PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

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>

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

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

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)

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

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

What would one use for Windows?

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

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-07-02 09:13 ]</font>

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

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

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

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.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blgrace on 2006-07-03 15:10 ]</font>

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.

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

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

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-07-05 01:49 ]</font>

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.

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

my photographs E-experiences tell me the same

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.

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

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-07-05 19:23 ]</font>