O/T: Web Design
Lew Hodgett
below?
Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
Lew
SonomaProducts.com
willshak
It's a good design, but that's not why you wanted me to visit the site,
is it?
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Lew Hodgett
"willshak" wrote:
> It's a good design, but that's not why you wanted me to visit the
site,
> is it?
--------------------------------
As a matter of fact, that kind of input was exactly what I was
interested in getting.
Thank you.
Have you used the stuff?
Lew
Doug Miller
I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the
HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org shows 139 errors and 55 warnings.
Elrond Hubbard
news:hi0je2$2tu$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I'd be a little leary
Would that be Timothy's great-grandson, or what?
Doug Miller
LOL -- obviously I meant leery... Next time, I'll just write "wary" or
"cautious" -- I know how to spell those!
Lew Hodgett
"Doug Miller" wrote:
> I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an
> outfit that
> can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL
> through the
> HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org shows 139 errors and 55
> warnings.
----------------------------------------------
Interesting.
Thank you.
Lew
Doug Miller
You're welcome. And for those who may not know it, w3.org is the web site of
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which is the body that develops standards
for the internet -- IOW, w3.org is *the* authority for what meets standards
and what doesn't.
But wait -- there's more: This particular design outfit is using the HTML 4.01
Transitional document type on their pages. The standards for Transitional are
a *lot* easier to meet than the standards for Strict, yet they still have
nearly 200 errors and warnings. (For comparison purposes, www.ibm.com shows no
errors, no warnings, checked against XHTML 1.0 Strict.)
Further still, the site uses the JQuery JavaScript library, which... ummmm...
has a few problems. Do a Google Groups search on comp.lang.javascript for
"JQuery" if you're curious.
GarageWoodworks
> In article <0022c96e$0$28408$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Lew Hodgett" <sails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
> >below?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
>
> >Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
>
> I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that
> can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the
The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
incorrectly.
Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
Errors, 34 warning(s)
Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)
www.google.com has 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)
I found it hard to find a website with few errors.
Doug Miller
>On Jan 5, 6:53=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <0022c96e$0$28408$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Lew Hodgett" <s=
>ails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
>> >below?
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
>>
>> >Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
>>
>that
>> can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through th=
>e
>> HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows 139 errors and 55 warnings.
>
>The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
>incorrectly.
Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets
standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and
what's not.
>
>Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
>Errors, 34 warning(s)
So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!)
Imagine my surprise.
>Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
>www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)
Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as
FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.
>www.google.com has 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)
So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a
better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.
>
>I found it hard to find a website with few errors.
That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
ibm.com -- zero
sony.com -- zero
w3.org -- zero
mit.edu -- zero
xkcd.com -- zero
navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
craigslist.org -- one error, one warning
Hoosierpopi
> Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
> below?
I use MS Frontpage.
Although the tool referenced reports 45 errors, the site
(www.rexn.com) appears to work well enough for my purposes.
But, thanks for the "checker" as I will use it to clean up some of the
errors I introduced when adding non MSFP bits to the site.
GarageWoodworks
> In article <7a740192-0abb-4244-ae21-441c126ff...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, GarageWoodworks <bgre...@garagewoodworks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 5, 6:53=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <0022c96e$0$28408$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Lew Hodgett" <s=
> >ails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
> >> >below?
>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
>
> >> >Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
>
> >> I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit =
> >that
> >> can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through th=
> >e
>
> >The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
> >incorrectly.
>
> Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets
> standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and
> what's not.
>
>
>
> >Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
> >Errors, 34 warning(s)
>
> So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!)
> Imagine my surprise.
>
> >Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
> >www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)
>
> Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as
> FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.
>
>
> So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a
> better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.
>
>
>
> >I found it hard to find a website with few errors.
>
> That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
> standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
> ibm.com -- zero
> sony.com -- zero
> w3.org -- zero
> mit.edu -- zero
> xkcd.com -- zero
> navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
> craigslist.org -- one error, one warning
Nice try...
Sony.com is their opener which directs to ---> http://www.sony.com/index.php
which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)
w3.org is not clean either but better. Try --> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
5 Errors
http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
xkcd.com store ---> http://store.xkcd.com/ ---> 798 Errors, 29
warning(s) http://xkcd.com/about/ ---->5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp --->21 Errors, 28 warning(s)
GarageWoodworks
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:27 am, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <7a740192-0abb-4244-ae21-441c126ff...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, GarageWoodworks <bgre...@garagewoodworks.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 5, 6:53=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> In article <0022c96e$0$28408$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Lew Hodgett" <s=
> > >ails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> >Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
> > >> >below?
>
> > >> >http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
>
> > >> >Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
>
> > >> I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit =
> > >that
> > >> can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through th=
> > >e
>
> > >The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
> > >incorrectly.
>
> > Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets
> > standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and
> > what's not.
>
> > >Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
> > >Errors, 34 warning(s)
>
> > So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!)
> > Imagine my surprise.
>
> > >Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
> > >www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)
>
> > Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as
> > FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.
>
>
> > So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a
> > better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.
>
> > >I found it hard to find a website with few errors.
>
> > That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
> > standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
> > ibm.com -- zero
> > sony.com -- zero
> > w3.org -- zero
> > mit.edu -- zero
> > xkcd.com -- zero
> > navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
> > craigslist.org -- one error, one warning
>
> Nice try...
>
> Sony.com is their opener which directs to ---> http://www.sony.com/index.php
> which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)
> w3.org is not clean either but better. Try -->http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
That wrapped funny after posting. Here it is again:
Larry Jaques
<gooeyt...@gmail.com> scrawled the following:
>On Jan 5, 2:47�pm, "Lew Hodgett" <sails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
>> below?
>
>I use MS Frontpage.
Page Affront? Joys!
--== Friends don't let friends use Front Page ==--
--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10
Doug Miller
>Sony.com is their opener which directs to ---> http://www.sony.com/index.php
>which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)
>
>w3.org is not clean either but better. Try --> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
>5 Errors
>
>http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
>
>xkcd.com store ---> http://store.xkcd.com/ ---> 798 Errors, 29
>warning(s)
>
>http://xkcd.com/about/ ---->5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
>
>http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp --->21 Errors, 28 warning(s)
OTOH, with the exception of w3.org, none of those sites are attempting to
advise people on web page design, either... I stand by my original comment,
that I'd be suspicious of a web design service that can't get its *own* pages
right; there's rather little reason to believe they'd do any better for a
customer.
LDosser
news:0022c96e$0$28408$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about below?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
>
> Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
>
Do you like Their web site?
LDosser
Best business advice I ever got was 'stick to your knitting'.
What is their Knitting? If you say 'software development', you got it wrong.
Their 'knitting' is marketing and selling a bunch of stuff that never made
it to number one or even number ten. Some of it may even be packaged
freeware. A company with a very similar name recently lost a class action
suit for sending customers "FREE SOFTWARE" that was, in fact, not free. Be
wary.
Lew Hodgett
"LDosser" wrote:
> Best business advice I ever got was 'stick to your knitting'.
I can relate.
> What is their Knitting? If you say 'software development', you got
> it wrong. Their 'knitting' is marketing and selling a bunch of stuff
> that never made it to number one or even number ten. Some of it may
> even be packaged freeware. A company with a very similar name
> recently lost a class action suit for sending customers "FREE
> SOFTWARE" that was, in fact, not free. Be wary.
They bought out some utility software I used several years ago from an
outfit in Denver, and moved it.
Somebody updated it and they are selling it under their logo.
I bought the updates and have been happy with them.
Long ago recognized that my days engineering things were best kept in
the "funzie" category, I've moved on to other things.
Appreciate the comments.
Lew
LDosser
You're welcome.
You might also take a look here: http://www.tucows.com/
I've found some useful bits and pieces there.
Lew Hodgett
"LDosser" wrote:
> You're welcome.
>
> You might also take a look here: http://www.tucows.com/
>
> I've found some useful bits and pieces there.
====================================
I've downloaded freebies in the past from them, but don't remember
what.
If you wanted the Harbor Freight of web design programs, where would
you look?
Lew
LDosser
tucows
Robert Bonomi
Lew Hodgett <sails...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
>below?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
Nope. I do all my web work using nothing more than a text editor.
Robert Bonomi
GarageWoodworks <bgr...@garagewoodworks.com> wrote:
>> In article <0022c96e$0$28408$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Lew Hodgett"
><sails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
>> >below?
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/y95348s
>>
>> >Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.
>>
>> I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that
>> can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the
>> HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows 139 errors and 55 warnings.
>
>The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
>incorrectly.
Wrong. They validate _exactly_ to the standards. They are the people who
*make* the standards.
>Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
>Errors, 34 warning(s)
That's _no_ surprise. Microsoft can't do _anything_ "according to accepted
standards." "Enhance and extend" is a corporate *requirement*.
There's more than a little truth in the old joke: "Microsoft buys Electo-Lux;
makes extensive product design changes. Now they have a product that _doesn't_
suck!"
Robert Bonomi
Hoosierpopi <gooeyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 2:47�pm, "Lew Hodgett" <sails.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
>> below?
>
>I use MS Frontpage.
>
>Although the tool referenced reports 45 errors, the site
>(www.rexn.com) appears to work well enough for my purposes.
In the browsers you've checked it with, that is. <grin>
If it passes the validator, 'error free', it is guaranteed to appear
consistently, and 'as intended', in any standards compliant browser.
To d*mn many "web-designers" think that if it renders in MSIE (*maybe*
they check with Firefox, 'for completeness') that it is correct and
good for everybody. Ever hear of 'lynx' -- a text-only browser that
works from character-mode terminals? Used _extensively_ by the blind,
because screen-readers work with it -- and it cam provide visible/audible
labelling of all the links on a page.
>
>But, thanks for the "checker" as I will use it to clean up some of the
>errors I introduced when adding non MSFP bits to the site.
Then go through and clean out all the sh*t that MSFP puts in. You'll
have a much better site for the experience. <grin>
Larry Jaques
bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) scrawled the following:
NoteTabPro. ASCII editing on steroids. Reformats whole pages of caps
in a single bound!
Andrew Barss
:>
:>I found it hard to find a website with few errors.
: That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
: standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
: ibm.com -- zero
: sony.com -- zero
: w3.org -- zero
: mit.edu -- zero
: xkcd.com -- zero
: navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
: craigslist.org -- one error, one warning
:
Add to that www.opera.com, which also makes a browser that strictly
adheres to international standards.
-- Andy Barss