|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 11/26/07 13:04
rf wrote:
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:%vv2j.53376$c_1.5496@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:F8o2j.17044$CN4.4806@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I thought you had over and outed :-)
>
> >> Slow load time is correct. 1.21 minutes. This is simply stupid and no, I
> >> don't have a slow connection, it is a 10 megabit per second cable
> >> connection.
> >
> > One person in Australia has a load time of 6 seconds over a 0.5Mb/s
> > connection, and you have 1.21 minutes. Our site is designed and focused
> > for UK users who don't have this inconsistency, however if there is a way
> > to reduce international server delays to our UK server please do let us
> > know.
>
> Perhaps dorayme's IPS was doing some caching. Or perhaps she had looked at
> your site before and most of your images came from her cache. Who knows. For
> me it was that long. Even if I simply press the refresh button I wait for
> eighteen seconds.
>
It took ages to load on my 256K broadband conection as well.
> >> I didn't bother to go any further.
> >>
> >> Nowhere on the page is there any indication of what the site is actually
> >> about.
> >
> > That is because you came in via a thread that directed you past the home
> > page.
>
> Where in your original post did you mention that this was not the "home"
> page?
>
He did not, but then again he didn't mention a lot of things.
> I saw a URL containing a directory (I assumed this was a "test" thing) and a
> file called index.shtml. I feel I am justified in thinking that may have
> been a "home" page. And, BTW, why shtml? There is nothing on this page that
> needs security.
>
SSI!.
A lot of people recommend that you use the .shtml extention (+ some
servers need it.)
> > Try clicking the logo at the top and you'll find the home page, which
>
> Hmmm. Bloody snowflakes. How last century. And links that leaps all over the
> page when mouseovered. Egad, it just gets worser and worser.
>
Yeah, my web design is much more better (just taking the piss now).
> "As bigged up by"? He he.
>
> > explains incredibly simply what the site is about.
>
> I am telling you that it does not. I am still as much in the dark as to what
> the site is about as before.
>
> > We did NOT ask for critiques
>
> Welcome to usenet.
>
> > from people in the wrong country
>
> So because I live in Australia I am in the "wrong" country and am therefore
> prohibited from your "virtual shopping"? How arrogant. I wonder if the shops
> you represent know that you discriminate against shoppers from other
> countries?
>
Richard, the UK is a bit strange, well at least some members of the
business community are:
They are yet to discover what this whole "web" thing is all about!.
> > landing at the wrong page.
>
> The page you told me to land on.
>
> >> I tried reading the fine print (which looks just like another add) until
> >> I came across a "click here" directive. Apart from being silly, what if I
> >> don't use a mouse? Tab never gets to that link. Accessibility problem.
> >
> > The site is designed for a mouse and would be unusable without. Sorry but
> > we are catering for a majority here as it is very specific.
>
> Sorry but if you pulled that sort of stunt in Australia your site would be
> against the disabilities leglislation. That is, your site would be illegal
> and I could not use a mouse then I could sue you for damages because I
> cannot use your site to buy something.
>
Ahh, Richard, they do have pritty much identical legislation in the
UK as well.
Well it's similar put it that way.
> >> In any case "clicking here" simply jumps the page down a couple of
> >> inches. Very informative, not.
>
> > It centres the streetscape div in the page for the best view, as testing
> > showed people did not.
> >
>
> Yes, I know. I thought it would do something much better and more inovative
> than that. But that's just me, expecting a link to do more than scroll the
> page an inch or so.
>
> >> Ok, hover over one of the images. A tooltip appears: "See street usage
> >> guide above". Alright, scroll back up... What "street usage guide". I see
> >> nothing
> >
> > Where is the usage guide?... It's the very obvious icon of a guidebook and
> > help symbol on it. We will consider renaming the tooltip to 'See blue
> > book with yellow help symbol above.
>
> This is not obvious at all. Not at all. And even after you have told me what
> it is the title (tooltip) for that book icon is "popup usage guide". I abhor
> popups so why would I click on a "popup usage guide"?
>
Maybe cause the designer has no idea and needs to have a good read of:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
> Informative, not.
>
> >> What on earth does the <title> mean? <view source> Ah, keyword stuffing.
> >> The
> >
> > At the advice of someone here, we amended the title to 60 characters. Our
> > Google hits fell through the floor. We put it back as this is a hobby to
> > make money, not please programmers who are the only ones that would even
> > know what <title> is.
>
> Nothing pisses me off more than searching for stuff only to find that I
> cannot even find the stuff I searched for on a page that has been "found".
> Immediate back button.
>
Not to mention dicks that call people that write HTML "programmers"
come on lets get sirious people!.
HTML is not a programming language!
> >> Why is the font specified as 14 pixels?
> >
> > Because that is a valid option in HTML, and enlarging the font causes
> > issues with a precisely designed page.
>
> You have a lot to learn about page design then. The font size is *my*
> choice, not yours. If *my* choice of font breaks your design then your
> design is broken.
>
This is true although the font can only expant to a certon point
(unless you use a high resolution).
> >> Why does my default hot pink background show through?
> >
> > Because you chose it. We tried changing the body tag to FFFFFF but it
> > caused CSS validation errors that some text was the same colour as the
> > background. If you want hot pink, have hot pink!
>
> So, *you* want to choose my font size but you insist that I supply the
> background?.
>
> > I think we can safely say the site is not designed or aimed at you
>
> Correct. My idea of a link farm is a list of links, not an intentionally
> hard to use grossly over bloated thing such as this. Just my opinion of
> course :-)
>
ROTFL: I could not agree more.
> > The question was "Does it work in Firefox". Thanks for confirming it
> > does.
>
> For whatever definition of "work" you are using. For me it does not work,
> not in any browser. But I think I told you that last year as well :-)
>
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|