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

www.kiki-health.co.uk

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.

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 ar
e
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

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/

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

 
>
> 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....