Site Ratings & Reviews - www.kiki-health.co.uk

Author

www.kiki-health.co.uk

news@btbroadband.com

2004-08-27, 12:16 pm

Would welcome site check, especially from those of you using less common
browsers and operating systems.

www.kiki-health.co.uk

2004-08-27, 12:16 pm

news@btbroadband.com wrote:

Very odd handle :-)

> Would welcome site check, especially from those of you using less common
> browsers and operating systems.
>
> www.kiki-health.co.uk

Hmmm. Don't know really what to make of it.

First impression is that it is very nice looking site *until* I mouse over
one of the menu items. Then this big black blot of a submeu lumps onto my
canvas.

You have managed to recolour my scroll bars. Why not tart up that
navigation. Better yet lose it and rely on the underlying HTML navigation.

What WISIWYG did you use to produce this? Totally table driven.

--
Cheers
Richard.

David Dorward

2004-08-27, 12:16 pm

news@btbroadband.com wrote:

> Would welcome site check, especially from those of you using less common
> browsers and operating systems.
>
> www.kiki-health.co.uk

http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/kiki.png
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...i-health.co.uk/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...i-health.co.uk/
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/%7Eflavell/alt/alt-text.html

.... and defulting the body font size to "x-small" is plain silly. If you are
going to use keywords, then make body text "medium", but note that in
quirks mode IE will _default_ to "small" so this will make the text larger
then expected. I'd go with percentages if I were you. (And body
{ font-size: 100%; }).

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

2004-08-27, 12:16 pm

news@btbroadband.com wrote:

> Would welcome site check, especially from those of you using less
common
> browsers and operating systems.
>
> www.kiki-health.co.uk

Kind of a slow loader because of the big banner with the toothy model.
It is too wide, forcing the whole page to be too wide. You could make
it both adjustable to the width of the visitor's default browser size
and quicker loading using smaller images that adjusted in relation to
one-another to fit the browser window.

The drop-down menus make the whole page disappear during some
mouseovers. Very annoying. (Konqueror --
I suppose not many of your customers will be running Konqueror anyway.
It's not exactly a beauty/wellness kinda browser, if you know what I
mean.) But drop-down javascript nav almost always turns out to be
klunky in several browsers. I find it simply annoying, but Neilsen
thinks there might be some use for them. See:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001112.html

There's just too much in those menus. Instead of, say,
inner talk / learning / genius power
....why don't you give inner talk it's own page.
The <noscript> section is incomplete. Either keep up with the
javascript menus, or simplify the javascript menus to match the
<noscirpt> section (better IMO).
--
m http://www.mbstevens.com/

Neal

2004-08-27, 7:17 pm

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:24:27 +0000 (UTC), news@btbroadband.com
<yogaandfruit@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Would welcome site check, especially from those of you using less common
> browsers and operating systems.
>
> www.kiki-health.co.uk
>
>

3:00 and counting, and nothing but a header. According to my browser 8
images are loaded and the document is 100% loaded. What the hell is taking
so long?

Sorry, no time to wait. Reduce filesize by trimming whatever is stalling
the download.

Jon CC

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-157-0-135.range81-157.btcentralplus.com
X-Trace: sparta.btinternet.com 1093803155 16155 81.157.0.135 (29 Aug 2004 18:12:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com alt.html.critique:52198

> How about the poor bastards with 800px wide monitor?

Those on 800x600 at the moment have access to the menus without needing to
scroll, so things aren't so bad. I'm concidering dishing out a lower
resolution banner for those running 800x600, the rest of the site is
scalable. It's just that up to now our stats have shown that there's not
really been enough visitors at that resolution to warrent it.

I think one of the big problems we all face is that it's very difficult to
get content that looks great from 800x600 to 1600x1200. Either those with
small browsers get text forced in to small columns, or those with big
browsers have impossibly long lines of text to read. Or worse (IMHO),
websites just introduce loads of blank space around the edges.
For now I aim to get a site looking best on the two most popular sizes,
1024x768 & 1280x960.

Jon CC

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

> If a visitor has an 800x600 resolution, how can they resize to 840px? That
> left column is too wide anyway; why not narrow it down and fit within the
> 800px window?

Assuming you're talking about the same left column as I think you are, it
scales to 1/3rd of the browser width. There's gonna be some more content
going in here soon.

> I think you do not have enough real info 'above the fold' forcing visitors
> to vertically scroll just to see what you are about.

Fair point, I agree that the front page needs a bit of a rethink, at the
moment it is design over functionality.

> The site map page font is way too small, and the indent for each level is
> too large.

This page has been recently added for the benefit of search engines,
currently very few people are visiting it, there's not really any need since
nearly the whole site can be reached from the front page via the menus.

David Dorward

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

Jon CC wrote:

> For now I aim to get a site looking best on the two most popular sizes,
> 1024x768 & 1280x960.

If you believe the statistics, the most "popular" screen resolutions are
1024x768 (50%) and 800x600 (36%). 1280x960 doesn't get a look in with less
then 0% (1280x1024 on the other hand gets 6%).

.... and that doesn't even attempt to measure people who don't use maximised
browser windows.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

Quoth the raven Jon CC:

[You keep trimming the attributes; who said what you're replying to.]

>
> Assuming you're talking about the same left column as I think you
> are, it scales to 1/3rd of the browser width. There's gonna be some
> more content going in here soon.

There is only one left column. The other two are a center and a right
column. <g>

What kind of "more content" will be there. If it is still to be menu
items and links, make it narrower, and expand the content columns.

>
> This page has been recently added for the benefit of search
> engines, currently very few people are visiting it, there's not
> really any need since nearly the whole site can be reached from the
> front page via the menus.

That is not a reason to make it unreadable by humans with eyes.

And to respond to one of your other posts:
> It's just that up to now our stats have shown that there's not
> really been enough visitors at that resolution to warrent it.

Your stats are measuring *screen resolution*, not *browser window
size*. The two are not related. People with high-res monitors are not
apt to browse with maximized windows. Why is this hard for you to
understand?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jon CC

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

>
> If you believe the statistics, the most "popular" screen resolutions are
> 1024x768 (50%) and 800x600 (36%). 1280x960 doesn't get a look in with less
> then 0% (1280x1024 on the other hand gets 6%).

The stats that I refer to are taken from visitors to our site, i.e. our
target audience, rather than the internet as a whole. Out of our visitors
68% run 1024, 19% 1280 (sorry, meant x1024, I tend to use x960 cause it's
4:3) and only 7% use 800. Could be any number of reasons for the above,
maybe those than can spend money on health products can spend on computers
too, perhaps they don't work in the corporate environment, they could be
environmentally conscious and all use TFTs....

The Doormouse

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

"Jon CC" <yogaandfruit@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I can't see MS removing features to comply with standards, like it or
> not, their non-standard tags are in wide use, people won't want a new
> browser that seems to have features removed.

I use Firefox half the time because it is not loaded down with
"features". It is noticeably faster.

>
> Is inline javascript not supported?

Inline Javascript adds a small amount to file size, and also makes
debugging ever so slightly more hairy. Sure, you can do it. The results
will be a little cleaner if you do not.

> All the code is dynamically generated, there are comments in the
> source, but this isn't sent to the users, why make users download
> useless comments?

It is for clarity and quality testing.

> For whatever reason the visitors to our site rarely run this low,
> also, given that TFT monitors are now becomming standard, and look
> horrible when run at low resolutions I think 800x600 will die out
> fairly soon.

I am using an LCD screen - the Philips 150 b3.
It has two settings, which are 800 and 1028.

The sharp clarity of this monitor plus its great color response make me
very reluctant to even consider switching.

> Would you say that you're a bit of an HTML purist?

Certainly - my background is in quality assurance manufacturing, among
other things. HTML is so easy to do correctly, so why not?

> I gather you don't
> agree with microsofts decision to add features to its browser that
> aren't in the standards, but since they're there (and it's not likely
> to change) why do you not like to support them?

The widespread adoption of Firefox as a sudden and viable alternative to
IE may influence Microsoft to create a new browser version that is
sleeker than their current offering. Continuous improvement is part of
their corporate culture.

While it might be convenient to think that MS will never adopt, I can see
IE7 being offered in the future. This version is likely to loose the
cruft which has made IE6 so ponderously slow and security-riddled.

Also, things like "marquee" and "colored scroll bars" are poor design
elements which add no great value. It is cleaner to omit them.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

The Doormouse

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

"Jon CC" <yogaandfruit@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If peoples browser is smaller
> than this is it really unreasonable for them just to resize it?

Yes.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

The Doormouse

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

Message-ID: <Xns9554A6DF42A14doormouseattnet@68.12.19.6>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 18
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:24:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.7.112.206
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: okepread07 1093821849 68.7.112.206 (Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:24:09 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:24:09 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com alt.html.critique:52209

Neal <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 450px-500px really is a more suitable goal, and if there's any chance a
> handheld will want to access your content, even narrower.

Web-enabled phones are very common in my city. This is no longer a
novelty.

A web site that can be accessed by phone and understood has an advantage
over one that does not. Certainly degree of accessibility applies here. A
web phone is ridiculously small. Designs that are still partly useable at
that tiny size will have advantage over designs that cannot be used at
all.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2004-08-29, 11:15 pm

Quoth the raven Jon CC:

[I think I said this, but you ONCE AGAIN snipped the attribute!]
>
> There are a lot of different pages on the site, with different size
> columns... I assume you mean the front page.

Yes, I did.

>
> I refer to screen resolution rather than browser size because those
> that run high resolution can resize their browsers if they're not
> happy with what they're seeing. They have a choice, those in low
> res don't. It takes half a second to resize your browser window...

Ok, I give up. You win.

But, if you continue to post in these groups, PLEASE leave in the
attributes that your .. newsreader .. puts in place. Y'know, the
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:" Thanks for your consideration.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Neal

2004-08-30, 4:16 am

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:12:35 +0000 (UTC), Jon CC
<yogaandfruit@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Those on 800x600 at the moment have access to the menus without needing
> to
> scroll, so things aren't so bad. I'm concidering dishing out a lower
> resolution banner for those running 800x600, the rest of the site is
> scalable. It's just that up to now our stats have shown that there's not
> really been enough visitors at that resolution to warrent it.

Perhaps your stats are colored by the fact that your rendering is better
in larger sizes? Perhaps many users with smaller sizes tried and failed to
get satisfaction from your site, and the only substantioal hits you get
are from the few with larger screens? If that's the case, you ought to fix
your layout to allow that big group of visitors to get value from your
pages.

> I think one of the big problems we all face is that it's very difficult
> to
> get content that looks great from 800x600 to 1600x1200. Either those with
> small browsers get text forced in to small columns, or those with big
> browsers have impossibly long lines of text to read. Or worse (IMHO),
> websites just introduce loads of blank space around the edges.

I disagree. It is absolutely possible to have a layout that works from
400px to 1200px wide. It might seem a little spacious at 1200px, but it
will look good. And it might be a tad cramped at 400px, but it will be
usable.

I might suggest that at least some users generally do not use the browser
maximized. As we speak, I'm using the Opera M2 email/ng thingie. I keep
the list of ng's and email accounts to the left as I browse sites. As a
result, if you were to use Javascript to check my screen width, you'd get
a number which is about 125% of my actual viewport width.

Bottom line - screen width is not related to viewport width, except as a
top limit. Assume small, not big.

Ben Measures

2004-08-30, 12:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:
>
> The site's been designed
> for 1024x768 and above. Current site stats are showing 92% of our visitors
> are running at this or higher.

Perhaps because your site is driving the rest of your potential
customers away.

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures

2004-08-30, 12:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:
> The Doormouse wrote:
>
> For instance, we use CSS scrollbar colouring
>
> I can't see MS removing features to comply with standards, like it or not,
> their non-standard tags are in wide use, people won't want a new browser
> that seems to have features removed.

Do you really think the end-user thinks scrollbar-colouring a
"feature"?? IAO they couldn't give a toss.

Furthermore, on seeing a broken website they'd quite rightly think the
website is broken, not the browser.

>
> There are alot of nested tables, agreed. At the beginning we made an early
> decisionto use tables to layout the design rather than CSS, simply cause it
> tends to be faster to develop, is a lot easier to get working reliably cross
> browser, and to be honest, tends to look better when people resize their
> browsers.

Wrong on all three points. http://www.csszengarden.com/ has many
examples in refute.

>
> For whatever reason the visitors to our site rarely run this low. Again, we
> decided to use higher resolution graphics to give the best experiance to the
> majority.

No, you chose inflexible design/coding that excludes (though not so bad
as fully fixed-design). With virtually no modifications to appearance,
it could've been coded better with a flexible, more accepting design.

--
Ben M.

Toby Inkster

2004-08-30, 12:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:

> The stats that I refer to are taken from visitors to our site, i.e. our
> target audience,

Is it not a bit limiting to say that your target audience is only those
people who already visit your site?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./ed_harcourt/from_every_sphere/10_fireflies_take_flight.ogg

Ben Measures

2004-08-30, 12:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> I refer to screen resolution rather than browser size because those that run
> high resolution can resize their browsers if they're not happy with what
> they're seeing. They have a choice, those in low res don't. It takes half a
> second to resize your browser window...

That's assuming they want to. What you're asking is that they stop
everything they're doing and put only your site onscreen. This requires
a great deal of initial interest for users to be willing to do this - if
it's not there then your design may be driving them away before you can
catch more of their interest.

Within the high-speed world of the modern internet interest is a rare
commodity, and you should treat it as such. A successful website will
try to generate much but require little.

--
Ben M.

kchayka

2004-08-30, 7:17 pm

Jon CC wrote:
>
> we use CSS
> scrollbar colouring, I belive having custom colour scrollbars enhances the
> design [and] provide the best user experiance to the most people.

Please show the research that supports your claim that colored
scrollbars enhance the user experience. I've never seen any, though I
firmly believe that the only folks who think it's a neat thing are the
designers who do it.

Scrollbars are part of the browser UI, not the web page. Don't mess with
user controls just because you can.

> There are alot of nested tables, agreed. At the beginning we made an early
> decisionto use tables to layout the design rather than CSS, simply cause it
> tends to be faster to develop,

Tables are only easier to develop if you are using a so-called WYSIWYG
tool, all of which generally spew out ishy code anyway. If you hand
code, table layouts are a huge PITA. Nested tables can also add an
enormous amount of bloat to the code, so the pages are slower loading,
take longer to render, and unnecessarily increase your bandwidth
requirements. I fail to see how these are benefits.

Don't y'all have any visitors on dial-up?

> is a lot easier to get working reliably cross
> browser, and to be honest, tends to look better when people resize their
> browsers.

No, it merely takes someone who:
1. Has taken the time to actually learn CSS.
2. Is accepting of web media as it is, and not try to force a
pixel-perfect design.

BTW, when I resize my browser window, I don't think your page looks
"better" than a well-constructed, flexible CSS layout.

> I think 800x600 will die out fairly soon.

Window size has very little to do with screen size. Or are you
mistakenly assuming that everyone uses full-size windows? Desktops
aren't the only way to browse the web, either.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Jon CC

2004-08-30, 7:17 pm

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:2ph293Flc110U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Jon CC wrote:

> Please show the research that supports your claim that colored
> scrollbars enhance the user experience. I've never seen any, though I
> firmly believe that the only folks who think it's a neat thing are the
> designers who do it.

I've no hard evidence to support this, but personally I much prefer browsing
a site that looks good, a lot of sites simply look better with coloured
scrollbars, especially when they're used within a page, on IFrames and such.
An ugly grey scrollbar can look horrible.

>
> Tables are only easier to develop if you are using a so-called WYSIWYG
> tool, all of which generally spew out ishy code anyway. If you hand
> code, table layouts are a huge PITA.

I strongly disagree with this, I hand code all sites and have never had a
problem coding table structures. Also, since most of my code tends to be
dynamically generated it's very easy to generate a table.

>
> Window size has very little to do with screen size. Or are you
> mistakenly assuming that everyone uses full-size windows? Desktops
> aren't the only way to browse the web, either.

A person on a resolution greater than 800x600 has the option to resize a
browser if it doesn't fit nicely immediately.

2004-08-30, 11:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:

> I'm only counting a visitor once in the stats, not how many page
> views there are.

Rubbish. How do you identify a unique "visitor"?

Hints:

A dial up user gets a different IP address at every dial-up.

An AOL user (IIRC) gets a different IP address at every GET request.

Every single person behind a corporate proxy server hase the *same* IP
address.

Nobody ever sees a page request if it is already in a browsers cache and has
not expired.

So much for stats.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Jon CC

2004-08-31, 4:17 am

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:qOOYc.13733$D7.5051@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Jon CC wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish. How do you identify a unique "visitor"?

A visitor is concidered unique if they have the same IP address, user agent
and resolution. Those on dial up and those behind a lan will roughly balance
over time.
On other sites we've used a flash cookie (which is near impossible to remove
for the average user) to identify people, although obviously that only works
when the users have flash.

Jon CC

2004-08-31, 4:17 am

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:qOOYc.13733$D7.5051@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Jon CC wrote:
>
> An AOL user (IIRC) gets a different IP address at every GET request.

Oh, and this is fairly easy to eliminate if you track the referrers. If a
consecutive site hit has the same referrer as the previous page hit (and
screen res and user agent match) you can nearly guaruntee that they are the
same person.

kchayka

2004-08-31, 11:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:
> "kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
> news:2ph293Flc110U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> I've no hard evidence to support this

I'm shocked! :)

> but personally I much prefer

It's been pointed out to me (more than once), that those of us who are
technically savvy do not represent the average user. You're personal
preferences don't mean anything.

> An ugly grey scrollbar can look horrible.

If you think so, then feel free to change your desktop theme so
scrollbars are a different color. Mine happen to match the rest of my UI
perfectly and are instantly recognizable as scrollbars wherever they may
appear within a page.

And that's the key here - user familiarity with the controls provided by
the OS. When you change them, it can lead to confusion. If you hunt
around usability sites, like Jakob Nielsen's useit.com, you'll find
articles on this. Scrollbars even got special mention in web application
usability tests:

"One particular usability problem is worth emphasizing: in several
applications, users missed many of the options because of nonstandard
scrollbars."

<URL:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021125.html>

I will mention that I don't always agree with Nielsen, but I do in this
case.

>
> I strongly disagree with this, I hand code all sites and have never had a
> problem coding table structures.

If you don't have much trouble, then I think you are the exception,
rather than the rule. But I'm starting to think you are merely
justifying using layout tables because you don't know how to do what you
want with CSS, and can't or don't want to take the time to learn it.
Old-school, so to speak. Can an old dog learn new tricks?

> Also, since most of my code tends to be
> dynamically generated it's very easy to generate a table.

Are you saying you can't generate more appropriate markup? Or won't?
Regardless, that doesn't make layout tables appropriate markup for the job.

>
> A person on a resolution greater than 800x600 has the option to resize a
> browser if it doesn't fit nicely immediately.

Why make your visitors work to view your site, especially when it is so
easy to remove such obstacles? I guess you aren't concerned about
annoying your visitors, eh? Care to guess how many won't even bother and
just go elsewhere? It must be nice to be able to send potential
customers away just because you think their browing environment isn't
suitable, modern enough, or whatever other rationalization you made for
it. Good for you, I guess. :-\

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Chris Beall

2004-08-31, 11:16 pm

Jon CC wrote:

> I think one of the big problems we all face is that it's very difficult to
> get content that looks great from 800x600 to 1600x1200. Either those with
> small browsers get text forced in to small columns, or those with big
> browsers have impossibly long lines of text to read. Or worse (IMHO),
> websites just introduce loads of blank space around the edges.

Jon,

OK, I'm probably going to regret this, but take a look at
http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beal...box/index.html. At ANY window size.

You may have to adjust your browser's default text size to accommodate
your personal preference.

NOTE: The images on this site are representative and not the final ones.

Chris Beall

2004-09-01, 4:16 am

Chris Beall wrote:

> OK, I'm probably going to regret this, but take a look at
> http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beal...box/index.html. At ANY window
size.
>
Not too bad, but the kind of casual scattering of navigation at the
bottom of most pages is not optimal -- you have to scroll down to use
it. Some of the headers have a lot of jaggies. When you update the
images, those like the working hands of the artist should be of higher
quality -- they're full of jaggies, too. Sometimes this doesn't mean
getting a higher pixel count so much as working the image over with an
editor to minimize the jaggies. And I'd kick up the saturation of the
colors on the rings just a bit more so that the difference of colors
can be seen more easily. Try substituting dark grey background for
black and see how you like it.
--
m http://www.mbstevens.com/

Chris Beall

2004-09-01, 4:16 am

m wrote:
> Chris Beall wrote:
>
>
>
> size.
>
> Not too bad, but the kind of casual scattering of navigation at the
> bottom of most pages is not optimal -- you have to scroll down to use
> it. Some of the headers have a lot of jaggies. When you update the
> images, those like the working hands of the artist should be of higher
> quality -- they're full of jaggies, too. Sometimes this doesn't mean
> getting a higher pixel count so much as working the image over with an
> editor to minimize the jaggies. And I'd kick up the saturation of the
> colors on the rings just a bit more so that the difference of colors
> can be seen more easily. Try substituting dark grey background for
> black and see how you like it.

m,

All good points, but I KNOW the images aren't optimum, and said so. And
I acknowledge that you are one of the experts on this, especially with
regard to jewelry. I've gotten lots of good tips from you and will use
them when the images are redone. :-)

The point was to demonstrate to Jon CC that liquid design works, not to
tout this particular use of it.

Cheers,
Chris Beall

2004-09-01, 4:16 am

Chris Beall wrote:

> The point was to demonstrate.................

You think people are interested in the point??? ;--]
How long you been on usenet?
--
m

Chris Beall

2004-09-01, 4:16 am

m wrote:

> Chris Beall wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You think people are interested in the point??? ;--]
> How long you been on usenet?

Ah, silly me.

CB

The Doormouse

2004-09-01, 11:17 pm

Jon CC

2004-09-03, 12:17 pm

Thanks for comments.

Neal

2004-09-04, 4:19 am

Jon CC

2004-09-05, 7:16 pm

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200408@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.30.12.15.12.767565@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> Jon CC wrote:
>
>
> Is it not a bit limiting to say that your target audience is only those
> people who already visit your site?

I wouldn't say so, before coming on to the site people don't know how it's
gonna look so we're not losing potential customers, just maybe repeat
visits. I'm only counting a visitor once in the stats, not how many page
views there are.

Guy Golston

2004-09-12, 4:16 am

"Neal" <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:opsdenql0o6v6656@news.individual.net...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:24:27 +0000 (UTC), news@btbroadband.com
> <yogaandfruit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 3:00 and counting, and nothing but a header. According to my browser 8
> images are loaded and the document is 100% loaded. What the hell is taking
> so long?
>
> Sorry, no time to wait. Reduce filesize by trimming whatever is stalling
> the download.

Sounds like a bug in your browser there, there's nothing huge on the front
page, a couple of small images, some text and a menu...
Acording to my browser there's 91.3k uncompressed on that front page once
you've downloaded all of the images and everything, that's under 2 seconds
on bottom end broadband still only 18 on 56k, obviously the page will
display well before that while it downloads the images and most modems use
software compression at either end.

Neal

2004-09-13, 12:17 pm

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:46:48 +0000 (UTC), Guy Golston
<guygolston@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Neal" <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:opsdenql0o6v6656@news.individual.net...
>
> Sounds like a bug in your browser there, there's nothing huge on the
> front
> page, a couple of small images, some text and a menu...

Well, it remains that for some reason the page won't render in my Opera.
Until I turn off Javascript, when it goes fine. So I imagine something in
here:

<SCRIPT language="JavaScript" src="milonic_src.js"
type="text/javascript"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
if(ns4)_d.write("<scr"+"ipt language=JavaScript
src=mmenuns4.js><\/scr"+"ipt>");
else _d.write("<scr"+"ipt language=JavaScript
src=mmenudom.js><\/scr"+"ipt>")
</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language="JavaScript" src="menu_data.js"
type="text/javascript"></SCRIPT>
<TABLE width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
<TR>
<TD class="kikiDark">
<SCRIPT language="JavaScript" src="menu_header.js"
type="text/javascript"></SCRIPT>

is the problem.