|
Just a small point Mike but in the section
Webcam you have a spelling error, teh instead of the.
Cheers
Maureen Beattie
Hugh, thanks for your suggestions. I'm sorry that in the rush
yesterday I didn't thank you for your input. I've implemented all of
your suggestions and I have a better site now as a result. Thanks
I notice that on one page now that the fonts are smaller, the
flow of text has resulted in some orphan text alongside an image, so I'll have
to change the standard image width a bit i think.
But broadly speaking, the site is something I am quite pleased
with.
I should also say that the radio community is far more impressed
than this group. I have had a number of gushing testimonials from
webmasters at other stations.
For the record, I've racked up 67 hours
on this project so far, and maybe another 60 or so to go before I'll call it
complete and in the maintenance only phase.
In addition to the CSS,
i've written all my own code. It's fully dynamic, with access
going to be given to about 60 people to different parts of the site for
different roles. Each can work on their own parts of the site without it
appearing in public until it's ready and approved by someone with the right
authority level. In addition we're going to be taking 2 web services
feeds, and providing half a dozen to other sites.
I'm really thrilled
with how fast it loads even though it's hosted on a shared environment in the
midwest of the USA.
Anyway, thanks for everyone's help with this site
(it's http://hawkradio.org.au if you're
coming in late to the discussion) and I'm still interested in anyone's input
about any aspect of the site, as long as it's polite.
Cheers
Mike
Kear
AFP Webworks
Windsor, NSW, Australia
--------- Original Message -------- From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check please -
launched it finally! Date: 15/11/04 10:06
Michael,
Whoops, that was a typo. I should, of course,
have written "76% or
0.76em".
I read somewhere (I'm sure someone
on the list will remember where)
that 76% works for all modern browsers
better than 75%, because of a
rendering difference in one of the
browsers.
-Hugh
> <<<<> 5) I'd suggest
setting your "body" font size to 76% or 0.7em. It
> looks
>>
just a little better at that size.
>
> It already is .7em, which
is only half default size (49% of the total
> pixels per character box
of the default size).>>>>>
>
>
> Thanks for
your thoughts Felix. The size is already at 0.7em because
> I
>
adopted the excellent suggestion of Hugh Todd and changed
it.
******************************************************
The
discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for
some hints on posting to the list & getting
help
******************************************************
________________________________________________
Message
sent using UebiMiau
2.7.2
****************************************************** The discussion
list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to
the list & getting help
******************************************************
|
