Hi Folk
Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
it does.
Thank you
Nicolaas
In article
<1190251682.837448.241860@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
windandwaves
> Hi Folk
>
> Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
> me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
> it does.
>
iCab says:
http://www.winsborough.co.nz/mysite/css/layout.css
CSS Error (8/12): Unknown CSS property ³overflow-y².
CSS Error (9/36): Invalid property value
³-moz-scrollbars-vertical².
CSS Error (282/16): Unknown CSS keyword ³(min-width:².
CSS Error (282/26): Unknown CSS keyword ³:².
CSS Error (282/31): Unknown CSS keyword ³){².
CSS Error (282/32): Unknown media definition.
--
dorayme
windandwaves wrote:
F'ups to alt.html.critique
>
> Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
> me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
> it does.
I'm sorry, but I don't care for it. The contrast between text and
background is too low for me. I imagine the designer of the site sitting
at a gleaming new Mac with a large screen and bright display and sharp
young eyes to view it all with. My conditions are ... different.
The fancy meandering borders don't enhance the site, even when they're
functioning properly. They don't look quite right on the main page
(there's an extraneous thin horizontal line in the upper left), and on
the "our staff" page (capitalization missing) it's a disaster (bits of
curve and straight in various wrong positions).
There is no BG color declared, so I see my ugly default yellow.
The pictures of rocks and ferns and, I think, a basket seem to have much
less to do with organisational development and more to do with the clip
art you had available.
The main page has (well, it looks like all the pages have) a permanent
vertical scrollbar, even when there's nothing to scroll.
HTML validates on the main page (great!) but the CSS has some errors
(http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator) which you should know about.
Oh my. The CSS is, um, quite special looking. The repetitive patterns of
code like
#bottom{background: url(../images/homeBottom.gif) no-repeat; width:
969px; height: 34px;}
#about #bottom{background: url(../images/aboutBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
#staff #bottom{background: url(../images/staffBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
#consulting #bottom{background: url(../images/consultingBottom.gif)
no-repeat;}
#assessment #bottom{background: url(../images/assessmentBottom.gif)
no-repeat;}
#contact #bottom{background: url(../images/contactBottom.gif) no-repeat;}
make me question the efficacy of the design. Especially when the results
are as discombobulated as they are, it suggests some rethinking might be
in order.
Feel free to change font-size:14px; to font-size:100%;, since specifying
font-size in pixels keeps IE <7 from resizing texts, which users will
likely want to do, thanks in part to the low-contrast colors.
Text upsizing in FF seems to work nicely, only overflowing the alloted
spaces in a few areas.
At the bootom of the pages, the "top" link goes to #home, and the "home"
link goes to the main page, too, even when it's already there.
Most of my testing was with FF, but in IE6 it looks a lot better. The
lines and curves line up, and don't look broken. You didn't say what's
"not working in IE6", so I'm done here. GL.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:
> Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
> me what you think.
I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.
It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
images. What do they mean?
There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
will come along?
You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
purple.
I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
slow.
The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
but forcing 1.1,
"This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
Failed validation, 43 Errors"
There are CSS errors:
> Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.
"although for [me] it does?"
No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.
Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
windandwaves wrote:
>
> Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
> me what you think.
The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
inaccessible at worst.
Low contrast = low readability. All that white burns my eyes.
--
Berg
On Sep 20, 2:25 pm, dorayme
> In article
> <1190251682.837448.241...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> windandwaves
> > Hi Folk
>
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
> > it does.
>
> iCab says:
>
> http://www.winsborough.co.nz/mysite/css/layout.css
> CSS Error (8/12): Unknown CSS property =B3overflow-y=B2.
> CSS Error (9/36): Invalid property value
> =B3-moz-scrollbars-vertical=B2.
> CSS Error (282/16): Unknown CSS keyword =B3(min-width:=B2.
> CSS Error (282/26): Unknown CSS keyword =B3:=B2.
> CSS Error (282/31): Unknown CSS keyword =B3){=B2.
> CSS Error (282/32): Unknown media definition.
>
> --
> dorayme
Thank you!
I fixed the ones that should be fixed - the rest are "hacks"
On Sep 20, 3:49 pm, Bergamot
> windandwaves wrote:
>
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think.
>
> The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
> scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
> inaccessible at worst.
OK, fixed that. Thanks a million for pointing it out!
On Sep 20, 2:55 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think.
>
> I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.
>
> It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
> images. What do they mean?
>
> There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
> will come along?
>
> You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
> purple.
>
> I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
> slow.
>
> The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
>
>
> but forcing 1.1,
>
> "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
> Failed validation, 43 Errors"
That is an interesting one. It validates when you let the validator
choose. Bottom line is that the code validates (just take the source
code and past it into the direct input for the w3 validator.
>
> There are CSS errors:
>
I have fixed the errors that I should have fixed. However, some of
them are there as hacks for certain browsers...
>
> > Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.
>
Yes, well, I will have to check this out. It certainly works for
me.....but some where having troubles.
> "although for [me] it does?"
>
> No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
> and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.
>
> Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
> wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:28:02 GMT
windandwaves scribed:
> Hi Folk
>
> Can you please have a look at: http://www.winsborough.co.nz/ and tell
> me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
> it does.
The only real difference I see (on the opening page) between ie6 and
Firefox/Opera is that there's more space between the bottom pic and the
centered line below in ie.
There's a j/s error - "object expected", too.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves
> Hi Folk
>
> Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> me what you think.
Very "i-pody" look. I like that. I like the overall design. I do
agree, (I forget with who) that those images on the home page should
somehow give me a clue what they are for.
I don't have a problem with the gray on white background that some do,
but I do have a problem with the content:
"Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
Spell checker?
specialised = specialized ?
organisational = organizational ?
behaviour = behavior ?
Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
On 20 Sep, 02:28, windandwaves
> Hi Folk
>
> Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> me what you think.
font-size: 14px; /*62.5%; */
No contrast pale grey on white.
I think your designer is an arrogant tosser who thinks that how it
looks for them on their Mac is more important than allowing your
customers to read and make use of the site.
windandwaves wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
>>
>>
>> but forcing 1.1,
>>
>> "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
>> Failed validation, 43 Errors"
>
> That is an interesting one. It validates when you let the validator
> choose. Bottom line is that the code validates (just take the source
> code and past it into the direct input for the w3 validator.
Note that (at least for me) when I use the normal way of testing by
entering the URL, the validator says:
"This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"
...when in fact your page uses:
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
So something is wrong. I can't find another XHTML 1.1 page to test with
at the moment.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
windandwaves wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:49 pm, Bergamot
>> windandwaves wrote:
>>
>> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
>> > me what you think.
>>
>> The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
>> scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
>> inaccessible at worst.
>
> OK, fixed that. Thanks a million for pointing it out!
That's something you should test yourself before ever showing it to
anyone else. It only takes a few seconds to test:
- text zoom up and down
- window resizing wide and narrow
- combinations of small window large text and large window small text
Do that in IE6/7 and Firefox at least. There's little reason to expect
other browsers to behave differently than those 3, and *no* reason to
wait for someone else to find errors related to resizing.
--
Berg
In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Note that (at least for me) when I use the normal way of testing by
> entering the URL, the validator says:
> "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"
>
> ..when in fact your page uses:
>
>
>
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
>
> So something is wrong. I can't find another XHTML 1.1 page to test with
> at the moment.
Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
what Accept: header is sent.
pjr@lenny:~$ curl -IH "Accept: application/xhtml+xml" http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
[...]
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
pjr@lenny:~$ curl -IH "Accept: text/html" http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
[...]
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
The validator chooses the HTML version,
--
PJR :-)
"windandwaves"
news:1190251682.837448.241860@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Folk
>
> http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
Yet another non fluid site from you.
And why are you still specifying font size in pixels. Havn't you been told
enough times that this is simply a bad design choice?
And grey on white?
--
Richard.
Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
>
>
>> entering the URL, the validator says:
>> "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"
>
> Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
> what Accept: header is sent.
Why do people bother doing this for what is obviously plain HTML? There
is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. In fact, it is problematic when
you consider caching servers.
> The validator chooses the HTML version,
Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.
--
Berg
On Sep 20, 10:56 pm, Bergamot
> Peter J Ross wrote:
> > In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> >
>
> >> entering the URL, the validator says:
> >> "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"
>
> > Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
> > what Accept: header is sent.
>
> Why do people bother doing this for what is obviously plain HTML? There
> is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. In fact, it is problematic when
> you consider caching servers.
>
> > The validator chooses the HTML version,
>
> Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.
>
Hmmm I would blame the CMS writers / coders myself. They can at times
make it quite hard to change the code that gets output to the UA.
Which means you end up with a complete tag soop type system.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
In article
<1190283014.470022.91930@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves
> > Hi Folk
> >
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think.
> but I do have a problem with the content:
>
> "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
> business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
> people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
> experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
>
> Spell checker?
> specialised = specialized ?
> organisational = organizational ?
> behaviour = behavior ?
>
> Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
Now that you mention this sentence, never mind insisting on more
American spelling:
"a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?
(1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.
(2) "professional" when it goes on to say "psychologists" and
"experts"?
Perhaps OP not responsible for the text?
--
dorayme
In article
<1190288355.983107.240460@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley
> On 20 Sep, 02:28, windandwaves
> > Hi Folk
> >
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think.
>
> font-size: 14px; /*62.5%; */
> No contrast pale grey on white.
>
> I think your designer is an arrogant tosser who thinks that how it
> looks for them on their Mac is more important than allowing your
> customers to read and make use of the site.
Withdraw that remark about the Mac! What the has this got to do
with Macs?
--
dorayme
On Sep 20, 10:10 pm, Travis Newbury
> On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves
>
> > Hi Folk
>
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/andtell
> > me what you think.
>
> Very "i-pody" look. I like that. I like the overall design. I do
> agree, (I forget with who) that those images on the home page should
> somehow give me a clue what they are for.
>
> I don't have a problem with the gray on white background that some do,
> but I do have a problem with the content:
>
> "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
> business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
> people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
> experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
>
> Spell checker?
> specialised = specialized ?
> organisational = organizational ?
> behaviour = behavior ?
Correct... There are people out there who speak "real" english ;-)
lol - yes, new zealanders follow uk standards
> Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
On Sep 21, 10:07 am, dorayme
> In article
> <1190283014.470022.91...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves
> > > Hi Folk
>
> > > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/andtell
> > > me what you think.
> > but I do have a problem with the content:
>
> > "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
> > business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
> > people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
> > experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
>
> > Spell checker?
> > specialised = specialized ?
> > organisational = organizational ?
> > behaviour = behavior ?
>
> > Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
>
> Now that you mention this sentence, never mind insisting on more
> American spelling:
>
> "a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?
>
> (1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.
>
> (2) "professional" when it goes on to say "psychologists" and
> "experts"?
>
> Perhaps OP not responsible for the text?
>
> --
> dorayme
correct.... thank you for pointing it out though
On Sep 20, 2:55 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think.
>
> I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.
>
> It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
> images. What do they mean?
>
> There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
> will come along?
>
> You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
> purple.
>
> I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
> slow.
>
> The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
>
>
> but forcing 1.1,
>
> "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
> Failed validation, 43 Errors"
>
> There are CSS errors:
>
>
> > Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.
>
> "although for [me] it does?"
>
> No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
> and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.
>
> Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
> wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
here... it works so lets not change it.
windandwaves wrote:
> Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
> here... it works so lets not change it.
To borrow a Jukka quote: "for some value of 'works'"
So you are not going to fix any of the errors?
I suppose that's pragmatic...
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
On Sep 20, 9:01 pm, Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:28:02 GMT
> windandwaves scribed:
>
> > Hi Folk
>
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
> > it does.
>
> The only real difference I see (on the opening page) between ie6 and
> Firefox/Opera is that there's more space between the bottom pic and the
> centered line below in ie.
>
> There's a j/s error - "object expected", too.
>
I dont think there is a problem with the script - is there?
> --
> Neredbojias
> Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Sep 20, 10:10 pm, Travis Newbury
> On Sep 19, 9:28 pm, windandwaves
>
> > Hi Folk
>
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/andtell
> > me what you think.
>
> Very "i-pody" look. I like that. I like the overall design. I do
> agree, (I forget with who) that those images on the home page should
> somehow give me a clue what they are for.
Thank you! I have added a description with the images. Should be
clear enough now. There are two ways to approach this: 1. is
everything clear 2. can people find what they are looking for. I
think we have gone for option 2 and that should definitely be the
case. A bit of mystery has never hurt anyone ;-)
I don't have a problem with the gray on white background that some do,
> but I do have a problem with the content:
>
> "Winsborough Limited is a specialised organisational development
> business dedicated to raising organisational effectiveness through
> people. Our professional staff are organisational psychologists and
> experts in the area of organisational behaviour."
>
> Spell checker?
> specialised = specialized ?
> organisational = organizational ?
> behaviour = behavior ?
>
> Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
On Sep 21, 12:16 am, Bergamot
> windandwaves wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 3:49 pm, Bergamot
> >> windandwaves wrote:
>
> >> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/andtell
> >> > me what you think.
>
> >> The content doesn't fit in my viewport and there is no horizontal
> >> scrollbar, clipping the right column and making it unreadable at best,
> >> inaccessible at worst.
>
> > OK, fixed that. Thanks a million for pointing it out!
>
> That's something you should test yourself before ever showing it to
> anyone else. It only takes a few seconds to test:
> - text zoom up and down
> - window resizing wide and narrow
> - combinations of small window large text and large window small text
>
> Do that in IE6/7 and Firefox at least. There's little reason to expect
> other browsers to behave differently than those 3, and *no* reason to
> wait for someone else to find errors related to resizing.
>
> --
> Berg
Hi Berg
Totally agree, an oversight on my part... Still working on some
resizing issues...
On Sep 21, 12:56 am, Bergamot
> Peter J Ross wrote:
> > In alt.html on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> >
>
> >> entering the URL, the validator says:
> >> "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"
>
> > Different content is being served to different browsers, according to
> > what Accept: header is sent.
>
> Why do people bother doing this for what is obviously plain HTML? There
> is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. In fact, it is problematic when
> you consider caching servers.
>
> > The validator chooses the HTML version,
>
> Which is all anyone else needs, at least for the OP's site.
>
> --
> Berg
This is under review....
On Sep 21, 10:52 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> windandwaves wrote:
> > Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
> > here... it works so lets not change it.
>
> To borrow a Jukka quote: "for some value of 'works'"
>
> So you are not going to fix any of the errors?
> I suppose that's pragmatic...
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
I have fixed a few, but I think most people who need to see this
website will be able to read it more than adequately...
Just also wanted to thank everyone for their replies ..... MUCH
APPRECIATED. Although we do not always agree with you it is always
nice to have the experts comment on work.
On Sep 21, 12:37 am, "rf"
> "windandwaves"
>
> news:1190251682.837448.241860@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi Folk
>
> >http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
>
> Yet another non fluid site from you.
>
> And why are you still specifying font size in pixels. Havn't you been told
> enough times that this is simply a bad design choice?
>
> And grey on white?
>
> --
> Richard.
Hi Richard
I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:58:47
GMT windandwaves scribed:
>> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
>> > me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although
>> > for it does.
>>
>> The only real difference I see (on the opening page) between ie6 and
>> Firefox/Opera is that there's more space between the bottom pic and
>> the centered line below in ie.
>>
>> There's a j/s error - "object expected", too.
>>
> I dont think there is a problem with the script - is there?
I didn't notice anything functionally amiss in that way, but I didn't spend
a lot of time trying to find it, either. Ie6 is usually pretty accurate in
identifying j/s errors.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:07:32 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> "a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?
>
> (1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.
Bujwah.
"A specialized ornithologist dedicated to dealing with the bird-brains of
today's flighty world."
How does "specialized" at all indicate the nature of this dedication?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:07:32 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> > "a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?
> >
> > (1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.
>
> How does "specialized" at all indicate the nature of this dedication?
When you were a baby, did you hurl that ball across the room if
you could not immediately find how to get the triangular piece
into the right hole? (Hint: it has a triangular shape)
--
dorayme
On 20 Sep, 23:08, dorayme
> Withdraw that remark about the Mac! What the has this got to do
> with Macs?
Macs have different gamma behaviour to PCs, so on a Mac it might be
readable.
Mac users often fail to realise this, so Mac-based designers may
suffer from a worse form of "But it looks OK on my computer" syndrome
than the strain that affects PC-based designers.
"windandwaves"
news:1190339758.702611.130360@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com.. .
> On Sep 21, 12:37 am, "rf"
>> "windandwaves"
> I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?
So what is this?
body
{
font-size:62.5%;
}
And:
li, p, h1, h2, h3, td
{
font-size:1.3em;
}
You have abandoned the stupidly small font size and have now made it 130% of
what I like.
What is wrong with omitting font size altogther. That way I get *exactly*
what I like, not what you think I might like.
Then again given your prior responses I don't expect anything at all.
--
Richard.
"windandwaves"
news:1190339758.702611.130360@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com.. .
> Hi Richard
Forgot to mention...
All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual content.
Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content into one page.
When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.
I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
things.
--
Richard.
On Sep 20, 6:26 pm, windandwaves
> > Spell checker?
> > specialised = specialized ?
> > organisational = organizational ?
> > behaviour = behavior ?
> Correct... There are people out there who speak "real" english ;-)
> lol - yes, new zealanders follow uk standards
> > Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
they are spelled wrong. No need to go all anti American, it is not
like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)
"rf"
news:XlMIi.320$H22.163@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "windandwaves"
> news:1190339758.702611.130360@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com.. .
>
>> Hi Richard
>
> Forgot to mention...
>
> All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual
> content. Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content
> into one page.
>
> When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
> screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.
>
> I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
> canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
> things.
>
> --
> Richard.
Maybe you could pay him to design another version of the site just to
satisfy your own predilections and leave his perfectly useable, valid and
aesthetically pleasing site - designed the way he and his client want it -
for the rest of us.
It's always unsatisfactory to be at odds with a group of experts. It
usually means you're wrong. Maybe I am. But it seems that there is a
hegemony of thought that dictates the user knows best always. I'm sorry,
but a lot of users are very naive. For those that aren't, there are a
variety of options for rendering pages according to your own taste. Use
them.
Why is it that structured design in a visual presentation medium is
pilloried so? White space "looks nice". Whether you're selling services or
peddling content, there is no sin in presenting your web page the way you
want it to be presented. If it's accessible, valid, readable, logical and
degrades well when styling is unavailable, then I can't see the problem.
+mrcakey
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:32:04
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > "a specialised organisational development business dedicated"?
>> >
>> > (1) "dedicated" makes "specialised" redundant.
>
>>
>> How does "specialized" at all indicate the nature of this dedication?
>
> When you were a baby, did you hurl that ball across the room if
> you could not immediately find how to get the triangular piece
> into the right hole? (Hint: it has a triangular shape)
You're damn right! I wanted instant gratification, and when the world
plotted against me, I got even. He he he, you wouldn't want to have been
one of my toys (-although according to some of my female friends, that has
changed a bit.)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:44:37 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:
> On Sep 20, 6:26 pm, windandwaves
>> > Spell checker?
>> > specialised = specialized ?
>> > organisational = organizational ?
>> > behaviour = behavior ?
>> Correct... There are people out there who speak "real" english ;-)
>> lol - yes, new zealanders follow uk standards
>> > Maybe it is just us Americans that think it is spelled wrong.
>
> Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
> they are spelled wrong. No need to go all anti American, it is not
> like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)
Er, in order to take it over, you hafta know where it is...
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
<1190367877.896067.60440@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> Just pointing out the spell checker in the FF Google tool bar thinks
> they are spelled wrong.
....like that was easy to guess huh?
> No need to go all anti American, it is not
> like we are trying to take over New Zealand (yet)
er... you have done the opposite and put poor NZ in Coventry for
its refusal to allow US nuclear warships into its ports years
ago. If you had known this, you would have been more careful
about saying things, being the sensitive guy you are...
--
dorayme
In article
<1190363463.122410.159000@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley
> On 20 Sep, 23:08, dorayme
>
> > Withdraw that remark about the Mac! What the has this got to do
> > with Macs?
>
> Macs have different gamma behaviour to PCs, so on a Mac it might be
> readable.
>
> Mac users often fail to realise this, so Mac-based designers may
> suffer from a worse form of "But it looks OK on my computer" syndrome
> than the strain that affects PC-based designers.
Well, gee, I am glad I asked, this is quite a good point of yours
actually. I have had one of my many screens set to more PC like
gamma to see stuff, especially how to prepare some pictures even
before looking at things on a Winbox. The business of text
contrast did not occur to me specifically when reading you.
--
dorayme
In article
"rf"
> When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
> screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.
The web is not about *you*.
--
dorayme
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:09:25 +1000, dorayme
>The web is not about *you*.
It is. It's about him, and about you, and about me, and even about
Jukka.
If you do it right, it meets _everyones'_ goals. Good design doesn't
exclude people who'd be equally happy with bad design. Many people even
recognise good design when they see it, without even realising that
they've seen it. The canard that "technically correct design must also
be aesthetically poor design" is a falsehood. If you have good design
and good implementation, you can make everyone happy without having to
exclude anything.
Neredbojias wrote:
>
> Ie6 is usually pretty accurate in identifying j/s errors.
Hmmm... I've always thought IE was terribly vague in its error messages.
The JS Console in gecko browsers is much more informative.
--
Berg
In article
Andy Dingley
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:09:25 +1000, dorayme
>
>
> >The web is not about *you*.
>
> It is.
It's not.
> It's about him, and about you, and about me, and even about
> Jukka.
>
Poor choice of examples, but you are getting there. Take me, for
instance, when I go to a site, it is usually for info and frankly
I just want that info in as plain a manner as possible. But that
is me. Maybe it is others too, but I mean *real plain* for me
will do and that is unlikely to be others choice. As often as
not, when vanilla is shown here, folks here complain about how
plain it is. There are not too many around here, I fancy, that
understand where windandwaves is coming from. Go read my post
where I lament about his not being able to marry his design goals
with a more fluid implementation. This is not a silly and
ignorant dismissal of his goals.
> If you do it right, it meets _everyones'_ goals.
I have two views on this and what you go on to say.
(1) I agree.
(2) Dream on, mate.
--
dorayme
[snip]
>
> Poor choice of examples, but you are getting there. Take me, for
> instance, when I go to a site, it is usually for info and frankly
> I just want that info in as plain a manner as possible. But that
> is me. Maybe it is others too, but I mean *real plain* for me
> will do and that is unlikely to be others choice. As often as
> not, when vanilla is shown here, folks here complain about how
> plain it is. There are not too many around here, I fancy, that
> understand where windandwaves is coming from. Go read my post
> where I lament about his not being able to marry his design goals
> with a more fluid implementation. This is not a silly and
> ignorant dismissal of his goals.
>
[snip]
Simple. If you don't like what you see, and you like a plain look, just tell
your browser that you want it plainer. TAKE CONTROL.
1. Use Firefox
2. Select View / Page Style / No Style from the menubar.
While this is checked you need never see another fancy stylesheet-ed page.
If this is *too* plain for your liking, just create a user stylesheet in
Firefox...
http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/ht/htcssuserfirefo.htm
http://www.squarefree.com/userstyles/user-style-sheets.html
You see? Lots of options. Take control of your browser if you don't like
what you see, thus freeing the rest of us to get on with the job of
satisfying our clients, and the vast majority of users :p
In article
<46f463aa$0$28214$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf"
> [snip]
> >
> > Poor choice of examples, but you are getting there. Take me, for
> > instance, when I go to a site, it is usually for info and frankly
> > I just want that info in as plain a manner as possible. But that
> > is me. Maybe it is others too, but I mean *real plain* for me
> > will do and that is unlikely to be others choice. As often as
> > not, when vanilla is shown here, folks here complain about how
> > plain it is. There are not too many around here, I fancy, that
> > understand where windandwaves is coming from. Go read my post
> > where I lament about his not being able to marry his design goals
> > with a more fluid implementation. This is not a silly and
> > ignorant dismissal of his goals.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Simple. If you don't like what you see, and you like a plain look, just tell
> your browser that you want it plainer. TAKE CONTROL.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here? I was saying something,
not asking for advice.
--
dorayme
On Sep 20, 1:28 pm, windandwaves
> Hi Folk
>
> Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
> it does.
>
> Thank you
>
> Nicolaas
i think its an interesting site.
i agree with other comments that the grey text colour on a white
background is not ideal /
windandwaves wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
>
> I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?
No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.
It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.
That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.
--
Berg
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:14:00 GMT
Bergamot scribed:
>> Ie6 is usually pretty accurate in identifying j/s errors.
>
> Hmmm... I've always thought IE was terribly vague in its error messages.
> The JS Console in gecko browsers is much more informative.
Oh, absolutely - it's the pits. I just meant that if it identifies an
error as being present (however vaguely), there most likely is an error.
-Somewhere. It's a shame because it would have been exceedingly simple to
provide sufficient info once the error had been tagged. No profit in it,
though.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot
> windandwaves wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
>
> > I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?
>
> No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
> font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.
>
> It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
> our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
> for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
> now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
> tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.
>
> That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.
>
> --
> Berg
Hi Berg
I based it on this assumption:
"If you want to use percentages then in your body style use body
{ font-size: 62.5% } then you can use em's instead of pixels eg. p
{font-size: 1.1em}. Using the 62.5% resets the font sizes for the
entire site so that 1.0em is the same as 10px and will cascade through
the rest of the site. " as discussed on
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=42 941,
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200602/setting_font_si ze_in_pixels/
and other places
Hi Everyone commenting....
I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
sight) would be much better off downloading firefox and use other
tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
like me to get it right. I am not saying we should be discriminatory,
but I feel in this group, a lot of time is wasted on trying to please
everyone, I think general usability issues are a lot more
interesting. To be everything to all people is just a bit over the
top. For example, if you write a heavy metal song, you are not
adjusting it so that everyone will like it and similarly you can not
expect an academic journal to dumb down their writings to that it is
accessible to the illiterate. I firmly believe that people should
create/write/design what they like and not what they think other would
want. I know that may sound radical, but I love diversity,
quirkiness, originality, etc... I dont like McDonalds (lowering food
to the lowest common denominator). The key is that your website is
accessible to the people you want to reach - right? Sometimes when
someone says : "hey your website does not work on my Gecko 0.8, using
my pink background, 90pixel screen, running on an Atari 64 " then I
think. Your are right! and the same is true for 1/3 of the worlds
population living on less than the dollar a day, nor the people who
dont like the internet or those who are currently under siege by the
US Army. That is, they are all valid points, but you have to place
them within the wider range of the real world. I will do my very best
to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....
Thanks again for all your comments.... I am taking them on-board as I
write this.
Nicolaas
Followups set to alt.html
windandwaves wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot wrote:
>> No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
>> font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.
>>
>> It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
>> our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
>> for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
>> now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
>> tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.
>>
>> That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.
[Bergamot's sig trimmed]
> I based it on this assumption:
>
> "If you want to use percentages then in your body style use body
> { font-size: 62.5% } then you can use em's instead of pixels eg. p
> {font-size: 1.1em}. Using the 62.5% resets the font sizes for the
> entire site so that 1.0em is the same as 10px and will cascade through
> the rest of the site. " as discussed on
> http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=42 941,
Pretend you never read that. Or better yet, realize that some people
post on fora (and, er, NGs) without knowing what they're talking about.
> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200602/setting_font_si ze_in_pixels/
> and other places
>
> Hi Everyone commenting....
>
> I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
> sight) would be much better off downloading firefox and use other
> tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
> like me to get it right.
No. You sound like one of these guys who has "Best viewed with IE 5 or
higher" on his pages. A page should be viewable to all visitors, no
matter what their browser is. If the browser doesn't meet their needs,
or is weak in usability, the user can trade up. But usability shouldn't
have to depend on what UAs the page was designed for.
You're suggesting that Microsoft come clean and market Internet Explorer
as "a browser for people without bad eyesight or other accessibility
issues". Firefox can be for people over 35, people who wear glasses,
people with certain size monitors, people in businesses, etc.
> I am not saying we should be discriminatory, but I feel in this group,
Um, you posted in two groups. Which one do you mean?
> a lot of time is wasted on trying to please everyone, I think
> general usability issues are a lot more interesting.
What usability issue is more general than whether a site is readable or
not? I understand that usability questions are interesting (I think so,
too), and so I point you to Jakob Nielsen and Vincent Flanders and their
ilk. But being able to see (i.e., consume) the text is fundamental.
http://www.useit.com/
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
> To be everything to all people is just a bit over the
> top. For example, if you write a heavy metal song, you are not
> adjusting it so that everyone will like it and similarly you can not
> expect an academic journal to dumb down their writings to that it is
> accessible to the illiterate. I firmly believe that people should
> create/write/design what they like and not what they think other would
> want.
Now you're talking about art, which has its own value, but which is
separate from the science of delivering content. If your message is a
message of art, you can be artistic, but I believe most sites on the
planet are informational, educational, business, or functional (meaning
utilitatarian) in nature. The communication is basic to their usefulness.
Stupid Analogy Time: The most beautiful or provocative art (a sculpture,
say) is worthless if it's locked in a vault where nobody can see it. If
it's on display, then people can enjoy it (which is what art's for),
unless it's up on the ninth floor and there's no lift. Sure, some hardy
folk will go up there, but lots will miss out.
Not everyone will want to see it in the first place, because they hate
sculpture, just like not everybody will want to hear your heavy metal
song (and the sculptor and songwriter won't care), but for those with an
interest, the work ought to be accessible.
> I know that may sound radical, but I love diversity,
> quirkiness, originality, etc... I dont like McDonalds (lowering food
> to the lowest common denominator). The key is that your website is
> accessible to the people you want to reach - right?
Hey, I think I just wrote that. ;-)
> That is, they are all valid points, but you have to place
> them within the wider range of the real world. I will do my very best
> to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
> things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
> sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....
Discussions about whether the nav should be vertical-left,
vertical-right, or horizontal-top don't matter much for sites which
people can't read easily. Also, see the links I mentioned.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
On Sep 23, 9:41 pm, John Hosking
wrote:
> Followups set to alt.html
>
> windandwaves wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot wrote:
> >> No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
> >> font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.
>
> >> It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
> >> our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
> >> for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
> >> now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
> >> tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.
>
> >> That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.
>
> [Bergamot's sig trimmed]
>
> > I based it on this assumption:
>
> > "If you want to use percentages then in your body style use body
> > { font-size: 62.5% } then you can use em's instead of pixels eg. p
> > {font-size: 1.1em}. Using the 62.5% resets the font sizes for the
> > entire site so that 1.0em is the same as 10px and will cascade through
> > the rest of the site. " as discussed on
> >http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4 2941,
>
> Pretend you never read that. Or better yet, realize that some people
> post on fora (and, er, NGs) without knowing what they're talking about.
>
> >http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200602/setting_font_s ize_in_pix...
> > and other places
>
> > Hi Everyone commenting....
>
> > I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
> > sight) would be much better off downloading firefox and use other
> > tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
> > like me to get it right.
>
> No. You sound like one of these guys who has "Best viewed with IE 5 or
> higher" on his pages. A page should be viewable to all visitors, no
> matter what their browser is. If the browser doesn't meet their needs,
> or is weak in usability, the user can trade up. But usability shouldn't
> have to depend on what UAs the page was designed for.
>
> You're suggesting that Microsoft come clean and market Internet Explorer
> as "a browser for people without bad eyesight or other accessibility
> issues". Firefox can be for people over 35, people who wear glasses,
> people with certain size monitors, people in businesses, etc.
>
> > I am not saying we should be discriminatory, but I feel in this group,
>
> Um, you posted in two groups. Which one do you mean?
>
> > a lot of time is wasted on trying to please everyone, I think
> > general usability issues are a lot more interesting.
>
> What usability issue is more general than whether a site is readable or
> not?
Hmmm well for people with three quorters of a brain it would be kind
of vital for people to read the message the website is trying to
comunicate.
>I understand that usability questions are interesting (I think so,
> too), and so I point you to Jakob Nielsen and Vincent Flanders and their
> ilk. But being able to see (i.e., consume) the text is fundamental.http://www.useit.com/http://www.webpagesthatsuck .com/
I agree, after if a large number of people on this NG can't read the
text on the website then what do kind of idea do you think people
would get of the organisation?.
HINT, the only documents where you normally find small print is on
legal documents.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>
John Hosking wrote:
> You're suggesting that Microsoft come clean and market Internet Explorer
> as "a browser for people without bad eyesight or other accessibility
> issues". Firefox can be for people over 35, people who wear glasses,
> people with certain size monitors, people in businesses, etc.
I'm thinking for people with a hunger for world power, the best bet
would be Konqueror. And let's not forget the folks (you know who you
are) that need Off By One and/or Crazy Browser.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project moved to this site August 28th:
http://improve-usenet.org
windandwaves wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot
>> windandwaves wrote:
>>
>> >> >http://www.winsborough.co.nz/
>>
>> Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
>> font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.
>
> http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=42 941,
> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200602/setting_font_si ze_in_pixels/
Hmmm... articles written by deeziners for deeziners. Why would you think
they have a clue? They really want everything in px, to maintain their
loverly deezines. They have merely deluded themselves into thinking they
are now more accessible or something. I'm not sure what they think, but
they are wrong.
> I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
> sight) would be much better off downloading firefox
Um, I already use a browser that is more intelligent than most
deeziners. It can't fix everything, though.
> and use other
> tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
> like me to get it right.
In your case, disabling stylesheets altogether seems the best choice.
Why would you want your visitors to do things like that, when it is so
unnecessary?
If you insist on setting a type size that is less than 100%, then don't
do it the stupid way. Just set body text at 85% and forget about bumping
up paragraph text to compensate for being so tiny. At least then
everybody will have a fighting chance to get it a comfortable size
without disabling CSS altogether.
--
Berg
In article
<1190525999.227269.292130@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
windandwaves
> I will do my very best
> to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
> things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
> sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....
In that case, you are not quite in the right newsgroup. When you
talk about design ideas, and people respond here, it is
inevitable and understandably right that the issue will be seen
in its relevance to a breathing live website, not a picture on a
wall. This brings in issues of usability immediately, especially
in regards to browser and font sizing.
--
dorayme
"mrcakey"
news:fd0c93$v8n$1@aioe.org...
> "rf"
> news:XlMIi.320$H22.163@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "windandwaves"
>> news:1190339758.702611.130360@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com.. .
>>
>>> Hi Richard
>>
>> Forgot to mention...
>>
>> All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual
>> content. Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content
>> into one page.
>>
>> When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
>> screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.
>>
>> I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
>> canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
>> things.
>>
>> --
>> Richard.
>
> Maybe you could pay him to design another version of the site just to
> satisfy your own predilections and leave his perfectly useable, valid and
> aesthetically pleasing site - designed the way he and his client want it -
> for the rest of us.
>
> It's always unsatisfactory to be at odds with a group of experts. It
> usually means you're wrong. Maybe I am. But it seems that there is a
> hegemony of thought that dictates the user knows best always. I'm sorry,
> but a lot of users are very naive. For those that aren't, there are a
> variety of options for rendering pages according to your own taste. Use
> them.
>
> Why is it that structured design in a visual presentation medium is
> pilloried so? White space "looks nice". Whether you're selling services
> or peddling content, there is no sin in presenting your web page the way
> you want it to be presented. If it's accessible, valid, readable, logical
> and degrades well when styling is unavailable, then I can't see the
> problem.
>
> +mrcakey
Yes I agree. Good points, well made.
+mrcakey
mrcakey wrote:
> "mrcakey"
> news:fd0c93$v8n$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> If it's accessible, valid, readable, logical
>> and degrades well when styling is unavailable, then I can't see the
>> problem.
>>
>> +mrcakey
>
> Yes I agree. Good points, well made.
Patting yourself on the back, eh? ;)
BTW, the OP's site being accessible and readable are still open to debate.
--
Berg
On 2007-09-20, windandwaves
[...]
>> Spell checker?
>> specialised = specialized ?
>> organisational = organizational ?
>> behaviour = behavior ?
>
> Correct... There are people out there who speak "real" english ;-)
> lol - yes, new zealanders follow uk standards
Specialized and organizational are also good in UK spelling. You can use
either, it's personal preference. I prefer the z. It has to be
"behaviour" though.