Hi. Just need to see if anyone is having trouble viewing this page: http://www.ace-installer.com/index2.php. Paul is saying that the right menu has some white space there, but from what me and a few mates have seen it is ok now. He was using IE 6, so if someone could confirm this that would be great.

Thanks

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

The white next to the small dot is gone, the white next to the big dot isn't.

Ok, SHOULD be fixed now. I really do hate having to make it cross browser compatible!

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

How about cross-system compatible? (including monitor size, screen resolution, operating system, etc.)

Refer to screenshot...with 640X480 screen resolution.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

 
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

I honestly don't see the point of catering for people with 640*480 anymore.

90% of people who visit Cricket Web are on 800*600 and only 2% visit on 640*480. These stats are the same on nearly all my sites.

I can't believe people could still be using that resolution anyway. It restricts what you do so much.

---------------
Cricket Web - http://www.cricketweb.net
Cricket Web Forum - http://forum.cricketweb.net/
---------------

Site looks fine in IE 5 by the way.

---------------
Cricket Web - http://www.cricketweb.net
Cricket Web Forum - http://forum.cricketweb.net/
---------------

We've got 3 out of 17 machines in the office still running on 640*480.

- wil

I perfer to work in 640*480, better on the eyes.
About 20% of all my users are using that resolution, so there are a lot still out there believe it or not.
I have a 640*480 site version and a 800*600 version, and I'm working on a 1024*768 version.
As the old saying (or is it a song) goes - Got to keep your customers satisfied -.
Btw looks fine to me to with ie5 and netscape 4.7.

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com

Yep - that's the most common reason I get, too. It's easier to read/see as the font, images and everything else is bigger. Which is understandable...

- wil

>>I perfer to work in 640*480, better on the eyes. <<

All my family have reading glasses (except me) but my vision is pretty dodgy sometimes but I find anything less than 1024x768 way to big and "in ya face".....my monitor won't even let me go less than 800x600 with my current drivers.

I can understand people with vision problems using different resolutions but there is no excuse for using browsers from the stoneage

Hm... I prefer a minimum of 1024 by 768... I like to see everything at once... I hate having to scroll horizontally when I'm working on a program... A lot of built-in Windows functions (alerts, config tools, etc) won't fit/look well on 640 x 480 screens. Although yes, I could take out my contact lenses and probably be able to read those huge fonts from two feet away.

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator

Yeah, I don't really see any point in catering for people with less than 800x600. ALL of my websites are webmaster related, and any decent webmaster can't really work on anything less than 800x600 (just my view on it). Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I'm hoping to have this design up and working by the end of the week

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

That's a fair point. Always cate for your target audience, but you should also expect the unexpected - nobody expected the spanish inquisition or whatever that quote from monty python was.

- wil

Yeah, here is the stats from today so far;

1. 1024 x 768 pixels 23
2. 800 x 600 pixels 14
3. 1152 x 864 pixels 4
4. 1280 x 1024 pixels 4
5. Other Resolutions 2

See, the smaller resolutions are so little in quantity there is no reason even to list 'em ;)

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

There are lots of excellent webmasters that work and browse at a number of resolutions including 640*480 and even webtv, which is 300*200 I think on a daily bacis.
I say if they carn't handle those resolutions, then there no very good webmasters.

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com

You have to be realistic. There is no way you can get a site to look right in 300x200 as well as 1024x768

300x200? Blimy...didnt' even realise it went that low! Thats like viewing it on a WAP phone..LOL

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

...and wap sucks :)

Grammer is wrong there - double negative.

- wil

Andy

It's now called MSNTV, and the res is 544 × 372.
http://developer.msntv.com/Designing/TVsrnres.asp
I plan on doing a version in the near future.

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com

Yeah, I think a lot of us are guilty of leaving out WebTV users from our design specs. The WebTV boxes are so limited, I bet none of my websites conform to their standards yet every month I see an increase in hits from 'em.

- wil

And it's one of those areas that will just keep increasing as entertainment consoles and TVs in general become more internet friendly.

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com

The problem is, if you are designing for such small resolutions, then there is the problem of having to have duplicates to suite every type of screen resolution! Quite honesty mine looks ok in anything from 800x600 and higher, so I'm not too worried

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

Well, it really depends on your traffic...but there are still a reasonable population using smaller screen resolutions...25% of the overall traffic to the web sites I maintain and advise come from users who use 640X480. (And BTW, I use all types of screen resolutions, just happened to be using 640X480 when I checked out your site.)

And remember, while you are designing your site for "webmasters", their target audiences are different...much different than technological inclined groups like webmasters.

Bye bye....
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Sounds like you don't care about the users or end-users of your web site, very bad choice in web design and development...just because it "looks good to you" is not really a good litmus test for the usability and accessibility qualities of your web site.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

>>
just because it "looks good to you" is not really a good litmus test for the usability and accessibility qualities of your web site.
<<

Which is why he posted this thread

Then he should be more receptive to advice provided by users who have accessed his site, don't ya think, Paul?
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

pm me the room name

Why do my threads always seem to fights ;)

If you are referring to Wils deleted post, he was talking to me not arguing.

I was just refering to you eliot and myself ;) Just look at the last 4 or 5 threads started by me...they all lead to being locked or fights :(

Andy

We both know why they end up as arguments.

map { chr } qw/101 108 105 111 116 33/;

Andy,

I am not fighting, I am pointing out some deficiencies in your design...and you reacted quite defensively as you tend to. If you can't handle criticism, then don't open yourself to it.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Eliot..all I was asking was for people to say how the menu part on the right looked..not a site critique I do appreciate what you were doing though.

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

>>
and you reacted quite defensively as you tend to. If you can't handle criticism, then don't open yourself to it.
<<

It amazes me when you say things like that.

How do you expect people to react other than defensively when you make screenshots called "bad_html.gif" and make other blunt remarks about their sites. Advice and suggestions is one thing, but that sure isn't how your approach is perceived.

Im pretty sure you'd get defensive if we all started uploading screenshots like......

LOL! Very funny!

Nice way to lose business, BTW...
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Just because I don't include W3 Document Type coding in my life pages doesn't constitute poor HTML, BTW, Paul. I do include them in test sites and pages. The reason I don't include them in live pages is that some browsers don't interpret the codes appropriately and screw up the layout of the site.

Oh, but I am not expecting you to grasp that concept since you have no idea or care in the world for cross-system or browser compatiblity or backward compatiblility for that matter..sorry, forgot who I was speaking with.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Andy,

Using a smaller screen resolution and pointing out that there is a problem with viewing your site with lower screen resolution is relevant to your original request, because with smaller screen resolution, I couldn't even see the menu navigation.

BTW: Research (usability in terms of eye to screen coordination) has shown that people tend to move their eyes from top left to bottom right, meaning that important content should be displayed on the left top of the screen, rather than at the right of the screen.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

There, you just proved my point. Worked like a charm.

Is isn't nice when someone criticizes you or your site is it?? ....so don't do it to other people.

Btw, that popup error was put there specifically for you....also worked sweet as

__END__

Uh...What worked like a charm? I explained the reason why I don't use W3 Document Type...that's all.

And I don't go around asking for advice...that is the difference.

Really? I bet there are other Netscape users out there who have accessed your site and would find that simply immature and unprofessional.

And Paul, I am trying to provide helpful advice, may be not would be preceived in the best "tone", but ya know what, Paul, I don't go around calling the kettle black like you do...bye bye!
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

And the advice I provide is accurate and legitimate, I don't go around spiting people as you love to do. So, rather than being a self-righteous dude, why don't you take your own advice, huh? Oh, that's right, because you think you are a saint of all saints, now don't ya, buddy.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

I can't help being the Mary Poppins of Gossamer Forum

Lets draw a line under that.
________________________________________________________________________________

LOL!

Mary Poppins? Choke...characters like Captain Hook, the Bad Wolf, among others come to mind when I think of you...
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me