|
|
Posted by windandwaves on 07/02/07 00:47
On Jul 2, 12:04 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> windandwaves wrote:
>
> > Please review my website:www.sunnysideup.co.nz.
>
> You have not set a background color for <body>. If you change your own
> browser default color to something other than white, you'll see this
> error right away.
corrected. thank you.
> The home page looks like it could use some headings. To me, it's just a
> jumble of words on screen. If the client is in marketing, I would have
> thought they'd provide copy with some amount of typography included.
Totally agree, will think about this!
> Those images on the home page appear to be links, but nothing happens
> when I click on them. Oh, I see what happens when JavaScript is enabled.
> You should fix those links from "#" (bad) to the full-size image (good)
> so those without JS get to see them, too. BTW, I don't like the picture
> overlaying the text like that, especially the text pretty much
> disappearing. But I guess that's subjective. :-\
point taken and Javascript alternative implemented....
> Browser-sniffing is soooooooo 90's. Using it to select a browser
> specific stylesheet is definitely a bad idea. You don't need it. Get rid
> of it. I see a noticeable difference in the content width between JS off
> and on. Why? A simple width and/or max-width is all you should need.
Browser sniffing maybe 90ies, but it works for me for now. I could
probably do it smart with width and so, but it is a bit tricky right
now.
> XHTML 1.1 is a useless DOCTYPE. The subject has been thrashed around
> here repeatedly and there is no reason to dredge it up again. Just drop
> XHTML altogether and stick with HTML 4.01 Strict if you hope to have
> cross-browser compatibility.
Ok, i hear what you are saying. Does it matter? I know it is a silly
Doctype, but does it hurt?
> --
> Berg
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|