By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,447 Members | 1,172 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,447 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Fooling around with new design. Comments please.

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a

"Greg G" <gd*******@verizon.net> wrote in message:
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


Well, it looks pretty nice. You should specify a !DOCTYPE at the top of your
code. http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

Also, no character encoding labeling is specified. See
http://www.w3.org/International/tuto...-char-enc.html

Regards,
Jim Roberts
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
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...
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a

"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
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a

"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
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
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> 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.


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.


Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
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.

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.