Hi,

After a bit of tweaking and bug fixes I have reset my Statistics database.
I would appreciate if some of you could have a look at it so I could gather
some new data.

http://www.schoolsofafrica.com

Your opinion is of course greatly appreciated.

Simon

Simon wrote:

> Hi,

Er, G'day.

> After a bit of tweaking and bug fixes I have reset my Statistics database.
> I would appreciate if some of you could have a look at it so I could
gather
> some new data.

> http://www.schoolsofafrica.com

Done.

> Your opinion is of course greatly appreciated.

It would be helpfull if I could read the site. The default light blue on
white does not work for me. The light blue on light purple menu (I assume it
is) is totally unreadable. Font size is also specified in pixels for much of
the site (but not all) so it is by default unresizable by 80%+ of your
audience.

--
Cheers
Richard.

> 
>
> Done.
> 
>
> It would be helpfull if I could read the site. The default light blue on
> white does not work for me. The light blue on light purple menu (I assume
it
> is) is totally unreadable. Font size is also specified in pixels for much
of
> the site (but not all) so it is by default unresizable by 80%+ of your
> audience.
>

Really?, I thought it was readable.
What browser are you using so I can change it, I don't seem to have a
problem with Opera/Mozilla etc...

As for the pixels, I will hunt around for them and replace them with %'s.

Simon

Simon wrote:
 
assume
> it 
much
> of 
>
> Really?, I thought it was readable.

Are you referring to the colour of the font size? You have not clipped my
post correctly so I don't know which bit you are replying to.

> What browser are you using so I can change it,

Sorry, you can't change the browser I am using :-)

> I don't seem to have a
> problem with Opera/Mozilla etc...

You might not. I do.

If you are talking about the colour then you should be considering my eyes,
not my browser. Maybe my eyes are a little bit colour blind so light blue
may look almost exactly like light purple to me. I am a bloke after all and
3%+ of us are a bit colour blind.

Perhaps my screens are a little out of adjustment. <checks/>. Yep, the one I
happened to use to view your page on is a little defficient in the red arena
and the only difference between blue and purple is a little red. <tweaks
screen>. That is not a very old screen (two or three years) so if I have
problems what happens to those whose screens are several years old?

> As for the pixels, I will hunt around for them and replace them with %'s.

Oh, you were not talking about the pixels after all. I see that now. Great
that you are moving to %. Makes a lot of sense. You *are* using 100 of them
aren't you :-)

By the way, what is this:

"17 visitors online."

How do you know I am "online". Sure, you can sometimes tell when I arrive at
your site but you can never tell when I leave it. The best you can say is
that (at the moment) you have somewhere between 0 and 422 "online".

Last time this was seriously mentioned here it was a shopping site which
declared that it had 334 visitors currently online. A little delving
revealed a bit of javascript that pumped out a random number between 200 and
400 for "visitors online" :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

 
>
> Are you referring to the colour of the font size? You have not clipped my
> post correctly so I don't know which bit you are replying to.

Sorry, I was referring to the colour.

> 
>
> Sorry, you can't change the browser I am using :-)

I can always try :)

> 
>
>
> If you are talking about the colour then you should be considering my
eyes,
> not my browser. Maybe my eyes are a little bit colour blind so light blue
> may look almost exactly like light purple to me. I am a bloke after all
and
> 3%+ of us are a bit colour blind.
>
> Perhaps my screens are a little out of adjustment. <checks/>. Yep, the one
I
> happened to use to view your page on is a little defficient in the red
arena
> and the only difference between blue and purple is a little red. <tweaks
> screen>. That is not a very old screen (two or three years) so if I have
> problems what happens to those whose screens are several years old?

I am still a bit confused, maybe I should change the colour.
I can understand the light blue writing over the 'purple' background but I
still don't know why you cannot see the blue over white.

> 
%'s.
>
> Oh, you were not talking about the pixels after all. I see that now. Great
> that you are moving to %. Makes a lot of sense. You *are* using 100 of
them
> aren't you :-)
>
> By the way, what is this:
>
> "17 visitors online."

It's nothing very scientific, I check every new 'Agent'. If it is not a
robot of some sort then I assume that it is a real person.
If you are using cookies the values are only updated every 5 minutes
otherwise they are checked all the time.
Users that are inactive for 60 minutes are 'removed' and no longer counted
as 'online'.

>
> How do you know I am "online". Sure, you can sometimes tell when I arrive
at
> your site but you can never tell when I leave it. The best you can say is
> that (at the moment) you have somewhere between 0 and 422 "online".
>

I agree that it is not an exact science, but I also believe that it is just
for eye catching more than anything else.
It will never be accurate but I believe it is as close as can be without
bringing my system to a crawl.
An as you say it is impossible for me to tell when a user leaves the site.

>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.
>

Simon

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:59:46 +0100, "Simon"
<spambucket@schoolsofafrica.com> wrote:

 

(and someone  was quoted without attribution saying) 
 
>it 
>
>Really?, I thought it was readable.

Really, it isn't.

Simon wrote:
 
>
> I can always try :)

Full points for persistance ;-)

[colours]

> I am still a bit confused, maybe I should change the colour.
> I can understand the light blue writing over the 'purple' background but I
> still don't know why you cannot see the blue over white.

I didn't say I could not *see* the blue on white. I said <checks/> "it does
not work". By that I mean that it causes me discomfort to squint at it. That
is why I changed the font size to my largest available (happened to be using
IE at the time, that's how I spotted the pixel problem). If the text is
difficult for me to read I am more likely to move on to a site with nice
black on white text. I *can* read yours but I don't *like* reading it.
 
>
> It's nothing very scientific, I check every new 'Agent'. If it is not a
> robot of some sort then I assume that it is a real person.
> If you are using cookies the values are only updated every 5 minutes
> otherwise they are checked all the time.
> Users that are inactive for 60 minutes are 'removed' and no longer counted
> as 'online'.

Yep. I had anticipated that. I, for one, do not *look* at a site for 60
minutes and I have cookies disabled so you won't get me there either. I
suspect that you are more likely to have one, or perhaps two people "online"
at any given moment. The net uses a stateless protocol and it should be
treated that way.

This stuff is right up there with counters which are usually started from
10102 :-) That is, little or no credence. You would be far better off by
stating up front that "you have had 17 visitors during the last hour". Don't
forget that some visitors wont get counted (they live behind a proxy) and
some will get counted more than once (different IP address for each get
request).

--
Cheers
Richard.

> 
>
> Full points for persistance ;-)

Cheers.

>
> [colours]
> 
I 
>
> I didn't say I could not *see* the blue on white. I said <checks/> "it
does
> not work". By that I mean that it causes me discomfort to squint at it.
That
> is why I changed the font size to my largest available (happened to be
using
> IE at the time, that's how I spotted the pixel problem). If the text is
> difficult for me to read I am more likely to move on to a site with nice
> black on white text. I *can* read yours but I don't *like* reading it.

I see now, I will change the colour to something a bit darker.
I like the blue colour, but that's my personal choice, so I will compromise
by making it darker.
Hopefully it will make it easier to read.

I made the blue writing a bit darker and change the css to remove pixels in
the font size.
I haven't had time to really think about it but I don't think that the text
colour #002266 is the best choice, maybe I should give up and make it black.

>
> Yep. I had anticipated that. I, for one, do not *look* at a site for 60
> minutes and I have cookies disabled so you won't get me there either. I
> suspect that you are more likely to have one, or perhaps two people
"online"
> at any given moment. The net uses a stateless protocol and it should be
> treated that way.
>
> This stuff is right up there with counters which are usually started from
> 10102 :-) That is, little or no credence. You would be far better off by
> stating up front that "you have had 17 visitors during the last hour".
Don't
> forget that some visitors wont get counted (they live behind a proxy) and
> some will get counted more than once (different IP address for each get
> request).

I could always check for active users over the last 5/10 minutes?
Giving a message "you have had 17 visitors during the last hour" is a good
idea but simply too long given the space I have.

But, I agree that the value is pretty meaningless, and more for eye candy
than anything else really.

>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.

Simon

> 
>
> (and someone  was quoted without attribution saying) 
> 
on 
assume 
>
> Really, it isn't.

Thanks.

rf wrote:


> It would be helpfull if I could read the site. The default light blue
> on white does not work for me. The light blue on light purple menu (I
> assume it is) is totally unreadable. Font size is also specified in
> pixels for much of the site (but not all) so it is by default
> unresizable by 80%+ of your audience.
>

I agree, I found it a bit of a strain. I thought the best template to
read was the 'silver' but I had to bump the font-size up a bit to make
it comfortable.

--
Robert
http://brightonfixedodds.net