: 95px
Re: http://www.tdrake.net/joan/index-liquid.html
I think a nice Georgia font would go down well
with that template.
Edward Clarke
ECommerce and Software Consultant
TN38 Consulting
http://blog.tn38.net
Creative Media Centre
17-19 Robertson Street
Hastings
East Sussex
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Hi All
I've been working on a re-design of my web site and I know the code is still
rough. However, I think I could use some outside eyeballs on the design.
You know how things are when you look at it for too long...
http://www.tdrake.net/joan/index-liquid.html
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you check this URL:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
I am getting one report that it is loading but then hanging up IE.
Thanks,
Dean
**
The discussion list for
No problem here, I clicked the links, all working fine.
Checked on Win 2000, IE6.
It maybe the user' PC (or IE) playing trick at that very moment when
he was seeing your page.
tee
On Jul 21, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Dean | eCreate wrote:
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you
On Thursday, July 21, 2005 at about 11:16 AM, from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...tee
entreated:
| No problem here, I clicked the links, all working fine.
| Checked on Win 2000, IE6.
| It maybe the user' PC (or IE) playing trick at that very moment when
| he was seeing your page.
Thanks Tee,
I would
bullet proof here also
Dean | eCreate wrote:
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you check this URL:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
I am getting one report that it is loading but then hanging up IE.
Thanks,
Dean
On Thursday, July 21, 2005 at about 7:40 PM, from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...sam
sherlock entreated:
| bullet proof here also
What was your browser width?
I am now being told that the hang occurs when the width is less than 1024.
There is a javascript to control the minimum width of the center div.
Dean | eCreate wrote:
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you check this URL:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
I am getting one report that it is loading but then hanging up IE.
Thanks,
Dean
**
The discussion list
*** is in
there.
Bruce Prochnau
BKDesign Solutions
- Original Message -
From: sam sherlock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check Win 2000
bullet proof here also
Dean | eCreate wrote:
If anybody out there has Win 2000
Dean | eCreate wrote
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you check this URL:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
I am getting one report that it is loading but then hanging up IE.
Thanks,
Dean
Yes, there are problems. It's to do with the dynamic resizing of the site.
Dean | eCreate wrote:
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you check this URL:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
I am getting one report that it is loading but then hanging up IE.
Thanks,
Dean
**
The discussion list
I think Eric Meyers had a post on his site about a year ago about this
problem on his site.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Carl Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site
On Thursday, July 21, 2005 at about 2:04 PM, from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...T. R.
Valentine entreated:
| Needed Task Manager to kill it.
Thanks for all the replies.
I have pulled all the minimum width javascript off the page.
Can you test again? Just the homepage:
Dean | eCreate wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
I have pulled all the minimum width javascript off the page.
Can you test again? Just the homepage:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
Thanks,
Dean
**
In win98, ie6 at 800 res all looks and loads great. Scrollbars on bottom
Dean | eCreate wrote:
Can you test again? Just the homepage:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
Yup, without the javascript it works just fine (with the obvious layout
issues when the width is too small, which was the whole reason for using
the js in the first place).
--
Patrick H.
On 21/07/05, Dean | eCreate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2005 at about 2:04 PM, from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...T. R.
Valentine entreated:
| Needed Task Manager to kill it.
Thanks for all the replies.
I have pulled all the minimum width javascript off the page.
Can you
Dean | eCreate wrote:
If anybody out there has Win 2000 running IE6 could you check this URL:
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/
I am getting one report that it is loading but then hanging up IE.
Thanks,
Dean
**
The discussion list
OK, I think the problem was a div I inadvertantly added outside my wrapper
div whose width was controlled by the javascript.
Any brave soul care to check it out for me?
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/indexJava.mgi
Thanks,
Dean
**
The
On 21/07/05, Dean | eCreate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I think the problem was a div I inadvertantly added outside my wrapper
div whose width was controlled by the javascript.
Any brave soul care to check it out for me?
http://www.stthomasaquinasacademy.org/indexJava.mgi
Well, I tried.
I think your problem is in this line of the function P7_setMinWidth:
if(cw=w){w-=ad;g.style.width=w+px;}else{g.style.width=auto;}}
I haven't really tried it to find out, but it looks as if you have set
the minimum width to 770px in P7_limit. That is about where the page
locks up when you
On Thursday, July 21, 2005 at about 5:38 PM, from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...Carl
Reynolds entreated:
| I haven't really tried it to find out, but it looks as if you have set
| the minimum width to 770px in P7_limit. That is about where the page
| locks up when you start with a window the size of
Colin Steele
quoteI would recommend not having ::Web Design References:: for 14 different
areas of web design. These should be made into the sub headings of
Usability, XML, Typography etc./quote
unfortenatuly I cannot control that, I just syndicate their feed
Bruce
quoteAn About page would be
Nice site, 2 notes though.
You may want to add a:focus{color:white}, several of the links go
*completely* blue if you focus on them, a problem if your using tab a lot.
Also, there's a little problem in firefox on page to. I looks like a
float bug. It's probably firefox's fault but just letting
Hi
I have made some changes to W3 planet, would you please check it
http://www.w3planet.info/site/
and give me your feedback
Regards
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Of Jad Madi
Sent: 14 June 2005 14:12
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] site check w3planet.info
Hi
I have made some changes to W3 planet, would you please check it
http://www.w3planet.info/site/
and give me your feedback
Regards
Jad wrote,
Hi
I have made some changes to W3 planet, would you please check it
http://www.w3planet.info/site/
and give me your feedback
**
It is a very interesting site and a well put together package of standards
related information. All my favorites in one place is great to see and
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:11:39 -0400, Jad Madi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I have made some changes to W3 planet, would you please check it
http://www.w3planet.info/site/
and give me your feedback
Jad,
Nice, clean, well designed site. Worked well for me in XP_SP2 at 1280 in
Opera8, Moz1.7.4,
http://mouseriders.dk/
I would be glad if you could help me with the following...
On OS9 Mac/IE 5 I have a background painting bug in the list menus on
the right. I've read a ton of articles and none of them seems to apply
to my problem (they way I read them anyway). So if anyone has an idea
SUCH
INFORMATION.
---
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim Kruse
Sent: 14 June 2005 15:00
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Site
Hmmm...
I don't have a certain answer, but I have a questions; Why are you
trying to get your website to work on IE on a Mac?? (OS9)?? You know
that IE on a mac has been ditched in the new OSX (Tiger). And
Safari is
the dominent Browser. You should have a message appear on
your site for
Well of course I'd make the site degrade gracefully in IE on a Mac, id
use the @import reference so that older browsers would just render the
content, im all for web standards, but if you are having major problems
with IE on a Mac, which a lot of developers do have, then id say just
render the
Hi Josef,
Have you looked at the page? I'm using @import and I'm *only* having
problems with one particular OS... Mac OS9 and IE5X! AFAIK the page
looks fine on all other browser/OS.
Regarding the hint. Isn't it so that if you put a this page is best
view or Update your browser... or worse
Hi Kim,
Ive opened your page in IE for Mac, versions 5.0 and 5.1.7 and it seems
exactly equal to what I see in Firefox on Windows. Do you want me to
send a printscreen to your email?
Roberto
Kim Kruse wrote:
Hi Josef,
Have you looked at the page?
Hi Roberto,
Thanks. I guess you didn't open it OS9? So unless that's the case it
should not be necessary. Thanks though :-)
Kim
Ive opened your page in IE for Mac, versions 5.0 and 5.1.7 and it
seems exactly equal to what I see in Firefox on Windows. Do you want
me to send a printscreen
Kim,
Is it possible to open the versions I mentioned with OS X? I dont think
so I opened it in the 0S9 emulation provided by OSX But, now, Ive
tried also an old ibook I have here, with only OS 9.2 and IE 5.1 and I
do not see absolutely nothing that qualifies as a background painting
bug (or
For what it's worth, if a user is browsing on OS9's IE, then they have
little choice--Firefox, Safari, etc. are all only available on OSX. So
to suggest that someone upgrades from Mac IE5 is to suggest they go
out and shell out a cool grand for a new machine that runs a new OS.
So maybe go a bit
Michael Wilson wrote Fri, 20 May 2005 18:17:15 -0400:
Felix Miata wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the
default size of the text displayed in their browser?
I'm at a loss to think of any reason how an answer to this might
On 24/5/05 4:43 PM, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/05 11:33 PM Kevin Futter [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent
this out:
I can't speak for all browsers, but I do find it annoying that Firefox on
Windows has the print preview option, but Firefox on the Mac does not
(latest versions).
On 22/5/05 10:23 AM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I was talking about the user, not the designer. Most browsers do not offer a
Print Preview option
Getting off topic (so perhaps email me back off list) but: which
browsers exactly?
I can't speak for
On 5/23/05 11:33 PM Kevin Futter [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent
this out:
I can't speak for all browsers, but I do find it annoying that Firefox on
Windows has the print preview option, but Firefox on the Mac does not
(latest versions). Makes it hard to recommend for verifying print output
(assuming
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
As long as user-ignorance is used as an excuse for not doing a proper
job at our end, then even this web design community will fail and end up
preserving ignorance among ourself *and* the users.
Very true, and I for one am (paradoxically, perhaps) always the first to
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print.
...
There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their
print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the
moment. We also have no idea about print-setups around, since
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print.
There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their
print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the
moment.
Hi Georg,
I was talking about the user, not the designer.
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I was talking about the user, not the designer. Most browsers do not offer a
Print Preview option
Getting off topic (so perhaps email me back off list) but: which
browsers exactly?
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux
IMHO it's still on-topic - AFAIK all modern browsers can do print
preview. IE4+, Gecko, Safari, Opera...
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
Outside web development discussion groups, the people over 40 I've
personally come in contact with are almost unanimous in complaining most
web sites have text that is too small,
And from that sample, how many of those users know how to
On May 19, 2005, at 6:12 PM, russ - maxdesign wrote:
The font size discussion is interesting and relevant.
I found this while reading about styling forms:
From usability.com.au:
Also, many users find the default font size on Websites is often too
small for comfortable reading. This only becomes a
On 5/20/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the
default size of the text displayed in their browser?
I'm at a loss to think of any reason how an answer to this might be
relevant to choosing whether to respect visitors'
Tom Livingston wrote:
I guess where I am going with this is that, IMO, no one here is
wrong. The _vast_ majority of users are going to see the site as
intended, and those who are not happy with the text size have the
ability to change it to suit them. If a user needs larger type due to
low
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
It is also much easier to inform our visitors how they can fix things at
their end, if it actually works.
If you forgive the tongue in cheek tone:
Dear user, does the text on this page seem too big? Although most other
sites you may visit on a regular basis have text that is
Hello.
I'd appreciate mush if you take a look at my weblog
(http://www.brunotorres.net/) and tell me your opinions.
I did some changes in the layout and want to know if others like it as I do.
I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/mac.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers!
--
Bruno Cunha
available offlist if you like - just ask.
A reminder to all - please add site name to Subject so we don't get a
thousand posts that just say 'Re: [WSG] Site Check'. It also helps to
keep threads organised!
N
___
Omnivision. Websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au
Other than a 1px show-though of white on your header in IE, looks good
on the mac browsers. I sent you a few PDF screen caps offlist. The
white issue on IE doesn't show up in the caps...happens depending on
the width the browser window is. Should be a quick and easy fix.
~MD
On May 19,
On 5/19/05, David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bingo! You just got you first complaint.
True. Walked in to that one, didn't I :)
Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without
degrading it for everybody else.
--
Tom Hamshere
I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/mac.
In the 0s9 version of ie5mac the top buttons have are slightly offset from
the background image. maybe only a pixel or two, so when you roll over they
jump a wee bit. not much though.
The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability research, I
understand, so the odd time that I get asked by a client about the size of
text on their site, this is the site I refer them to. BTW, this also looks
to be the same size as that used on the WSG site.
I find that 82% on the
Tom Hamshere wrote:
Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without
degrading it for everybody else.
Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the
default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both:
1-most others have the same need, and,
Romily Jones wrote:
The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability
research,
...
They did, but the latest update I could find is more than 2 years old.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/technical/css.shtml
...not all of it made good read today, although I didn't see anything
On 5/19/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Hamshere wrote:
Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without
degrading it for everybody else.
Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the
default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by
Felix Miata wrote:
Outside web development discussion groups, the people over 40 I've
personally come in contact with are almost unanimous in complaining most
web sites have text that is too small,
And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the
default size of the text
Yes it is. It's also quite dumb.
Respect is rarely dumb. This is no exeption. When the defaults are
honored, everyone who cares can be a winner.
WARNING
Please do not let this discussion sink any further or the thread will be
closed.
The font size discussion is interesting and relevant.
Read this for Font-Sizing, this is the method I use:
http://clagnut.com/blog/348/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting
very nice-
i found a couple minor breaks in ie5 mac 0s9
if you care about this i will post screen shots online.
-Kev
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some
Felix Miata wrote:
You might say but the text looks too big if I just leave it like
that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*.
How would you recommend solving the problem?
Hi,
Font sizing issues are always a heated topic. If we have to get right
down to the nitty-gritty of the matter,
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
You might say but the text looks too big if I just leave it like
that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*.
As idealistic as it sounds, the devil's advocate counter question:
are you going to tell every single user of your site to do that in
No, it's a bit old-school for me to worry about. Thanks anyway.
On 5/18/05, Kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
very nice-
i found a couple minor breaks in ie5 mac 0s9
if you care about this i will post screen shots online.
-Kev
**
On 5/17/05, Josef Dunne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd been recommended 80% as an ideal default text size by a wide
variety of people, including, IIRC, the WAI.
How would you recommend solving the problem?
I would set the font size to 62.5% in the body tag. Then I would use Ems
to set the
On 5/17/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Hamshere wrote:
I'd been recommended 80% as an ideal default text size by a wide
variety of people, including, IIRC, the WAI.
If from WAI it must be some misinterpreation.
No, probably me just mis-remembering, as I said.
You might
On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:10 -0400, Michael Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
You might say but the text looks too big if I just leave it like
that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*.
How would you recommend solving the problem?
Hi,
[...]
A 80% (I use 76% on the body
Tom Hamshere wrote:
I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2
accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at
http://www.lastminute.com
Any feedback appreciated.
One word:
pink?
--
Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing
blog::
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hamshere wrote:
could people please take a look at http://www.lastminute.com
By default it sniffs my IP and uses geo mapping to fly me off to
au.lastminute.com, which is a horrible table affair... don't know if
you've got any control over that, but it's
p.s. whose idea was this:
http://www.lastminute.com/site/main/boss_page_spreadsheet.html
I laughed... :D
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hamshere wrote:
Any feedback appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Joshua Street
Website:
http://www.base10solutions.com.au/
Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax:
I like the Iterate sexy partnerships bit!
Lee
Joshua Street wrote:
p.s. whose idea was this:
http://www.lastminute.com/site/main/boss_page_spreadsheet.html
I laughed... :D
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hamshere wrote:
Any feedback appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Joshua Street
-
From: Tom Hamshere [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: [WSG] Site check
I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2
accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at
http://www.lastminute.com
Any feedback
Peter J. Farrell wrote:
Old Computer programmers never die, they just decompile.
--
Tom Hamshere wrote:
I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2
accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at
http://www.lastminute.com
Any feedback appreciated.
One word:
Tom Hamshere wrote:
I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2
accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at
http://www.lastminute.com
Because of your 80% default font size, I have to zoom at least one
step to use those Flights selects. They're already
On 5/17/05, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll tell you a little secret. A popup on entering, and then every link in
site had a popup ad, and another when closed. It isn't a site I would even
consider looking at. Probably applies to most people, as we have all gotten
tired of such methods.
I
On 5/17/05, Peter J. Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One word:
pink?
Sorry, I'm outta line...(although it definitely was striking)...
Heh, no, no problem. It's our brand colour and has proven impossible
to get rid of :)
Run your code through tidy and the W3 validators (jigsaw and the
On 5/17/05, Jacobus van Niekerk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Tom,
Great site, I did not know lastminute was going standards based. Congrats!
Looking good, was also glad about the recent deal that was made.
Yes, we've been working on it steadily for the last year or so. Still
a way to go...
On 5/17/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Hamshere wrote:
Because of your 80% default font size, I have to zoom at least one
step to use those Flights selects. They're already messed up at that
point. After I zoom once more, it's a serious mess. Depending on which
browser I open
I'd been recommended 80% as an ideal default text size by a wide
variety of people, including, IIRC, the WAI.
How would you recommend solving the problem?
I would set the font size to 62.5% in the body tag. Then I would use Ems
to set the sizes of all my fonts on the page, By setting the
Tom Hamshere wrote:
On 5/17/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because of your 80% default font size, I have to zoom at least one
step to use those Flights selects. They're already messed up at that
point. After I zoom once more, it's a serious mess. Depending on which
browser I
Felix Miata wrote:
You might say but the text looks too big if I just leave it like
that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*.
As idealistic as it sounds, the devil's advocate counter question: are
you going to tell every single user of your site to do that in their
browser? because sure
G'day
Actually, it isn't an h3, that just applies to the title line. The list
is simply that - a list of a ref's. I didn't see the point of making it
any more complex than it needed to be, and it all seemed to work OK.
But hey - I'm learning here, and asking for advice, so if there IS a good
301 - 400 of 536 matches
Mail list logo
