Prev: overflow showing both scrollbars when I only want the veritcal
Next: popup image link requires right-click in IE
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 6 Apr 2008 18:43
BMc wrote:

> Dear Beauregard:

Hi. Please don't top-post; interleave your comments within the quoted
text. Thanks.

> 3. The CSS for: "menu" isn't. Needs to be: "#menu"
> my question: (Where are you speaking of?)

In your CSS file. (looks again..) Oh. There must have been a glitch in
my Firefox Web Developer toolbar.

#menu {
width:100%; ...

showed up as:

menu {
width:100%; ...

Sorry about that.

> 4. Why fixed width? Let it flow.Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> my question: again, Where? On the whole body of the page? Or just the
> menu?

The whole page(s). The site. People use all manner of browser windows
sizes these days. Mine is normally around 900px wide. Someone with a 18"
widescreen might be maximized. Or not. "Any Size Design"

> I'm just about ready to throw in the towel....or cry. I hate IE6.

We all hate it.

> Also, The way I have the fonts set up with percentages, per your
> prior suggestion, it looks great on my screen on both a wide screen
> monitor and a 14 inch laptop and on a widescreen mac in four
> different browsers...just not IE6.

I have a 22" monitor as well. Your pages are taking up about one third
of a maximized browser, out of the middle. Looks kinda silly, at about
700px wide. ;-)

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Stop thinking about 'pixel precision'. Generally speaking, only use
pixel measurements for image dimensions, and borders. Use percentages
for all font sizing, and em units for divs and boxes (that way they will
expand with text when I press Ctrl-Plus so I can read it.

Remember, a font-size setting of 100% is your visitors' default,
preferred viewing size. If that is too different on your monitors, you
should adjust your own default size, and not penalize your visitors.

Not everyone has perfect vision.

(This is discussed in these groups every week .. for years now.)

> She likes the Times Roman...I agree, it's ugly.

It's "Times New Roman" ... your "New Times Roman" is not a valid font
name (as far as I am aware, so it will be bypassed, displaying instead
the next in the list (which in my case is Arial). You're also mixing
serif and sans-serif fonts, which is quite unusual.

And *bold* Times is really bad.

If the client wants a serif font, (see my page)
font-family: Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", serif;

Your blue textile background image could be optimized to about 5KB. Make
it smaller in overall size as well.

>> and did I mention, http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

Are you in Ithaca? I'm not far away...

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
From: Bergamot on 7 Apr 2008 12:13
BMc wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> BMc wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.rachaelshapirotherapy.com
>>
>> 2. "New Times Roman" isn't. (and "Times New Roman" is uugly)
>
> She likes the Times Roman...I agree, it's ugly.

The Times font isn't so much an issue as using too many different fonts
on the page. One rule even uses:

font-family:"Trebuchet MS", Ariel, Times, serif;

This is a strange mixture of fonts.

Please, learn the difference between serif and sans serif fonts, as well
as correct font names, and get some consistency going. You'll have much
better results if you do.

--
Berg
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 7 Apr 2008 12:27
Bergamot wrote:

> BMc wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> BMc wrote:
>>>> http://www.rachaelshapirotherapy.com
>>>
>>> 2. "New Times Roman" isn't. (and "Times New Roman" is uugly)
>>
>> She likes the Times Roman...I agree, it's ugly.
>
> The Times font isn't so much an issue as using too many different
> fonts on the page. One rule even uses:
>
> font-family:"Trebuchet MS", Ariel, Times, serif;

Ooh. "Ariel" <g> I missed that one.

It is a common misspelling. I saw "Aerial" once...

> This is a strange mixture of fonts.

Second the motion. Such as:
font:85% Arial, "New Times Roman", sans-serif; :-)

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
From: BMc on 7 Apr 2008 15:39
okay...now you're just being mean to the new kid on the playground.


Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
>
>> BMc wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> BMc wrote:
>>>>> http://www.rachaelshapirotherapy.com
>>>> 2. "New Times Roman" isn't. (and "Times New Roman" is uugly)
>>> She likes the Times Roman...I agree, it's ugly.
>> The Times font isn't so much an issue as using too many different
>> fonts on the page. One rule even uses:
>>
>> font-family:"Trebuchet MS", Ariel, Times, serif;
>
> Ooh. "Ariel" <g> I missed that one.
>
> It is a common misspelling. I saw "Aerial" once...
>
>> This is a strange mixture of fonts.
>
> Second the motion. Such as:
> font:85% Arial, "New Times Roman", sans-serif; :-)
>
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 7 Apr 2008 16:09
BMc wrote:

> okay...now you're just being mean to the new kid on the playground.

Mean? :-) No...

But you did ask for help,
"Anyone's advice is appreciated. Be gentle!"
and while possibly concise, I was anything but 'rough'.

Are you planning on repairing any of the errors pointed out so far?

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: overflow showing both scrollbars when I only want the veritcal
Next: popup image link requires right-click in IE