Name Change and Beta WebSite

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:17 am

It also looks like iweb hasn't 'validated' what it claims to be an XHTML 1.0 Transitional document, as it shows up 19 errors in compliance. Below is a link to the W3C markup validation service, which is the best there is & free

Note, the 19 errors from your welcome page are explained & highlighted on this page. Your other pages are worth checking too, as they'll probably have a load of errors. Just type in the url for each of your pages & press the validate button.

<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... nline">W3C markup validation for your welcome page</a>

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:43 am

I meant to say you should try pagespinner on the mac, as it's meant to be excellent.

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:11 am

thanks for the link - I don't know how to fix this stuff yet - but I'll work on it

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:29 pm

Yup - it's me again...
First off - thanks for the help with this - much appreciated.
Hub.... I switched over to RapidWeaver and after adding a few plugs (Blocks, columns etc) I have to say that it leaves iWeb for dead - thanks.
It also writes valid XML and passes the test YAY
Now - does it load any quicker?
Appreciate any testing you guys can do.
Regards
Brett (A.I)

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:51 am

It's a little bit faster, cleaner & sober looking, so well done!

As I expected, Rapidweavers' code output is terribly bloated so if you eventually get into writing text & css in something like page spinnner, you'll definately be able to spead things up even more!!

The only thing I noticed that looked particularly out of place, was the logo at the top left being stretched for some reason when I don't think it's meant to be stretched

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:09 am

Logo shouldn't be stretched... it's sitting on top of a long grey bar and I used the same background colour.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:14 am

What would one use for Windows?

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:33 am

ED- Just Ignore me, I'm an idiot.

[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-07-02 09:13 ]

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:00 am

Yeah - IE6 makes a mess of it...
Ahhh well - too bad..

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:31 am

I'd leave out the stretch gimmick from the 'about page'
btw there's a local ref error from building the page included in the page text, with Javascript off it gets printed in the respective box.

if you like a 'mirror' fx in the jpgs, do it with proper perspective

overall imho it's a good start from the structural viewpoint, but it just makes me ask where's the sculpture department - reminds a lot on modern arts gallery style, but that's of course highly subjective.

cheers, Tom

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:35 am

Sorry if I've said too much in my efforts to help square it up.

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:36 am

It's an ongoing thing and I'm grateful for the feedback.
No need to be sorry Shrooms - your comments helped me a heap.
I'm not going to fuss over IE6 compatibility - mainly because I just can't be bothered - too little coding ability and much work researching and fixing.

[ This Message was edited by: blgrace on 2006-07-03 15:10 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:41 pm

Same as me

I'm still learning (still a beginner) not that much of a clue really, but I seem to learn something every time I try to, or even just when looking at other peoples' code

The stage i'm at, I'll probably still get a coder to tidy up & hack into shape anything I do with web code, as mine is rubbish, but as a designer I just see the code as a mechanical sketching system.

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:20 pm

O.K . . yup, me again.
After 5 or 6 iterations I have decided to stick with my "Style over function" paradigm

I think I've managed to move away from the "Art Gallery" look and back to a more Industrial theme.
I also think I have fixed all the validation errors - they were coming from old index.html files that I lovingly spread around the various folders to redirect traffic.

Now all that's left is to put in the content - proper.

So… Astroman, Braincell, Hubird, Piddi, Shroomz and Darkrezin (for liking the new name) thanks for your help and comments.
I just need a shop and something to sell - Audio Irony T-Shirts anyone

Regards

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:45 am

yes, looks much straightened now

you may just re-save the jpgs (f.e. things like page3/page9/files/page9_1.jpg) with a lower quality factor.
365KB is (easily) enough to fill a 1900x1600 screen. The quality factor (mainly) smoothes pixels of sharp lines - with your content it should be very effective.
Try 50%, those pics probably won't need more than 80 KB each - unless you want someone to be able to print out hi-res versions.

congrats, Tom
no need for t-shirts currently, room temperature approaches 30 Celsius

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-07-05 01:49 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:07 am

50% is over the top imo. There shouldn't be a need to lower quality as much as that. Optimize your jpgs using the 'progressive' format set to 3 'scans' at 10/12 (lowest 'maximum' setting) if using photoshop. About 80% quality or thereabouts would be fine if using Gimp or something. With smaller images you can get away with lower quality & even reducing the number of colours to 64, 32 or even 16 in some cases (logos, icons etc), which can help emensely.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:24 am

no, it's not - I've just shrunk the Electric Babyland with 50% progressive from 246 to 42 KB without any appearant visible loss

cheers, Tom

Post by **hubird** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:49 am

my photographs E-experiences tell me the same

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:01 am

It depends on the size & content of the image, but by in large 50% is pretty OTT unless you really need to get the size down on a large one. It really does depend on the image in question tho..

Anyway, I'm sure the two of you know best.

I don't know jack about graphics & neither does my brother who gets paid for glossy magazine quality design. IE- not just farting around with the likes of photoshop, but actually doing commercial work with it for the last eight years.

The site looks better btw Brett.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:46 am

does that mean you and/or your bro do commercial jobs with PS for several years and don't notice the afforementioned at first glance ?
of course it depends on the image's content and quality, that's why I suggested 50%

I admire your honesty, tho
[tip removed]

cheers, tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-07-05 19:23 ]