Present site: http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design. http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's
pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site,
but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
Thanks in advance
Greg 13 1910
"Neal" <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.rcn.com... On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:38:13 -0400, Jim Roberts <jr******@msn.com> wrote:
Also, no character encoding labeling is specified. See http://www.w3.org/International/tuto...-char-enc.html
I'm getting it as iso-8859-1...
It's his frame set page that doesn't have the character encloding label.
His other pages are set at the above but no doctype is specified.
Regards, Jim
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:08:14 GMT, Greg G <gd*******@verizon.net> wrote: Present site:
http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design.
http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site, but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
Thanks in advance
Greg
At short viewport sizes the side frame won't scroll. Even 800x600 is a
mess. I see what you're after, but it's a problematic design choice. At
that res, there's another problem with the logo and format choice links.
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:48:23 -0400, Jim Roberts <jr******@msn.com> wrote: "Neal" <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote in message news:op**************@news.rcn.com... On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:38:13 -0400, Jim Roberts <jr******@msn.com> wrote:
> Also, no character encoding labeling is specified. See > http://www.w3.org/International/tuto...-char-enc.html
I'm getting it as iso-8859-1...
It's his frame set page that doesn't have the character encloding label.
I'ts set at the server then. Try to validate the frameset page, it'll
detect the charset but fail due to no doctype.
"Neal" <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote... I'ts set at the server then. Try to validate the frameset page, it'll detect the charset but fail due to no doctype.
Ah, I see. cool. I tested his site with Firefox .8 @ 800x600. I didn't see
the problems you were having. I'll have to try it with IE.
I do like that he offers a no-frames version. I like the look too.
Regards,
Jim
In message <tb********************************@4ax.com>, Greg G
<gd*******@verizon.net> writes Present site:
http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design.
http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site, but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
Thanks in advance
Greg
Looks good. Some people don't like having their scroll-bars coloured -
but I think it looks attractive.
Two minor things:
(a) The text is a little too small for me, so I increased the size of
the text. This, however, causes the height of the menu to increase with
the result that the text at the very bottom of the frame gets
overwritten: http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/RB_1X.JPG (82k)
(b) If I run with images switched off (as some people with dial-up lines
assure me that they do), there are problems with the text at the top of
the page: http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/RB_2X.JPG (78k)
Oh yes, one other thing:
The Show Schedule table would be better if you had some headings on the
columns for the benefit of anyone with sight (or other) problems looking
at it in talking browser. Column headings would help navigating the
Schedule.
regards.
--
Jake
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:32:24 +0100, jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk>
wrote: In message <tb********************************@4ax.com>, Greg G <gd*******@verizon.net> writesPresent site:
http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design.
http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site, but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
Thanks in advance
Greg
Looks good. Some people don't like having their scroll-bars coloured - but I think it looks attractive.
Thanks. I hope it doesn't offend too many people. One of my aims with
this "experiment" is to try some fancier things, but without
compromising usability.
Two minor things:
(a) The text is a little too small for me, so I increased the size of the text. This, however, causes the height of the menu to increase with the result that the text at the very bottom of the frame gets overwritten: http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/RB_1X.JPG (82k)
First let me thank you for going the extra mile (do you still use
miles over there?) to help me out. I am aware that with a very large
font size and/or a small window the "coming soon" area will overlap
the other links. I'm hoping that people with those viewing conditions
will choose the No Frames option.
(b) If I run with images switched off (as some people with dial-up lines assure me that they do), there are problems with the text at the top of the page: http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/RB_2X.JPG (78k)
Thanks. I believe I have corrected that now.
Oh yes, one other thing: The Show Schedule table would be better if you had some headings on the columns for the benefit of anyone with sight (or other) problems looking at it in talking browser. Column headings would help navigating the Schedule.
I am not very familiar with how talking browsers work and I'm not sure
if any of the band's "fans" use them, but I am always interested in
better accesibility. I put in the headings.
Thanks again.
regards.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:51:41 -0400, Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote: On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:08:14 GMT, Greg G <gd*******@verizon.net> wrote:
Present site:
http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design.
http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site, but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
Thanks in advance
Greg
At short viewport sizes the side frame won't scroll. Even 800x600 is a mess. I see what you're after, but it's a problematic design choice. At that res, there's another problem with the logo and format choice links.
Thanks for the comments.
At 800 x 600 everything fits, as far as I can tell. At 640 x 480 the
logo doesn't fit and things are tight generally. Of course, you may be
using larger fonts.
That is the main reason I have included a no-frames option. Without
the nav frame even 640 x 480 seems OK to me. I believe it also takes
care of the "short viewport" condition.
Greg G wrote: Present site:
http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design.
http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site, but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
I think you should spend more time with the old color scheme, making a
non-frames site. The new color scheme is definitely *not* a step forward,
and frames have been obsolete for over a year now.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:18:51 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote: Greg G wrote:
Present site:
http://www.risky-biz.com
First "sketch" of new design.
http://www.risky-biz.com/new
I'm trying some new ideas, mostly just changing the stylesheet. It's pretty rough so far. Some of the photos won't work on the "new" site, but I doubt many of you will get that far in.
I think you should spend more time with the old color scheme, making a non-frames site. The new color scheme is definitely *not* a step forward, and frames have been obsolete for over a year now.
Thanks for the comments. Most people I've shown it to have liked the
color scheme so far but I'm still experimenting.
As for the TOC frame, here's my take on it:
As a web user and author I like clear, obvious navigation. I like
visitors to my sites to be able to see at a glance what is available,
including things they might not have thought to look for. I like a
table of contents that appears on every page and don't like to have to
scroll back to the top to use it.
If there's a simple way for me to achieve that without frames I might
consider it. Should "fixed" positioning be implemented someday in the
browser that most of my visitors use, that might be a solution. Is
that what you meant by "obsolete for over a year"?
I think that the only serious drawback to my use of the TOC frame is
that it can be clumsy with small window sizes. For that reason, and to
accommodate personal preference, I include a no-frames option. Toward
that end, I have links on all my pages. Thus anyone who enters the
site from other than the home page can still navigate the site fully.
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:55:43 GMT, Greg G <gd*******@verizon.net> wrote: As for the TOC frame, here's my take on it:
As a web user and author I like clear, obvious navigation. I like visitors to my sites to be able to see at a glance what is available, including things they might not have thought to look for. I like a table of contents that appears on every page and don't like to have to scroll back to the top to use it.
If there's a simple way for me to achieve that without frames I might consider it. Should "fixed" positioning be implemented someday in the browser that most of my visitors use, that might be a solution. Is that what you meant by "obsolete for over a year"?
I think that the only serious drawback to my use of the TOC frame is that it can be clumsy with small window sizes. For that reason, and to accommodate personal preference, I include a no-frames option. Toward that end, I have links on all my pages. Thus anyone who enters the site from other than the home page can still navigate the site fully.
I agree that frames grant this advantage. What I'd like you to see is that
the cost of that advantage is some great disadvantages, including
potential difficulty in search engine indexing, the fact that users who do
find pages on a search engine will not have navigation, bookmarking
hassles, the inability to 'deaden' a link to the current page, and the
whole deprecated target attribute fiasco. Plus the fact that you need to
maintain additional pages.
Perhaps the best way to prevent users from a lot of scrolling to find your
navigation is to make each page more concise. Then apply fixed positioning
for those users smart enough to choose a good browser, and maybe even do
it in PHP to allow the nav to be automatically included and the current
page's link to be shut off. (I assume this is possible, I'm no expert on
PHP.)
Frames are a good idea that unfortunately hurt accessibility far more than
they help.
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote in message news:<op**************@news.rcn.com>... On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:55:43 GMT, Greg G <gd*******@verizon.net> wrote:
As for the TOC frame, here's my take on it:
As a web user and author I like clear, obvious navigation. I like visitors to my sites to be able to see at a glance what is available, including things they might not have thought to look for. I like a table of contents that appears on every page and don't like to have to scroll back to the top to use it.
If there's a simple way for me to achieve that without frames I might consider it. Should "fixed" positioning be implemented someday in the browser that most of my visitors use, that might be a solution. Is that what you meant by "obsolete for over a year"?
I think that the only serious drawback to my use of the TOC frame is that it can be clumsy with small window sizes. For that reason, and to accommodate personal preference, I include a no-frames option. Toward that end, I have links on all my pages. Thus anyone who enters the site from other than the home page can still navigate the site fully.
I agree that frames grant this advantage. What I'd like you to see is that the cost of that advantage is some great disadvantages, including potential difficulty in search engine indexing,
I have 3 sites, each with a nav frame. All appear on the usual search
engines.
the fact that users who do find pages on a search engine will not have navigation,
Not true in my case. I have a full set of links on every page.
Visitors who come in on any page can navigate the site fully. If they
eventually get to the home page they can enable the TOC frame if they
choose.
bookmarking hassles,
I can see how this might be an issue on a large multilayered site, but
you're almost never more than one link away from any page on my sites.
the inability to 'deaden' a link to the current page,
I don't see this as much of a drawback. If you're on the "Songs" page,
and you click on "Songs", pretty much nothing happens.
and the whole deprecated target attribute fiasco.
I'm not familiar with this.
Plus the fact that you need to maintain additional pages.
Nope. I have exactly one extra page, the frameset.
Perhaps the best way to prevent users from a lot of scrolling to find your navigation is to make each page more concise.
My most important guiding principle when designing a site is logic,
speed and ease of use. Many of my pages simply require more than one
screen of display. The "Song List" page, for instance, lists 230 odd
songs. Should I break it up, asking the visitor to "Click here for the
next 30 Songs"? I don't clutter my pages with decorations, it's pretty
much all meat. But certain things should logically be on the same
page, I think, and I'm not willing to break it up simply to avoid
using frames.
Then apply fixed positioning for those users smart enough to choose a good browser, and maybe even do it in PHP to allow the nav to be automatically included and the current page's link to be shut off. (I assume this is possible, I'm no expert on PHP.)
Fixed positioning is a lovely idea that is unfortunately not
implemented in IE. I don't feel any need to spite people who are less
net savvy than I am by making their visit to my site less convenient.
Frames are a good idea that unfortunately hurt accessibility far more than they help.
I take accessibility and ease of use pretty seriously, within the
limits of my modest skills. Toward that end I have text links, few
images and CSS for some low-cost fanciness. I even add a no-frames
option to all my sites for anyone who may disagree with my choices.
Very few people choose it, according to my stats. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Kjetil Torgrim Homme |
last post by:
often when re-factoring code, I need to change the indent level of
some chunk of code. due to the lack of an end marker, my Emacs has to
use heuristics when re-indenting, and this will...
|
by: kazack |
last post by:
I posted a similiar question in this newsgroup already and got an answer
which I already knew but didn't get the answer I was looking for so I am
reposting the code and question differently in the...
|
by: Patchwork |
last post by:
Hi Everyone,
I have a design related question (in C++) that I am hoping someone can help
me with. It is related to my previous post but since it was pointed out that
I was more or less asking...
|
by: Roland Hall |
last post by:
If I wanted to write my own blog application, what functionality should it
contain?
TIA...
--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without...
|
by: Ash |
last post by:
Hello all,
I am hoping this is the appropriate newsgroup for a C++ interface
design question. I am trying to design an interface for a subscriber
to register/deregister handlers for various...
|
by: Sunny |
last post by:
Hi All,
I have a serious issue regarding classes scope and
visibility. In my application, i have a class
name "TextFile", and also a few other classes
like "TotalWords", "TotalLines" and etc..,...
|
by: |
last post by:
Hi. This is a a semi-newbie question about how to store arbitrary
information about my apps
such that I can code quickly, mimizing complexity and the number of things I
have to hold in my brain. I...
|
by: Phlip |
last post by:
1230987za wrote:
Kanze is a classically-trained "unit tester". In some circles "unit" is a QA
concept - specifically, if a test fails, you only need to inspect one unit.
So "units" are...
|
by: Ken Fine |
last post by:
I've been living with a frustrating issue with VS.NET for some months now
and I need to figure out what the problem is. Hopefully someone has run into
the same issue and can suggest a fix. I...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM).
In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
|
by: jfyes |
last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
|
by: ArrayDB |
last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
|
by: PapaRatzi |
last post by:
Hello,
I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
|
by: CloudSolutions |
last post by:
Introduction:
For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
|
by: Defcon1945 |
last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
|
by: af34tf |
last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
| |