Site Review Please
Mr Creosote
Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I have
optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either. Doubtless the
subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained them).
I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in coding.
I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that area.
I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
Time to get those bags of rotten apples and tomatoes out that you got from
the greengrocer Julia :)
Cheers
Joe
Designs and Space Collection at http://www.sixthG.com
Lesley Meade
"Mr Creosote" <j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8lfsee$bam$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I
have
> optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either. Doubtless the
> subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
> lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained
them).
> I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in
coding.
> I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
> would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that
area.
> I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
> review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
Well - to start with, the subject matter is VERY interesting to me, so I'll
probably be popping back later with the aim of reading rather than
nit-picking!
The site loaded very quickly for me, but that means little as a lot of
'slow' sites load OK for me. Perhaps there aren't many net users near where
I live!
I didn't have a chance to look at everything, but what I saw worked - I did
notice one typo, though - on the about page - 'expand these online
gaalleries'
If you're after making the site SE friendly, then why not go the all - index
route - the site is smal enough that it's viable, and would be a good way to
improve your ranking without affecting the look of the site.
Can't think of much to say at the moment, but it is midnight right now, and
I have been having a few post 3am nights lately, so I may come back and add
some more thoughts in the morning.
Lesley.
kevs
"Mr Creosote" <j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8lfsee$bam$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I
have
> optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either. Doubtless the
> subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
> lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained
them).
> I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in
coding.
> I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
> would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that
area.
> I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
> review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
>
> the greengrocer Julia :)
>
> Cheers
> Joe
> Designs and Space Collection at http://www.sixthG.com
Hi Mr C.,
I had a quick look, i was impressed! Yes, the graphics are a little slow
to trickle down, abt 20 secs for the front page. Popup menu window rather
unexpected but well executed.
Looking inside, the text is clear and easily readable. Picture a little
slow again, but as ther's text on the page it's not so bad, by the time i've
read the text, the pics are down.
One thing, the front page menu is part of home.jpg, the graphic. It
would be good to have have something to look at before the image comes,
there's no alt. text.
On the whole though, i was impressed. It shows inovation without being
flashy and horrid. It worked well in both browsers. As you know i'm no
expert on the techie side, so i guess it's over to the experts.
Good one,
kevs
--
"Under an Aussie sky..." http://www.southernsky.fsnet.co.uk , "afterglow"
http://www.afterglow.fsnet.co.uk
"The world is what you make it",
Kevin C McCully
Richard H Huelin
"Mr Creosote" <j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8lfsee$bam$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be
quick, but I have
> optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either.
Doubtless the
> subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do
take a look at the
> lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess
who obtained them).
> I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any
failures in coding.
> I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE
friendliness and
> would like to know your opinions as to whether I am
succeeding in that area.
> I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after
sending it for
> review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
>
While some of the graphic file sizes are quite large, it is
a very worth while trade off due to their superb quality.
It make a refreshing change to see a site that employs well
sorted scripts, but having seen your other site I would not
expect anything less. Unique content and great style makes
this one of the best sites I have seen anywhere. IMHO it's
the bee's knees.
Sue
news:8lfsee$bam$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I
have
> optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either.
I didn't find the graphics that slow to download but if you wanted to, you
could speed them up a bit (or give the illusion of speed) by using an image
slicer but I don't think it's necessary and it would probably spoil the
effect. I like sites with lots of graphics anyway so I'm willing to wait a
few seconds, especially now I've got a free connection. I found the subject
matter very interesting and I like the way you've configured the 'tooltip'
script, especially the way it 'sticks' - lots of hard work gone into that.
--
From Sue
Web Site: Open Sandwich
http://open-sandwich.co.uk
John Ryan
"Mr Creosote" <j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8lfsee$bam$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I
have
> subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
> lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained
them).
> I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in
coding.
> I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
> would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that
area.
> I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
> review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
>
> the greengrocer Julia :)
>
Fresh Fruit and Rotten Vegetables have been put away. Had a good look around
the site and liked what I saw, very similar to the first site you had
critiqued, feelings of deja vous. But I suppose it would stand to reason.
Space being black etc.
Anyway that bit out of the way.
Home Page
Works fine in both IE5 and NN4.5 but doesn't work in Opera 3.62.
At first I didn't realise you were using an image map, this has been done
very well and like the effect of the opening windows on mouseover of the
menu options. Works well.
Only problem I see here, is with SE's and indexing, they don't like Image
Maps from what I understand.
Something I can't seem to understand though Joe, why the table of images
with alt tags at the bottom of the source? It appears to be part of a nested
table that does not show on the page. Got me Joe, what is it? Ha Ha, this is
the way of getting around the SE's?
If so, the alt tags need a space before the final quotation marks on each
line.
Skipping over the rest of the pages as it is getting a bit late, like the
navigation at the bottom of each page. The pics do take a while to load, but
I get the feeling that there is probably quite a collectors market out there
for this kind of thing and probably most of your visitors are going to come
from that scene, so they will be prepared to wait for the images to load.
Although having said that, I am not a collector and was prepared to wait.
I think you have got something with the menu system here. Perhaps the
remaining pages could lead to the photos, with thumbnails, but again this is
something you have already got firm beliefs on from reading your Design
Ethos at Sixthg.
Yes I like the site and having got over the initial awe of the first site
you held up, am now open to giving you more constructive criticism.
All of this feels like reviewing albums in NME or something. I remember when
U2 released the Boy album and the critics said that U2 would have a job
surpassing that album with the second one, they did, and the October album
wasn't as critically acclaimed as Boy was. You have had the same problem. It
would take a lot to get the same impact as the Sixthg site, but you have
achieved something here without the use of Java applets and instead gone for
JavaScript and it has worked. Well done.
Your next site? Will it have a black background? Or are you going to be the
Johnny Cash of the Web Design world, i.e. The Man in Black?
--
JR
http://www.bside90.freeserve.co.uk Bside90 Buses
http://www.ryanbus.co.uk Ryan Business Communications Ltd
John Ryan
"John Ryan" <jo...@bside90.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8lg2j9$jtd$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
I am slow aren't I?
The penny only dropped after sending. Mr Creosote.
Mr Creosote
> I am slow aren't I?
> The penny only dropped after sending. Mr Creosote.
Never thought of that - really. Mr Creosote is a character from Monty
Python.
Black sorta suits my persona and as I tend to do a lot of space sites after
trying other backgrounds etc black really does suit it, a space website with
white background doesnt work, I know, Ive tried it !
Joe
John Ryan
Had a look at some of your other sites as well from the Design pages at
sixthg, a lot of black there too. The space theme I can understand, stands
to reason as I said earlier.
Mr Creosote
Should I concern myself over this ? I dont even know what Opera is. What
percentage of visitors use it, does anyone here know ?
> Only problem I see here, is with SE's and indexing, they don't like Image
> Maps from what I understand.
Thats why I dont use the alt tags within the image map (plus it screws up
the Javascript code !)
> Something I can't seem to understand though Joe, why the table of images
> with alt tags at the bottom of the source? It appears to be part of a
nested
> table that does not show on the page. Got me Joe, what is it? Ha Ha, this
is
> the way of getting around the SE's?
Netscape (pause for spit) keeps wanting to go back to the server and refresh
the mouseover images using the default Netscape preferences which I guess is
what most visitors will have so every time they mosueover the pic has a
brief delay before it pops up. I tried everything to resolve this, about a
zillion different ways of preloading the images etc etc and couldnt resolve
it. The only thing that worked was actually loading them on the page, so I
put them in 1x1 pixels and tried to incorporate it so the "dots" they
generate looks like a fancy dotted underline to the counter. Also it gave me
the opportunity to fill up those alt tags with info, which leads me to
.............
> If so, the alt tags need a space before the final quotation marks on each
> line.
Errr you lost me there. Please explain. Do you mean I need an alt tag in
this format....
alt="put in whatever " - the space coming before the final quote ? If so,
errrr ???!!! why ????
> I think you have got something with the menu system here. Perhaps the
> remaining pages could lead to the photos, with thumbnails, but again this
is
> something you have already got firm beliefs on from reading your Design
> Ethos at Sixthg.
I really am open to design that people want and not what I decree others
should want !! With frames its sensible having the menu permanently on view
but in a site such as this I believe most vistors hit the back button the
their browser, and so the menu system tends to be driven by the homepage
menu. Of course one has to make provision of a menu on each page which Ive
done. I did try an orthodox more prominent menu on each page and it just
distracted away from the imapct of the images and artifacts, so I ditched
it. I could well be wrong but I suspect a lot of the visitors will like the
homepage and use that to navigate because of the added info with the
mouseovers. All speculation of course.
Thanks
Joe
Mr Creosote
> sixthg, a lot of black there too. The space theme I can understand, stands
> to reason as I said earlier.
You have a point and one I cant defend ! I do actually often start out with
white backgrounds but invariably "see what it looks like with black" and it
always looks better !! maybe its because my sites are so graphically
orientated and graphics usually look better displayed against black. The
davronuk website is actually Aston Martin green, not black - a radical
departure for me but at least it looks like black if I squint so thats ok.
Joe
WithoutFeathers
<j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
>Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I have
>optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either. Doubtless the
>subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
>lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained them).
>I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in coding.
>I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
>would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that area.
>I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
>review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
>
>Time to get those bags of rotten apples and tomatoes out that you got from
>the greengrocer Julia :)
Space........................as far as I'm concerned only conjures
images of blackness and split infinitives ;-)
That said I found this stuff very interesting! Nice one!
I think that previous (and more knowing than I) posters have commented
in some depth on the "technical" side of the things although I am very
fond of the mouse over effect on the main page.
I particularly like the fact that things don't get "wordy" or boring,
I've seen other space enthusiast sites in a similar vein that have had
me reaching for a bread knife !
It presents the information well, and almost says "OK here it is, make
up your own mind", kind of simple, but effective. I like.
--
Rob
"Hope is the thing with feathers"
- Emily Dickinson
Pedt Scragg
>
>> If so, the alt tags need a space before the final quotation marks on each
>> line.
>
>Errr you lost me there. Please explain. Do you mean I need an alt tag in
>this format....
>alt="put in whatever " - the space coming before the final quote ? If so,
>errrr ???!!! why ????
>
one [probably not an issue for this site] then the alt text runs into
any text either side. In fact, a space at the start and *two* spaces
at the end seems to be good practice as at least one text-to-speech
converter reading a web page ignores one space at the end of alt text
but recognises two as a space. alt=" put in whatever "
--
Pedt Scragg http://signpost-design.co.uk/ ODP Editor: http://dmoz.org/
Signpost Web Design, Wrecsam, North Wales NIC Handle: PS4034
'Lite' commercial space and .co.uk now available at reasonable rates
Tony Morgan
<j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Netscape (pause for spit) keeps wanting to go back to the server and refresh
>the mouseover images using the default Netscape preferences which I guess is
>what most visitors will have so every time they mosueover the pic has a
>brief delay before it pops up. I tried everything to resolve this, about a
>zillion different ways of preloading the images etc etc and couldnt resolve
>it.
into a JavaScript variable, or better a JavaScript array. That way works
with all browsers that support JavaScript (and have it enabled).
Additionally, doing it that way will ensure that the nav buttons work
properly with non-JavaScript browsers (without the rollover effect or
curse). Have a look at the source code on both sites below to see how
it's done with arrays.
--
Tony Morgan http://www.atomor.demon.co.uk
http://www.atomor.com
Molly Mockford
<pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>In fact, a space at the start and *two* spaces
>at the end seems to be good practice as at least one text-to-speech
>converter reading a web page ignores one space at the end of alt text
>but recognises two as a space. alt=" put in whatever "
>
Ouch. I never knew that before.
*sulks off to add an extra trailing space to every blasted alt tag*
--
Molly (remove -nospam to email me)
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com for a totally free and simple way
to donate food to the hungry. (Go on, try it!)
Tony Morgan
<pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>In fact, a space at the start and *two* spaces
>at the end seems to be good practice as at least one text-to-speech
>converter reading a web page ignores one space at the end of alt text
>but recognises two as a space. alt=" put in whatever "
Which in fact is a *bad thing* since all typographic conventions specify
an end-of-sentence as being a period followed by a *single* space,
unless a non-proportional typeface is used - and even then you can
(optionally) use either single or double space.
I think that the text-to-speech method you speak of is a legacy from
early OCR, which would only work properly by first converting the text
to non-proportional before scanning then processing - and then only if
periods were followed by two spaces.. This seems to be borne out by the
fact that a lot of today's text-to-speech technology stems from Xerox
technology who (together with Remington-Rand) were the first to do much
work on OCR.
Also, the double-space convention stems from the "Pitman Method" of
three decades ago when 'bang-bang' typewriting technology was all the
rage :-)
Drifting even further, I remember an excellent test-to-speech 'bolt-on'
that came bundled with the (then free) mIRC. When I soon became tired of
Chat, I got rid of it all and have regretted ever since not keeping the
text-to-speech program, as it was really good though you did have to
train it.
Julia Williscroft
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I
have
> optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either. Doubtless the
> subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
> lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained
them).
> I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in
coding.
> I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
> would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that
area.
> I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
> review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
>
> Time to get those bags of rotten apples and tomatoes out that you got from
> the greengrocer Julia :)
No rotten fruit required because this site is no lemon!
The pop ups on the front page now work a lot better - glad you were able to
sort that out. The pages actually download reasonably quickly here given
their size and my slow connection speed and they are well worth waiting for.
As previously mentioned anyone with an interest in the subject will be more
than happy to wait for them to arrive, I was and this is not a subject in
which I have had a huge interest up until now!
Navigation wise I must confess that I was just using the back button to flit
in and out of the home page so did not notice any flaws in it!
Terrific site :-)
--
Julia
John Ryan
> > Works fine in both IE5 and NN4.5 but doesn't work in Opera 3.62.
>
> Should I concern myself over this ? I dont even know what Opera is. What
> percentage of visitors use it, does anyone here know ?
>
Don't know the stats for Opera 3.62. It was recommended to me by Kev Place
as a means of showing up the more glaring errors on a site, which older
browsers would do. That seems a pretty good reason to me and hence gives me
a better all round view of my sites. It is impossible to cover every angle,
but I should at least be considering other browsers and in particular, those
visitors who don't have all the new fangled browsers etc.for whatever reason
and beleive me there are many *good* reasons why people don't. Something
else that often gets looked over, not all visitors are based at home. Many
are looking at sites from old office hardware too.
>
> > Only problem I see here, is with SE's and indexing, they don't like
Image
> > Maps from what I understand.
>
> Thats why I dont use the alt tags within the image map (plus it screws up
> the Javascript code !)
>
This point has been covered well by Tony M, take a look as he suggests.
<snip>
>
> Netscape (pause for spit) keeps wanting to go back to the server and
refresh
> the mouseover images using the default Netscape preferences which I guess
is
> what most visitors will have so every time they mosueover the pic has a
> brief delay before it pops up. I tried everything to resolve this, about a
> zillion different ways of preloading the images etc etc and couldnt
resolve
> it. The only thing that worked was actually loading them on the page, so I
> put them in 1x1 pixels and tried to incorporate it so the "dots" they
> generate looks like a fancy dotted underline to the counter. Also it gave
me
> the opportunity to fill up those alt tags with info, which leads me to
> .............
Again, see Tony M's response.
>
> > If so, the alt tags need a space before the final quotation marks on
each
> > line.
>
> Errr you lost me there. Please explain. Do you mean I need an alt tag in
> this format....
> alt="put in whatever " - the space coming before the final quote ? If so,
> errrr ???!!! why ????
>
Text to speach programs as explained by Pedt in detail.
It was Arty who put me on to this some time ago.
>
> > I think you have got something with the menu system here. Perhaps the
> > remaining pages could lead to the photos, with thumbnails, but again
this
> is
> > something you have already got firm beliefs on from reading your Design
> > Ethos at Sixthg.
>
> I really am open to design that people want and not what I decree others
> should want !! With frames its sensible having the menu permanently on
view
> but in a site such as this I believe most vistors hit the back button the
> their browser, and so the menu system tends to be driven by the homepage
> menu. Of course one has to make provision of a menu on each page which Ive
> done. I did try an orthodox more prominent menu on each page and it just
> distracted away from the imapct of the images and artifacts, so I ditched
> it. I could well be wrong but I suspect a lot of the visitors will like
the
> homepage and use that to navigate because of the added info with the
> mouseovers. All speculation of course.
Well maybe a discreetly placed Home button at the top of some kind would
help those who don't use the Back facility on their browsers.
*I really am open to design that people want and not what I decree others
should want !! *
Reading your Design Ethos page from Sixthg would not give me that
impression.
Although having said that, I would agree with many of the points it raises.
Tony Morgan
<jo...@bside90.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Don't know the stats for Opera 3.62. It was recommended to me by Kev Place
>as a means of showing up the more glaring errors on a site, which older
>browsers would do.
display resolutions. You can set up three windows at the common display
resolutions, and when you close Opera, the window sizing is retained and
the next time you open it, you get the three windows. You then just load
each page address into each of the three windows (using CTRL/C - CTRL/V
address transfer).
Mr Creosote
> Then try doing it the proper way. Preload the underlying mousover images
> into a JavaScript variable, or better a JavaScript array.
Like I said in my posting I tried this, and whilst it happily worked as
intended it widnt stop Netscape still going back to the server. Maybe its my
version of Netscape. But I guess its somehow that the way the CSS and Java
in the mouseover doesnt recognise the previously loaded graphics. I tried
the "proper way" at some length, it didnt work (for me), I found a
work-around which does, it lacks elegance but is a viable solution.
Pedt Scragg
>In article <DLtWm2BL...@pedt.demon.co.uk>, Pedt Scragg
><pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>>In fact, a space at the start and *two* spaces
>>at the end seems to be good practice as at least one text-to-speech
>>converter reading a web page ignores one space at the end of alt text
>>but recognises two as a space. alt=" put in whatever "
>
>Which in fact is a *bad thing* since all typographic conventions specify
>an end-of-sentence as being a period followed by a *single* space,
>unless a non-proportional typeface is used - and even then you can
>(optionally) use either single or double space.
Perhaps, but I'd rather not, personally, use a period at the end of each
alt text as it could look odd for modern browsers with graphics off and
looks bloody silly when a graphical menu is display in Lynx.
>
>I think that the text-to-speech method you speak of is a legacy from
>early OCR,
[..]
Very likely to be.
>
>Also, the double-space convention stems from the "Pitman Method" of
>three decades ago when 'bang-bang' typewriting technology was all the
>rage :-)
<grin>
>
>Drifting even further, I remember an excellent test-to-speech 'bolt-on'
>that came bundled with the (then free) mIRC. When I soon became tired of
>Chat, I got rid of it all and have regretted ever since not keeping the
>text-to-speech program, as it was really good though you did have to
>train it.
Perhaps someone will still have a copy of that old mIRC version hidden
away on a disk. And to drift even further: I can see the need for a
speech-to-text program to need training (and I'm currently training mine
to do HTML tags as single word entities: I can create a whole blank
table in a text HTML editor now with 'COMMAND TABLE 3 TIMES 3') but, out
of curiousity, what did you need to train the text-to-speech program to
do ?
Mr Creosote
> *I really am open to design that people want and not what I decree others
> should want !! *
>
> Reading your Design Ethos page from Sixthg would not give me that
> impression.
>
> Although having said that, I would agree with many of the points it
raises.
Fair point. I think what I meant was that I am open to input about the
designs from feedback I receive from visitors to the website as opposed to
input about the elegance of the way that the designs are technically
achieved. Least, I think thats what I meant !
Joe
John Ryan
"Tony Morgan" <to...@atomor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HMAkRmAI...@atomor.demon.co.uk...
Cheers Tony.
Pedt Scragg
>
>"Mr Creosote" <j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8lg498$epl$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> > Works fine in both IE5 and NN4.5 but doesn't work in Opera 3.62.
>>
>> Should I concern myself over this ? I dont even know what Opera is. What
>> percentage of visitors use it, does anyone here know ?
>
Just been running my logging program to generate stats to give MrC a
personal list from 100,000 visitors to 6 sites over the last 9 months
and a few days [made the calculations easier to use a round number not
an exact 9 months]. Copied and pasted just as appears in a text file on
my machine.
Browser %age Number
IE5.50 2.102% 2102
IE5.01 14.418% 14418
IE5.00 28.103% 28103
IE4.01 11.101% 11101
IE3.0x 1.211% 1211
IE2.0x 0.712% 712
NN4.73 3.501% 3501
NN4.72 2.805% 2805
NN4.70 2.415% 2415
NN4.61 1.917% 1917
NN4.51 4.718% 4718
NN4.50 2.191% 2191
NN4.08 0.997% 997
NN4.06 2.001% 2001
NN4.05 1.180% 1180
NN4.04 2.317% 2317
NN3.0x 3.125% 3125
NN2.0x 0.124% 124
NN1.xx 0.049% 49
OP4.00 0.235% 235
OP3.62 1.119% 1119
OP3.61 0.998% 998
OP3.xx 2.134% 2134
OP2.xx 0.667% 667
WebTV 4.917% 4917
Lynx 3.908% 3908
Other 1.035% 1035
-----------------------
IE=Internet Explorer, NN=Netscape Navigator, OP=Opera
'Other' includes all other software versions and those
withholding the USER_AGENT information.
Note: Opera 3.xx includes all versions 3.00-3.60 only
DHTML aware browsers
IE4.xx+ 55.724% 55724
NN4.xx+ 24.042% 24042
Earlier IE and NN versions
IE3.xx- 1.923% 1923
NN3.xx- 3.298% 3298
Overall
IE 57.647% 57647
NN 27.340% 27340
Opera 5.153% 5153
WebTV 4.917% 4917
Lynx 3.908% 3908
Other 1.035% 1035
It is easy to get misled by stats - especially if they include visitors
who only read the opening page and then go away [all the above include
those visitors who visited at least one other page on the sites - as
different types of sites will generate far different user profiles. Also
as you can tell, for example, Lynx what user agent to report itself as,
then the stats will get skewed anyway.
Hope these are of interest.
Tony Morgan
<pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>out
>of curiousity, what did you need to train the text-to-speech program to
>do ?
To hear what the ladies were saying to me in the private rooms of the
cyber.XXX channels...
</BLUSH>
Trouble was, the text-to-speech was into a male voice that sort of
spoilt the effect (at least for me) :-)
Mind you I was younger and callower in those days (and I hadn't then
discovered the joys and outcomes of trolley-bashing in Sainsburys and
fluid-dynamics out of Sainsburys).
John Ryan
"Pedt Scragg" <pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oh11skDu...@pedt.demon.co.uk...
> John Ryan <jo...@bside90.freeserve.co.uk> said
> >
> >"Mr Creosote" <j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:8lg498$epl$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> > Works fine in both IE5 and NN4.5 but doesn't work in Opera 3.62.
> >>
> >> Should I concern myself over this ? I dont even know what Opera is.
What
> >> percentage of visitors use it, does anyone here know ?
> >
> >Don't know the stats for Opera 3.62.
>
> Just been running my logging program to generate stats to give MrC a
> personal list from 100,000 visitors to 6 sites over the last 9 months
> and a few days [made the calculations easier to use a round number not
> an exact 9 months]. Copied and pasted just as appears in a text file on
> my machine.
<snip stats>
Make interesting reading. I was going to provide stats from Bside90 site,
but felt it would not have been as accurate as say a business site. For
example I have visitors who use RISC o/s for example which is not altogether
as widespread as perhaps on other sites. Suggests educational establishments
using acorn.
Tony Morgan
<j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Like I said in my posting I tried this, and whilst it happily worked as
>intended it widnt stop Netscape still going back to the server.
happen if you:
1. Fail to load the array (or variable), most likely because of an
incorrect path to the graphic at the pre-load stage.
2. Fail to declare *and* initialise the array (or variable)
*before* calling it.
3. Fail to call the array element (or variable) in the correct way.
4. Switch pages between loading the array/variable and calling the
array element (or variable).
>Maybe its my
>version of Netscape. But I guess its somehow that the way the CSS and Java
>in the mouseover doesnt recognise the previously loaded graphics.
Neither CSS nor Java has any bearing on it. Am I right in assuming that
you *are* talking about JavaScript and not a Java Applet?
If you had a URL we might be able to help.
Mr Creosote
> It is easy to get misled by stats - especially if they include visitors
> who only read the opening page and then go away [all the above include
> those visitors who visited at least one other page on the sites - as
> different types of sites will generate far different user profiles. Also
> as you can tell, for example, Lynx what user agent to report itself as,
> then the stats will get skewed anyway.
>
> Hope these are of interest.
That's the most interesting and informative post I have seen in this forum.
Superb hard information, many thanks Pedt, that really is food for thought.
Shows that about potentially 10% of visitors to my websites will struggle.
Of course one realises that statistics never tell the full story and it does
depend to a small degree on the subject matter of the websites surveyed, but
it really is useful to have a good general feel for those percentages. The
WebTV one is something that I think we (well, me at least) ought to focus
on, if one in twenty are using this form of access then from what I
understand of WebTV it is likely to be inexperienced vistors (whereas quite
a few of the older browser visitors are probably aware they have older
browsers and are somewhat used to seeing restricte versions of sites without
bells and whistles), also doubtless WebTV will grow whereas the use of older
browsers will diminish over time.
Are there any references or pages that you recommend where I can view
information about WebTV.
Thanks !
Joe
John Ryan
Web TV has a far bigger audience in the US, which is where most of those
visitors will have come from.
Molly Mockford
<to...@atomor.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Also, the double-space convention stems from the "Pitman Method" of
>three decades ago when 'bang-bang' typewriting technology was all the
>rage :-)
>
3 spaces after a full stop, question mark or exclamation mark
2 spaces after colon or semi-colon
1 space after anything else.
I still like 2 spaces after a full stop etc., and on my site at
http://www.pagination.co.uk I used Arachnophilia to search and replace
e.g. every ". " with ". ". I think it makes it easier on the eye.
Molly Mockford
<pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>
>Just been running my logging program to generate stats to give MrC a
>personal list from 100,000 visitors to 6 sites over the last 9 months
>and a few days [made the calculations easier to use a round number not
>an exact 9 months]. Copied and pasted just as appears in a text file on
>my machine.
>
Now, the interesting thing to me about that is that IE4.0 and above plus
NN4.* make up just under 80% of the total, and that earlier or other-
type browsers make up 20%. Well worth making those pages widely
compatible, ain't it!
Pedt Scragg
>>
>
>Make interesting reading. I was going to provide stats from Bside90 site,
>but felt it would not have been as accurate as say a business site. For
>example I have visitors who use RISC o/s for example which is not altogether
>as widespread as perhaps on other sites. Suggests educational establishments
>using acorn.
>
lot of sites. You need to know the stats for *your* site(s) and then try
and tailor the site to the visitors. As you have visitors using RISC OS
and their browser that perhaps are a sizeable percentage then you IMNSHO
need to cater for them more than, say, a site that concentrates on DHTML
& how to configure the DHTML to work on NN and IE properly.
I have one one-page site plus download that I excluded from the stats I
gave as many are using Lynx or old software but would be expected as it
is catering for a technical programming problem using old software. The
site that has the posters pics was mainly IE5 visitors whilst I had the
tracking on it but that would be expected as most on FS use IE.
Pedt Scragg
>
>That's the most interesting and informative post I have seen in this forum.
>Superb hard information, many thanks Pedt, that really is food for thought.
>Shows that about potentially 10% of visitors to my websites will struggle.
>Of course one realises that statistics never tell the full story and it does
>depend to a small degree on the subject matter of the websites surveyed,
Yes, the subject matter *and* the audience it is serving are the most
important bits when determining site stats of this nature.
>The
>WebTV one is something that I think we (well, me at least) ought to focus
>on, if one in twenty are using this form of access then from what I
>understand of WebTV it is likely to be inexperienced vistors
Possibly. Most of the WebTV visitors came from two holiday companies
that deal with UK holidays. I would suggest that your site ref the
memorabilia from Apollo mooonshots is probably more of interest to
a percentage of WebTV users than, say, a site on 'derelict canals in
the UK' - if you see what I mean.
>(whereas quite
>a few of the older browser visitors are probably aware they have older
>browsers and are somewhat used to seeing restricte versions of sites without
>bells and whistles),
Yes, a good number of people with older software tend to have reasonable
inkling of its limitations but, hazarding a guess, for everyone who does
know about the restrictions then there is a potential visitor who does
not - especially when a site may be visited by people from developing
countries - who are likely to have older software.
>also doubtless WebTV will grow whereas the use of older
>browsers will diminish over time.
We'll see as regards WebTV. It would not surprise me to see it develop
either into a decent browser *or* fold completely. At the moment I'd
stake on the latter as it certainly hasn't had he US take-up expected.
>
>Are there any references or pages that you recommend where I can view
>information about WebTV.
>
<URL: http://developer.webtv.net/> where you can also download the WebTV
emulator to see what you site looks like on WebTV.
Mr Creosote
> a percentage of WebTV users than, say, a site on 'derelict canals in
> the UK'
Great idea for a site, I'll get started right now, lemme see.... a black
background methinks (symbolic of the darkened stagnant water) and a nice
Java applet of tadpoles metamorphosing into froglets. Yep, have that knocked
up in a couple of hours.
Molly Mockford
<pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>Stats can be very misleading as to average visitors when averaged over a
>lot of sites. You need to know the stats for *your* site(s) and then try
>and tailor the site to the visitors.
Or, just possibly, to those who are not visiting (or at least are not
staying), if there is something about the site which is unfriendly to
their software? Just a thought!
Molly Mockford
<j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
uk.rec.waterways - there's dozens of people there who would be
interested!
Mr Creosote
> uk.rec.waterways - there's dozens of people there who would be
> interested!
Good point Molly, but isn't that the same group as
"alt.all.the.nice.girls.like.a.sailor" ?
Molly Mockford
<j...@ap11.fsnet.co.uk> writes
inland waterways. Used by people who boat thereon, people who fish
therein, people who walk alongside them and people who restore the
clapped-out ones.
Pedt Scragg
>In article <Oh11skDu...@pedt.demon.co.uk>, Pedt Scragg
><pe...@signpost-design.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Just been running my logging program to generate stats to give MrC a
>>personal list from 100,000 visitors to 6 sites over the last 9 months
>>and a few days [made the calculations easier to use a round number not
>>an exact 9 months]. Copied and pasted just as appears in a text file on
>>my machine.
>>
>(snip)
>
>Now, the interesting thing to me about that is that IE4.0 and above plus
>NN4.* make up just under 80% of the total, and that earlier or other-
>type browsers make up 20%. Well worth making those pages widely
>compatible, ain't it!
Yep, and one of the points I keep hammering at for commercial sites is
that you don't want to lose any customers if you can help it. It's the
graphics heavy, no <noframes> on a framed site, no alt tags etc. which
annoy me on commercial sites as it can make visiting a chore. I'll bet
there are a large number of commercial sites that get log reports that
show that the visitor got the index page *but* did not proceed further
and I will guess the logs will show that they were using browsers that
broke on the site [ once you exclude the 'arrive by accident as it was
not what they were actually looking for' collection of visitors ]. For
a personal site then, IMO, you can do what you like, and exclude any %
of potential visitors.
Worst one I've seen was a site that was IE4+ only and needed 1600x1200
screen size to display properly without horizontal scroll bars & sizes
of graphics came to around 350K or so on the opening page. This was a
commercial site for an airline I looked at a year or so ago when I was
looking for a flight between North Germany & Austria.
Out of general interest: just been told, in a non-authoring group, the
contention that 'commercial sites should downgrade gracefully' is very
much <direct quote> 'a charlatan argument from someone who is not keen
to embrace new technology completely' </dq> Grrr.
Interestingly, having now run the whole stats program I wrote, [report
due out this week to assorted bods], I still find just over 30% of the
visitors arrive with graphics off but 80% or so of these visitors will
switch them on if they go more than one page further into the sites. I
also found that 21% of visitors had javascript disabled/not available,
but, for an SSL only client, 98% of those were able to enable JS to do
the JS shopping cart bit.
Re-ran the browser stats I originally posted BTW to include all of the
visitors who did not read *more* than the index pages and had graphics
switched on [latter covers three of the six sites] and there was not a
significant difference in percentages.
<aside>
Hmm, just realised I have done a whole reply fully justified *without*
an attempt to do so.
</aside>
Mr Creosote
> visitors arrive with graphics off
I really find that hard to believe. Most people surely use off the shelf
systems whether they be personal or business with pre-loaded or standardised
IE and N settings which show graphics, and most almost certainly dont know
you can even switch graphics off let alone how to do it. Unless the websites
sampled are attracting an unproportionately large number of odd people I
feel that the sampling cannot be telling a true picture. I know one cant
argue with the accuracy of statistical information gathered this way but the
validity is another matter.
I work on the basis that everyone arrives with their graphics turned ON :)
Mr Creosote
> therein, people who walk alongside them and people who restore the
> clapped-out ones.
Like I said .... sailors. Aye Aye there matey ... ship ahoy, shiver me
mainbrace etc etc
Pedt Scragg
>I still find just over 30% of the
>> visitors arrive with graphics off
>
>I really find that hard to believe.
Personal set of statistics over 6 sites so could be very different for
other sites. c.i.w.a.s-d group had, BTW, a few posts a bit ago about
this and a number of posters had a reasonably close figure to mine.
> Most people surely use off the shelf
>systems whether they be personal or business with pre-loaded or standardised
>IE and N settings which show graphics, and most almost certainly dont know
>you can even switch graphics off let alone how to do it.
I'd agree that most are off the shelf systems but, if a business has an
IT Department that has a clue, then graphics are often disabled due to
extra online time when a number of people may be using the Internet at
any one time - a number of companies use *nix servers/workstations and
often have Lynx installed as the default browser. One of my clients even
has it written in their T&C that those allowed to use the WWW must not
change the default setting of 'graphics off' without the permission of
the IT Department.
> Unless the websites
>sampled are attracting an unproportionately large number of odd people I
>feel that the sampling cannot be telling a true picture.
Sampling can never tell a true picture as I said earlier. Even the sites
that provide free counters and global statistics are flawed as they
cannot count visitors who arrive without graphics enabled and, in a
number of cases, cannot check on visitors who don't have javascript
enabled.
>I work on the basis that everyone arrives with their graphics turned ON :)
>
We'll agree to differ - I work assuming they haven't.
Mr Creosote
> >I work on the basis that everyone arrives with their graphics turned ON
:)
> >
> We'll agree to differ - I work assuming they haven't.
Fair comment but the www is gonna get a bit boring designing it for text,
mind you I suppose we can spice it up with one page Arial font, the next
verdana then maybe a Times Roman, then even a Helvetica, then bold and not
bold and same for italics, so that give 16 variants.
I really do believe that most visitors dont read the text at a website
*unless* it is reference material or some sort. My opinion is based on
personal experience rather than my theories on design prettiness..... When I
had my Bonsai website
I received email daily, and a guesstimate indicated that of all the
"technical" questions I was asked by email (several hundred, maybe over a
thousand) at least 80% are answered in the text on my pages. When I used to
tell people that they just said they "missed it" or similar. The reality is
that they couldnt be bothered to read the text, or to assimilate it. As a
result I now, in general, design for pictorial presentation of information,
and if someone has graphics turned off they will have to make do with
reading the alt tags. Also I feel if someone is so paranoid on download
speeds to want to turn their graphics off or an IT dept so useless to
enforce this method of browsing then they get what they deserve, its like
buying a TV and covering the screen with a blanket (mind you I have empathy
with that approach having once caught 2 minutes of some program called the
Simpsons).
With near 80,000 counted visitors (and probably at least another 20,000 when
I wasnt counting) to my personal website, in all that time I have never had
anyone email me to say they couldnt view the graphics or similar - on the
contrary, I have had over 500 unsolicited emails of praise and often words
like "awesome" and "mind-blowing" are used by those writing to me. I doubt I
would have had that reaction to a page of text. Thus I go with what my
personal experience has been rather than theory or statistical analysis. Of
course I am not so naive as to not realise that 10% or so visitors to my
sites arent gonna get much from the experience due to their browsers but
maybe they will realise what they are missing and see it elsewhere, to
support that statement I have had several emails in the past saying they
went to my website at work, couldnt view it so used their PC at home or at a
friends. My opinion is if the site is good enough they will find a way of
seeing it, but if the site is banal mediocrity they wont bother anyway.
I guess we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this, but also we are
both competent at what we do. Maybe thats what keeps things healthy, having
differing approaches. But I also believe I am right :) just look at the
feedback to my websites in this group, I am even engendering interest in
specialist subject matter by those who had none before, if you can interest
people who previously had no interest then I reckon thats it cracked. My way
works, and as the average bandwidth increases with cable and ASDL and other
new tchnologies, I will be well placed to exploit the opportunities of
graphics, multimedia and movies. The days of the text based website are past
and I encourage anyone with an interest in website design to focus on giving
90% of their visitors a great time when they stop by rather than boring
100%.
MrC
Bagsy
>
> I really do believe that most visitors dont read the text at a website
> *unless* it is reference material or some sort. My opinion is based on
> personal experience rather than my theories on design prettiness.....
Could you explain that again for me? ;o)
--
Bagsy
http://www.theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk
reply to kdei...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk
Pedt Scragg
>
>> >I work on the basis that everyone arrives with their graphics turned ON
>:)
>> >
>> We'll agree to differ - I work assuming they haven't.
>
>Fair comment but the www is gonna get a bit boring designing it for text,
Well, perhaps desgining to include those who don't have graphical
browsers might be more accurate
>mind you I suppose we can spice it up with one page Arial font, the next
>verdana then maybe a Times Roman, then even a Helvetica, then bold and not
>bold and same for italics, so that give 16 variants.
<grin>
>
>I really do believe that most visitors dont read the text at a website
I'd tend to agree for a good %age of sites - same applies to FAQs posted
in newsgroups as I often get questions sent to the specific FAQ email
address I use which ask questions that are completely answered in the
FAQ.
[..]
> When I used to
>tell people that they just said they "missed it" or similar. The reality is
>that they couldnt be bothered to read the text, or to assimilate it.
Wouldn't disagree with your comment.
> Also I feel if someone is so paranoid on download
>speeds to want to turn their graphics off or an IT dept so useless to
>enforce this method of browsing then they get what they deserve,
[snip TV & blanket analogy]
As regards turning graphics off then I don't think it is paranoia but
a healthy regard to cost of the online time or an appreciation that a
site that cannot tell you what it is about and one you want to explore
further [and very likely turning graphics on] unless you have graphics
already is perhaps not worth it generally - I exclude sites that you'd
*expect* to have a higher graphical content when most people will be
browsing them with graphics on.
As regards IT departments then I do tend to agree with their viewpoint
as regards the extra online cost - most will be looking at commercial
sites which, IMHO, should provide sufficient content to be visitor
friendly without graphics being switched on.
Even simple things such as downloading email and reading offline have
been missed by some IT departments - I have a client at the moment who
used to stay online virtually all day to read the 300+ emails that came
in daily until I showed them how to download them and read and respond
to offline.
[..]
> I have had over 500 unsolicited emails of praise and often words
>like "awesome" and "mind-blowing" are used by those writing to me. I doubt I
>would have had that reaction to a page of text. Thus I go with what my
>personal experience has been rather than theory or statistical analysis.
Indeed, and what I have said all along - personal experience regarding
particular sites will vary as regards statistics.
>I guess we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this, but also we are
>both competent at what we do. Maybe thats what keeps things healthy, having
>differing approaches.
Yes, differing approaches and healthy debate *does* keep the net and web
in particular alive - aside from those who have contentless sites and
probably never will ;-) - there is always room, IMO, for different
viewpoints [and, as an aside, downgradability] depending on the audience
that a site is intended for. If I was doing a site, say, for graphic
designers who use photoshop then I'd expect them to be visiting with
graphics turned on whereas, conversely, if it was a technical page on
a programming language then I'd not expect graphics might not be
available.
>just look at the
>feedback to my websites in this group, I am even engendering interest in
>specialist subject matter by those who had none before, if you can interest
>people who previously had no interest then I reckon thats it cracked.
That is the whole point of a site. You need to engender interest even to
people, as you say, who had little or no interest before. My only point
is that you need to cater for people, for whatever reason, who browse
either without graphics switched on in the first instance [I'll exclude
visitors who are unable to view graphics] or who turn them on when they
find a site that interests them.
> My way
>works, and as the average bandwidth increases with cable and ASDL and other
>new tchnologies, I will be well placed to exploit the opportunities of
>graphics, multimedia and movies.
Surftime also springs to mind for the UK. However, not everyone visiting
a site is going to have cable/ASDL/etc. - especially if you get a number
of visitors from countries that are not even able to offer this - then a
site that works with graphics switched off gives the visitor the chance
[if they can use graphics] to switch them on.
> The days of the text based website are past
>and I encourage anyone with an interest in website design to focus on giving
>90% of their visitors a great time when they stop by rather than boring
>100%.
Agreed but do consider technical sites/pages that have no need of
graphics to convey the message/information.
Mr Creosote
> > personal experience rather than my theories on design prettiness.....
>
> Could you explain that again for me? ;o)
Nope, don't understand a word of what I wrote. Was sober then and now
pissed, so I guess alcohol helps or hinders ones comprehension. Thus maybe I
should post pissed, or sober, cant quite work out which is more or less
productive.
Wish I could help and answer your query but I cant:)
Hasta la vista
MrC
Mark
> Could you please take a look at http://www.leonford.com
> Its graphics based and being hosted in the USA so wont be quick, but I
have
> optimsed all the graphics so shouldnt be too slow either. Doubtless the
> subject matter wont be of much interest to you (but do take a look at the
> lunar surface artifacts, they are very special and guess who obtained
them).
> I'd appreciatte any comments on the site as whole or any failures in
coding.
> I made a big effort with the homepage to improve my SE friendliness and
> would like to know your opinions as to whether I am succeeding in that
area.
> I changed the way the pop-ups worked on the homepage after sending it for
> review here (yes, I DO listen !!).
>
> Time to get those bags of rotten apples and tomatoes out that you got from
> the greengrocer Julia :)
>
> Cheers
> Joe
> Designs and Space Collection at http://www.sixthG.com
Just a quickie to say I thought your
http://www.sixthG.com
site was great.
have not had time to look at Leonford yet.
Hope to sometime.
--
Mark
against UK smoking policy and get fun freebies:
at - http://www.88honeylane.freeserve.co.uk
Mark
>
> > >I work on the basis that everyone arrives with their graphics turned ON
> :)
> > >
> > We'll agree to differ - I work assuming they haven't.
>
> Fair comment but the www is gonna get a bit boring designing it for text,
> verdana then maybe a Times Roman, then even a Helvetica, then bold and not
> bold and same for italics, so that give 16 variants.
>
> *unless* it is reference material or some sort. My opinion is based on
I
> had my Bonsai website
> I received email daily, and a guesstimate indicated that of all the
> "technical" questions I was asked by email (several hundred, maybe over a
to
> tell people that they just said they "missed it" or similar. The reality
is
> result I now, in general, design for pictorial presentation of
information,
> and if someone has graphics turned off they will have to make do with
> speeds to want to turn their graphics off or an IT dept so useless to
> buying a TV and covering the screen with a blanket (mind you I have
empathy
> with that approach having once caught 2 minutes of some program called the
> Simpsons).
> With near 80,000 counted visitors (and probably at least another 20,000
when
> I wasnt counting) to my personal website, in all that time I have never
had
> anyone email me to say they couldnt view the graphics or similar - on the
> like "awesome" and "mind-blowing" are used by those writing to me.
Are you not inclined to think about selling something there?
On second thoughts perhaps of course you are already!
Mr Creosote
> Are you not inclined to think about selling something there?
> On second thoughts perhaps of course you are already!
Nah. I dont sell that way over the Internet. I'll let you into my secret one
day.
MrC
Mark
Ooooh Eeerr Madam MrC...
Secrets ...
But don't shock cause I am .......
all innoccent like :)
innit
Simon Griffin
Could you please take a look at www.sigriffin.freeserve.co.uk It has been
put together using the advice of this group so it would be interesting to
see what you think. of the end result.
Mark
news:8lvr6t$h0i$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Could you please take a look at www.sigriffin.freeserve.co.uk It has been
> put together using the advice of this group so it would be interesting to
> see what you think. of the end result.
Looks like you have put in a lot of work.
Would like a prominent home link on all pages.
pain to use back perhaps through lots of levels.
I have bookmarked it to go back later.
Don't like table borders but that is just me.