Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Mythology
    Guest

    Default

    As I said to someone whose opinion I had sought on my intro etc., yes, in the end, it works, it validates, and if you want to give it a try too, yes, I reckon it was worth the effort, but "Just don't ask me to *explain* CSS to you, OK?"


    And even then, there was one page, which Konqueror didn't like because although it was *valid* my brain had stopped working. For some stupid reason, where the "PREFACE" heading is, I hadn't used the same three column idea as the top and just left the third one blank, I'd split it into two specified 50% ones with another in the middle, and having something that added up to more than 100% did not go down well, so it gave up and shunted "PREFACE" over to the left.

    Ah well, keep trying.
    Last edited by Guest; 10-10-2007 at 8:31 PM.

  2. #12
    busyglen
    Guest

    Default

    I'll briefly butt in here now, so sorry Myth if you are in full flow, and I get in before you!

    Thank goodness you decided to put my mind at rest! Well, I know it's not a brilliant site, but all I wanted was to get the information `out there' to help researchers. So....if it doesn't cause people too much of a problem when viewing, then I shall leave well alone.

    All of this techno speak freaks me out, as I feel such a dunce at not understanding it. But, thanks to helpful people like Mark, who has given me quite a bit of help, Guy on an odd occasion, and Myth for explaining things.....even if I don't fully understand sometimes I have managed not to `jump off the new bridge' !!
    So far that is.....go on then, tell me what else I should do....

    Glenys

  3. #13
    MarkJ
    Guest

    Default

    Unless you want to fiddle with some more "internediate" level coding Glenys, I would leave the site as it is
    It looks fine and - as you so correctly state - it gets the information out there!
    That is the whole essence of a site relating to genealogical information - that there is access to all those useful bits of data which may otherwise be lost, or at least very hard to track down!
    That is the principle I use for the St Enoder site - plenty of useful information, but it may not be the perfect design that some aim for.
    The Coastguard site contains lots of useful information and works fine - which is all users need. As far as I have checked, with my Linux selection of browsers, it renders fine.
    If you really want it to validate with w3c, I am happy to fiddle with the code (or explain how to get it to validate) - although I suspect simply adding the doctype will fix most of the errors anyway. But it is not really an issue

    Mark

  4. #14
    Mythology
    Guest

    Default

    "All of this techno speak freaks me out, as I feel such a dunce at not understanding it."

    How many people who drive a car are genuinely competent mechanics who properly understand how the engine works? Don't feel a dunce, Glenys - no reasonable person expects every other person who puts a page on the web to get everything technically perfect, and far from it being "not a brilliant site" I think that for one made with a web page creator it's an excellent little site - it's nice and clear, navigation is easy, and everything works, what more does the user want?

    (continues)

  5. #15
    Mythology
    Guest

    Default

    "if it doesn't cause people too much of a problem when viewing, then I shall leave well alone."

    And I wouldn't argue. As I said in the other thread, your site "is basically fine, it's nice and straightforward, you haven't tried to be "clever", and, frankly, if amending things is likely to confuse you and make matters worse, I would leave it as it is."

    Now, if anyone who understands FrontPage wants to chip in with some hints that might get rid of some of those very minor technical errors, which do not actually cause any problems - as Mark says re these bits which get thrown in, "most are totally harmless" - fine, but otherwise I really wouldn't worry.

  6. #16
    busyglen
    Guest

    Default

    I don't anticipate making any immediate changes or additions at the moment, Mark. I am hoping to add more `newspaper reports' in the near future, but need the time to go to the library and search. In this case, I would simply add the details, as the couple I already have on there, in simple text.

    Apart from some photos of old cottages, I hadn't anticipated adding anything else, although even the idea of the photos, is a bit daunting. Still...I haven't taken them yet!!

    Glenys

  7. #17
    busyglen
    Guest

    Default

    **It's ok, I can take it between the eyes like a man!! Er...sorry, I mean a woman!!**

    Glenys

    What I `should' have said was `take it on the chin' ! Goodness knows where I got eyes from!! Still I'd had a very busy day...that's my excuse.

    Thanks everyone.

    Glenys
    Last edited by busyglen; 02-10-2006 at 9:37 AM.

  8. #18
    Mythology
    Guest

    Default

    "I prefer the truth, as anything else always gives a false impression."

    Same here, Glenys.
    If I'm doing anything new, I get a few honest friends to look at it - not those polite people who will just say "Oh yes, that looks nice" while privately thinking "Good Lord, what a load of garbage", they are no use to me!

    I've rewritten umpteen things as a result, but probably the best comment that I had, re an index page which had a "clever" (but too darned "clever") link system which, on reflection, made no sense unless you already knew what was what on the site, was that if she was just starting out on family history and encountered that, she'd go and hide in a cupboard for two weeks and never look at a family tree again.

    I soon scrapped that idea!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: