This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Site Ratings & Reviews > January 2004 > restaurant site
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Leonard Blaisdell 2004-01-09, 7:28 am |
| In article <xmuLb.4657$na.6009@attbi_s04>, Brian
<usenet2@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
quote:
> website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
> http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Overall, it looks nice and clean to me. I would prefer the navigation
links on the bottom of the pages of restaurant menu items to be horizontal
instead of vertical. Or just lose them.
leo
--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
| |
|
| Leonard Blaisdell wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> I would prefer the navigation
> links on the bottom of the pages of restaurant menu items to be horizontal
> instead of vertical.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not 100% sure which navigation you're
referring to. There are 2 on the menu pages. One has a heading "other
menus," the other, on the bottom does not. However, the bottom one is
horizontal (floated left) across the page in some browsers.
May I ask what browser you are using? That bottom nav should be
horizontal in Moz/Win, IE/Win, Safari/OSX, and Opera/Win. However,
IE/Mac 5.x chokes on this code, so I opted for a basic list in that
browser.
quote:
> Or just lose them
I've had a hard time picking something that I like for this secondary
navigation. That's why there's 2 of them. So I'm especially grateful
for feedback on this particular aspect of the site. Thanks very much
for your time.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Andrew Cameron 2004-01-09, 8:29 am |
| Brian wrote:quote:
> website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
> http://www.tsmchughs.com/
In my IE6, the green background of the menu cuts off after "help" then when
I hover over "help", the background of the menu extends, in green, to below
the page height, and I get a vertical scrollbar (I view in 1024x768). When
I hover over any of the other links, the menu goes back to how it was.
There's a lot of white space on most of the pages so it looks a bit empty -
maybe try to use that yellow colour some more? It goes well with the green,
IMO. The picture on the front page needs to be resized better - in your
graphics application, when resizing choose something like bilinear, bicubic
or "smart size" - this will make the smaller image look clearer (see the
beer shingles outside - they looked squashed).
If it's an Irish-themed pub, then I want to see the Irish theme! Show some
pictures of the interior and even some pictures of the food, if possible.
For instance, when I clicked on "draughts" on the front page, I expected to
see the bar with happy staff standing there, serving me 22 ice cold pints on
a warm summer's day, and instead I get a list. Knowing the price of things
is good, but I think less emphasis has to be put on financial matters in
favour of getting the customers into the establishment to begin with.
I hope some of this is of use to you.
--
Andrew Cameron
"Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
| |
|
| Andrew Cameron wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> In my IE6, the green background of the menu cuts off after "help"
To some degree, there is nothing I can do about that. I have height of
div#navigation set to 100%; it works in Moz, Opera, and Safari (which
all do position: fixed in any case), but not in MSIE/Win (which does
not do position: fixed.
I have MSIE 5.0/Win, where the green extends down the length of the
first screen, but no lower. Not ideal, but reasonable. It sounds like
IE 6 doesn't even extend it down the length of the first screen. Bummer.
quote:
> then when I hover over "help", the background of the menu extends,
> in green, to below the page height, and I get a vertical scrollbar
> (I view in 1024x768). When I hover over any of the other links, the
> menu goes back to how it was.
Ok, that's weird. I'll have to work on this in a place where I have
IE6/Win. (I have IE 5.0/Win on my dev machine.)
quote:
> The picture on the front page needs to be resized better - in your
> graphics application, when resizing choose something like bilinear,
> bicubic or "smart size" - this will make the smaller image look
> clearer (see the beer shingles outside - they looked squashed).
I resized it in MS Photo Editor (gasp!). I just redid it, I'll upload
it later this week.
quote:
> Show some pictures of the interior and even some pictures of the
> food, if possible.
I wanted to do that, but I don't live in Seattle. I asked for photos,
hoping for lots; I got 3, one of which you see on the home page. ;-)
quote:
> For instance, when I clicked on "draughts" on the front page, I
> expected to see the bar with happy staff standing there, serving me
> 22 ice cold pints on a warm summer's day, and instead I get a list.
I did get a picture of the bar. I put it up for the heck of it, but
orphaned the page because it's really a lousy picture, imho.
http://www.tsmchughs.com/bar/
quote:
> Knowing the price of things is good, but I think less emphasis has
> to be put on financial matters in favour of getting the customers
> into the establishment to begin with.
Agreed. My sister says she may head out to Seattle this summer. If she
does, she'll take her cameras (she's a professional graphic designer
and photographer). That should get me photos of the bar, dining rooms,
menu items, beers, etc.
quote:
> I hope some of this is of use to you.
Absolutely. Thanks.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Leonard Blaisdell 2004-01-09, 9:29 am |
| In article <_JvLb.5040$5V2.10629@attbi_s53>, Brian
<usenet2@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
quote:
> May I ask what browser you are using? That bottom nav should be
> horizontal in Moz/Win, IE/Win, Safari/OSX, and Opera/Win. However,
> IE/Mac 5.x chokes on this code, so I opted for a basic list in that
> browser.
Turns out I was using Mac IE5. I see the horizontal bottom navigation in
Mac Mozilla. In Opera 5, there is segmenting of white and green areas in
the left hand nav menu, but the bottom navigation shows horizontally. Not
bad in MacLynx either except I see the nav links twice, once for the left
hand nav and once for the bottom nav. I think I'd eliminate the bottom
navigation. That's just me.
leo
--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
| |
| Andrew Cameron 2004-01-09, 10:29 am |
| Brian wrote:quote:
> Andrew Cameron wrote:
>
> Ok, that's weird. I'll have to work on this in a place where I have
> IE6/Win. (I have IE 5.0/Win on my dev machine.)
I took some screenshots to let you see. When I hover over "help":
<http://dumpage.net/tsm/tsm1.jpg> and when I hover over any other link on
the menu: <http://dumpage.net/tsm/tsm2.jpg>.
quote:
>
> I wanted to do that, but I don't live in Seattle. I asked for photos,
> hoping for lots; I got 3, one of which you see on the home page. ;-)
Ah, I see. I've had that before and it's very, very annoying.
quote:
> I did get a picture of the bar. I put it up for the heck of it, but
> orphaned the page because it's really a lousy picture, imho.
>
> http://www.tsmchughs.com/bar/
It looks really nice, but you're right about it being a lousy picture. I
think a shot of the bar, taken from the same perspective as the front page
outside shot, and a picture of the building taken from the front would be
nicer. Easier to work into a site too, IMO. Also, people would be good -
right now it seems that if I visited, I'd be the only person there! :-)
--
Andrew Cameron
"Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
| |
| Madbob 2004-01-09, 10:29 am |
| "Brian" <usenet2@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:xmuLb.4657$na.6009@attbi_s04...quote:
> website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
> http://www.tsmchughs.com/
>
> --
> Brian
> follow the directions in my address to email me
>
I think the logo in the top left looks a bit 'rough'... needs cleaned up a
bit.
Other than that it's a nice simple design.
Bob
http://www.rawkstar.net
| |
| Brian 2004-01-09, 11:30 am |
| Leonard Blaisdell wrote:quote:
> In article <_JvLb.5040$5V2.10629@attbi_s53>, Brian
> <usenet2@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
>
>
> Turns out I was using Mac IE5.
The problem I had is that you must define a width to float a block
level container, which, iirc, follows the CSS 2.0 spec. CSS 2.1 was
updated to what most browsers were actually doing: allowing float on a
box if it didn't require the full width of the window. Those <li>
elements only contained one or two words each. Rather than explicitly
set a width for IE/Mac, I decided to just hide that particular code
from it, and took advantage of the 2.1 implementation in other browsers.
quote:
> I see the horizontal bottom navigation in Mac Mozilla. In Opera 5,
> there is segmenting of white and green areas in the left hand nav
> menu
It's ok in O7, mind you. I don't have O5. I don't know how much to
worry about that browser. Perhaps I'm being pigheaded, but I'd think
O5's user base is small, and shrinking in any case because Opera users
are, I'd think, more likely to upgrade quickly than, say, MSIE users.
In any case, I really can't test it on O5, and I have no idea how to
hide css from only that version of the browser.
quote:
> but the bottom navigation shows horizontally. Not bad in MacLynx
> either except I see the nav links twice, once for the left hand nav
> and once for the bottom nav.
I orginally had only the bottom navigation. The idea of the top left
nav (in Moz, O, IE, et al) came to me only a couple of days ago.
Both menus are there until I decide for sure which one to eliminate.
quote:
> I think I'd eliminate the bottom navigation. That's just me.
I'm glad to hear that, because I like that one better, too. I asked a
sister about it, and she liked the bottom better. Blegh. I'll ask some
more, and then kill one or the other.
Thanks again for your time.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Brian 2004-01-09, 11:30 am |
| Andrew Cameron wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> I took some screenshots to let you see.
*Very* kind of you. Thanks! :)
quote:
>
> Ah, I see. I've had that before and it's very, very annoying.
Yeah, it could really be nice with more photos. But then, I ought to
be grateful. The client is perfectly happy with the site as it is. He
doesn't even mind the logo, which was pulled from a previous site (a
couple pages on someone else's domain). So I'm fortunate to have a
client who is so easy to please.
quote:
>
> It looks really nice, but you're right about it being a lousy
> picture.
Took me a few reads to parse this. The *bar* looks nice, but the
picture is lousy. Indeed. I was out there once, several years ago. It
*is* a nice bar. I'd like to get a photo of just the taps, among
others. I like close, detailed shots.
Thanks for your input.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Brian 2004-01-09, 11:30 am |
| Madbob wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote in message news:xmuLb.4657$na.6009@attbi_s04
>
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> I think the logo in the top left looks a bit 'rough'... needs
> cleaned up a bit.
Absolutely. As I just mentioned in another post, that logo was pulled
from another site. It looks like a scan from a business card. Ugh. My
partner, a graphic designer, has a camera ready hard copy, which
she'll scan and touch up. It should improve dramatically at that point.
quote:
> Other than that it's a nice simple design.
Visually, I suppose it is. If I get more photos, that'll jazz things
up a tad. Thanks for your input.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Barefoot Kid 2004-01-09, 1:30 pm |
| hmm its kinda sparse and not terribly exciting to look at, a bit amateurish, logo looks very jagged
to me, u need to improve the visual quality of it
---------------------------------------------------
Hung Diep
New Media Designer
www.intro-spect.co.uk
0795 6576 319
"Brian" <usenet2@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
news:xmuLb.4657$na.6009@attbi_s04...
| website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
| http://www.tsmchughs.com/
|
| --
| Brian
| follow the directions in my address to email me
|
| |
| William Tasso 2004-01-09, 8:29 pm |
| Brian wrote:quote:
> ...
Context is so important
quote:
> I asked a
> sister about it, and she liked the bottom better. Blegh. I'll ask some
> more, and then kill one or the other.
SCNR - it just leapt off the screen.
I trust all your siblings are in good health.
btw: good work on the site. It could do with a little something for
visual/graphical browsers perhaps.
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
| |
| kchayka 2004-01-10, 10:29 am |
| Brian wrote:quote:
> website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
> http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Let me say up front that I use a larger than "average" text size with a
window size usually a tad smaller than 800px wide, though I did use
mostly an 800x600 window for this site. The larger text size is most
relevant.
The lower portion of the fixed nav bar was inaccessible until I either
sufficiently reduced the text size (which made the content too small for
my reading comfort) or increased the height of the browser window (which
may not always be an option).
On the home page, all the content wrapped under the photo, leaving a big
empty space next to the image. My first impression was that something
was broken. In the h1, is it absolutely necessary to put a non-breaking
space between "T.S." and "McHugh's"?
There are some display oddities with the menus (food, not nav), I
noticed it right away on desserts. It affects the item(s) that are next
to that TOC box at the top of the page. When the name and price don't
both fit on one line, some weird wrapping occurs. It might be related
to specifying float without setting an explicit width. With my
(largish) default text size, Opera7 and mozilla both showed weirdness,
though different weirdness.
Speaking of the TOC box, it seems overly large to me, both in width and
text size. It detracts from the content, especially at smaller window
sizes. The font size in the left nav bar seems overly large, as well.
It is actually larger than the body text.
Other than that, it looks great (poor graphics aside). Great code, too,
but I'm sure you already knew that. ;)
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
| |
| Brian 2004-01-10, 11:30 am |
| William Tasso wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> Context is so important
>
Yeah, well, they used to call me names when we were kids.
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> SCNR - it just leapt off the screen.
I didn't realize what I wrote. But now I'm lmao.
quote:
> I trust all your siblings are in good health.
so far... ;-)
quote:
> btw: good work on the site.
Thanks. But I just leared that there are problems when very large font
sizes are used.
quote:
> It could do with a little something for visual/graphical browsers
> perhaps.
I needs photos, photos, and, perhaps, photos. But those won't come
until summer at the earliest. (See other posts in this thread.)
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2004-01-10, 1:29 pm |
| Brian wrote:
quote:
> website for T.S. McHugh's Restaurant and Pub (Seattle, WA, US)
> http://www.tsmchughs.com/
I find it interesting that the Shepherd's Pie doesn't contain lamb.
Also: clicking on the logo should take you back to the front page.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2004-01-10, 3:29 pm |
| Quoth the raven named Toby A Inkster:
quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> I find it interesting that the Shepherd's Pie doesn't contain lamb.
>
> Also: clicking on the logo should take you back to the front page.
Has anyone noticed that the logo covers up a bit of the adjacent
content when viewed in IE6 and the Gecko browsers? Firebird 0.7,
Netscape 7.1, Moz? Works ok in Opera 7.2
Other than that, it is a nice site. (Shepherd's Pie should be made
with lamb. <g> My wife uses mashed yams instead of mashed potatoes.)
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
| |
| picayunish 2004-01-10, 7:28 pm |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
quote:
> Quoth the raven named Toby A Inkster:
>
>
>
> Has anyone noticed that the logo covers up a bit of the adjacent content
> when viewed in IE6 and the Gecko browsers? Firebird 0.7, Netscape 7.1,
> Moz? Works ok in Opera 7.2
No.
However I mis the help link on the menu, when viewing any browser with a
window of 800x600.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2004-01-10, 7:29 pm |
| Quoth the raven named picayunish:
quote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> No.
> However I mis the help link on the menu, when viewing any browser with a
> window of 800x600.
Hmm. You don't see this? Upper left.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagn...es/tsmchugh.jpg
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
| |
|
|
|
| Much thanks for the detailed response. I was a bit disappointed that
there were so many problems in what I thought was a pretty robust
layout. :(
kchayka wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> Let me say up front that I use a larger than "average" text size
I think I do, too, but perhaps not significantly larger, like you.
quote:
> The lower portion of the fixed nav bar was inaccessible until I either
> sufficiently reduced the text size (which made the content too small for
> my reading comfort) or increased the height of the browser window (which
> may not always be an option).
I was afraid that might be a problem. The easiest solution is to move
the fixed positioning into an alternative stylesheet. There if someone
wants it, but not there by default.
I just got a new logo graphic, one that is much smaller in height. So
I bumped up the nav a bit. Any better?
quote:
> On the home page, all the content wrapped under the photo, leaving a big
> empty space next to the image.
Your font size is huge! I had to set mine at 28px to duplicate what
you are seeing -- 26 wasn't big enough.
quote:
> My first impression was that something was broken.
Well, no, I sort intended it that way. The photo is floated left. If
there's not enough room for the text, it flows underneath. I'm not
sure if there's a better solution.
quote:
> In the h1, is it absolutely necessary to put a non-breaking
> space between "T.S." and "McHugh's"?
Well, I think it's preferable to the alternative. Here's some ascii
art of what I saw when there was a normal space there and I shrank the
the window down:
n | T.S.
a | ------
v | | |
i | | |
g | | |
a | | |
t | ------
i | McHugh's
o | Restaurant
n | & Pub
|
| content
When there enough room for "McHugh's" in the space next to the photo,
it works better to have a normal space. But when there's enough room
for "T.S." but not enough for "McHugh's," it is quite a bizarre
layout. What do you think?
quote:
> There are some display oddities with the menus (food, not nav), I
> noticed it right away on desserts. It affects the item(s) that are next
> to that TOC box at the top of the page. When the name and price don't
> both fit on one line, some weird wrapping occurs. It might be related
> to specifying float without setting an explicit width. With my
> (largish) default text size, Opera7 and mozilla both showed weirdness,
> though different weirdness.
I could not duplicate the problem in Opera. I see what you mean in
Mozilla. It happens e.g. for soups on the lunch menu. Not sure how to
correct it. Clearing the dt element didn't fix it. Neither did setting
a width (which I'd rather not do, anyways).
quote:
> Speaking of the TOC box, it seems overly large to me,
This I can change.
quote:
> both in width and
Reduced.
quote:
> text size.
Text size is same as body text. I am loath to make it smaller. The
quasi headings were 130% and bold. I've dropped it to 120%. I've left
the bold for now. Tell me if it's any better this way.
quote:
> The font size in the left nav bar seems overly large, as well.
> It is actually larger than the body text.
By design. But I've reduced it quite a bit. I actually think it's too
small. But tell me what you think. The smaller size provides more
vertical space.
quote:
> Other than that, it looks great (poor graphics aside).
Sort of out of my hands. But I did get a new graphic. I liked the
contents of the old better, but the new one looks better, its height
is smaller, too, making more room for the menu.
quote:
> Great code, too, but I'm sure you already knew that. ;)
Well, at least I have that going for me. Thanks again.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
|
| Toby A Inkster wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> I find it interesting that the Shepherd's Pie doesn't contain lamb.
I could ask the chef if you'd like...
quote:
> Also: clicking on the logo should take you back to the front page.
Done.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
|
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:quote:
>
>
> Has anyone noticed that the logo covers up a bit of the adjacent
> content when viewed in IE6 and the Gecko browsers? Firebird 0.7,
> Netscape 7.1, Moz?
In fact, yes, at small font sizes. The problem is that the nav is
absolutely positioned in the margin of the body. The width is set in
em units to scale with the nav li elements. But the image does not
scale (except in Opera, where you didn't see the problem, right?).
I just changed the logo. The new one is shorter, about the height of
the <h1> element on my Mozilla. Since <h1> is centered, the problem
might now be solved. Any better at your end?
If it's still a problem, then one solution would be to move the
navigation to the right side, where it's less likely to cover text.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
|
| Barefoot Kid wrote:quote:
>
> hmm its kinda sparse and not terribly exciting to look at
Lacking in photos, certainly. Nothing I can do about that (I live on
the wrong coast of the U.S. to go take some).
quote:
> a bit amateurish,
Not sure what to make of this vague criticism.
quote:
> logo looks very jagged to me,
I just got and uploaded a new logo. It's of marginally better quality.
quote:
> u need to improve the visual quality of it
I'm not the graphic designer. The client was actually perfectly happy
with the old one (!), which I found pretty ugly. So I'm glad to have
something else there.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
|
| picayunish wrote:quote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> No I don't see that on upper left.
> http://www.evandervaart.nl/news/tsmchughs.png
The difference is in the font size.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
|
| picayunish wrote:quote:
>
>
> I mis the help link on the menu, when viewing any browser with a
> window of 800x600.
A new logo and smaller nav font size has made the nav's height
smaller. Is it any better for you?
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
|
|
|
| Andrew Cameron wrote:quote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> There's a lot of white space on most of the pages so it looks a bit
> empty - maybe try to use that yellow colour some more?
I've changed the secondary nav borders to the same yellow used in the
main nav links. I'm not sure about how it looks. But I thought I'd try
and ask what you think.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
| |
| picayunish 2004-01-11, 5:28 am |
| Duende wrote:
quote:
> While sitting in a puddle picayunish scribbled in the mud:
>
>
>
>
> Picky, I think you need a few more toolbars. :)
Neah, I have enough toolbars in my FB.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction
| |
| picayunish 2004-01-11, 5:28 am |
| Brian wrote:
quote:
> picayunish wrote:
>
>
>
> A new logo and smaller nav font size has made the nav's height smaller.
> Is it any better for you?
Much better.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction
| |
| kchayka 2004-01-11, 12:29 pm |
| Brian wrote:
quote:
> kchayka wrote:
>
> I was afraid that might be a problem.
Fixed positioning is a nice idea that has a lot of potential problems.
Whether yours will be a (mostly) good application will depend on the
viewing habits of the target audience. My largish text size was only
one factor in making it (partly) inaccessible. Browser toolbars can
further reduced the amount of available vertical space.
In mozilla (classic theme), at 800x600 and my default text size, with
the browser menu, nav toolbar (text and icons), personal toolbar,
site/link toolbar and tab bar all showing, "help" is still hidden. If I
only show text on the nav toolbar _and_ hide the PTB or site/link bar,
"help" becomes visible.
It's up to you whether you do anything more to the positioning, of
course, but at least you know what the repercusions are.
quote:
>
> Your font size is huge! I had to set mine at 28px to duplicate what
> you are seeing -- 26 wasn't big enough.
In mozilla, my default font size is 18px, which is only a little larger
than the installed default. It renders at ~14pt on screen, and usually
approximates IE's "Larger" size. I do not set any minimum font size or
user stylesheets that would override author font sizes, since text zoom
always seems sufficient for my needs.
On the home page with a window 800px wide, the content isn't wrapping
under the photo now, it does wrap at just a bit less even though there
seems to be some empty space on the RHS. Why the margin-right:60px; on
body, anyway? Seems to me 1em would be sufficient.
quote:
> When there enough room for "McHugh's" in the space next to the photo,
> it works better to have a normal space. But when there's enough room
> for "T.S." but not enough for "McHugh's," it is quite a bizarre
> layout. What do you think?
I only saw this in narrow window sizes at large text sizes, and not at
all with stylesheets disabled. The likelihood of it happening is
further reduced by changing body margin-right to 1em, which gives more
horizontal space to the h1 element. The choice of what to do is
ultimately yours, of course.
quote:
>
> I could not duplicate the problem in Opera.
Maybe your window wasn't small enough, or your default text size not
large enough.
<URL:http://accessat.c-net.us/screenshots/tsmchughs.png>
quote:
> I see what you mean in Mozilla. Not sure how to correct it.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, either. I'd have to experiment a bit.
quote:
>
> Reduced.
The size is better, methinks, though I'm not sure I like that particular
shade of yellow. Against the green background, it looks more gold.
Against the white background, it looks a bit sickly, IMO.
quote:
>
> By design. But I've reduced it quite a bit. I actually think it's too
> small. But tell me what you think. The smaller size provides more
> vertical space.
The nav text is 120% of body text by design, and that is too small?
Well, OK. I do notice that the size difference between the nav bar and
body text is far less in IE than other browsers. I suppose that was one
of your considerations?
quote:
> Thanks again.
No problemo.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|