Site Ratings & Reviews - Site Critque please

Author

Site Critque please

William Burns

2004-08-26, 12:27 pm

http://www3.sympatico.ca/wmburns/roundel.html

I have had reports that the four key images of my art prints on this page
are not viewable.

Can anyone explain why this might be happening?

Bill

Chris Beall

2004-08-26, 12:27 pm

William Burns wrote:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/wmburns/roundel.html
>
> I have had reports that the four key images of my art prints on this page
> are not viewable.
>
> Can anyone explain why this might be happening?
>
> Bill
>
>
Bill,

I think you should conduct an investigation into why you are being given
erroneous reports.

The images displayed fine for me in both IE 5.5 and NN 7.1. It did take
a while...

Chris Beall

Neal

2004-08-26, 12:27 pm

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, William Burns <wmburns@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> http://www3.sympatico.ca/wmburns/roundel.html
>
> I have had reports that the four key images of my art prints on this page
> are not viewable.
>
> Can anyone explain why this might be happening?

For me, they render fine. I'll see if I can figure it out as I go through
the most apparent page errors, many are unrelated.

First, the document is quite long. Perhaps this could better become a few
different pages, interlinked. Consider it.

The visual design is old-school, but fine. Some would object to the width
of the paragraph, but I think you've made the best choice here. This is
targeted for a fairly educated audience; they can deal, I suspect.

Never reduce image size in the HTML. Instead, have the image available at
size and use it. You should set the height and width in an img element to
the actual height and width of the image you're accessing.

Ok, now I will look at the code.

First, see the page
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...&ss=1&verbose=1
- get it all - it is the validator report on your page. I've assumed a
character encoding of iso-8859-1 and a doctype of HTML 4.01 Transitional -
in other words, as lenient as possible. 66 entries. Look through them,
anything you really don't get feel free to ask about. I would go into it,
but there's just too many.

Put this at the very top of your document, above the <html> tag even:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

And add this line somewhere between <head> and </head> in your document.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

Then go to http://validator.w3.org/ and check the code for errors. With
the errors, anything bad could be happening in one browser or another. But
if the code is valid, at least we know any problems aren't going to be
terribly clouded by messy code.

As far as the image problem is, my best guess is that they are heavier
than the user's connection will allow. But thank goodness you posted this
here.

You use FrontPage.

Stop it!!

Seriously. It ruins your code, to the point that I'm wincing. It's like a
cheap screwdriver in the hands of a three-year-old right now, and even in
the hands of a skilled workman it isn't too good, he'll use a better tool
instead. FrontPage is utter garbage.

Look for a current HTML tutorial like at http://www.w3schools.com and
learn. A shiny toolkit (or authoring software) doesn't make a decent
cabinet (web page). It's the mind using the tool that can do this. But
don't change the tool just yet - learn to do it without the tools. You'll
be better off - and it is not that hard.

William Burns

2004-08-26, 12:27 pm

Neal,

I learned html coding using a program called Cute HTML several years ago,
but have slipped into laziness with FrontPage. I agree it makes the coding
almost impossible to troubleshoot, but once used, it becomes very difficult
(at least for me) to stop using it cause it's so easy.

I will go through the validation this evening.

Bill

"Neal" <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:opsda2jjbo6v6656@news.individual.net...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, William Burns <wmburns@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
page[color=darkred]
>
> For me, they render fine. I'll see if I can figure it out as I go through
> the most apparent page errors, many are unrelated.
>
> First, the document is quite long. Perhaps this could better become a few
> different pages, interlinked. Consider it.
>
> The visual design is old-school, but fine. Some would object to the width
> of the paragraph, but I think you've made the best choice here. This is
> targeted for a fairly educated audience; they can deal, I suspect.
>
> Never reduce image size in the HTML. Instead, have the image available at
> size and use it. You should set the height and width in an img element to
> the actual height and width of the image you're accessing.
>
> Ok, now I will look at the code.
>
> First, see the page
>
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...&ss=1&verbose=1
> - get it all - it is the validator report on your page. I've assumed a
> character encoding of iso-8859-1 and a doctype of HTML 4.01 Transitional -
> in other words, as lenient as possible. 66 entries. Look through them,
> anything you really don't get feel free to ask about. I would go into it,
> but there's just too many.
>
> Put this at the very top of your document, above the <html> tag even:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
>
> And add this line somewhere between <head> and </head> in your document.
>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
>
> Then go to http://validator.w3.org/ and check the code for errors. With
> the errors, anything bad could be happening in one browser or another. But
> if the code is valid, at least we know any problems aren't going to be
> terribly clouded by messy code.
>
> As far as the image problem is, my best guess is that they are heavier
> than the user's connection will allow. But thank goodness you posted this
> here.
>
> You use FrontPage.
>
> Stop it!!
>
> Seriously. It ruins your code, to the point that I'm wincing. It's like a
> cheap screwdriver in the hands of a three-year-old right now, and even in
> the hands of a skilled workman it isn't too good, he'll use a better tool
> instead. FrontPage is utter garbage.
>
> Look for a current HTML tutorial like at http://www.w3schools.com and
> learn. A shiny toolkit (or authoring software) doesn't make a decent
> cabinet (web page). It's the mind using the tool that can do this. But
> don't change the tool just yet - learn to do it without the tools. You'll
> be better off - and it is not that hard.

Neal

2004-08-26, 12:27 pm

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:19:36 -0400, William Burns <wmburns@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> Neal,
>
> I learned html coding using a program called Cute HTML several years ago,
> but have slipped into laziness with FrontPage. I agree it makes the
> coding
> almost impossible to troubleshoot, but once used, it becomes very
> difficult
> (at least for me) to stop using it cause it's so easy.

Oh dear.

> I will go through the validation this evening.
>
> Bill

Hi, I'm Bill, I use FrontPage, and I top-post.

HELLO BILL, WE LOVE YOU BILL.

(translation for the sarcasm-impaired: Bill, you should post your replies
in conversation order, or after the bit you're replying to. It makes for
easier comminication, and it's the way we do it here, and you got the
questions, kapeesh? And do get off the FrontPage. Crimson Editor and
copious amounts of alcohol instead, ok?)