Chris Taylor wrote:
BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help
regarding useability - other pairs of eyes are what is needed.
Before trying BrowserCam I also used to post to places like here and
CSS-Discuss to get a wider range of browsers/OS tests and
recommendations for fixing any CSS
Mac running in 9.2 and IE 5.1.4 shows some small bugs. Attaching a screen
shot of the problem areas ... specifically the slogan line and separation of
menu from header. Hope this helps.
attachment: Internet Explorer 21.jpg
You have some problems on PC/FF as well...
The position:relative on the footer produces the horizontal scrollbar
on my PC. Furthermore something is wrong with your style sheet... I
don't get the footer bg img and the arrows, green side bar etc.
BTW... what is this style doing?
* {
padding:0;
Hello,
My only beef with this site is you seem to have *two* splash pages. One
is bad enough...
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
mlinc.com
designer wrote:
Hi All,
I would be grateful for any and all feedback on a redesign I've done for a
site which presents an illustrated novel. Some
Bob,
Purely from the aesthetics level.
Drop the entire first page - or two - The very first one blinked on my screen for perhaps 3 seconds and was gone. The second was the spinning record. The main window - number three, is where I should land right off - no other pages between me and your main
I'm wondering if anyone has had a chance to look over my problem:
http://143.226.165.202/other/aitp
Really looking forward to some help.
Aaron Holbrook
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:58:48 -0600, Aaron Holbrook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone, first time for me to ask for you all to check a
Faux Columns: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns/
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:52:16 -0600, Aaron Holbrook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has had a chance to look over my problem:
http://143.226.165.202/other/aitp
Really looking forward to some help.
Aaron Holbrook
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:31:50 +1100, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi all :o)
Would appreciate any comments.
PLEASE NOTE: Mac people - sorry not there yet, so don't even bother.
I've served you up a crappy print style sheet :o(
Here she is -
Seona Bellamy wrote:
Any PC users who want to look and give opinions would also be appreciated.
:)
The site: http://www.onehouseproductions.com/ohp2/
You should try a better positioning-method for that curved menu.
The items leave the curved background-image and ends up all over the
place upon
I see problems in both.
In Safari 1.2.3, the navigation buttons separate (seeming to move progressively to the right), leaving funny white shapes where there should be a smooth grey curve.
In IE 5.2, the footer is in the middle of the page, overlaying One House Productions - is...
Looks good
]
Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 9:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check please (especially Mac)
Seona Bellamy wrote:
Any PC users who want to look and give opinions would also be
appreciated.
:)
The site: http
Of Marilyn
LangfeldSent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 9:08 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check please
(especially Mac)I see problems in both. In Safari
1.2.3, the navigation buttons separate (seeming to move progressively to the
right), leaving funny white shapes where
Maybe add a slight outline/glow/etc effect to the menu items as they
don't stand out too well, especially when hovering. Also find a way of
reducing image size that doesn't result in noticeable grain.
Later
Seona Bellamy wrote:
Hi guys,
Could I please have a few Mac users (both IE and Safari)
Thanks. I'll pass those suggestions on to her, since the design is hers (I'm
deliberately making this one not my problem - I have enough problems getting
this site up and running...).
Anyone have any more suggestions about what to do about the glitching
positioning in Mac browsers? I'm at a
Seona Bellamy wrote:
Hmm... Any suggestions about how I could better do it so that it
stays put? I would have thought that absolute positioning with the
coordinates given in px would have been fairly static. :( I'm not
sure what else to try.
You are relative-positioning those links inside an
Aloha,
Cosmetically, it looks okay. There's one bug where the top navigation
element sticks out of the left side, and doesn't reach the right side
completely.
Your dropdown menus function perfectly, but it would be better to make
those liks use the pointer cursor on mouseover, as to indicate
I
don't like the disconnect between the word pairs flowers plants and wedding
events. If they share the same drop down, they should look like they share the
same button.
In
ff1.0 the topnav sits about 10 pixels too far left, outside the main section.
Are
there hover effects on the
Agree with Ted completely on the disconnect on those word pairs. Like
the overall design. The 10px shift does exist in firefox, which,
actually, does seem a bit visual interesting to me, even if it was
unintended (naturally, cross browser uniformity would be good)
only nearly-bothersome thing I
Thanks Ted and John :o)
The disconnecting text is not something I can change as this design element
was specified by the client.
I've fixed the topNav -10px wierdness - only happened on the home page -
quelle bizarre! :o)
No hover effect on action items (yet)
Top Nav landing pages do not exist
For me, the top nav is not only ten px to the left, it is also ten px up.
Leaves a brown gap between your sliced images of the wedding couple.
Not sure if that is fixed in your latest changes.
Cheers
Natalie
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:25:02 +1100, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks
Felix Miata wrote:
Francesco wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:58 -0500, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[about http://www.sportopolis.be]
Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They
probably won't be able to read any of your content or links without a
Felix Miata wrote:
Kristof Rutten wrote:
http://www.sportopolis.be
12px body is bad, bad, bad.
You make it sound like Kristof is your little puppy who has just taken a
leak on your precious new carpet. ;-/
A little explanation or a link to background info would've been nice.
For Kristof:
David Laakso wrote:
FF
Horizontal page shift when h v menu items are clicked, although
perhaps not as noticeable as in Opera.
Text zooms vertically, breaking horizontal menu rather quickly.
IE6
No shift when h v menu items are clicked.
Text does *not* zoom.
Wouldn't that jump be Firefox
Link?
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:20:04 +1100, James Gollan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a small issue on the home page with the hover state in firefox/win.
On the link to the help page the hover state underline is pushing the
content box and footer down by 1px creates a little
Hi,
excepting the font size in the content,
everything seems to be ok, at least with Opera 6.05 PC,
an old version that always show something different and
i usually use to the final standard check.
The look is very cool.
Manara
Citando Kristof Rutten [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi WSG members,
Kristof Rutten wrote:
Hi WSG members,
I've been working on my first -total webstandards- project for some
time now. It's enteing it's final
stage, now only content has to be applied to it.
Would you be so kind to do a little site-check to see if it all works
out ?
I've tested it so far in
Hey Kristof,
First up, it's looking clean, smart and fresh. Just some points that
immediately spring to mind:
- Nav: hard to read white text on light blue button background
- List of links on the left: on IE/Win the buttons don't behave as you'd
expect unless you hover over the text
Kristof Rutten wrote:
http://www.sportopolis.be
I've tested it so far in Safari/Firefox/Camino/Firefox on PC/IE on PC
and I see no problems. But hey ;)
Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They
probably won't be able to read any of your content or links
Hrmm, my Firefox default seting looks just fine to me. Felix, is yours
set to abnormally low values?
Francesco
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:58 -0500, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They
probably won't be able to read any
Francesco wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:58 -0500, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[about http://www.sportopolis.be]
Find a UXGA 15 laptop, then show it to your grandparents using IE. They
probably won't be able to read any of your content or links without a
cumbersome magnifier.
Ok well compare that with this one:
Median Windows Settings
96DPI (normal fonts)
IE7.1 set to Medium
How does one get IE 7.1?
Oh DER!!! I'm using IE6.0.2900 - the one that came with WinXP Pro SP2.
It's NETSCAPE that's up to 7.1. Whoops.
Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP
Michael Kear wrote:
How does one get IE 7.1?
Oh DER!!! I'm using IE6.0.2900 - the one that came with WinXP Pro SP2.
It's NETSCAPE that's up to 7.1. Whoops.
Netscape's been up to 7.2 since August. 7.1 has security bugs.
--
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
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
aspect of the site, as long as it's polite.CheersMike
KearAFP WebworksWindsor, 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 10:06Mich
Hugh Todd wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'd still welcome input from designers http://hawkradio.org.au
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Felix Miata
Sent: Sunday, 14 November 2004 6:36 AM
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
Michael Kear wrote:
The size is already at 0.7em because I adopted the excellent
suggestion of Hugh Todd and changed it.
There is one flaw in how the font-size is implemented: IE/win is
buggy if we apply too small font-size on body (less than 100%), and ems
are buggy on body. The browsers own
Michael Kear wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Miata
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
Felix, I think you need to be a little less aggressive and judgemental in
your opinions. You seem to be trying to make me out as an idiot and
incompetent at setting up my system. In fact it's deliberately a default
installation. I don't change my browser's defaults for fear of getting into
the
Michael Kear wrote:
Here's what you posted:
Median windoze settings:
96 DPI (small fonts)
IE6 set to medium
1024x768
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/hawkradioW98-IE1.png
It turns out that PC I had intentionally left at IE5 on purpose, but
forgot today when using it to visit
Hey Michael,
Looks great!
One thing I would say is that the menu structure may be confusing -
maybe not.
But whenever the menu drops down - eg: for ABOUT.
I didnt think there would or should be differnt links for the two menu
items called about...
it looks like this:
ABOUT
ABOUT
GEEKY STUFF
anyway.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Stratford
Sent: Saturday, 13 November 2004 5:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check please - launched it finally!
Hey Michael,
Looks great!
One thing I would say
I want to go there - now!!!
Nice clean layout. Lovely use of imagery. Maybe a few too many font
sizes and as said before the Menu section - cuisine section needs to fit
better with the overall design.
Also one error - the time is London is an hour out - currently the site says
10.27am when
On 11/10/04 1:44 AM Neerav [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
The time for Sydney is also one hour off, it says 07:40 PM when it
should be 08:40PM
looks like you need to add some backend logic to adjust dates for
daylight savings
PHP always uses server time AFAIK and there's no way to adjust
sure but the site is displaying the time in major cities round the
world, not local time for the user
eg: on my contact form http://www.bhatt.id.au/contactus.php the PHP code
has daylight savings logic in it,
This is because I am in NSW (with daylight savings Nov-Mar), and my
server is in
Simple - just do this:
$timeval = time() + 3600 * houroffsethere
Rick Faaberg wrote:
On 11/10/04 1:44 AM Neerav [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
The time for Sydney is also one hour off, it says 07:40 PM when it
should be 08:40PM
looks like you need to add some backend logic to adjust dates for
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:46:01 -0800, Rick Faaberg wrote:
Javascript can use the client computer's clock time, but PHP cannot as it's
a server-side language.
The only workaround I have ever managed is to do a dodgy on all pages
that link to the page of interest so that the link is written with
Looks great
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of simon dodson
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Site Check please
Hi Guys,
About to Launch this site, but before it goes could you please take a
Hi Simon
My main concern is your menu:
li id=homea href=index.php/a/li
There is no title on the href, and as the images are done as
backgrounds, there is no indication of what is here when I have images
off.
I really like the design and balance.
Natalie
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:16 +1000,
Hi Simon
My main concern is your menu:
li id=homea href=index.php/a/li
There is no title on the href, and as the images are done as
backgrounds, there is no indication of what is here when I have images
off.
I really like the design and balance.
Natalie
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:16 +1000,
Hi Simon
My main concern is your menu:
li id=homea href=index.php/a/li
There is no title on the href, and as the images are done as
backgrounds, there is no indication of what is here when I have images
off.
I really like the design and balance.
Natalie
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:16 +1000,
Hi Simon
My main concern is your menu:
li id=homea href=index.php/a/li
There is no title on the href, and as the images are done as
backgrounds, there is no indication of what is here when I have images
off.
I really like the design and balance.
Natalie
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:16 +1000,
Natalie you just sent 4 of the same email.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Natalie Buxton
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2004 12:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check please
Hi Simon
My main concern is your menu:
li id
About to Launch this site, but before it goes could you please take a
look and tell me what you think.
http://www.matamanoa.com/new/
Hi
The box for the flash is a little too wide in firefox - I say box,
becasue I leave my browsers as shipped and so don't have flash
installed in firefox
simon dodson wrote:
Hi Guys,
About to Launch this site, but before it goes could you please take a
look and tell me what you think.
http://www.matamanoa.com/new/
Rgds n thanks
Simon
Fine in Opera. No image: Home|About|Reservations -- any browser with
out Flash. Can't zoom text in IE.
David
David Laakso wrote:
simon dodson wrote:
Hi Guys,
About to Launch this site, but before it goes could you please take a
look and tell me what you think.
http://www.matamanoa.com/new/
Rgds n thanks
Simon
Fine in Opera. No image: Home|About|Reservations -- any browser with
out Flash. Can't zoom
I like it :) Easy to read, I found items of interest quickly, all good
from that side.
Two small problems though -- the ultra wide search input looks bad as
it overhangs the sidebar at anything more than 75% text-size (Moz1.7)
Also, the bottom radii of the sidebar are messy -- the curves have
Conversant Studios wrote:
Hey there crew,
I hope you all had a good weekend!
I've finally entered the wild world of blogging and I'd love to get
the feedback from the WSG crew on any layout bugs etc.
http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/writing/
I've done a browsercam.com check - but I'm sure
David Laakso wrote:
I can't figure out what the little illustration is under small
words...big thoughts ?
it's a small ant with it's shadow. :D
regards,
Zulema
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Z u l e m a O r t i z
W e b D e s i g n e r
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website : http://zoblue.com/
Its an ant.
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:57:07 -0500, David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Conversant Studios wrote:
Hey there crew,
I hope you all had a good weekend!
I've finally entered the wild world of blogging and I'd love to get
the feedback from the WSG crew on any layout bugs
Some of this stuff is done best directly to the author, not the list... Use
your good judgement when replying please. If it's just a Looks good or an
unrelated question then the 1170+ others really don't need the traffic. If
it's a standards related issue or question that may help others learn
Hi Avril,
The problem was due to having all my divs floated left in the one
containing div and relying on the containing div's width to make them
wrap, forcing them down into position.
Over the weekend, I split the content into two divs. Top and Bottom rows.
I believe that separating out the
Hi Peter,
I can confirm that your site's menu was flickering in firefox 0.8 last
Monday when I first looked at it, but this morning it isn't. Have you
fixed the problem? I was having the same problem on a site I'm working
on and was curious how you got around the problem.
Thanks
-Avril
Not seeing anything weird in Safari 1.2.2, nor anything weird on
Firefox .9 (Mac).
On Jun 21, 2004, at 07:08, Peter Costello wrote:
Hi,
Ive been trying to get my head around standards based design and am
putting together a personal site.
Ive used the suckerfish menu, but am having a wierd
Title: RE: [WSG] Site Check /
Improvements
Hi Michael
Thanks for the feedback.
I have used ems for all text, except in the
body tag, as I found that when I used it there, it looked great on a
Mac, but on the PC (IE 5 and 6) the fonts were tiny.
Interested to hear your recommendations (eg what
I can confirm the wierd flashing effect is still there on the new
Firefox 0.9 as well. Apart from that the sites look is quite nice.
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT consultancy
Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav
Peter Costello
Hi Sarah ,
Nice site. Just had a quick look and the only thing I picked was no-text
re-sizing in IE6. Have you tried using ems.
Michael
From: Sarah Peeke (XERT) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Site Check / Improvements
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004
Sarah,
Your site gets my vote: Definitely a very nice site. You will let us know when you go
live with it,
eh?
Roy
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on
Ian Fenn wrote:
I changed the screen resolution to 1024x768 but no change.
It's ill advised to design for a particular resolution, especially a
high one.
Any ideas on what may be the cause of the problem?
I haven't looked for a solution yet, but I did find another problem.
While it looks
Ian Fenn wrote:
I need help from more experienced hands. :-/
I'm not sure I qualify, and I've only been able to give the code a brief
look, but I think I can at least put you on the right path.
For starters, it's a lot easier to debug code which is properly
indented. You want to condense it to
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] Site check please
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting
, but the 'big guns' here on the list have pretty
much got you
covered. Site looks great from here (IE5.5/6, FF0.8, Opera7.23/WinXP).
Roy
- Original Message -
From: Ian Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] Site check please
James,
Looks good in everything on my Mac... IE 5.2.3, Safari 1.2,
Firefox/Mozilla, and Opera 6.03. *Except* that in Opera the text of
Who are we? displays at top right of the white graphic text, and the
What's new text appears at the same height but over near the right
edge of the grey area.
James,
You've touched on an issue alluded to here in the recent past... that
of font embedding. It would solve a lot of these disputes!
A good half way house may be to find a standard-install PC font (and
quite a few come with the OS or with Office) that resembles the one the
print designer
Anton Andreasson wrote:
I put it together at:
http://standardice.com/experimental/separatecurrent.html
...but I haven't tested in anything more than IE5/Mac or Mozilla
1.2.1 yet. Could someone please email me an IE/Win report of some
kind? Browsercam boggs down my modem line and I'm running
401 - 475 of 475 matches
Mail list logo
