wanting to hire a web author...

[Chris Rodriguez]

after creating a couple of mediocre sites and talking too much about
them, i've been overwhelmed w/ requests for new sites & site
make-overs. i have a full-time job and i don't have the time or skills
to develop what companies are asking of me. i'd like to capitalize on
this by hiring someone to do all the production once i've sold the
site. i'm not courting anyone who's considering a massive e-commerce
site or anything that extensive, but the work would likely involve a
lot of Flash, Java etc. i don't care what it's built with as long as
it looks great and works well. i'll interface with the client, provide
the creative direction & take any pics and email them to you... all i
need someone to do is to code and upload. email me w/ a few links to
some sites you've created recently and QUOTE ME AN HOURLY RATE. i'll
get back to you.
~Chris

[Mr. B.]

Chris,

I don't know what exactly your looking for, but I'm interested in
discussing the details with you. I'm in the process of building my web
design company (CatsEyeDesigns .Net) so I'm actively looking for new
clients right now. In all honesty I don't do a whole lot of flash
work, but I'm more than capable of doing it if need be. As far as
price, you won't find another company as capable and knowlegeable that
offers a lower price.

Have a look at my website and send me an email or an instant message
if you'd like to discuss it further.

http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net/contact.asp - contact info

Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - CatsEyeDesigns. Net
to*******@hotma il.com (Chris Rodriguez) wrote in message news:<49******* *************** ****@posting.go ogle.com>...

after creating a couple of mediocre sites and talking too much about
them, i've been overwhelmed w/ requests for new sites & site
make-overs. i have a full-time job and i don't have the time or skills
to develop what companies are asking of me. i'd like to capitalize on
this by hiring someone to do all the production once i've sold the
site. i'm not courting anyone who's considering a massive e-commerce
site or anything that extensive, but the work would likely involve a
lot of Flash, Java etc. i don't care what it's built with as long as
it looks great and works well. i'll interface with the client, provide
the creative direction & take any pics and email them to you... all i
need someone to do is to code and upload. email me w/ a few links to
some sites you've created recently and QUOTE ME AN HOURLY RATE. i'll
get back to you.
~Chris

[Spartanicus]

Mr. B. wrote:

I'm in the process of building my web
design company (CatsEyeDesigns .Net)

A few things you should fix before commencing trading:

XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.

Tables used for layout: use CSS.

There are issues in Opera.

Fixed width design; don't.

<td style="height: 350px; width: 600px;">; don't use inline style.

<br /><br /><br /><br />; is it cold where you live?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp; oh dear.

The site doesn't work sans images:

blank navbar
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
blank navbar
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
blank navbar

--
Spartanicus

[Andy Dingley]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:46:38 +0000, Spartanicus <[e-mail] >
wrote:

A few things you should fix before commencing trading:

XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.

Why ? There is nothing _wrong_ with transitional ! And if you
want a target attribute (before hell freezes over and the alternatives
are available) then it's needed.
You missed out one of my favourite mistakes - fixed height fonts.

--
Die Gotterspammerun g - Junkmail of the Gods

[Spartanicus]

Andy Dingley wrote:

XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
Why ? There is nothing _wrong_ with transitional !

It contains stuff that should not be used anymore, hence it should only
be used for legacy documents that cannot be updated (lack of time,
money).
And if you want a target attribute

Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).

--
Spartanicus

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Spartanicus wrote:

Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).

Speaking for myself, if I ever use it then it's to get myself as far
away from frames as HTML makes possible. Is that such a bad thing to
do?

[Spartanicus]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).

Speaking for myself, if I ever use it then it's to get myself as far
away from frames as HTML makes possible. Is that such a bad thing to
do?

You've lost me.

--
Spartanicus

[Mr. B.]

Hello,

First of all, thanks for the review. Didn't ask for it, but it's
always good to get opinions.

Second of all, I whole heartedly disagree with some of you in a couple
of respects.

XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised. That's a matter of opinion.... maybe you're right, but 99% of my
visitors will never know the difference.
Tables used for layout: use CSS. NO... still too many incompatability issues. If I knew exactly what
browser/OS my site would be viewed with, it wouldn't be a problem, but
believe it or not, there are still people using NS 4 and 5 and layers
do not work the same way
in all browsers. Layers will be nice once they are uniformly supported
by 98% or more of the browser market. Until then, I know tables and
they work just fine form me.
There are issues in Opera I've had about 5 visitors to my website from Opera users in the last
month. Relatively speaking, that's not even half a percent. I tried to
make my site look as good as possible in as many browsers as possible,
but clearly, it would look relatively bad in lynx or any really old
browser for that matter.
Fixed width design; don't. Once again, I disagree. Filling the width of the screen works for some
types of sites. It's aweful for others. On my computer, 90% of
"non-fixed width" websites look AWEFUL because my resolution is set at
1600x1200. When a line of text is 220 words long, it looks bad and
it's hard for the eyes to follow. For now, I much prefer the control
offered by a fixed width table because it allows me to know exactly
how everything appears. Leaving the width of your table to chance
means your page looks different in every resolution, and therefore may
or may not look the way you wanted it to.
<td style="height: 350px; width: 600px;">; don't use inline style Why not? Functionally, it displays the same. Sure, updating the site
is easier if it's all kept in an external style sheet, but if ALL of
my css code was in an external style sheet, it would be quite long. I
see your point, but I'm not too concerned with it as I'm sure I'll do
a complete re-design before I change my css formatting.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&n bsp; oh dear. Take a look at a page that uses cell padding in NS6... I could have
used a padding-left: 10px; or something, but it looked horrid in NS6
which some users still use. Maybe I could have used a transparent gif,
but who really cares? Do you think it's a big deal and if so, why?
You missed out one of my favourite mistakes - fixed height fonts. I know why it irritates people, but I had to make a decision. Let a
few old people (just kidding :) ) read my site easier, and let the
rest of my page look like crap, or force the text to be a certain
height in pixels and KNOW what my page is going to look like. I don't
expect TOO many people with bad eyes to be viewing my site, but if I
hear a single complaint from a potential customer, maybe I'll
reconsider. Thanks for the input. Maybe you're right.
It (xhtml transitional) contains stuff that should not be used anymore
Well, this is actually a "transition al" time of the internet isn't it?
In all honesty, I didn't do whole bunch of research on the difference
between HTML and XHTML and specifically, what version of XHTML to code
for. Maybe one is really better than the other? Got any links that you
think are worth reading? In all honesty, I chose transitional out of
ignorance more than anything. I knew the internet was moving towards
XHTML, but wasn't quite there yet so transitional made since.

By the way, sorry if this was a bit long. Thanks to all for the input
and comments.

Regards,
Ryan
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net

Spartanicus <[e-mail] > wrote in message news:<on******* *************** **********@news .spartanicus.ut vinternet.ie>.. . Andy Dingley wrote:

XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.

Why ? There is nothing _wrong_ with transitional !

It contains stuff that should not be used anymore, hence it should only
be used for legacy documents that cannot be updated (lack of time,
money).

And if you want a target attribute

Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).

[Andy Dingley]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:37:06 +0000, Spartanicus <[e-mail] >
wrote:

And if you want a target attribute
Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore

Why not ? What problems does it _really_ cause ?

There's a common misconception that things that disappeared
(especially in XHTML) were pulled because they were bad, whereas they
were simply relocated to other non-core modules. Sadly for some of
these, including target, the alternative module won't be around for
some years yet. It doesn't mean that there's suddenly somethign evil
about the old way though !
(and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).

Open a link in a new window, without JavaScript. It's trivial, but
still a common requirement.
--
Die Gotterspammerun g - Junkmail of the Gods

[Brian]

How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Spartanicus <[e-mail] > wrote in message
news:<on******* *************** **********@news .spartanicus.ut vinternet.ie>.. .

XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and
revised.
It contains stuff that should not be used anymore, hence it
should only be used for legacy documents that cannot be updated
(lack of time, money).

Mr. B. wrote:
That's a matter of opinion.... maybe you're right, but 99% of my
visitors will never know the difference.
99% of your visitors are not skilled in web authoring issues. You're
supposed to be. That's the difference.
I know why it irritates people, but I had to make a decision. Let a
few old people (just kidding :) ) read my site easier, and let the
rest of my page look like crap, or force the text to be a certain
height in pixels and KNOW what my page is going to look like.
Or, at least *think* you know what it looks like. Trying to fix the
size of text in pixels will not always succeed, and when it does, it
won't necessarily have the effect you were after.
I don't expect TOO many people with bad eyes to be viewing my site,
but if I hear a single complaint from a potential customer, maybe
I'll reconsider. Thanks for the input. Maybe you're right.

Your nonchalant attitude toward those whose eyesight is poor says it all.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me