Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:56 pm
by andre_c
you're using Verdana as the font, since you shouldn't assume that all computers will have that font you should also specify a more general font:

Code: Select all

.text { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; }
In my linux computer all of the fonts have serifs, not even close to verdana.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:25 pm
by andre_c
onion2k wrote:It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
whoa, i guess devnetwork.net is illegal then :twisted:

hi

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:01 am
by james_p
onion2k wrote:It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
hi how are you sir how can you say tabels are illegal in UK and USA . what i have research that 90% of UK and USA web site are made on tables.

Thanks
james

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:03 am
by james_p
andre_c wrote:you're using Verdana as the font, since you shouldn't assume that all computers will have that font you should also specify a more general font:

Code: Select all

.text { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; }
In my linux computer all of the fonts have serifs, not even close to verdana.

I will do that any other suggestions.

Thanks
james

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:41 am
by Roja
james_p wrote: I will do that any other suggestions.
Fix the validation errors in html, and then fix the validation errors in css.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... ators.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/vali ... ators.com/

Less clutter, less repetition (see my previous post), remove the flash (not needed), use css for layout instead of tables.

You've gotten a bunch of suggestions already. :)

Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 7:33 am
by james_p
Roja wrote:
james_p wrote: I will do that any other suggestions.
Fix the validation errors in html, and then fix the validation errors in css.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... ators.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/vali ... ators.com/

Less clutter, less repetition (see my previous post), remove the flash (not needed), use css for layout instead of tables.

You've gotten a bunch of suggestions already. :)
Thanks

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:36 am
by james_p
phpScott wrote:in the UK anyway there is a good article http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-frien ... ents.shtml here that talks about accessibility and websites.

I was only really curious because the company I now work for has done a number of sites for local council and accessibility was a big concern. They of course did the work properly and it meet the CSS standards.

So yes as off 2004 information that is only available on the web must meet the new requirements.

But I must agree that the comment by onion2k was harsh as no real explanation was given for his reasons.
Thanks!!

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:37 am
by james_p
d11wtq wrote:It looks great to me :D

If I do hvae to Critique I'd say, do a spelling / grammar check on your text because I see some poor english in there (it's not terrible but these things make an impression on potential clients). I'd particularly lose that flashing yellow text in the header too (it's written wrong; "in" should be "at", but it's also a bit distracting and doesn't look great).

Hope that helps some :wink:

Thanks!!

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:38 am
by james_p
Roja wrote:
james_p wrote: I will do that any other suggestions.
Fix the validation errors in html, and then fix the validation errors in css.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... ators.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/vali ... ators.com/

Less clutter, less repetition (see my previous post), remove the flash (not needed), use css for layout instead of tables.

You've gotten a bunch of suggestions already. :)

Thanks!!

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:39 am
by james_p
andre_c wrote:
onion2k wrote:It's all tables. Therefore it's rubbish. End of story. Table based layout are actually illegal in the UK and USA.
whoa, i guess devnetwork.net is illegal then :twisted:
yes you in that case devnetwork.net is illegal then........

Thanks

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:42 am
by james_p
Jcart wrote:Lets get back on topic shall we.
ya its true

Thanks!!