I'm on a comparably fast DSL line, but images are still taking quite a bit to load. Overall, the site is very generic in design, nothing that really attracts major attraction.
"Infidel Defilers. They shall all drown in lakes of blood."
- Thulsa Doom
TargetZion posted this at 22:32 — 20th March 2004.
Keep In Mind This Was Created For A Local Race Team In Maine... Would You Pay For A Big Flashy Site If You Were Them? No. That's Silly To Go 'All Out' For Your Race Team's Web Site... It Would Be Different If they Were A Business And Used It To Make Money, But These Are Just Regular Guys Who Race On A Small 1/3 Mile Track In Scarborough, ME... The Site Obviously Isn't In The 'Flashy' Category, And Wasn't Meant To Be ... And The Image Load Time Is Being Corrected As We Speak... Thanks For The Input...
Aside: when you capitalize the first letter of every word it's extremely difficult to read what you're saying. Also, it's more labourious for you to do so. Please don't capitalize the first letter of every word.
Edit to add: okay, now that I've looked at the site (which is unstyled and very chaotic in Foxfire!) it's not an aside at all. That type of "creativity" with typography is misuse.
It doesn't matter what size bank account the site owner has, I used to race myself (different type of cars) and you'd be suprised how much money goes into race cars, teams, tools, parts ... but the point is the race track is a community, on the track no one has friends, off the track everyone looks out for everyone else, same as a lot of things. If this is a portfolio piece for you, or you expect to get some work from it, you owe it to yourself to do the best you can.
Think about how many cars on the track, say 20 cars, most cars have a crew - 3 on average, then you got wifes, girlfriends, etc so that close to 100 people from one race class you could have as a potential client. You'll find most drivers are either themselves or someone in their crew is self employed, or knows someone that is and word gets around quick in a race settings and everyone wants to beat the other person, paint jobs, helmets, web pages, trailers ...
Then you have the sponsors ...
People love to see wrecks, maybe offer a damage report page or something, showing pictures and write ups on last weeks damage, make the viewer feel for the driver, if there is no damage then shows he is a trouble free driver
I'm thinking your very new to web design, you need to learn how to make use of transparent images, thumbnails, proper use of HTML - things like always using width and height on images but never using width and height tags for resizing of images. I count at least 4 different font types on your pages, use one or two. Black text on striped black background doesn't go to well. You need a theme, base the theme on car/track/team colours or something, give the viewer so much information they want to see the car close up (drivers love a fan club) and when they do see the car they think they have sen it before (from your sites info).
You say this is low budget, make some money for the team and yourself, sell t-shirts, mugs, mouse pads or whatever from the site, get the name 'team 40 racing' known
Have you actually trademarked that name? claiming you have but havent is fraud I believe
TargetZion posted this at 07:33 — 21st March 2004.
Ok, Let Me Make It A Bit More Clear... The Site Was Done How Team 40 Wanted It... We Don't Make A Habit Of Creating Something And Telling Our Customers That They'll Take What We Make And Like It...
And Just For The Record, What Do You Possibly Care How Long It Takes Me To Type? And As Far As Wasting Time Goes, You Must Have 'Invested' At Least A Couple Minutes Taking A Screenshot And Inserting Your Comments ... Also, We Don't Make A Point Of Making Sure That Every Two-Bit Browser That Nobody's Even Heard Of Can View It Properly... If You Use A Browser That Doesn't Render CSS (And CSS 1 At That), Then I Think It May Be Time To Upgrade... The Site Was Optimized For IE Based On The Target Audience... The Average Race Fan Here Uses IE At A Resolution Of 800x600 On A Dial-Up Connection... Very Rarely Will you Find One Here Who Knows Enough About A Computer To Know What Foxfire Is, Let Alone Use It... Browsers Like This Are Obviously Not Up To Par With Current CSS Specs And Can Hardly Be Considered Mainstream... For The Price We Charged (A Mere $150) For Something Basic, You Can Hardly Expect Us To Put In The Hours Of Extra Work It Would Take To Make Sure Every Nickel And Dime Browser Will Display It Properly... Most Sites We Do We Make Sure Work In Netscape 4+ And Internet Explorer 4+, But We Simply Cannot Afford, At the Rate We Charge The Local Race Teams, To Put In The Man Hours It Would Take To Do Something Like That For Every Browser...
P.S.
It Only Shaves 3 Words Per Minute Off My Typing (Down From 124) To Capitalize Every Word... Plus It's A Habit I Picked Up Back In High School For Some Reason Or Another...
TargetZion wrote: And just for the record, what do you possibly care how long it takes me to type? And as far as wasting time goes, you must have 'invested' at least a couple minutes taking a screenshot and inserting your comments ... Also, we don't make a point of making sure that every two-bit browser that nobody's even heard of can view it properly...
Whoa, dude, I'm using a number of browsers. It looks like the screenshot in all of them. No, it didn't take me a couple of minutes to do the screenshot, I have software that lets me do it quickly and easily and upload to the web all in the same application. I share a lot of screenshots with colleagues while working on projects that need to be annotated.
Anyway, my point was that typing like that is rude and hard to read.
Foxfire isn't unheard of, lol, it's the current rendition of Mozilla (i.e. standards compliant).
Quote: Browsers like this are obviously not up to par with current css specs and can hardly be considered mainstream...
Wow, totally missing the point, but regardless, see above. Foxfire is better than IE with CSS implementation.
Quote: It only shaves 3 words per minute off my typing (down from 124) to capitalize every word... Plus it's a habit i picked up back in high school for some reason or another...
Again, I was unclear -- it's hard to read and rude. You might as well BE TYPING IN ALL CAPS. When you emphasize everything, you emphasize nothing. It's a basic rule of design and typography.
you say the target audience is dialup users, then why the 200+kb picture page?
What version of IE did you test it on, IE 5, 5.5 and 6 handle CSS all differently.
If a client asks for a and b, and you give them a, b and c then you become the flavor of the month - just good busines practice. They know diddly about webpage design so you have to tell them what they want, or how to do what they want.
It's like you buying a race car, and you tell the driver to just go hard out, in theory that sounds good advice but what about the corners, the traffic, the marbles, the race line ... If he stuck to your advice of going hard out he'd crash.
You have your name on the site so you should be proud of what you designed, no matter how much it cost (and $150 US isn't that cheap), if I came to your site and saw this on your portfolio I wouldn't ask, how much did they pay, I'd think you wouldn't get much bang for your buck.
Just remember we are all here to help, you asked what we thought and some of us (me) tell it as it is, no beating around the bush. You can take the opinions of everyone and use them to your advantage or can completely ignore all sugestions and stick with what you know best.
TargetZion posted this at 19:46 — 21st March 2004.
Hah, Obviously You Guys Take Critiquing Other People's Site's Way Too Seriously... I Really Don't Care Enough About Your Opinions To Argue With You About Them... I Find It Hard To Believe That The Design Of This Site Has Influenced Your Life Enough To Spend This Long Talking About My Capitalization... Thanks Anyways, This Forum Is Sub Par And Full Of Condescending People Who Have Little Idea What They Are Talking About... I've Taken The Liberty Of Checking your Sites, And Found Not Only Generic Designs And Terrible Color Schemes, But Mostly I Thought That: "Hey, If These Guys Are So Wise, Then Why Are Their Sites So Poorly Made?"
I Mean, It Would Be One Thing If You Guys Made A Superior Product, But You Don't... I Wasn't Asking If My Site Was Compatible With Every Browser Ever Made... Frankly I Don't Care... If Team 40 Gave A Crap They Would Ask Us To Do So... And For The Record (Yet Again) $150 Is Pennies For A Site... Obviously you Have No Idea What Most Companies Charge For A Full Site...
Don't Bother Replying To This Because I Won't See Whatever It Is You Have To Say...
In Closing, You All Really Should Think Hard About Your Own Work Before You Go Too Far Talking About Someone Else's...
Wow, that's two for two for me today. I guess I better update my business site so that the basic tenets of design theory, human reading styles and cross-browser standards still hold true. 'cause they must not be true if my site isn't perfect. I didn't realize that I held so much power...
I could lower myself to something like:
mAYBE iF i tYPE lIKE tHIS i cAN bE jUST lIKE yOU aND mY sITES aS gOOD aS yOURS
but I wont, instead:
Sadly a closed minded so and so like yourself wont get very far in todays busines world, there is no shame in listening or even trying other peoples opinions. We all make mistakes, after all we are all human, don't be ashamed that you can't always be right, I know it's hard but you can get over it. Maybe it's not your fault, maybe you were dropped as a baby or something, it doesn't really matter though as you can change your self rightous ways.
If you want to change your ways, we are always here, we'll welcome you back and the TWF community can hopefully help and lead you on the correct path.
Whoaaaa... did you time travel back to 1996 to design that site? Very retro.
Anyways... Theres a javascript error on the left menu thing in IE6 for the PC. Also, it's not a good idea to mix different fonts for main body text. Keep it all the same and the site will look much tidier.
You also have broken images all over the page. Your client might be on a budget, but I would have thought that they'd rather have no images at all than a bunch of red x's all over the page.
You might want to consider putting your CSS in an external style sheet as well. Doing this allows browsers to cache the CSS and it will make your pages load much faster.
Lastly, theres no harm in using a bit of space. Add some padding to your tables and get a bit of clearance between the text and the borders. It will look a lot nicer.
Regarding the whole capitalisation issue. It may be a habit you have, but it doesnt make it right. You should really try to stop doing it because it's just bad grammar.
Also... listen to these people, they know what they're talking about and it really doesnt hurt to listen to a bit of constructive critisism and learn from it. I have many a time and I've become a better web designer because of it.
Andy
TargetZion posted this at 17:11 — 22nd March 2004.
Hey, this is Brian from Target Zion Studios. You'll have to forgive Mike, he's a bit brash sometimes. Thank you all for the input. Yes, we realize the site is imperfect but we do guarantee our work and all issues will be corrected. And yes, we did go a little retro on this site. We, and Team 40 thought it would make it different, as you don't see too many sites styled like this anymore. We're going over our coding as we speak and the site should be updated tomorrow with the errors corrected. Thanks again all. Again, sorry Mike is a little quick to snap at people. That's why he sits behind a computer coding, and not in sales or something .
Any ideas why the CSS displays improperly in non-mainstream browsers? We did the brunt of the work in Dreamweaver, but we're unclear at the current moment as to what the issue is.
Ok, so our network went down and we haven't been able to get to updating the Team 40 site. We're hoping to get it done by the end of today or tomorrow morning. Man, we're having some bad luck...
Ok, try it now. Seems to be in working order for us. By the way, I'm not sure about IE being the worst for CSS. We've never had a problem with it and this particular issue is rather confusing. Obviously no browser is perfect, but IE displays it as it was meant to be. It's only when you open it in a mozilla/netscape browser that there is an issue. Also, whomever said there was a Javascript error, please point that out. I have yet to find it and would like to fix it if possible, thanks.
give us a bit more info, which browser and what part of CSS you having problems with.
It may be a browser thing, could be a CSS thing, more info we have the easier it is to help you.
[edit]Just looked over your source code, I don't think 'thin' and 'groove' on border style is very universal, Also don't forget to include your ... tag[/edit]
*useless info*
Older versions of Dreamweaver don't handle CSS very well (or server side)
TargetZion posted this at 22:05 — 22nd March 2004.
Busy wrote: give us a bit more info, which browser and what part of CSS you having problems with.
It may be a browser thing, could be a CSS thing, more info we have the easier it is to help you.
[edit]Just looked over your source code, I don't think 'thin' and 'groove' on border style is very universal, Also don't forget to include your ... tag[/edit]
*useless info*
Older versions of Dreamweaver don't handle CSS very well (or server side)
Actually, the 'groove' and 'thin' attributes were taken right from the W3C Specification of CSS1. And we use only the newest versions of all the software available. But, we actually hand coded the CSS anyhow. Maybe a typo? Checking.
Just the same we actually just started using pixel values anyways, weirdly enough. I'll look again but the other problem was that the 'bgcolor' wasn't functioning properly either... Hrmmmmmmm...
It all works fine in IE6 as far as we know though...
Quote: And we use only the newest versions of all the software available.
You did say CSS1 before hand but using the 'latest' isn't always a good thing as browsers and people have to adapt to it first. And even thou W3C is great to use as a guide line and validate from etc it doesn't mean what they say actually works everywhere or even the same. A lot of the browsers have bugs or dont allow certain things. Alot change per version (Opera for example) and others like IE sometimes don't know if they are coming or going.
Even if you handcoded the CSS, reopening that file in a wysiwyg editor can corrupt it, can being the key word.
Oh wow, I just looked at your site in IE, totally different to mozilla
I'm sure you said you tested on NS4.*, NS4.7 is the same view as mozilla (firebird) which is basically the new Netscape
instead of td.0, td.1 etc make them .td0, .td1 etc and just add the td to the class in the td tags etc - class="td0"
TargetZion posted this at 16:12 — 23rd March 2004.
Heh, I'm glad you took over. Your partners posts were becoming slightly offensive (in addition to being rather ill-informed and simply incorrect).
In particular IE has the worst CSS support of any of the latest browsers available, also testing should be done in the greatest range of browsers available - what's the point in building a web site if not everyone can view it?
If the owners of the team like the design then that's good, it's not a road I would have gone down, but then only you and your partner know the specs for the job - I wouldn't like to second guess that
I could itemize the problems, but I'll sum it up to say that positioning and standards are not as supported in IE as in other browsers, so if it looks right in IE, but not other browsers, it's most likely your code. This is not a matter of debate -- go reading about CSS from the experts, this is not conjecture, this is the current situation as IE has stopped development and the other browsers have not.
That said, the current site design is a mash of tables, and should render almost identically badly in all browsers. It does in all of mine, anyway, looks the same in IE as it does in Foxfire, Safari, Netscape, et cetera.
Why?
Because your css is invalid: http://www.freewebs.com/team40racing/css.css shouldn't have the HTML style element tags, nor the HTML comments in it, it's a CSS file. Numbers are not allowed for class names. Unit measures are required for any value that is not zero.
Hehe. Oops. I copied and pasted the css from the html files and forgot to remove the html coding from it. My bad. Also, thanks for letting me know about the numbered class thing. I was unaware, and use numbers to identify everything. Thank you very much! Saved me more hassle. Appreciated. Fixing the issue right now.
:martian: I have my own language some days... you're RIGHT!
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
icerider posted this at 18:28 — 19th March 2004.
They have: 88 posts
Joined: Feb 2004
Looks okay, but the tables are bit overwhelming.
tenchi_63 posted this at 19:10 — 19th March 2004.
He has: 78 posts
Joined: Dec 2003
I'm on a comparably fast DSL line, but images are still taking quite a bit to load. Overall, the site is very generic in design, nothing that really attracts major attraction.
"Infidel Defilers. They shall all drown in lakes of blood."
- Thulsa Doom
TargetZion posted this at 22:32 — 20th March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Keep In Mind This Was Created For A Local Race Team In Maine... Would You Pay For A Big Flashy Site If You Were Them? No. That's Silly To Go 'All Out' For Your Race Team's Web Site... It Would Be Different If they Were A Business And Used It To Make Money, But These Are Just Regular Guys Who Race On A Small 1/3 Mile Track In Scarborough, ME... The Site Obviously Isn't In The 'Flashy' Category, And Wasn't Meant To Be
... And The Image Load Time Is Being Corrected As We Speak... Thanks For The Input...
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
Suzanne posted this at 22:48 — 20th March 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Aside: when you capitalize the first letter of every word it's extremely difficult to read what you're saying. Also, it's more labourious for you to do so. Please don't capitalize the first letter of every word.
Edit to add: okay, now that I've looked at the site (which is unstyled and very chaotic in Foxfire!) it's not an aside at all. That type of "creativity" with typography is misuse.
http://www.zerocattle.com/examples/images/team40racing.jpg
Busy posted this at 23:08 — 20th March 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
It doesn't matter what size bank account the site owner has, I used to race myself (different type of cars) and you'd be suprised how much money goes into race cars, teams, tools, parts ... but the point is the race track is a community, on the track no one has friends, off the track everyone looks out for everyone else, same as a lot of things. If this is a portfolio piece for you, or you expect to get some work from it, you owe it to yourself to do the best you can.
Think about how many cars on the track, say 20 cars, most cars have a crew - 3 on average, then you got wifes, girlfriends, etc so that close to 100 people from one race class you could have as a potential client. You'll find most drivers are either themselves or someone in their crew is self employed, or knows someone that is and word gets around quick in a race settings and everyone wants to beat the other person, paint jobs, helmets, web pages, trailers ...
Then you have the sponsors ...
People love to see wrecks, maybe offer a damage report page or something, showing pictures and write ups on last weeks damage, make the viewer feel for the driver, if there is no damage then shows he is a trouble free driver
I'm thinking your very new to web design, you need to learn how to make use of transparent images, thumbnails, proper use of HTML - things like always using width and height on images but never using width and height tags for resizing of images. I count at least 4 different font types on your pages, use one or two. Black text on striped black background doesn't go to well. You need a theme, base the theme on car/track/team colours or something, give the viewer so much information they want to see the car close up (drivers love a fan club) and when they do see the car they think they have sen it before (from your sites info).
You say this is low budget, make some money for the team and yourself, sell t-shirts, mugs, mouse pads or whatever from the site, get the name 'team 40 racing' known
Have you actually trademarked that name? claiming you have but havent is fraud I believe
TargetZion posted this at 07:33 — 21st March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Ok, Let Me Make It A Bit More Clear... The Site Was Done How Team 40 Wanted It... We Don't Make A Habit Of Creating Something And Telling Our Customers That They'll Take What We Make And Like It...
And Just For The Record, What Do You Possibly Care How Long It Takes Me To Type? And As Far As Wasting Time Goes, You Must Have 'Invested' At Least A Couple Minutes Taking A Screenshot And Inserting Your Comments
... Also, We Don't Make A Point Of Making Sure That Every Two-Bit Browser That Nobody's Even Heard Of Can View It Properly... If You Use A Browser That Doesn't Render CSS (And CSS 1 At That), Then I Think It May Be Time To Upgrade... The Site Was Optimized For IE Based On The Target Audience... The Average Race Fan Here Uses IE At A Resolution Of 800x600 On A Dial-Up Connection... Very Rarely Will you Find One Here Who Knows Enough About A Computer To Know What Foxfire Is, Let Alone Use It... Browsers Like This Are Obviously Not Up To Par With Current CSS Specs And Can Hardly Be Considered Mainstream... For The Price We Charged (A Mere $150) For Something Basic, You Can Hardly Expect Us To Put In The Hours Of Extra Work It Would Take To Make Sure Every Nickel And Dime Browser Will Display It Properly... Most Sites We Do We Make Sure Work In Netscape 4+ And Internet Explorer 4+, But We Simply Cannot Afford, At the Rate We Charge The Local Race Teams, To Put In The Man Hours It Would Take To Do Something Like That For Every Browser...
P.S.
It Only Shaves 3 Words Per Minute Off My Typing (Down From 124) To Capitalize Every Word... Plus It's A Habit I Picked Up Back In High School For Some Reason Or Another...
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
Suzanne posted this at 18:08 — 21st March 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Whoa, dude, I'm using a number of browsers. It looks like the screenshot in all of them. No, it didn't take me a couple of minutes to do the screenshot, I have software that lets me do it quickly and easily and upload to the web all in the same application. I share a lot of screenshots with colleagues while working on projects that need to be annotated.
Anyway, my point was that typing like that is rude and hard to read.
Foxfire isn't unheard of, lol, it's the current rendition of Mozilla (i.e. standards compliant).
Wow, totally missing the point, but regardless, see above. Foxfire is better than IE with CSS implementation.
Again, I was unclear -- it's hard to read and rude. You might as well BE TYPING IN ALL CAPS. When you emphasize everything, you emphasize nothing. It's a basic rule of design and typography.
Busy posted this at 07:59 — 21st March 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
you say the target audience is dialup users, then why the 200+kb picture page?
What version of IE did you test it on, IE 5, 5.5 and 6 handle CSS all differently.
If a client asks for a and b, and you give them a, b and c then you become the flavor of the month - just good busines practice. They know diddly about webpage design so you have to tell them what they want, or how to do what they want.
It's like you buying a race car, and you tell the driver to just go hard out, in theory that sounds good advice but what about the corners, the traffic, the marbles, the race line ... If he stuck to your advice of going hard out he'd crash.
You have your name on the site so you should be proud of what you designed, no matter how much it cost (and $150 US isn't that cheap), if I came to your site and saw this on your portfolio I wouldn't ask, how much did they pay, I'd think you wouldn't get much bang for your buck.
Just remember we are all here to help, you asked what we thought and some of us (me) tell it as it is, no beating around the bush. You can take the opinions of everyone and use them to your advantage or can completely ignore all sugestions and stick with what you know best.
TargetZion posted this at 19:46 — 21st March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Hah, Obviously You Guys Take Critiquing Other People's Site's Way Too Seriously... I Really Don't Care Enough About Your Opinions To Argue With You About Them... I Find It Hard To Believe That The Design Of This Site Has Influenced Your Life Enough To Spend This Long Talking About My Capitalization... Thanks Anyways, This Forum Is Sub Par And Full Of Condescending People Who Have Little Idea What They Are Talking About... I've Taken The Liberty Of Checking your Sites, And Found Not Only Generic Designs And Terrible Color Schemes, But Mostly I Thought That: "Hey, If These Guys Are So Wise, Then Why Are Their Sites So Poorly Made?"
I Mean, It Would Be One Thing If You Guys Made A Superior Product, But You Don't... I Wasn't Asking If My Site Was Compatible With Every Browser Ever Made... Frankly I Don't Care... If Team 40 Gave A Crap They Would Ask Us To Do So... And For The Record (Yet Again) $150 Is Pennies For A Site... Obviously you Have No Idea What Most Companies Charge For A Full Site...
Don't Bother Replying To This Because I Won't See Whatever It Is You Have To Say...
In Closing, You All Really Should Think Hard About Your Own Work Before You Go Too Far Talking About Someone Else's...
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
Suzanne posted this at 21:17 — 21st March 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Wow, that's two for two for me today. I guess I better update my business site so that the basic tenets of design theory, human reading styles and cross-browser standards still hold true. 'cause they must not be true if my site isn't perfect. I didn't realize that I held so much power...
Busy posted this at 23:37 — 21st March 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I think someone needs a hug *muhahahaha*
I could lower myself to something like:
mAYBE iF i tYPE lIKE tHIS i cAN bE jUST lIKE yOU aND mY sITES aS gOOD aS yOURS
but I wont, instead:
Sadly a closed minded so and so like yourself wont get very far in todays busines world, there is no shame in listening or even trying other peoples opinions. We all make mistakes, after all we are all human, don't be ashamed that you can't always be right, I know it's hard but you can get over it. Maybe it's not your fault, maybe you were dropped as a baby or something, it doesn't really matter though as you can change your self rightous ways.
If you want to change your ways, we are always here, we'll welcome you back and the TWF community can hopefully help and lead you on the correct path.
May the web standards be with you.
andy206uk posted this at 14:01 — 22nd March 2004.
He has: 1,758 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
Whoaaaa... did you time travel back to 1996 to design that site? Very retro.
Anyways... Theres a javascript error on the left menu thing in IE6 for the PC. Also, it's not a good idea to mix different fonts for main body text. Keep it all the same and the site will look much tidier.
You also have broken images all over the page. Your client might be on a budget, but I would have thought that they'd rather have no images at all than a bunch of red x's all over the page.
You might want to consider putting your CSS in an external style sheet as well. Doing this allows browsers to cache the CSS and it will make your pages load much faster.
Lastly, theres no harm in using a bit of space. Add some padding to your tables and get a bit of clearance between the text and the borders. It will look a lot nicer.
Regarding the whole capitalisation issue. It may be a habit you have, but it doesnt make it right. You should really try to stop doing it because it's just bad grammar.
Also... listen to these people, they know what they're talking about and it really doesnt hurt to listen to a bit of constructive critisism and learn from it. I have many a time and I've become a better web designer because of it.
Andy
TargetZion posted this at 17:11 — 22nd March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Hey, this is Brian from Target Zion Studios. You'll have to forgive Mike, he's a bit brash sometimes. Thank you all for the input. Yes, we realize the site is imperfect but we do guarantee our work and all issues will be corrected. And yes, we did go a little retro on this site. We, and Team 40 thought it would make it different, as you don't see too many sites styled like this anymore. We're going over our coding as we speak and the site should be updated tomorrow with the errors corrected. Thanks again all. Again, sorry Mike is a little quick to snap at people. That's why he sits behind a computer coding, and not in sales or something
.
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
The Webmistress posted this at 17:18 — 22nd March 2004.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
I was going to have a look at the site now but as you are updating it I'll wait until you have changed it and then post my thoughts then
TargetZion posted this at 18:03 — 22nd March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Any ideas why the CSS displays improperly in non-mainstream browsers? We did the brunt of the work in Dreamweaver, but we're unclear at the current moment as to what the issue is.
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
TargetZion posted this at 13:15 — 24th March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Ok, so our network went down and we haven't been able to get to updating the Team 40 site. We're hoping to get it done by the end of today or tomorrow morning. Man, we're having some bad luck...
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
TargetZion posted this at 23:58 — 24th March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Haha... Stupid life and it's reminders.
TargetZion posted this at 05:02 — 1st April 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Ok, try it now. Seems to be in working order for us. By the way, I'm not sure about IE being the worst for CSS. We've never had a problem with it and this particular issue is rather confusing. Obviously no browser is perfect, but IE displays it as it was meant to be. It's only when you open it in a mozilla/netscape browser that there is an issue. Also, whomever said there was a Javascript error, please point that out. I have yet to find it and would like to fix it if possible, thanks.
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
TargetZion posted this at 16:58 — 2nd April 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
There! Done! It does display a little bit differently in FireFox than in IE though. Not really enough to notice unless you're searching for it.
Busy posted this at 21:13 — 22nd March 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
give us a bit more info, which browser and what part of CSS you having problems with.
It may be a browser thing, could be a CSS thing, more info we have the easier it is to help you.
[edit]Just looked over your source code, I don't think 'thin' and 'groove' on border style is very universal, Also don't forget to include your ... tag[/edit]
*useless info*
Older versions of Dreamweaver don't handle CSS very well (or server side)
TargetZion posted this at 22:05 — 22nd March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Actually, the 'groove' and 'thin' attributes were taken right from the W3C Specification of CSS1. And we use only the newest versions of all the software available. But, we actually hand coded the CSS anyhow. Maybe a typo? Checking.
Just the same we actually just started using pixel values anyways, weirdly enough. I'll look again but the other problem was that the 'bgcolor' wasn't functioning properly either... Hrmmmmmmm...
It all works fine in IE6 as far as we know though...
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
Busy posted this at 05:33 — 23rd March 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Ok I'm lost, what bgcolor where?
You did say CSS1 before hand but using the 'latest' isn't always a good thing as browsers and people have to adapt to it first. And even thou W3C is great to use as a guide line and validate from etc it doesn't mean what they say actually works everywhere or even the same. A lot of the browsers have bugs or dont allow certain things. Alot change per version (Opera for example) and others like IE sometimes don't know if they are coming or going.
Even if you handcoded the CSS, reopening that file in a wysiwyg editor can corrupt it, can being the key word.
Oh wow, I just looked at your site in IE, totally different to mozilla
I'm sure you said you tested on NS4.*, NS4.7 is the same view as mozilla (firebird) which is basically the new Netscape
instead of td.0, td.1 etc make them .td0, .td1 etc and just add the td to the class in the td tags etc - class="td0"
TargetZion posted this at 16:12 — 23rd March 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Gotcha. Will try that. Thanks...
Suzanne posted this at 16:45 — 23rd March 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://validator.w3.org
Think of them as spell and grammar-checkers for code.
Busy posted this at 23:10 — 24th March 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Hang in there,
It's just lifes way of reminding you your only human.
JeevesBond posted this at 11:27 — 25th March 2004.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Heh, I'm glad you took over. Your partners posts were becoming slightly offensive (in addition to being rather ill-informed and simply incorrect).
In particular IE has the worst CSS support of any of the latest browsers available, also testing should be done in the greatest range of browsers available - what's the point in building a web site if not everyone can view it?
If the owners of the team like the design then that's good, it's not a road I would have gone down, but then only you and your partner know the specs for the job - I wouldn't like to second guess that
Let us know how you get on with the validation...
a Padded Cell our articles site!
Suzanne posted this at 05:27 — 1st April 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I could itemize the problems, but I'll sum it up to say that positioning and standards are not as supported in IE as in other browsers, so if it looks right in IE, but not other browsers, it's most likely your code. This is not a matter of debate -- go reading about CSS from the experts, this is not conjecture, this is the current situation as IE has stopped development and the other browsers have not.
That said, the current site design is a mash of tables, and should render almost identically badly in all browsers. It does in all of mine, anyway, looks the same in IE as it does in Foxfire, Safari, Netscape, et cetera.
Why?
Because your css is invalid: http://www.freewebs.com/team40racing/css.css shouldn't have the HTML style element tags, nor the HTML comments in it, it's a CSS file. Numbers are not allowed for class names. Unit measures are required for any value that is not zero.
When in doubt, validate, validate!
TargetZion posted this at 15:24 — 2nd April 2004.
He has: 76 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Hehe. Oops. I copied and pasted the css from the html files and forgot to remove the html coding from it. My bad. Also, thanks for letting me know about the numbered class thing. I was unaware, and use numbers to identify everything. Thank you very much! Saved me more hassle. Appreciated. Fixing the issue right now.
And, yes, it is FIREFOX. Good catch.
MikeJeannotte.com | Validate Your HTML & XHTML
acsinclair posted this at 06:27 — 1st April 2004.
They have: 13 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Just a small comment...I think the browser name is Firefox...not foxfire...right?
Cheers,
Erica
Suzanne posted this at 16:58 — 2nd April 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
:martian: I have my own language some days...
you're RIGHT!
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.