Site Check

[webgyrl]

UPDATE: JUNE 14th

 

Ok, so I redid the design so it's 750px wide and I removed the pattern background-not as cool looking, but I think more cross resolution friendly? Can you guys with 800 x 600 resolutions check it to see if it works for you now.

 

Also, those with larger than 1024 x 768 resolutions, how is that navigation layer looking now?

 

I've also made the main table 'default' instead of center positioning it.

 

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

 

Thanks a million-zillion

 

Nat

 

Hi Gang,

 

Working on a re-design of a site and I was wondering if you could check the URL and report back any broken images or layout funkiness.

 

The new layout is at this URL:

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

 

If you could tell me what browser and version you are using, that would be very helpful.

 

Thanks,

Nat

[Deverill]

Heya Nat!

Wow, you are indeed multitalented. All you were doing plus this. Thumbs Up

 

One thing I notice is that your menu box ("About, contact, membership benefits, etc.") seems to be absolutely placed. It looks great at many screen sizes but when I look at it in my default 1280 X 960 it sits right over the last half of the word "About" and your logo.

 

Also, for me, every link goes to domain/new_site/pagename.ext which 401's as not found but if I take out the new_site then it's fine for the ones I tried.

 

Finally, you may want to put your pages with lots of text in a table that's something like 85% of the screen just to avoid the lines running from side to side. Probably not an issue at a lower res but at my size it's not as appealing as it could be.

 

Hope it helps and best wishes with the site!

 

PS Firefox 0.8 on WinXP

Edited June 13, 2004 by TCH-Jim

[TCH-Thomas]

Jim says it very well.

Well done Nat except that its too wide for my 800x600, which i think is a common resolution in the web world?

 

Checked this with I.E 6.0.

[webgyrl]

Heya Nat!

  Wow, you are indeed multitalented. All you were doing plus this.  Thumbs Up

 

  One thing I notice is that your menu box ("About, contact, membership benefits, etc.") seems to be absolutely placed.  It looks great at many screen sizes but when I look at it in my default 1280 X 960 it sits right over the last half of the word "About" and your logo.

 

  Also, for me, every link goes to domain/new_site/pagename.ext which 401's as not found but if I take out the new_site then it's fine for the ones I tried.

 

  Finally, you may want to put your pages with lots of text in a table that's something like 85% of the screen just to avoid the lines running from side to side.  Probably not an issue at a lower res but at my size it's not as appealing as it could be.

 

  Hope it helps and best wishes with the site!

 

PS Firefox 0.8 on WinXP

Jim,

 

Ha Ha... yeah I've been a bizzy girl with the two new singles and still trying to beef up my design knowledge. I love the challenge!

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

The links don't work because I am still tweaking the main template page that I will be using for the entire site. I gotta make sure the design works first before I change all the pages over.

 

About that absolute positioning.... is there a way to make that navigation layer work for your resolution by tweaking the code some? Should I make the position relative? What would be the best declaration for this to work on all resolutions?

 

As for the text... I did put the text in a table that is 697pixels wide. Would changing that table to 80% be a more cross resolutin and browser friendly way to go?

I've just changed it to 87%.... see if that makes a difference?

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

 

Thanks for the help. You guys all rawk so much!

 

Nat

[webgyrl]

Jim says it very well. 

Well done Nat except that its too wide for my 800x600, which i think is a common resolution in the web world?

 

Checked this with I.E 6.0.

 

That was my worry. I'm using 1024X768 resolution to design. From the stats I read, 1024 X 768 was the more common resolution nowadays, but most stats seem to be erroneous! I am not sure what to do.

 

Can you at least see the main table with the navigation and text OK? I made that main table 800pixels wide. The background is a scanline pattern. I thought that perhaps the table would center in 800X600 resolutions and you could still see everything.

 

What would be the best way to ensure that most resolutions can see the design?

 

Thanks,

Nat

[TCH-Bruce]

Hi Nat, looks nice but a slight problem at higer resolutions. I run 1268 x 1024 and this is what I see.

[webgyrl]

Hi Nat, looks nice but a slight problem at higer resolutions.  I run 1268 x 1024 and this is what I see.

Bruce,

 

Thanks for attaching that screen shot. It helps for me to see how you're seeing it!

 

Is there any way I can make that navigation layer stay to the right a bit more and still have it work on most resolutions?

 

Thanks,

Nat

[Deverill]

I'm not the one to ask about CSS - it's a new an amazing world I'm not much into yet.

 

The long lines were from the old site. I assumed you had a bad folder name and took out the "newsite" and went to the "regular" FAQ page for instance. The page you posted looks fine as is regarding length.

 

I would guess there's a way to move your nav-box to the right or pin it on the right edge but I'm not sure how or if that's what you're after. Sorry I'm not much help on CSS... I'll eventually find some time to investigate it further.

[bellringr]

Still scrolling off to the right on my 800x600 (Firefox).

 

I need to learn CSS too. I just know the very very basics from the stylesheets we use at work.

[webgyrl]

The site is mostly done in tables. The only CSS is text. I used Dreamweaver to make that layer that the navigation bar is in.

 

I wish I knew how to make it stay to the right a bit more in the larger resolution.

 

For those of you with 800X600... is the layout at least functional?

[webgyrl]

Ok... here's a screenshot of the layout in Dreamweaver.

 

As you can see, the layer properties are there. Does anyone here know if I can tweak some of these settings to get that nav bar layer to represent within the bounds of the graphic frames but to the right, in the layout?

 

I have no idea what a Z-index is... and some of those other variables are greek to me. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

[TCH-Dick]

I never can get the layers in DW to stay where I want them.

Z-index has something to do with overlapping(or something like that) of the the layer.

If you click the ? in the upper right corner of the properties window, it will give you an explanation of the options for the current properties.

[Boojum]

I've never used Dreamweaver, but from what I read, it tends to generate inefficient HTML. I think the only way to make these WYSIWYG programs work effectively is to be prepared to proofread their output minutely.

 

If you get tired of this, and want to write your own clean code, you may want to try BBEdit. It should be possible to integrate the code you write yourself in that program with the Dreamweaver output for optimal results.

[TCH-Don]

As to screen resolution, its true it has swung towards 1024x768 as the most used,

but 800x600 is still close.

 

see

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

for Display Resolution Stats:

 

and the warning:

Web developers be aware: Many users still have only 800x600 display screens.

 

 

As to table width, there are many opinions for fixed or percentages.

If you use percentages it will fit,

but on a hires screen some lines of text may be only one line, so you need to add line breaks.

 

If you use fixed be sure to code less than the target width as in 750 rather than 800 to allow for a scroll bar and bleed room.

 

Its still a personal choice.

I prefer percentages for both tables and font sizes

so the page will at least display at any screen size, including the new PDA devices.

And fixed font are not best for accessability or visually impared or old age eyes

[webgyrl]

I never can get the layers in DW to stay where I want them.

Z-index has something to do with overlapping(or something like that) of the the layer.

If you click the ? in the upper right corner of the properties window, it will give you an explanation of the options for the current properties.

Thanks Dick... will click the big ?

[webgyrl]

I've never used Dreamweaver, but from what I read, it tends to generate inefficient HTML. I think the only way to make these WYSIWYG programs work effectively is to be prepared to proofread their output minutely.

 

If you get tired of this, and want to write your own clean code, you may want to try BBEdit. It should be possible to integrate the code you write yourself in that program with the Dreamweaver output for optimal results.

Thanks for the BBEdit reccomendation... will look into that

[webgyrl]

As to screen resolution, its true it has swung towards 1024x768 as the most used,

but 800x600 is still close.

 

see

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

for Display Resolution Stats:

 

and the warning:

Web developers be aware: Many users still have only 800x600 display screens.

 

 

As to table width, there are many opinions for fixed or percentages.

If you use percentages it will fit,

but on a hires screen some lines of text may be only one line, so you need to add line breaks.

 

If you use fixed be sure to code less than the target width as in 750 rather than 800 to allow for a scroll bar and bleed room.

 

Its still a personal choice.

I prefer percentages for both tables and font sizes

so the page will at least display at any screen size, including the new PDA devices.

And fixed font are not best for accessability or visually impared or old age eyes

Ahhh Don

 

Thanks for all that info. I am thinking percentages are a better way for the tables. Gonna tweak some more.

 

Thanks,

Nat

[TCH-Thomas]

Heres what i see in 800x600, I.E 6.0.

[webgyrl]

Guys- what do you think is the best approach? Should I re-design for 800X600 or just leave the design at 1024x768? Seems it's almost a 50/50 split for these two browsers.

 

Also, my screen res is 1024x768, so would I have to change my screen res when I design to make sure it all displays right?

 

Thanks for the pointers.

[Boojum]

Nat,

 

The resolution issue has been a bugbear of mine as well.

 

My monitor (the one I'm using on this computer) has no settings higher than 832 x 624, at which I generally keep it. I try to design my pages to be accessible in all browsers and under all parameters, so I do check them with, among other things, all the resolutions available to me. That's not difficult with the lower settings (640 x 480 to 800 x 600), but for anything above my default, I actually have taken to putting a debugging copy of a "local" version of my Home subdomain template onto a Zip disk and opening it on my G3.

 

Looks, however, as though my G3 needs a better video card along with a new modem: Its resolutions reach a maximum of the rather unlikely 1152 x 870.

 

My point (and I do have one ... look; there it is ... right on top of my head) is that the answer to both your questions is a qualified yes.

 

You should probably, if you want the greatest possible number of potential visitors to find your site accessible and usable, redesign it not only for 800 x 600 but also so that it can be viewed without undue inconvenience at both 640 x 480 and 1600 x 1200.

 

In general, most web designers I've read have recommended designing one's pages with the lowest commonly used resolution in mind; originally this was 640 x 480, and pages were supposed to fit within 600 horizontal pixels; today, I think very few people use that setting, and I have essentially optimized my pages (for now—I intend to look into relative tables myself) for 800 x 600. My rationale for doing this is that although pages designed for low resolutions may possibly appear odd at higher ones, they will nonetheless appear and function more or less as intended. But just try viewing a page inflexibly designed for a 1600 x 1200 monitor on an 800 x 600 sometime!

 

And you will find it advisable, as you surmised, to reset your resolution to a variety of settings (not just your default and 800 x 600) as you design and debug. You don't absolutely have to do this—and it is all too clear that plenty of web designers don't—but it is the only logical way to check your work.

 

Brian

[TCH-Bruce]

Thanks for the BBEdit reccomendation... will look into that

Nat, unless you are running a Mac you can't use BBEdit.

[Boojum]

Really? I thought BBEdit had recently developed a Windows version, but perhaps I mistook an intent for an actuality.

 

If indeed BBEdit is still not available, I have read recommendations to edit HTML for Windows in Notepad. Of course, there are probably more specialized HTML editors available that would be more cognate to BBEdit.

[TCH-Bruce]

Really? I thought BBEdit had recently developed a Windows version, but perhaps I mistook an intent for an actuality.

If they have I cannot find it. I Googled for it.

[webgyrl]

Brian,

 

Thanks for all that info.

 

It is a really frustrating task to make the designs as resolution friendly as possible for all people that may visit the site.

 

I have the design at 750 wide now. I may have to sacrafice some of those who are using the 640 x 480 resolutions. But since the target market for this site is North American I think it should be OK as I think most people use at least 800 x 600.

 

The current design has worked with no complaints, but this Organization is going to be doing an advertising push this summer and I wanted to break the design out of frames and also make the design smaller for them to reach more potential members.

 

Hopefully the new design will work well.

 

Thanks again.

 

Nat

[webgyrl]

Thanks for the BBEdit reccomendation... will look into that

Nat, unless you are running a Mac you can't use BBEdit.

I found that out last nite.

 

Plus I'm running Win 98SE still.

 

Still trying to scrape up for a new computer. Argh!

 

Plus, I like Dreamweaver for the sites I do. Web Design is not my main trade, so I guess I take a different approach than many hard core designers do who code by hand.

 

I just do the sites I need to and some pro-bono work.

 

I started off doing more Graphics type stuff and learned as I went out of need.

 

I still feel more comfortable in front of a Microphone than any computer any day! LOL

[TCH-Dick]

Nat, you have Topstyle 3. right?

If so you can open your page with it then hit F12 and select the resolution to preview. Its not the best method but should work for what you need.

[webgyrl]

Dick,

 

I'll give that a try.

 

The new stylesheets I made in DW 4 because for some strange reason the sheets I have made in TS Pro are not working.

 

Still trying to muddle thru all this.

 

BTW... is there a banner showing up in my signature. I am having a terrible time viewing some graphics on my system... all of a sudden they just aren't showing up... same with some Java Scripting functions.

 

The beast is dying..... LOL

[Boojum]

Natalie,

 

Regarding this issue with images not appearing: It is possible but not, I think, likely that this is the result of your machine dying. I would first suspect a browser-cache problem, RAM limitations arising in response to the accumulation of images viewed over time, or even a browser installation error. You may also have a remote server problem with your ISP.

 

My inclination would be to thoroughly clear the browser cache first, and if this doesn't work, check your RAM with the browser in operation and see if you have a sufficient margin for error. If neither of these suffices, you could try contacting your ISP to find out how often its cache is updated. The last resort is to reinstall your browser.

 

(Well, maybe the second to last: The very last resort is reinstalling Windows completely. This even though most computer forums are filled with helpful folks who will tell you to do a clean system reinstall in response to any and all issues that may arise.)

[webgyrl]

Ok... I tweaked it even more and rethought the way to slice and export the layout so the navigation bar is no longer in a layer.

 

How does it look?

 

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

 

Thanks

[webgyrl]

Natalie,

 

Regarding this issue with images not appearing: It is possible but not, I think, likely that this is the result of your machine dying. I would first suspect a browser-cache problem, RAM limitations arising in response to the accumulation of images viewed over time, or even a browser installation error. You may also have a remote server problem with your ISP.

 

My inclination would be to thoroughly clear the browser cache first, and if this doesn't work, check your RAM with the browser in operation and see if you have a sufficient margin for error. If neither of these suffices, you could try contacting your ISP to find out how often its cache is updated. The last resort is to reinstall your browser.

 

(Well, maybe the second to last: The very last resort is reinstalling Windows completely. This even though most computer forums are filled with helpful folks who will tell you to do a clean system reinstall in response to any and all issues that may arise.)

LOL... you are gonna laugh when I tell you it's a Norton thing. I turned off Ad Block and VOILA!

 

The strange thing is that I put my domain name in the Configuration spot and it still blocks some images on my site and on other sites. It's supposed to allow 'ads' that you configure to be allowed, plus I can't figure out how it deems these images as 'ads' in the first place. Oh well.

 

At least I know what it is now. I was freaking for a bit, I have a new system all ready to be built, but I am still saving up for it.

 

Argh!

 

Thanks for all the help

 

Nat

[TCH-Dick]

Ok... I tweaked it even more and rethought the way to slice and export the layout so the navigation bar is no longer in a layer.

 

How does it look?

 

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

 

Thanks

Looks good!

If you change your main table(line 82 in DW,I think) to

><table width="750" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

it will be centered and looks good in both resolutions.

[Boojum]

Natalie,

 

I just visited the new_site version you linked to under UPDATE.

 

Examining it at 832x624, I find it apparently functional but not centered. This is increasingly apparent as I stretch the window horizontally, and will probably also appear at higher resolutions.

 

Try tossing in <div align=center> between your <body> tag and the beginning of your page content (and don't forget the closing </div>) and see if that doesn't correct the page's appearance at the higher resolutions.

 

(And you are right: It is quite difficult and frustrating to try to make one's site accessible at all commonly encountered resolutions. Having just spent a fair amount of time recoding 44 pages to do exactly what I just described, I now find the site looks strange at 640 x 480. However, I've decided for my own purposes to do what you mentioned above and sacrifice the few folks who still use that resolution—or, for that matter, 256 colors—on the theory that they are a vanishing breed in any case.)

[webgyrl]

OK- I've centered the main table so the layout is centered.

 

But now I've got some funny line running thru the top table and the bottom two rows on the very right side.

 

I think it may be the way I sliced it in Fireworks... gonna keep tweaking.

 

But at least this new design will work for 800 X 600 now.

 

I've learned so much doing this new layout.... thanks for all your pointers. You guys are so helpful

 

Nat

[webgyrl]

Ok- I have more tweaking to do but I gotta go workout real quick and then I'll get back to fixing the buggies.

 

I think it's almost there now tho! YAY

 

Nat

[Boojum]

Ok- I have more tweaking to do but I gotta go workout real quick and then I'll get back to fixing the buggies.

As long as you don't put them before the horse.

 

(After all, that would be a hysteron-proteron fallacy.)

[webgyrl]

Ok- I have more tweaking to do but I gotta go workout real quick and then I'll get back to fixing the buggies.

As long as you don't put them before the horse.

 

(After all, that would be a hysteron-proteron fallacy.)

Ahhh... do I sense a fellow English Major in the building???

 

I always did like inverted expressions myself!

 

LOL

[webgyrl]

I think I've got it!

 

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

 

All seems to be lining up fine now and the layout is centered.

 

What's it like when you view it?

 

Nat

[TCH-Dick]

Looks Great in 1024 x 768

[Boojum]

Natalie,

 

It looks great, except that some graphic slices don't quite line up.

 

Brian

[TCH-Thomas]

Looks great

[TCH-Bruce]

Looks good at 1280 x 1024 Thumbs Up

[webgyrl]

Natalie,

 

It looks great, except that some graphic slices don't quite line up.

 

Brian

Brian,

 

What resolution are you at and what browser are you using?

 

I was tweaking some more today with table height and I did notice when I did that it made the top part disjointed... but I think I got the proper height figured out. Can you check again to see if it is fixed on your end?

 

Thank you all for the feedback... it has been so valuable to me

 

Nat

[Boojum]

Natalie,

 

Unfortunately, the slices still don't quite mesh.

 

I'm using Internet Exploiter 5.16 on a Macintosh Power Mac 6500/250 running OS 9.1 at a resolution of 832 x 624 and 32-bit color.

 

Brian

[webgyrl]

Natalie,

 

Unfortunately, the slices still don't quite mesh.

 

I'm using Internet Exploiter 5.16 on a Macintosh Power Mac 6500/250 running OS 9.1 at a resolution of 832 x 624 and 32-bit color.

 

Brian

Brian,

 

That is so odd. I can't figure out why this is happening.

 

Is there any way you can upload a screen shot of what you are seeing? Is it only the top row that is breaking up or is it some other part of the layout?

 

Thanks,

Nat

[webgyrl]

Brian- I just changed the topmost table height to nothing... does that fix the problem?

 

http://www.indiemanagers.com/new_site/layout.htm

[Boojum]

Well, let's say one problem down and one to go.

 

The broken images seem corrected, but there is still a disparity of width between the upper portion of the page containing the menu and the lower portion containing the text. It appears that the border around the former is just a bit narrower than that around the rest, and this applies to both 832 x 624 and 800 x 600.

 

Still ... definite progress.

[webgyrl]

Well, let's say one problem down and one to go.

 

The broken images seem corrected, but there is still a disparity of width between the upper portion of the page containing the menu and the lower portion containing the text. It appears that the border around the former is just a bit narrower than that around the rest, and this applies to both 832 x 624 and 800 x 600.

 

Still ... definite progress.

Hmmm that is interesting.

 

I actually put in an exact table height for that topmost table because of the second problem you are having. When I viewed the layout in Mozilla, Netscape, Opera etc there was that 'gap'. I fixed that by adding in an exact table height to the top table.

 

But as you see... doing that disjointed the top slices.

 

Ok... so now I went in and put an exact table height of 194 for the outside top table row... and I put in the middle part backgroud... what does that do? Does it break up the top table slices again?

 

Geez I wish I could get this perfect! LOL

[Boojum]

Natalie,

 

As requested, here's a screenshot of the page.

 

My apologies for the time this took. Unfortunately, I'm using an ancient machine and had to take the shot, save it as a PICT, quit Internet Exploiter, open Graphic Converter, open the screenshot in GC, save a copy of it as a GIF so I could upload it, quit GC, reopen IE and write this reply.

[webgyrl]

Brian,

 

Thanks for that. Sorry you had to go thru hoops to do it. I sure appreciate that you did it tho!

 

Hmmmm that additional background is not gonna work.

 

Did anyone else have issues with the top row breaking up last night?

 

I am gonna go back to the old way I had it with the 194 table height but take out that background. I can not figure out why it is doing that on your system Brian.

 

What a bummer! Just when I thought I had it! LOL Murphy's Law!

 

Nat

[Boojum]

What a bummer! Just when I thought I had it! LOL Murphy's Law!

Nat,

 

It is certain that Murphy was an optimist, and many are the corollaries begotten from his eponymous law.

 

That this is a platform issue seems quite probable: You are designing your site in Windows 98, and I am viewing it in Mac OS 9.1, on a less-than-current browser not native to my OS. So numerous are the differences between our systems that I am probably very nearly your ideal distaff tester, in that my experience of your site is likely to be about as different from yours as it is possible to get.

 

But this leads in turn to a question: On my system, changing resolutions is virtually instantaneous; I have simply to open (using a keyboard command) the control strip at the bottom left of my screen, select the monitor resolution icon, and select the new resolution I want from a short menu. It sounds, however, as though the process is somewhat more cumbrous for you. Do you have any convenient way to change resolutions quickly?

 

Because, if you don't, you may want to search the web for something equivalent to the control strip for your system. It will be more than worth your while when you want to check your web and graphic work for cross-compatibility.

 

Periphrastically yours,

Brian

[Deverill]

Nat,

iCapture is a site that can show you what your site looks like to the Apple Safari browser. It's not what Brian uses but will give you an idea of what many Apple users will se. It may help. The site is at www.danvine.com/icapture

Edited June 16, 2004 by TCH-Jim