Site Ratings & Reviews - Ok, let her rip!

Author

Ok, let her rip!

Fred

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

It's a simple page, my first one after becoming reborn into the church
of latter day html writers. I only do this for fun, not profit, so
it's not like I'm making a career out of this. Why, it was only a few
months ago I still used a table for layout!

http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/

Aesthetic critiques are fine, but I like how it looks so I don't really
care if others don't, I'm asking for more technical problems. Fixed
width complainers need not apply - if the site were any more
complicated, I might reconsider, but what you see is all you get... so
if you want to complain about it, give me a specific reason why the
site would look better without fixed width, not a generic reason why
sites should not be fixed width.

If you want a good laugh, you can look at the old version, but I don't
need any critiques on it (that's why it's the OLD version):

http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/index0.html

Cheers,
Fred

St Dog the Wet

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:
> It's a simple page, my first one after becoming reborn into the church
> of latter day html writers. I only do this for fun, not profit, so
> it's not like I'm making a career out of this. Why, it was only a few
> months ago I still used a table for layout!
>
> http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/
>
> Aesthetic critiques are fine, but I like how it looks so I don't really
> care if others don't, I'm asking for more technical problems. Fixed
> width complainers need not apply - if the site were any more
> complicated, I might reconsider, but what you see is all you get... so
> if you want to complain about it, give me a specific reason why the
> site would look better without fixed width, not a generic reason why
> sites should not be fixed width.
>
> If you want a good laugh, you can look at the old version, but I don't
> need any critiques on it (that's why it's the OLD version):
>
> http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/index0.html
>
> Cheers,
> Fred
>

and your reason for posting is?

Chaddy2222

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:
> It's a simple page, my first one after becoming reborn into the church
> of latter day html writers. I only do this for fun, not profit, so
> it's not like I'm making a career out of this. Why, it was only a few
> months ago I still used a table for layout!
>
> http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/
>
> Aesthetic critiques are fine, but I like how it looks so I don't really
> care if others don't, I'm asking for more technical problems.

You may wish to view.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....comcast.net%2F
It's suggested that you fix the errors and do what is suggested to get
rid of the warnings, but the errors are more importent.

> Fixed
> width complainers need not apply - if the site were any more
> complicated, I might reconsider, but what you see is all you get... so
> if you want to complain about it, give me a specific reason why the
> site would look better without fixed width, not a generic reason why
> sites should not be fixed width.
Websites tend to break at a fixxed width if font size is increased to
or three times. But your site is ok at the moment, I like how you can
inlarge the fonts easyily in IE.

>
> If you want a good laugh, you can look at the old version, but I don't
> need any critiques on it (that's why it's the OLD version):
>
> http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/index0.html

>
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Fred

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

St Dog the Wet wrote:

> and your reason for posting is?

Just to annoy people like you. The group is called alt.html.critique,
not alt.design.critique. Chaddy2222's response is why I posted, to
clear up any technical issues. You need to work harder if you want to
be a good troll.

St Dog the Wet

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:
> St Dog the Wet wrote:
>
>
> Just to annoy people like you. The group is called alt.html.critique,
> not alt.design.critique. Chaddy2222's response is why I posted, to
> clear up any technical issues. You need to work harder if you want to
> be a good troll.
>

Thanks, I've learned a lot from you. :-)

Yes, it is obvious now that you couldn't use www.w3 to check your
code for errors... and needed someone to post the link for you LOL

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....comcast.net%2F

Have a nice day

mbstevens

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:
> St Dog the Wet wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Just to annoy people like you. ... You need to work harder if you want to
> be a good troll.
>

Well, I see two sides to that story.
A comment like "Aesthetic critiques are fine, but I like how it looks so
I don't really care if others don't," will be taken as the local
equivalent of mooning a car full of fundamentalists on their way home
from Sunday school.

Aside from validation woes or lack thereof, there is an issue of the
probable age of the source of your information about HTML. You haven't
been visiting used bookstores have you?

I ask this because the markup looks as if it came from about 1995.
Things change more quickly on the web than they do elsewhere. It may be
valid or not, but it is surely outdated, and will be harder to maintain
than modern markup.

The page looks OK visually to me, too, although I wish you'd bring that
near black background up to, say, '#444;'. It's kind of severe. More
Goth than Businesslike.
--
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com/

Fred

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

mbstevens wrote:

> Aside from validation woes or lack thereof, there is an issue of the
> probable age of the source of your information about HTML. You haven't
> been visiting used bookstores have you?
>
> I ask this because the markup looks as if it came from about 1995.
> Things change more quickly on the web than they do elsewhere. It may be
> valid or not, but it is surely outdated, and will be harder to maintain
> than modern markup.

Yeah... I think you're looking at the old one:

"If you want a good laugh, you can look at the old version, but I don't
need any critiques on it (that's why it's the OLD version):
http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/index0.html"

...since the new one has a white background.

mbstevens

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:
> mbstevens wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yeah... I think you're looking at the old one:
>
> "If you want a good laugh, you can look at the old version, but I don't
> need any critiques on it (that's why it's the OLD version):
> http://alhaabcpa.home.comcast.net/index0.html"
>
> ...since the new one has a white background.
>
Yes, that's much better!

mbstevens

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:

> ...since the new one has a white background.
>

<div class="col">
Personal Tax Returns<br>
Business Tax Returns<br>
Out of State Returns<br>
Taxation of Estates<br>

Taxation of Trusts
</div>

would be more naturally represented by:

<ul>
<li>Personal Tax Returns</li>
<li>Business Tax Returns</li>
<li>Out of State Returns</li>
<li>Taxation of Estates</li>
<li>Taxation of Trusts
</ul>

....Styling away the bullets, if you want, with CSS.

mbstevens

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

mbstevens wrote:

> <li>Taxation of Trusts
> </ul>

...should be

<li>Taxation of Trusts</li>
</ul>

Fred

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

mbstevens wrote:

>
> <div class="col">
> Personal Tax Returns<br>
> Business Tax Returns<br>
> Out of State Returns<br>
> Taxation of Estates<br>
>
> Taxation of Trusts
> </div>
>
> would be more naturally represented by:
>
> <ul>
> <li>Personal Tax Returns</li>
> <li>Business Tax Returns</li>
> <li>Out of State Returns</li>
> <li>Taxation of Estates</li>
> <li>Taxation of Trusts
> </ul>
>
> ...Styling away the bullets, if you want, with CSS.

Yes, you're right - that's a great suggestion. Thanks.

Fred

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Chaddy2222 wrote:

> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....comcast.net%2F
> It's suggested that you fix the errors and do what is suggested to get
> rid of the warnings, but the errors are more importent.
>

I got rid of the errors, but two (related) warnings are bothering me:

* Line : 8 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color
: a:link
* Line : 13 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your
color : a:visited

If I set the background color for the links, the background image will
not show through.

It really seems like a strange, nit-picky warning, but then again it
*is* just a warning.

Thanks Chad.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:

> I got rid of the errors, but two (related) warnings are bothering me:
>
> * Line : 8 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color
>: a:link
> * Line : 13 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your
> color : a:visited
>
> If I set the background color for the links, the background image will
> not show through.

background-color: transparent;

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Fred

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
>
> background-color: transparent;
>
> --
> -bts
> -Warning: I brake for lawn deer

I tried that and still got the warning. Also "inherit".

I'm ignoring it... seems like a silly warning to me.

Terry

2006-07-10, 11:07 pm

Fred wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> I tried that and still got the warning. Also "inherit".
>
> I'm ignoring it... seems like a silly warning to me.
>

I fought that for a while and finally realized that if I have the
background set as transparent the warning is still valid. It is just
telling me that the (default) background will show through. In some case
that might not be what I wanted.

--
TK
http://www.wejuggle2.com/
Still Having a Ball

..

----== Posted via codecomments.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.codecomments.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----