My Web site

Hey guys,

I just got my *NEW* website up !I am going to try to set it up so you can choose 800X600 or 640X480.

Ross A

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Trininty Five

Hey guys,

I just got my *NEW* website up !I am going to try to set it up so you can choose 800X600 or 640X480.

Ross A

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Trininty Five

Well, it looks to me exactly the same as your previous posting. What is this website for? What does it do?? And is it Trinity5, or Trininty5?


Never argue with an idiot - well, .......just don't, all right?

Will you NEVER listen nor learn ??

What's that supposed to be ???
Certainly NOT a website, what are you expecting ???

Is there any reason, why you are posting EVERY useless stroke you make, rosstheloss2001@juno.com ???

Wolfgang

OK Ross, I've visited your "website" Trinity5. The only thing I saw was a blank page with a few links that only half works.
My advice for you is at leat complete the site before advertising it. Test your site on another machine before uploading it to the server.
Incomplete site are not worth looking up. It is very difficult to give you an opinion with, so many time, unfinished work.

Sincerely

Daniel Fournier

... simple "color" scheme looks better than anything that you have done so far!

The font is also easy to read...

... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Your best effort yet!

Risto

diri@videotron.ca

Have to say my first reaction was there's so much wrong with this that I couldn't face trying to explain it (can't take it upon myself to change the world!), but I've relented a bit and thought I'd try to be more helpful and cover at least some of the main points:

1. <LI>HTML requires some simple things like 'head' and 'body' tags and not just some free JavaScript menu mumbo-jumbo!
   
   <LI>User resizing of text could have consequences you haven't even thought of (but, if you have, see PS below).
   
   <LI>75K is way too big for a background image.
   
   <LI>Planning a site (and background!) to fit exactly 800x600 or 640x480 is a bad, bad, bad idea (and your plan to 'set it up so you can choose 800x600 or 640x480' completely pointless)! For one thing, all browsers take up some of the screen resolution with tool and scroll bars etc, which you'd have to allow for out of those figures. For another, it allows absolutely no fluidity of layout, can irritate your audience beyond measure and will probably cause you a lot of design problems as you start to incorporate more content.
   
   <LI>Placing your background image in an otherwise empty table is bizarre (so what happened to the 'body' tags?) — it won't even sit right up to the edges of the window as it stands — and making the title, menu box etc. absolutely fixed parts of the same background image is also pretty clumsy. And the empty 'tr' and 'td' are, well, empty...

But it's not all doom and gloom. As Risto says, it is an improvement, although I'd also have to agree with Wolfgang that it's not currently (by any stretch of the imagination) a 'website'! And I hope you'll take this in a constructive spirit because I simply wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't obvious you needed the help... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Peter</p>

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

PS The text 'Computer Specs' in the second menu down is outside its intended anchor, which explains why its fixed pixel size ('clSubb') isn't working and I was able to resize it to extend beyond the menu 'box'. And having quite distinct 'clSubb' and 'clSub' classes seems to have too much potential for confusion, which could be avoided by giving them more meaningful names!

[This message was edited by Peter Duggan on November 23, 2001 at 18:03.]

Ho hum...

So I see you've been trying to fix it!

Take the extra '/head' and 'body' tags out of the middle of your menu stuff (multiple heads and bodies not allowed).

And don't try to do your background with 'img src' etc. Stick it in the body like this:

<body background="../k2.gif">

(Although you'd be better off controlling it through CSS if you really want to stop it repeating.)

And take yourself over to the W3C for a nice free copy of Dave Raggett's HTML Tidy (and TidyGUI if you need it), which should help a lot!



Peter</p>



Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

Your "foldout" menu script does not work in
Opera 5.

*Sob* [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Alan.

Mozilla shows the following:

Why I click on About Me > Profile I go to a page:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The page cannot be found
HTTP 404 - File not found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

powered by
the "cost-free, banner-free" hosting network <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to be some truth on that page.

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>

http://www.thuntek.net/gwp/flag.png

Attached image shows what I got!



Peter</p>



Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

Its a real shame I can't even see this fantastic background (or the "interface") - my browser shows a missing image icon.

And no wonder, with the reference to it in the source like this!
<img src="file:///C|/My Documents/k2.png" width="800" height="600" border="0">

No surprises why this doesn't work!!

And as has been said many times, whats the point in forcing the size of the web page to 800x600 etc? The web is not meant to be a platform-specific application, but is a resolution indepentant cross-platform cross-browser medium, and must be developed for as such.

How does this page look to YOU when viewed in a browser at 800x600 screen resolution?

[This message was edited by Stuart Davis on November 24, 2001 at 11:59.]

After looking at Ross's source code, I realised that he may not see what we see when we visit his site. He is referencing files that exist on his computer.

Ross, try visiting you site on another computer and you will see what we (don't) see.

J

Using Opera 6 Beta it seems to work, so thats good.. I think. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Alan.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He is referencing files that exist on his computer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But he wasn't always! When the background was so bizarrely positioned in the table that he's since removed, it had a correct relative URL...

Don't forget, BTW, ('not to brag') that Ross 'knows a lot more about computers than most people', so perhaps there's method in his madness! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

But this thread (not alone in being posted to the wrong place) should clearly be in one of the Site Design/Feedback forums, so I'm not going to reply to it again.

Peter</p>

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

[This message was edited by Peter Duggan on November 24, 2001 at 23:37.]