Webmaster forum - Help with site esthetics, please

Author

Help with site esthetics, please

Ed Jay

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

I've finished with my site's content and I'm ready to roll out...but I think
my home page looks really crappy. I need some suggestions on improving the
esthetic quality.

The plain vanilla page is <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com>.

I've toyed with a few changes, notably seen at
<http://breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html>, but I'm open for
any suggestions (be nice!).

Any thoughts (besides change font scaling)?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

SAZ

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

In article <tv2qh3hqlueoq1a6l68l0u6dppr4qbhs1p@4ax.com>, edMbj@aes-
intl.com says...
> I've finished with my site's content and I'm ready to roll out...but I think
> my home page looks really crappy. I need some suggestions on improving the
> esthetic quality.
>
> The plain vanilla page is <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com>.
>
> I've toyed with a few changes, notably seen at
> <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html>, but I'm open for
> any suggestions (be nice!).
>
> Any thoughts (besides change font scaling)?

Yuck to both versions. I hate the green.

Text placement issues in version II.

Start over.

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> I've finished with my site's content and I'm ready to roll out...but
> I think my home page looks really crappy. I need some suggestions on
> improving the esthetic quality.
>
> The plain vanilla page is <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com>.
>
> I've toyed with a few changes, notably seen at
> <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html>, but I'm open
> for any suggestions (be nice!).
>
> Any thoughts (besides change font scaling)?

Get a much better header graphic, set the page to 100% liquid, and maybe
think of a softer, more welcoming color than the various shades of green and
neon you have.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> I've finished with my site's content and I'm ready to roll out...but I
> think my home page looks really crappy. I need some suggestions on
> improving the esthetic quality.
>
> The plain vanilla page is <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com>.
>
> I've toyed with a few changes, notably seen at
> <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html>, but I'm open
> for any suggestions (be nice!).

Except for the harsh green background, both pages look the same to me.

It won't fit in my browser window without horizontal scrolling. That's a
no-no. http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Here is what I see if I maximize my browser (something I never do except
in situations like this):
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/breast.jpg

The green logo and background at the top does not extend to the right to
be over the third column.

So, other than adding the green and breaking the right column, what else
did you change?

> Any thoughts (besides change font scaling)?

Besides that? That is important, as the page(s) fall apart as soon as I
increase the text size to a comfortable level.

Please read this, and forget about using points (and pixels). Points are
for printing.
http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Bergamot

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> I need some suggestions on improving the
> esthetic quality.
>
> The plain vanilla page is <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com>.

You *must* get rid of the explicit height on .nav

15px is not nearly enough space when the browsers text size is larger
than you accounted for. If you must set a height, use ems instead of px
so it adjusts with text size. You should also add some vertical padding
for readability and so the visitor has a nice big area to "click".

--
Berg

Ed Jay

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

Bergamot scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>You *must* get rid of the explicit height on .nav
>
>15px is not nearly enough space when the browsers text size is larger
>than you accounted for. If you must set a height, use ems instead of px
>so it adjusts with text size. You should also add some vertical padding
>for readability and so the visitor has a nice big area to "click".

Thanks.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

G scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>Get a much better header graphic, set the page to 100% liquid, and maybe
>think of a softer, more welcoming color than the various shades of green and
>neon you have.
>
Thanks for your response.

What do you mean by 'get a much better header graphic?'

I don't care for the green either. I was using it only to show the possible
use of color to break up the boring white page. I probably shouldn't have
posted it and started from the vanilla page.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Except for the harsh green background, both pages look the same to me.

I was experimenting with using colors to break up the page.
>
>It won't fit in my browser window without horizontal scrolling. That's a
>no-no. http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

I've designed it for viewing in a 1024X768 window. I need to stay with that
resolution.
>
>Here is what I see if I maximize my browser (something I never do except
>in situations like this):
>http://k75s.home.att.net/show/breast.jpg

Ugly page, but I like the content. :-)
>
>The green logo and background at the top does not extend to the right to
>be over the third column.
>
>So, other than adding the green and breaking the right column, what else
>did you change?

Not much...I think I made the center column fluid, added the colors and a
couple of borders. Experimenting.
>
>
>Besides that? That is important, as the page(s) fall apart as soon as I
>increase the text size to a comfortable level.
>
>Please read this, and forget about using points (and pixels). Points are
>for printing.
>http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

We're on the same page. I wrote the public page using absolute positioning,
fixed fonts, widths, etc., and concentrated on the site content. Now it's
time to address page sizing issues.

Thanks for the input.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-22, 6:19 pm

SAZ scribed:

>In article <tv2qh3hqlueoq1a6l68l0u6dppr4qbhs1p@4ax.com>, edMbj@aes-
>intl.com says...
>
>
>Yuck to both versions. I hate the green.

You seem to be in good company.
>
>Text placement issues in version II.
>
>Start over.

Anything's possible.

Thanks.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

On 2007-10-22, Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
>
> I was experimenting with using colors to break up the page.
>
> I've designed it for viewing in a 1024X768 window. I need to stay with that
> resolution.

Why? A fluid design will work in a 1024x768 window -- and other
sizes. A design for a 1024x768 window will _only_ work in that size
of window.

Avoid using width and height specification unless they are needed.
They cause more problems than they solve:

<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/tas.jpg>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/tas2.jpg>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
> I've designed it for viewing in a 1024X768 window. I need to stay
> with that resolution.

What if I want to look up breasts on my mobile phone? My PDA? My two
browser windows side by side, each about 900px, and filling my
wide-screen monitor?

What is the reason you think you "need to stay with that resolution."

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Scott Bryce

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> Now it's time to address page sizing issues.

Yes, it is.

http://scottbryce.com/scratch/tas.gif

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> G scribed:
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> What do you mean by 'get a much better header graphic?'
>
> I don't care for the green either. I was using it only to show the
> possible use of color to break up the boring white page. I probably
> shouldn't have posted it and started from the vanilla page.

Ok. I thought the plain vanilla served up was what you were building with.
Hence the "get the green out" ;)

Better as in quality ;)

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Blinky the Shark

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Blinky the Shark

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> I was experimenting with using colors to break up the page.

Good concept, but they need not be garish.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Blinky the Shark

2007-10-22, 10:18 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> What if I want to look up breasts on my mobile phone?

If you mean images, then you're a normal guy putting his phone to good
use. ;)

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 3:16 am

Blinky the Shark scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Good concept, but they need not be garish.

When one is color blind, it doesn't matter (for conceptual testing).
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 3:16 am

Blinky the Shark scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>Nav link boxes kinda crowded.

I changed them a bunch.

>Did you intend that horizontal line?

Only as an experiment.
>
>http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/jay01.jpg
>
>Firefox. That's the only page I looked at.

In IE and FF I have it looking the way I think I expect but it's a little
screwed up in Opera, my browser of choice.

I've uploaded revised pages...actually, style sheet changes.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Scott Bryce

2007-10-23, 3:16 am

Ed Jay wrote:
> I've uploaded revised pages...actually, style sheet changes.

And the header and footer are still off-center if the viewport is wider
than 1024 pixels. (Centered in the viewport. Off-center in relationship
to the rest of the page.)

Actually, this is the case no matter what size the viewport is. You are
relying on a 1024 pixel wide window to make everything align correctly.
Don't do that.

2007-10-23, 3:16 am

"Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
news:btvqh39llc6tthjq2uhr0jlauakkb62d1p@4ax.com...

[color=darkred]
> I've uploaded revised pages...actually, style sheet changes.

Get rid of *ALL* mention of height for those nav boxes. Even one click up on
font size causes them to break.

--
Richard.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-23, 6:17 am

Ed Jay wrote:

>
> In IE and FF I have it looking the way I think I expect but it's a
> little screwed up in Opera, my browser of choice.
>
> I've uploaded revised pages...actually, style sheet changes.

You still have work to do.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/breast2.jpg

Stop using pixels to define the size of those 'menu buttons'... when I
increase the text size because of my vision problem, the text/links fail
to 'stay in the box.' Normally, pixels should only be used for things
like borders and such.

Notice the horizontal scrollbar. :-/

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Jeff

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> I've finished with my site's content and I'm ready to roll out...but I think
> my home page looks really crappy. I need some suggestions on improving the
> esthetic quality.
>
> The plain vanilla page is <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com>.
>
> I've toyed with a few changes, notably seen at
> <http://breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html>, but I'm open for
> any suggestions (be nice!).

Since I'm hanging around for a few days, I'll add some comments. I'm
not a designer, but I know a few things about spacing and colors. In the
process I'll catch a little hell from the locals.

I'm going to ignore problems of how this appears in browsers other
than IE, and just look at IE. (Note bit above). You will have to fix
that yourself.

I personally don't like to use absolutely positioned layouts, or lots
of inlines styles and classes. I will address that now because you've
made it much more difficult to change basic styles by doing that. Let's
look at this bit of html:

<div> ...
<p><span class=F6
style="font-size:12pt;color:#330099;">Efficiency</span>

<span class=F7>Efficiency ...</span>…<a class= "more"
href="brth_efficiency.html">Click to continue</a>
</p><br>

<p><span class=F6 style="font-size:12pt;color:#330099;">Economy</span>

<span class=F7>TAS breast ... services</span>…<a class= "more"
href="brth_economy.html">Click to continue</a>
</p>
</div>

Now, how would you change the styling for that? You'd have to go in
and change all those inline styles.

Try doing this instead:

<div id="main">
....
<p>...
</p>

Now you can style everything using decendants and your html will be more
maintainable by leaving the styles in the stylesheet:

#main p{font-size:12pt;color:#330099;}
#main a{style for links}

BTW, don't use points, you'll be in for a big surprise when you find out
Mac points are different than PC.

In fact, usually what I do is set default font styles for the body
element and just style what needs to be different. And do that using
decendants (as above) if you can.

Now lets looks at some margins. Do you see how your three columns all
start at different vertical levels. Don't do that. Line them up.

Lets look at the h1 heading. There's way too much whitespace here and
it really doesn't need to be on two lines. Move the login box (and
change it's hover styles) to either the left or right column.

As with all your boxes you should have the same amount of whitespace
above the heading as below. Ditto that on the side links, they just look
off with more padding below than above. You'll probably want to
text-align them center. The h1 padding looks better outside IE than
using IE.

The HR top line and right vertical line should all be the same color
as your left column background color and for that matter, your body
background color.

The "Read more about" box needs to be restyled also, but that's
enough of me for now.

HTH,

Jeff

>
> Any thoughts (besides change font scaling)?

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Jeff scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> Since I'm hanging around for a few days, I'll add some comments. I'm
>not a designer, but I know a few things about spacing and colors. In the
>process I'll catch a little hell from the locals.
>
> I'm going to ignore problems of how this appears in browsers other
>than IE, and just look at IE. (Note bit above). You will have to fix
>that yourself.
>
> I personally don't like to use absolutely positioned layouts, or lots
>of inlines styles and classes. I will address that now because you've
>made it much more difficult to change basic styles by doing that. Let's
>look at this bit of html:
>
><div> ...
><p><span class=F6
>style="font-size:12pt;color:#330099;">Efficiency</span>
>
><span class=F7>Efficiency ...</span>…<a class= "more"
>href="brth_efficiency.html">Click to continue</a>
></p><br>
>
><p><span class=F6 style="font-size:12pt;color:#330099;">Economy</span>
>
><span class=F7>TAS breast ... services</span>…<a class= "more"
>href="brth_economy.html">Click to continue</a>
></p>
></div>
>
> Now, how would you change the styling for that? You'd have to go in
>and change all those inline styles.
>
> Try doing this instead:
>
><div id="main">
>...
><p>...
></p>
>
>Now you can style everything using decendants and your html will be more
> maintainable by leaving the styles in the stylesheet:
>
>#main p{font-size:12pt;color:#330099;}
>#main a{style for links}
>
>BTW, don't use points, you'll be in for a big surprise when you find out
>Mac points are different than PC.
>
> In fact, usually what I do is set default font styles for the body
>element and just style what needs to be different. And do that using
>decendants (as above) if you can.
>
> Now lets looks at some margins. Do you see how your three columns all
>start at different vertical levels. Don't do that. Line them up.
>
> Lets look at the h1 heading. There's way too much whitespace here and
>it really doesn't need to be on two lines. Move the login box (and
>change it's hover styles) to either the left or right column.
>
> As with all your boxes you should have the same amount of whitespace
>above the heading as below. Ditto that on the side links, they just look
>off with more padding below than above. You'll probably want to
>text-align them center. The h1 padding looks better outside IE than
>using IE.
>
> The HR top line and right vertical line should all be the same color
>as your left column background color and for that matter, your body
>background color.
>
> The "Read more about" box needs to be restyled also, but that's
>enough of me for now.
>
Thanks, Jeff. Lots of good hints.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>You still have work to do.
>http://k75s.home.att.net/show/breast2.jpg
>
>Stop using pixels to define the size of those 'menu buttons'... when I
>increase the text size because of my vision problem, the text/links fail
>to 'stay in the box.' Normally, pixels should only be used for things
>like borders and such.
>
>Notice the horizontal scrollbar. :-/

What screen size and resolution are you using?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Chaddy2222

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
>
> What screen size and resolution are you using?
Did you not read what BTS just wrote in the above message that you
just quoted??
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
> What screen size and resolution are you using?

Well, I believe it is 1680 x 1050, but why does that matter? (Are screen
size and resolution two different things?)

What matters is that your page was in the left browser window, and
another site was in a different browser in the right browser window. Now
if you divide 1680 by 2, you get a number a good bit less than your
fixed width. Hence, scrollbars.

Regarding the 'menu button' pixels, I increased the font size so I could
read it, and the boxes stayed the same, because you are using pixels
instead of em units to size them.

Look at your site in Firefox, and press Control-Plus once or twice.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Jerry Stuckle scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>I agree with the other comments, especially about the green and fluid
>design. Even at 1024x786 (what I'm running on my laptop) I get a
>horizontal scroll bar.

Which browser?
>
>And I'd also suggest some color to the background of the menu items on
>the left. With a colored background for the screen, their white
>background stands out a bit much.

I agree.
>
>Overall, however, I like the idea. Just some tweaking and I think
>you'll have it.

Thanks.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Chaddy2222 scribed:

>
>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>Did you not read what BTS just wrote in the above message that you
>just quoted??

I know how to read. Do you have a real answer to my question?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Well, I believe it is 1680 x 1050, but why does that matter? (Are screen
>size and resolution two different things?)
>
>What matters is that your page was in the left browser window, and
>another site was in a different browser in the right browser window. Now
>if you divide 1680 by 2, you get a number a good bit less than your
>fixed width. Hence, scrollbars.

Thanks, understood, and I understand why you got the scroll bars.
>
>Regarding the 'menu button' pixels, I increased the font size so I could
>read it, and the boxes stayed the same, because you are using pixels
>instead of em units to size them.
>
>Look at your site in Firefox, and press Control-Plus once or twice.

The styling for the buttons is:

..nav {
display:block;
width:145px;
height:1.8em;
padding-top:5px;
border-top:1px solid #3300ee;
border-left:1px solid #3300ee;
border-bottom:2px solid #300099;
border-right:2px solid #300099;
margin-top:1px;
text-align:left;
text-decoration:none;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;
overflow:hidden;
background-color:#ffffff; /* f7f6a8; */
}
Note the 100% font size and height in ems. Width is in pixels...should
button widths be fluid?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Blinky the Shark

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> The styling for the buttons is:
>
> .nav {
> display:block;
> width:145px;
> height:1.8em;
> padding-top:5px;

http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/jay02.jpg

> border-top:1px solid #3300ee;
> border-left:1px solid #3300ee;
> border-bottom:2px solid #300099;
> border-right:2px solid #300099;
> margin-top:1px;
> text-align:left;
> text-decoration:none;
> font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;
> overflow:hidden;
> background-color:#ffffff; /* f7f6a8; */
> }
> Note the 100% font size and height in ems. Width is in pixels...should
> button widths be fluid?

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Blinky the Shark scribed:
[color=darkred]
>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/jay02.jpg
>

Thanks. Changing the width from px to em solved that problem.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

>
> Thanks, understood, and I understand why you got the scroll bars.

I have frequently seen people with wide-screens have a browser open on
one side of the screen, and a word doc open on the other, and be
cut'n'pasting from browser to doc. This is becoming more common, so we
authors need to adapt to it. Webmail users even do it for email. :-/

>
> The styling for the buttons is:
>
> .nav {
> display:block;
> width:145px; <---- change to about 14em;
> height:1.8em; <---- *remove this!*
> padding-top:5px;
> border-top:1px solid #3300ee;
> border-left:1px solid #3300ee;
> border-bottom:2px solid #300099;
> border-right:2px solid #300099;
> margin-top:1px;
> text-align:left;
> text-decoration:none;
> font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;
> overflow:hidden;
> background-color:#ffffff; /* f7f6a8; */
> }
> Note the 100% font size and height in ems. Width is in pixels...

Your main content div:
<div style="margin:0 100px 10px 196px; width:600px;height:100%;">
change to:
<div style="margin:0 10em 10px 15em; width:60em;height:100%;">

Note the left margin of 15em. That's so it will float next to the 14em
wide nav area.

I'm just typing here. You'll have to play until you get exact numbers.

You have lots of pixel stuff throughout. Use pixels only for things like
borders, not widths and positioning.

Why is all this presentational stuff in the HTML? Use your style sheet.

> should button widths be fluid?

Sure. And simply removing the nav's height:1.8em; made a great
improvement. Your text links/words will actually fit in the little
boxes.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Blinky the Shark

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>
> Thanks. Changing the width from px to em solved that problem.

http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/jay03.jpg

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>
>
> Which browser?

Firefox

>
> I agree.
>
> Thanks.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> Thanks. Changing the width from px to em solved that problem.

Not quite.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/breast3.jpg

I guess you haven't seen my last post yet.

Howzabout before you post again, you actually test it in various sized
windows, and after increasing the font size yourself?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>I have frequently seen people with wide-screens have a browser open on
>one side of the screen, and a word doc open on the other, and be
>cut'n'pasting from browser to doc. This is becoming more common, so we
>authors need to adapt to it. Webmail users even do it for email. :-/

I do it.
>
I removed it,, but the buttons weren't tall enough, so[color=darkred]
becomes padding: 5px 0 5px 0;[color=darkred]
>
>Your main content div:
><div style="margin:0 100px 10px 196px; width:600px;height:100%;">
>change to:
><div style="margin:0 10em 10px 15em; width:60em;height:100%;">
>
>Note the left margin of 15em. That's so it will float next to the 14em
>wide nav area.
>
>I'm just typing here. You'll have to play until you get exact numbers.

Thanks for the direction. I appreciate your taking time.
>
>You have lots of pixel stuff throughout. Use pixels only for things like
>borders, not widths and positioning.
>
>Why is all this presentational stuff in the HTML? Use your style sheet.

I'm building the page using fixed values only to get the page working. I
leave the styling 'til last. The presentation stuff will ultimately end up
in the style sheet.

My development 'technique' is to basically used fixed values for fonts,
widths, etc., until I work out the esthetics of the page. Once the esthetics
are fixed, then comes the task of properly styling the page.
>
>
>Sure. And simply removing the nav's height:1.8em; made a great
>improvement. Your text links/words will actually fit in the little
>boxes.

Yup.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> My development 'technique' is to basically used fixed values for
> fonts, widths, etc., until I work out the esthetics of the page. Once
> the esthetics are fixed, then comes the task of properly styling the
> page.

That's kinda the hard way, isn't it?

I start a site by having a discussion with the client on the approximate
look of the site. Then I get some content. Doesn't have to be much, as I
can always add good old lorem ipsum.

Then I create a page with no presentation at all. Just properly
marked-up content. Yes, I put headers and navbars in the proper
location. Once I have a 'complete' page of content, then I create a CSS
file and add presentation to it. This way there is no chance that I will
forget and leave pixel stuff in the HTML.

Once the client likes the one page, it becomes a template (stripped of
the real content) for the rest of the site.

example.com/test/template.php or whatever.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Not quite.
>http://k75s.home.att.net/show/breast3.jpg
>
>I guess you haven't seen my last post yet.
>
>Howzabout before you post again, you actually test it in various sized
>windows, and after increasing the font size yourself?

I am doing that, thank you.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>That's kinda the hard way, isn't it?

Not for me.
>
>I start a site by having a discussion with the client on the approximate
>look of the site. Then I get some content. Doesn't have to be much, as I
>can always add good old lorem ipsum.
>
>Then I create a page with no presentation at all. Just properly
>marked-up content. Yes, I put headers and navbars in the proper
>location. Once I have a 'complete' page of content, then I create a CSS
>file and add presentation to it. This way there is no chance that I will
>forget and leave pixel stuff in the HTML.
>
>Once the client likes the one page, it becomes a template (stripped of
>the real content) for the rest of the site.
>
>example.com/test/template.php or whatever.

Understand completely.

We follow a very similar procedure, but in this case, where I'm the client,
I concentrated on the application associated with the site and then the
content. Now it's time to do the layout to fit the content, and do it in an
esthetically pleasing way. That's why I asked for input regarding esthetics,
and asked that no attention be paid to page fluidity, etc. That's not to say
that I'm not grateful for the input regarding styling, I am. It was simply
next on the list of to-do's.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Bergamot

2007-10-23, 10:16 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
>
> My development 'technique' is to basically used fixed values for fonts,
> widths, etc., until I work out the esthetics of the page. Once the esthetics
> are fixed, then comes the task of properly styling the page.

At what point will you get rid of the inline styles? Until you have all
your CSS in one place, you're likely to have trouble tracking down your
errors, of which you have many. I mean logic errors.

For example, the discrepancy between the width of the left column, the
width of the navigation menu, and the width of the left margin on the
content area. None of them match. The positioning of the right column is
horked, too.

--
Berg

Ed Jay

2007-10-24, 3:17 am

Bergamot scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>At what point will you get rid of the inline styles? Until you have all
>your CSS in one place, you're likely to have trouble tracking down your
>errors, of which you have many. I mean logic errors.

You're correct, but in my world, I had to start somewhere. That it wasn't at
an advanced step in the process, to me, clearly illustrates my limitations.
That's why I look to others for input.
>
>For example, the discrepancy between the width of the left column, the
>width of the navigation menu, and the width of the left margin on the
>content area. None of them match. The positioning of the right column is
>horked, too.

Because they're not the same size, you jump to the conclusion they're not
matched? Can you think of another reason the wrapper might be made wider? I
can.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Chaddy2222

2007-10-24, 3:17 am

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> That's kinda the hard way, isn't it?
>
It does sound a bit messy.

> I start a site by having a discussion with the client on the approximate
> look of the site. Then I get some content. Doesn't have to be much, as I
> can always add good old lorem ipsum.
>
> Then I create a page with no presentation at all. Just properly
> marked-up content. Yes, I put headers and navbars in the proper
> location. Once I have a 'complete' page of content, then I create a CSS
> file and add presentation to it. This way there is no chance that I will
> forget and leave pixel stuff in the HTML.
>
> Once the client likes the one page, it becomes a template (stripped of
> the real content) for the rest of the site.
>
> example.com/test/template.php or whatever.
>
That's pritty much what I do but I make a plain HTML template first
and then add the PHP just before the site goes live.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Bergamot

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> Bergamot scribed:
>
>
> Because they're not the same size, you jump to the conclusion they're not
> matched?

They're not matched because you use ems for one width and px for others.
These are incompatible unless your text size is small enough to squeeze
into the "x" number of px you set. With my browser settings they
definitely do not jive.

> Can you think of another reason the wrapper might be made wider? I
> can.

?
Not sure how this relates to anything I said.

--
Berg

Ed Jay

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Bergamot scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>They're not matched because you use ems for one width and px for others.
>These are incompatible unless your text size is small enough to squeeze
>into the "x" number of px you set. With my browser settings they
>definitely do not jive.
>
>
>?
>Not sure how this relates to anything I said.

Probably because I misinterpreted your comment. In regards to your
definition of mismatching, I agree, but those 'details' will all be worked
out before the site is officially rolled out.

FWIW, I thought your comment had to do with the physical width differences
between the menu and its wrapper.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Jeff

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> Bergamot scribed:
>
>
>
>
> You're correct, but in my world, I had to start somewhere. That it wasn't at
> an advanced step in the process, to me, clearly illustrates my limitations.
> That's why I look to others for input.

You may wish to reread what I had posted earlier about styling. It is so
much easier and quicker to style that way.

Set your styles as simply as possible, you can have these in an embedded
stylesheet if you wish but external is the way to go. And use logical
names for your ids and classes. Decendants whenever possible.

You'll make your site much easier to design, and you'll make it much
much much easier to maintain. Those who have been around the block know
that is the most important thing you can do.

Why design in unneeded complexity, particularly if you are going to
remove it later?

I've spent much of today in cleaning up html (on two sites) with a lot
of inline styles (I did this programatically) someone else wrote. The
style I added to replace all this took exactly one line and the result
is web pages that not only look better but are now trivial to style.
Think of all the time you have already spent on this.

You need to rethink your design process. Just my 2 cents.

Jeff

>
>
>
> Because they're not the same size, you jump to the conclusion they're not
> matched? Can you think of another reason the wrapper might be made wider? I
> can.

Ed Jay

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Jeff scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>You may wish to reread what I had posted earlier about styling. It is so
>much easier and quicker to style that way.

I did.
>
>Set your styles as simply as possible, you can have these in an embedded
>stylesheet if you wish but external is the way to go. And use logical
>names for your ids and classes. Decendants whenever possible.
>
>You'll make your site much easier to design, and you'll make it much
>much much easier to maintain. Those who have been around the block know
>that is the most important thing you can do.
>
>Why design in unneeded complexity, particularly if you are going to
>remove it later?
>
> I've spent much of today in cleaning up html (on two sites) with a lot
>of inline styles (I did this programatically) someone else wrote. The
>style I added to replace all this took exactly one line and the result
>is web pages that not only look better but are now trivial to style.
>Think of all the time you have already spent on this.
>
> You need to rethink your design process. Just my 2 cents.
>
Were I planning to design other sites, I'd want to be as efficient as
possible.

I find it easier to make on-the-spot in-line styles and have the ability to
edit them in the document I'm working on, rather than switch to my external
style sheet editor each time a change has to be made.

I think that when this site is finished (if it ever is) you'll see a nice
clean markup with almost everything, except variants, residing on an
external style sheet.

Thanks for your comments. They have been helpful.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> I find it easier to make on-the-spot in-line styles and have the
> ability to edit them in the document I'm working on, rather than
> switch to my external style sheet editor each time a change has to be
> made.

Type <p class="special">Content...</p>
Press Ctrl-S to save
Press Alt-Tab
Type .special { color: red; }
Press Ctrl-S
Press Alt-Tab to browser
Press Ctrl-R to refresh

How hard is that? :-\

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Els

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> Type <p class="special">Content...</p>
> Press Ctrl-S to save
> Press Alt-Tab
> Type .special { color: red; }
> Press Ctrl-S
> Press Alt-Tab to browser
> Press Ctrl-R to refresh
>
> How hard is that? :-\

Even easier (one step less!):

Type <p class="special">Content...</p>
Scroll up
Type .special { color: red; }
Press Ctrl-S
Press Alt-Tab to browser
Press Ctrl-R to refresh

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Els wrote:

> Even easier (one step less!):
>
> Type <p class="special">Content...</p>
> Scroll up
> Type .special { color: red; }
> Press Ctrl-S
> Press Alt-Tab to browser
> Press Ctrl-R to refresh

True, but I was considering Ed's comment about his external style sheet
editor. Your way only applies to that page, not the whole site. If that
matters. :-)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Els

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Els wrote:
>
>
> True, but I was considering Ed's comment about his external style sheet
> editor. Your way only applies to that page, not the whole site. If that
> matters. :-)

I figured he used inline styles on one page only while working out the
code. If he does the inline styles on more than one page, then all the
more reason to start with a separate stylesheet right away :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Ed Jay

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Type <p class="special">Content...</p>
>Press Ctrl-S to save
>Press Alt-Tab
>Type .special { color: red; }
>Press Ctrl-S
>Press Alt-Tab to browser
>Press Ctrl-R to refresh
>
>How hard is that? :-\

When I'm in a concentrating mind set writing content, it's a great way to
lose my train of thought.

I appreciate that different people have different work modalities. I seem to
be the only one who understands that.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Els scribed:

>Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
>I figured he used inline styles on one page only while working out the
>code. If he does the inline styles on more than one page, then all the
>more reason to start with a separate stylesheet right away :-)

You figured correctly. Anything that is used more than once on the same page
or on more than one page finds a home on the external style sheet.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> I appreciate that different people have different work modalities. I
> seem to be the only one who understands that.

Well, ok then. Most people prefer to work more efficiently. <shrug>

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Well, ok then. Most people prefer to work more efficiently. <shrug>

Why shrug? For the task I was doing, creating content, I was very efficient,
because I did not become distracted by ancillary issues, e.g., creating an
orderly style sheet.

I began with content, and as I was creating content, I was also getting an
idea of visual design. You, OTOH, create the visual design first.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> You, OTOH, create the visual design first.

No, that is not what I said.

I said I type in the content first. Using proper semantic markup.
Then I add the id and class names.
Then I add the styling. In the style sheet.
*Now* I have a visual design.

And then of course, once I have a page that meets the client's
expectations, it becomes a template for all the other pages, where all I
need to do is swap content.

Menus, headers, footers are all in include files. Typed once.

--
-bts
-Ahh... the power of cheese

Jeff

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Ed Jay wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
>
>
>
> Why shrug? For the task I was doing, creating content, I was very efficient,
> because I did not become distracted by ancillary issues, e.g., creating an
> orderly style sheet.
>
> I began with content, and as I was creating content, I was also getting an
> idea of visual design. You, OTOH, create the visual design first.

I don't want to beat up on you. But the original site is marked up
the same way.

I've just looked at both the original design and the new one, and I
like the original much better. And if you had the styles in the
stylesheet we could easily make a few changes to tweak it up. But they
aren't. The stylesheet doesn't have to be orderly, you just have to know
what is what. And you could apply those changes sitewide instantly.

I've been around since long before stylesheets and I've seen and done
things a lot of different ways. I think if you had more experience you
would think differently of this and I believe at some point a light will
blink on and you'll think "Oh"! You've been doing it this way and it is
more comfortable to you, but it is making your work several times harder
and it is stifling your creativity. Just the opinion of someone with
experience that has not always done things the easy way.

Jeff

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Jeff wrote:

> I don't want to beat up on you. But the original site is marked up the
> same way.

Correct. The new page being the same is what got me started on easier
creation. I couldn't begin to sit down and type stuff like this as I was
creating my content:

<div style="text-align:left;margin:10px 100px 18px 196px; width:600px;">

<div style="margin:0 100px 10px 196px; width:600px;height:100%;">

<div class=topmenu [<-- missing quotes ]
style="width:100px;position:absolute;left:26px;top:61px;">

<div
style="width:155px;height:470px;position:absolute;left:0px;top:114px;background-color:#3F9AE8;text-align:center;">

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Jeff wrote:
>
>
>Correct. The new page being the same is what got me started on easier
>creation. I couldn't begin to sit down and type stuff like this as I was
>creating my content:

Sure you could...You think up a paragraph, you type it in, it's in the wrong
place, so you do a quick inline styling. Then, go on with creating the
content.
>
><div style="text-align:left;margin:10px 100px 18px 196px; width:600px;">
>
><div style="margin:0 100px 10px 196px; width:600px;height:100%;">
>
><div class=topmenu [<-- missing quotes ]
>style="width:100px;position:absolute;left:26px;top:61px;">
>
><div
>style="width:155px;height:470px;position:absolute;left:0px;top:114px;background-color:#3F9AE8;text-align:center;">

Then, when you're finished with the content, sort out the styling stuff and
do it right.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Jeff scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> I don't want to beat up on you. But the original site is marked up
>the same way.

Not surprising, as the new site is the original with a couple of color
background changes to get a taste of what color addition might do.
>
> I've just looked at both the original design and the new one, and I
>like the original much better. And if you had the styles in the
>stylesheet we could easily make a few changes to tweak it up. But they
>aren't. The stylesheet doesn't have to be orderly, you just have to know
>what is what. And you could apply those changes sitewide instantly.
>
> I've been around since long before stylesheets and I've seen and done
>things a lot of different ways. I think if you had more experience you
>would think differently of this and I believe at some point a light will
>blink on and you'll think "Oh"! You've been doing it this way and it is
>more comfortable to you, but it is making your work several times harder
>and it is stifling your creativity. Just the opinion of someone with
>experience that has not always done things the easy way.
>
I respect your opinion and have no doubts that you're correct, but what we
see is already done.

So, have any thoughts about improving the visual appearance?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Ed Jay wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
> Sure you could...You think up a paragraph, you type it in, it's in
> the wrong place, so you do a quick inline styling. Then, go on with
> creating the content.

The content usually comes from the client in some textual form. Written
on paper. In an email. Notes scratched on a napkin.

I will then type the content, from the first paragraph -> to the last
one. Headings/subheadings will be typed as they occur. Just plain text.
A couple of blank lines between paragraphs. If I'm lucky, the client
sent an email and I might be able to copy and paste.

Once this content is completely typed in my web editor, then I add
markup. <h1> ... <p> ... and a <div> or two.

Then I start designing. There is little to do.

I think you need to work up a *template* first. With the design you
like. No content except some filler text.

>
> Then, when you're finished with the content, sort out the styling
> stuff and do it right.

If I had inline styling such as your site, I would never get back to it.
Maintenance would suffer.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>The content usually comes from the client in some textual form. Written
>on paper. In an email. Notes scratched on a napkin.
>
>I will then type the content, from the first paragraph -> to the last
>one. Headings/subheadings will be typed as they occur. Just plain text.
>A couple of blank lines between paragraphs. If I'm lucky, the client
>sent an email and I might be able to copy and paste.
>
>Once this content is completely typed in my web editor, then I add
>markup. <h1> ... <p> ... and a <div> or two.
>
>Then I start designing. There is little to do.
>
>I think you need to work up a *template* first. With the design you
>like. No content except some filler text.
>

Your method is sound. The big difference between us is that I was creating
the content. You don't have to create it...you fit the client's approved
rendering to the content. There's a huge difference in the tasks we're each
performing. I agree with you...your apple is much bigger than my apple, but
my orange is bigger than yours.[color=darkred]
>
>If I had inline styling such as your site, I would never get back to it.
>Maintenance would suffer.

Discipline, man, discipline! (And, if you don't have the discipline, at
least have good intentions.)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Ed Jay wrote:

> Your method is sound. The big difference between us is that I was
> creating the content. You don't have to create it...you fit the
> client's approved rendering to the content.

If I was actually creating the content - and I really was, transferring
from the notes on the napkin - I would still just type raw text. I would
not worry at all about styling and positioning until it was all typed.

> There's a huge difference in the tasks we're each performing.

Not as far as content is concerned.

> I agree with you...your apple is much bigger than my apple, but my
> orange is bigger than yours.

Wanna play rock/paper/scissors? <g>

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 3:17 am

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>If I was actually creating the content - and I really was, transferring
>from the notes on the napkin - I would still just type raw text. I would
>not worry at all about styling and positioning until it was all typed.
>
>
>Not as far as content is concerned.
>
>
>Wanna play rock/paper/scissors? <g>

lol.

I've reworked the page a bit. It has a way to go in terms of collecting
styles, etc. I'm trying to make the page appear its best in a 1024X768 or
bigger window. That's probably at least 80% of my target market. In that
regard, it does what I want. For the cheap guys still using a 15" CRT, I'm
trying to make it readable in an 800X600 window. I've adopted several of the
suggested changes, e.g., button sizes, move login box, no more absolute
positioning, yada. It works great in Opera and FF, but doesn't scale down in
IE. It's most likely my workaround for IE's not supporting CSS's max-width,
which I use to constrain the page wrapper for windows > 1024W.

Look at the wonderful new colors. In a 1024 wide browser window.
www.breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html. The color choices mean
nothing. They're only backgrounds for the different containers. How would
you use color on the page?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Jeff

2007-10-25, 3:17 am

In-Reply-To: <5560i3ltpnd71dlsjgr4kh8dko6mds71l9@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 82
Bytes: 4832
X-Original-Bytes: 4789
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.www.webmaster:527791

Ed Jay wrote:
> Jeff scribed:
>
>
>
>
> Not surprising, as the new site is the original with a couple of color
> background changes to get a taste of what color addition might do.
>
>
> I respect your opinion and have no doubts that you're correct, but what we
> see is already done.
>
> So, have any thoughts about improving the visual appearance?

I've commented already on the new. Aesthetically you've got a design
that doesn't have enough cohesion, it needs to be tied together better.
Particularly that space directly under the header. It's very awkward.

Don't give me too much credit, I'm not a designer. Neither am I an
html expert. I have seen enough great designs though to recognize some
of the elements of good design. (and I've seen a lot of awfull html)
Now, this may be heresy in this group, but I'd ditch the absolutely
positioned divs and put it in a simple table with three columns plus the
header cell with a colspan of 3 (because the absolutely positioned stuff
doesn't really connect or flow). It'll be easier to outline and connect
the sections and set background colors and margins. Myself, the only
thing I'll absolutely position is a javascript flyout menu. But many
amateurs get a bit too enamored of it, in general it's a very bad thing.

I'm not too sure about the design skills in this group. Most of the
html groups care more about the source code than the appearance. That's
not bad, but it's something you need to bear in mind. Myself, I fall on
the pragmatic end. Good design is often like sausage, you really don't
want to look too closely at what it's made of. But the content part of
it should be clean enough to keep it search engine friendly and easily
updateable. Where I've criticized your html is where it gets in the way
of styling and formatting.

I fear, I've already said too much.

Jeff

Scott Bryce

2007-10-25, 3:17 am

In-Reply-To: <hva0i317fo06ijb8eq6dqn10vh8cakkg5a@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ioqdnQKFaoWKo73anZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Lines: 6
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.186.245.142
X-Trace: sv3-eWYzT9NKYuDnTMql1oShMwDamGh68WRjNK3wrPsEZafX4ybSBulduwP/eneceiE3Dbyk9OM+TJu28Gi!A02RuH9avPu2lcYPTq8OZKWXuFwgqAbRhbFJpqQ9TG7JnvVDqRFcLT+PePWzVJMNgaxgBstmMna4!zSXAKuZb51A9kv5KvKHZe6AcNzGEBYw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
Bytes: 1832
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.www.webmaster:527792

Ed Jay wrote:

> I've reworked the page a bit.

Look at it with the fonts increased once or twice. The page layout
breaks down.

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:18 am

Scott Bryce scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Look at it with the fonts increased once or twice. The page layout
>breaks down.

Yes, I lose the right column, because it's currently fixed width and doesn't
scale.

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:18 am

Jeff scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
> I've commented already on the new. Aesthetically you've got a design
>that doesn't have enough cohesion, it needs to be tied together better.
>Particularly that space directly under the header. It's very awkward.
>
> Don't give me too much credit, I'm not a designer. Neither am I an
>html expert. I have seen enough great designs though to recognize some
>of the elements of good design. (and I've seen a lot of awfull html)
>Now, this may be heresy in this group, but I'd ditch the absolutely
>positioned divs and put it in a simple table with three columns plus the
>header cell with a colspan of 3 (because the absolutely positioned stuff
>doesn't really connect or flow). It'll be easier to outline and connect
>the sections and set background colors and margins. Myself, the only
>thing I'll absolutely position is a javascript flyout menu. But many
>amateurs get a bit too enamored of it, in general it's a very bad thing.

I don't speak tables any more, except for tabular data. ;-)

I got rid of the absolute positioning. I now have floating containers.
>
> I'm not too sure about the design skills in this group. Most of the
>html groups care more about the source code than the appearance. That's
>not bad, but it's something you need to bear in mind.

I agree, but one does get an impression from people who have seen,
carefully, many sites. Despite the techie leaning, it's good input.

>Myself, I fall on
>the pragmatic end. Good design is often like sausage, you really don't
>want to look too closely at what it's made of. But the content part of
>it should be clean enough to keep it search engine friendly and easily
>updateable. Where I've criticized your html is where it gets in the way
>of styling and formatting.

I appreciate your input.
>
> I fear, I've already said too much.
>
Nah.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Jeff wrote:

> I'm not too sure about the design skills in this group. Most of the
> html groups care more about the source code than the appearance.
> That's not bad, but it's something you need to bear in mind.

No, not bad, except that if the underlying code is fraught with errors,
the page has less chance to succeed in all the different situations a
web page might be viewed.

> Myself, I fall on the pragmatic end. Good design is often like
> sausage, you really don't want to look too closely at what it's made
> of.

<LOL!> And I love a good sausage!

> But the content part of it should be clean enough to keep it search
> engine friendly and easily updateable. Where I've criticized your
> html is where it gets in the way of styling and formatting.

"I agree with this statement."

Maybe Ed could examine a good three-column template and garner some
coding ideas from it. I like this one:
http://benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/

Study the code of the templates...

> I fear, I've already said too much.

Nah, not at all. ;-)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Jeff wrote:
>
>
>No, not bad, except that if the underlying code is fraught with errors,
>the page has less chance to succeed in all the different situations a
>web page might be viewed.

If the code is fraught with errors, that's one thing. That a page isn't
designed in the same manner as you employ doesn't mean the page is fraught
with errors. ;-)
>
>
><LOL!> And I love a good sausage!
>
>
>"I agree with this statement."
>
>Maybe Ed could examine a good three-column template and garner some
>coding ideas from it. I like this one:
>http://benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/
>
>Study the code of the templates...
>
I don't think that you've looked at the code. The guy uses absolute
positioning and the pages won't work properly under IE6, because it doesn't
support max-width.

Thanks for the direction.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On 2007-10-25, Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> Scott Bryce scribed:
>
>
> Yes, I lose the right column, because it's currently fixed width and doesn't
> scale.

Or, in my case, the menu on the left obscures part of the text in
the centre panel.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
> If the code is fraught with errors, that's one thing. That a page
> isn't designed in the same manner as you employ doesn't mean the page
> is fraught with errors. ;-)

Well, but don't you just love the word "fraught"?

>
> I don't think that you've looked at the code. The guy uses absolute
> positioning and the pages won't work properly under IE6, because it
> doesn't support max-width.

Oh, I've looked at the code many times. position: absolute works in
IE, it may be position: fixed you were thinking of, which doesn't. It
works fine in my copy of IE6.

There are ways around IE not supporting max-width, but that's a
triviality, and if that's all you can find wrong with his template ...

Notice how there is no mass of inline styles. <g> All you would need
to do is copy it, add your content, and play with the stylesheets for
colors and a few other minor bits.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Chris F.A. Johnson scribed:

>On 2007-10-25, Ed Jay wrote:
>
> Or, in my case, the menu on the left obscures part of the text in
> the centre panel.

I only suffer this when I increase the font size a bunch. Like X4.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>Well, but don't you just love the word "fraught"?

I'm trying to find out where I picked it up.
>
>
>Oh, I've looked at the code many times. position: absolute works in
>IE, it may be position: fixed you were thinking of, which doesn't. It
>works fine in my copy of IE6.

My issue was with max-width, not position:fixed.
>
>There are ways around IE not supporting max-width, but that's a
>triviality, and if that's all you can find wrong with his template ...

I wish it were a triviality. I'm having trouble with IE over it. I'm using
the style: expression(document.body.clientWidth > 995? "995px": "auto" ),
but IE seems to think the wrapper is fixed length, so doesn't down-scale.
>
>Notice how there is no mass of inline styles. <g> All you would need
>to do is copy it, add your content, and play with the stylesheets for
>colors and a few other minor bits.

Any thoughts about what colors I should be looking at for my menu buttons?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
<mess'o'snippage>
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
> My issue was with max-width, not position:fixed.

Actually, with a three-column layout, the center column shouldn't
(normally) be wide enough to bother with it, for most visitors. I
wouldn't.

> Any thoughts about what colors I should be looking at for my menu
> buttons?

Can't say. I'm not a 'green' person, normally. I prefer blues, browns,
yellows... Your current test with the bright cyan/turquoise though, is
a bit much. How about a dark green background? Something like: #2f4f4f;

Pick from here: http://www.somacon.com/p142.php

Blues and yellows on this site of mine:
http://countryrode.com/

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
><mess'o'snippage>
>
>Actually, with a three-column layout, the center column shouldn't
>(normally) be wide enough to bother with it, for most visitors. I
>wouldn't.
>
>
>Can't say. I'm not a 'green' person, normally. I prefer blues, browns,
>yellows... Your current test with the bright cyan/turquoise though, is
>a bit much. How about a dark green background? Something like: #2f4f4f;

Too dark for my taste, but your site gave me some ideas...and at least one
color. :-)
>
>Pick from here: http://www.somacon.com/p142.php

Thanks.
>
>Blues and yellows on this site of mine:
>http://countryrode.com/
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

On 2007-10-25, Ed Jay wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson scribed:
....[color=darkred]
>
> I only suffer this when I increase the font size a bunch. Like X4.

It does that in my default size, which is about 20px.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Ed Jay

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Chris F.A. Johnson scribed:

>On 2007-10-25, Ed Jay wrote:
>...
>
> It does that in my default size, which is about 20px.

I don't think it still does it.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Scott Bryce

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Ed Jay wrote:
> I don't think it still does it.

But now you have other problems.

http://scottbryce.com/scratch/tas.gif

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Ed Jay wrote:

> Too dark for my taste, but your site gave me some ideas...and at least
> one color. :-)

I see that. Looking better. And the menu doesn't cover the content
anymore. Yer gettin' there!

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

On 2007-10-25, Ed Jay wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson scribed:
>
>
> I don't think it still does it.

No. Instead the menu overflows the blue background that is (I
presume) supposed to contain it:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/tas.jpg>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Ed Jay

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Chris F.A. Johnson scribed:

>On 2007-10-25, Ed Jay wrote:
>
> No. Instead the menu overflows the blue background that is (I
> presume) supposed to contain it:
> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/tas.jpg>

Thanks. Now height:100%, not fixed.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Scott Bryce scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>But now you have other problems.
>
>http://scottbryce.com/scratch/tas.gif

That seems to be an old iteration of the page. That said, I've never been
able to make what I see happen. What browser? What conditions?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Scott Bryce

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Ed Jay wrote:

> That seems to be an old iteration of the page. That said, I've never been
> able to make what I see happen. What browser? What conditions?

A 1920 pixel wide screen, with the browser maximized.

I had posted another image with the same name earlier. Are you looking
at the old image from your cache?

Ed Jay

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Scott Bryce scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>A 1920 pixel wide screen, with the browser maximized.

When I want to see a similar view, I max it to my 1280 X 1024. I've not seen
what you show...until a few hours ago, I had it max-width ed to 1024.
>
>I had posted another image with the same name earlier. Are you looking
>at the old image from your cache?

No. I can tell it's an old iteration, because of where the login button is.
It's been at the bottom of the menu for a day. Before that, I moved it to
the right column where you show it. It hasn't been where your pic shows it
for two days.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Scott Bryce

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Ed Jay wrote:

> No. I can tell it's an old iteration, because of where the login button is.
> It's been at the bottom of the menu for a day. Before that, I moved it to
> the right column where you show it. It hasn't been where your pic shows it
> for two days.

I still see the same thing. FireFox. 1920 pixel wide screen with the
browser maximized. It looks the same way in Opera, Netscape and IE.

Try this link to make sure you are seeing the correct image:

http://scottbryce.com/scratch/tas_2.gif

And take note that I am replying to your post. This is what I am seeing
AFTER you made your post.

Ed Jay

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Scott Bryce scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>I still see the same thing. FireFox. 1920 pixel wide screen with the
>browser maximized. It looks the same way in Opera, Netscape and IE.
>
>Try this link to make sure you are seeing the correct image:
>
>http://scottbryce.com/scratch/tas_2.gif
>
>And take note that I am replying to your post. This is what I am seeing
>AFTER you made your post.

There's something strange going on with your cache, perhaps? I changed the
content late yesterday, but your gif doesn't reflect the changes. Also, as I
mentioned, the login button has been the last menu entry for more than a
day.

When I maximize FF, IE or Opera to my 1280 pixel wide screen, I see exactly
what I want to see...the page is fixed width to 1024 pixels wide, everything
is properly aligned.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Scott Bryce

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Ed Jay wrote:

> There's something strange going on with your cache, perhaps?

That couldn't be. It was the first time I viewed that page in Opera, NS
or IE. I didn't have that page cached in those browsers. I also
re-loaded the page in FF to be sure I go the latest. Could I be going to
the wrong URL?

Scott Bryce

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Scott Bryce wrote:
> Could I be going to the wrong URL?

Wrong URL. I went back to an earlier post and found another URL where
you have posted work in progress.

Ed Jay

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Scott Bryce scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
>That couldn't be. It was the first time I viewed that page in Opera, NS
>or IE. I didn't have that page cached in those browsers. I also
>re-loaded the page in FF to be sure I go the latest. Could I be going to
>the wrong URL?

That's it. You've been going to the old page. Sorry. The test page is found
at <http://www.breastthermographyevalua...m/indexNew.html>
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> Scott Bryce scribed:
>
>
> That's it. You've been going to the old page. Sorry. The test page is
> found at <http://www.breastthermographyevalua...m/indexNew.html>

line 66 column 1 - Warning: <div> unexpected or duplicate quote mark
line 66 column 1 - Warning: <div> attribute name "670px":" (value="66%"") is
invalid
line 66 column 1 - Warning: <div> attribute with missing trailing quote mark
line 27 column 31 - Warning: <img> attribute "width" has invalid value
"1250px"

Bergamot

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net TnFBZtRrMeTGzU0qJRci3gw8EpkXQRBvfCjJFmqmUAzYl1YoAI
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UgaEilMJ8BcFS7cqyGirF6mz/yI=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6pre) Gecko/20070719 SeaMonkey/1.1.3
In-Reply-To: <hva0i317fo06ijb8eq6dqn10vh8cakkg5a@4ax.com>
Bytes: 1747
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.www.webmaster:527930

Ed Jay wrote:
>
> Look at the wonderful new colors. In a 1024 wide browser window.
> www.breastthermographyevaluation.com/indexNew.html.

It's sloppy.

http://www.bergamotus.ws/screenshot...yevaluation.png

Don't use kludges like to format or align text. Learn how to use
margin and padding properly! See also
http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/

--
Berg

Bergamot

2007-10-26, 6:19 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Ed Jay wrote:
>
>
> Not as far as content is concerned.

Hey, if he wants to make unnecessary work for himself, who are we to
argue? Personally, I prefer less work (so there's more time for play),
but to each his own. :)

--
Berg

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:42 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Actually, five of them.
> Thanks for asking.
>
>

Wow. 5 whole clients! You're in the big time!

ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Bergamot

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
> Wow. 5 whole clients! You're in the big time!

Only 996 to go. :-)

--
Berg