View Full Version : web site test/review
I have just rehashed my web site and am wondering whether it will now work on browsers/macs which I can't test it on.
Any feedback on problems or useability/ease of navigation would be appreciated. It still hasn't much content in it but there are some images in some of the galleries.
If you experience problems with the site then please let me know which browser and browser version you are using and on which operating system. Eg Safari nn on Mac OSX or Opera nn on windows XP etc
Thanks.
Yer Tiz (http://www.visualperception.net/)
Josh Z.
19-Feb-2006, 10:30
I get no content under any of the menus using Safari 2.0.3 on OSX 10.4.5, it works fine though apparently under Firefox. It looks like you are using javascript to some extent. Be careful with it, it's very prone to being sketchy. Check google for javascript documentation for standards compliance.
Otherwise, looks pretty decent.
Mark Woods
19-Feb-2006, 10:52
Yes I had the same experience with Safari and I too have OSX 10.4.5 The hyperlinks glowed, indicated they went to the page, but nothing changed from the home page.
MW
Hening Bettermann
19-Feb-2006, 11:22
Same here, MSIE on MacOS X 10.3.9.
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 11:26
If you can't test on real computers, online sites like http://www.browsercam.com/ are great for testing. They give you a free 24 hour trial too.
Drop downs in general are hard for people because people only click on things that they can see. So many people will miss whatever you've buried in the drop downs. Clients love drop downs because they make the organization tidy, but the challenge is to make easier/better for the viewer, not the client (or yourself).
I'd rethink the architecture
there aren't any drop down menus!!!
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 12:00
Oh! Duhh, my bad
Well nothing happens on Safari, they just rollover, no linkies.
rob,
Just tested it in Safari 2.0.3 and Firefox 1.5.0.1 on Tiger (OS X 10.4.4) and compared them to Firefox and IE 6 under XP. It does not work at all in Safari, but there are some obvious misbehaviours in Firefox and IE too.
Just looked "under the hood" and IMO the behaviour in Safari is just an indication of several major problems there. Namely, lots of in-line styles, using tables for layouts, lots of JavaScript, partial XHTML structure in a document with no DTD, etc. It's not that JavaScript is bad per se, it's just that it should be used very sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. But since this is way off-topic, I will spare everybody the gory details.
I don't know who designed your site, but having a problem with a specific browser (other than IE/Win) is usually dead give-away of a non-standard code. For at least three years now, generally accepted practice in the web design community is to design for standards, not for browsers.
If you designed the site yourself, you are on the right track concept-wise, but you definitely need to read up on the coding practices. If this is the case and you want to get deeper into it, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction and help with advice.
If, on the other hand, you are paying someone to do it, don't! It should not be too hard to find a designer or a studio capable of doing the work proeperly.
Regards,
Bill_1856
19-Feb-2006, 12:49
Dear Mr. Brett Weston,
I assumed that you were dead, but I had a look at your web site, and see that you are alive and using an assumed name.
Congratulations,
Bill Mitchell (Sarasota)
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 13:11
Except very few websites actually valiadate for being standards compliant... including this one (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flargeformatphotography.info%2Flfforum%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline).
Frank,
Yes, that is true, unfortunately. There is always a potential for errors like omitted close tags or even typos, but the main culprit for non-validation are usually external ads (I'm not saying that for this site). But validation, code accuracy and QC in general represent an entirely different issue than the site architecture.
What causes this site to fail validation is a few code typos and syntatical errors. But it does declare a proper DTD and it does follow it pretty consistently, minus a few font tags and tables tossed here and there.
Rob's site, on the other hand, fails on structure first and foremost. That's a qualitative difference.
Once you have the structure right, making the page(s) validate is simply a matter of proper QC. The sad thing is that QC is utterly incompatible with "good enough" syndrome.
Regards,
the standards are designed to allow non microsoft browsers to compete with microsoft. They are not designed for the benefit of the web development community. If there were only one browser in the world we could all stop wasting our time arguing about standards and trying to make web pages standards compliant. The fact there are more web browsers out there makes writing web pages a PITA.
to get back to the point. I have corrected some errors which may help in safari. If the main problem is the onload and resize events not working properly then it may take a little longer to fix as I have to work out how to add some event listeners.
If safari is using a different DOM to MS and Firefox then tough because I ain't going to learn another minor products way of doing things.
p.s.
The really great thing about standards is that there are so many different ones to choose from!
Gary Smith
19-Feb-2006, 14:26
Hi,
It works fine on Opera 8.5 on Windows XP (Japanese Language Version). Everything seems to work properly.
Hope it helps.
Gary
rob: the standards are designed to allow non microsoft browsers to compete with microsoft. They are not designed for the benefit of the web development community. If there were only one browser in the world we could all stop wasting our time arguing about standards and trying to make web pages standards compliant.
Let's put it this way: Microsoft's products, including their browser, are made to benefit Microsoft, not the designers and not the users. Microsoft does it for profit. Their own profit. Standards, as they are, are recommended by the non-profit industry consortium, W3C, for the benefit of all, as they take less bandwith, less time to load, they make less clutter and they work, even on alternate user agents, like screen readers.
Web design has been my profession for the last 8 years or so, and for the last 6, most of my designs worked in any browser on any device simply because they were made to standards. The only browser needing tweaking was precisely MSIE.
But, let's just agree to disagree. This could make for a lively and interesting flame war, but this is definitely not the place for it.
Regards,
Ron Marshall
19-Feb-2006, 14:47
Works great on XP.
anyone tried in safari again?
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 15:51
Yeah, no images yet. Or left sidebar.
Works in Mac Firefox though.
I think the view in frame is pretty funny, a lot of work for a thin metal frame!
its not a lot of work. only one piece of php code. sizing is done automatically by php based on image dimensions and frame is added dynamically at the same time. If I choose to offer more frames then the same page can be used to view different frame mouldings. Minimum effort required and since everything is based on image file name then adding a new image only requires duplicating an existing page and dropping it into a gallery with some image info in the php code. Everything else happens automatically via php. If the site grows(lots of images) then it will be simple to upgrade by placing everything into database with a cms system since all image data is already entered in php and not in the html code.
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 16:23
That's pretty slick. However, whether it increases sales and whether you really want to sell framed prints at all (potential print damage, shipping and storage hassle) is a much more important question.
Good luck
I buy in pre mitred alu frame mouldings which are very simple and quick to put together. Read the framing info from one of the image pages and you will see that the frame actually provides a really safe way of shipping the mounted print. Thats the theory but in reality it would be simpler to ship mounted or even unmounted prints but to protect them would require more expensive stiffening packaging whereas with a frame ou only need soft protection. Time will tell once I get the site fully finished and indexed.
Just did another minor change to css in the vain hope that will make it work in safari but without knowing what is actually causing the problem then its a stab in the dark. Is it the menu along the top or down the side which is not showing?
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 17:15
On Safari: It's the left hand menu that won't show, along with the main content. I do see your copyright notice at the bottom.
Frank: I'd rethink the architecture
rob: Just did another minor change to css in the vain hope that will make it work in safari but without knowing what is actually causing the problem then its a stab in the dark. Is it the menu along the top or down the side which is not showing?
Rob,
I looked at your (x)html and your css in more detail this time and I have to agree with Frank - I would definitely rethink the architecture. It's not one thing, it's the combination of things that makes it work erratically.
I'll say this much: trying to simmulate framesets the way you do without having a firm understanding of W3C standards, especially css positioning, is difficult at best and impossible at worst. If I were you and wouldn't want to be bothered with standards, I would at least try different architecture.
Just my friendly $0.02.
Regards,
Eric Rose
19-Feb-2006, 17:37
My pet peeve is when people state their website is under construction, in flux, etc etc. There is no reason to include this stuff.
Ted Harris
19-Feb-2006, 18:08
Still no images in Safari, even worse in icab and nothing in Omniweb either. Works fine in Firefox.
Ken Lee
19-Feb-2006, 18:35
My friends who do web design are constantly complaining about Safari. Apprently, it is sub-standard in many respects.
I use Camino on the Mac. Like Firefox, it is open-source and free, and offerred through Mozilla. It blows Safari away.
See www.caminobrowser.org (http://www.caminobrowser.org" target="_blank)
thanks for all the help folks.
I have just made a significant change which I hope will cure the safari problem.
please could someone try safari again. If this doesn't work then I'm stumped on this one. If it does work then it may well cure other browser prblems as well.
Allen Quinn
19-Feb-2006, 19:36
I'll second hermits call on Linux with Firefox (1.5) and Konqueror. Also, works with Seamonkey.
Good luck with Safari.
OK I put in a change that I didn't want to because it causes some screen flicker depending on screen resolution.
I think this will work but I've been wrong before.
I hope you folks that have been testing have been clearing your cache before retrying.
this is my last try tonight. Does it work now?
Frank Petronio
19-Feb-2006, 19:55
Congrats it works
(Now about it acting like a frames...)
hoorah!
now if you resize the window in safari does everything in the main window reposition itself?
I suspect not which, if that is the case, then it tells me what is wrong with my code. Dosen't tell me how to fix it though.
You got it this time.
Nice pictures, btw. :)
Good luck, Marko
Rob: now if you resize the window in safari does everything in the main window reposition itself?
I suspect not which, if that is the case, then it tells me what is wrong with my code. Dosen't tell me how to fix it though.
No, the main quazi-frame appears fixed in Safari. You will always have differences among browsers and the way they interpret positioning, especially absolute positioning.
Frank: Now about it acting like a frames...
Frank, I hate to say this, but just like tables, frames do have their uses and they are part of the W3C specs. Not that I would recommend using them, but I see absolutely no purpose in emulating them.
Regards,
nah, its nothing like frames....
"'s put it this way: Microsoft's products, including their browser, are made to benefit Microsoft, not the designers and not the users. Microsoft does it for profit. Their own profit. Standards, as they are, are recommended by the non-profit industry consortium, W3C, for the benefit of all, as they take less bandwith, less time to load, they make less clutter and they work, even on alternate user agents, like screen readers."
exactly.
the problems seem fixed; i'm having no problems with safari now.
for whatever it's worth, when i encounter non-standards compliant sites that don't work in safari, i have to want to see the content really, really badly in order to fire up another browser. in general i just take it as evidence that the website creator doesn't care in these cases, so why should i?
i think your site looks great. my one criticism is that i find groupings by subject matter (seascapes, roots and rocks, etc.) to be among the least interesting options. it makes sense if your primary goal is licensing work for stock. but if it's primarily an art site that's acting as a gallery for a body of work, i think there are ways you can create groups and sequences that are more compelling and that serve the work much better.
thanks Bill, Paul & all,
I agree and am thinking of other gallery names. Infact I may just do them chronologically as years but that could be a little dull also. I've been more focussed on the layout etc. I'm working on it...
Just one thing though, does resizing the safari window cause the content to reposition itself. Knowing that tells me whether the event listeners are working or not. I know they work in IE and Firefox but have no clue on safari.
thanks.
Rob, again: no, the main content does not resize with the window in Safari. Only the header and footer do.
Good luck,
Dominique Labrosse
19-Feb-2006, 21:34
Not getting anything any left hand nav bar nor any images with Safari 2.0.3 running on OSX 10.4.5. Seems to load fine with Camino 0.8.4 though.
Dominique is right, it reverted back as it were before. Rob, whatever you did, wasn't benefitial.
OK, I fixed it for now.
Marko, does the safari DOM recognise document.getElementById('idname')
or can you point me to handy reference of the safari implementation of javascript/DOM
Rob,
Yes it does. Safari's Document Object Model API is based on the W3C DOM Level 2 specification. Take a look at these:
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleApplications/Conceptual/SafariJSProgTopics/
Regards,
OK, I should've used double spacing for the links. Let's try again:
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleApplications/Conceptual/SafariJSProgTopics/
Its statements like this that make me 100% certain that standards are complete nonsense for the average user.
"If 'left' has the value 'auto' while 'direction' is 'ltr', replace 'auto' with the distance from the left edge of the containing block to the left margin edge of a hypothetical box that would have been the first box of the element if its 'position' property had been 'static'. (But rather than actually computing that box, user agents are free to make a guess at its probable position.) The value is negative if the hypothetical box is to the left of the containing block. "
and thats from the safari dom description which is standards compliant.
it gets my vote for laugh of the week!
your average person who wants to write themselves a nice little home page hasn't got a snowballs chance of writing anything standards compliant and never will. There's several Billion "non standard" web pages out there which will never be made standards compliant.
I'm working on it... I guess my event handler isn't working, but without a safari browser to capture the javascript errors its going to be difficult to see exactly where the fault is.
next question, does safari dom recognise document.all and when setting clientWidth does "px" need to be appended
Rob, slow down...
You asked for a reference and that's what you got. Yes, it's extremely technical since it was written for programers by programers. JavaScript is just that, a programming langugage. An interpreted, not compiled, but still a programing language. You asked a very pointed technical question so I assumed that's what you wanted.
I'm willing to bet that your average Joe knows about Zone System no more than he knows about JavaScript and would find some of the discussions on this very board equally unintelligible and downright laughable.
And yes, there are indeed many millions of non standard sites. I'm also willing to bet that their number is getting proportional to the number of snapshots taken by the above mentioned average Joes, and that their quality level is similarly comparable. Just like there is a place and purpose for both amateur and professional photographs, the same applies to websites too. And just like any established profession or trade depends on an agreed set of rules or standards, so does web design/development.
Same as with photographs, the sites that are not purely amateur but not fully professional either get an urgent makeover or they vanish because what happened to your "page" in Safari today, will start happening more often and with more browsers as the new versions are released. My initial advice still stands: if you want to write a site more ambitious than "your average home page", you need to invest more effort into it or you need to hire someone who can do it for you.
Regards,
And one more thing: it is not the web developers for whom the standards are supposed to make things easier, althought they do, it's the end users. Web sites - and please note the difference between a "site" and a "page" - redesigned to comply with the standards typically lose between 40% and 70% of weight in the process and exhibit comparable gains in loading and response times. They also become more accessible to people with dissabilities and tend to display flawlessly on various other devices, e.g. mobile browsers or screen readers.
Finally, developers who are unwilling to follow the standards typically cite low percentage of "minor" browsers. Well, Safari is currently dominant browser on OS X, some say far more so than IE is in the Windows world. There is Firefox, but it's Mac implementation is much clunkier than Windows version. There is also IE 5.x for Mac, but it's development stopped in 2003.
Mac as a platform makes about 4% of the total personal computing usage, at least 90% of which is Safari. Minor, right? Well, it's all in the numbers - if only 50% of households in the U.S. alone were online (I'm sure the number is greater, but I don't have the stats, so if I err, I'll err for caution), that makes about 150 million people. If we disregard the very young and the very old, let's put the number at hundred million. 4% of one hundred million is 4 million and 90% of that is 3.6 million people.
That's 3.6 million potential visitors excluded right of the bat by anybody who refuses to support "minor" browsers such as Safari. And that's in the U.S.A. only. EU has about 40% more people than the United States. Assuming the same proportions, that's another 3.6 million potential visitors lost. And not just any visitors, but people who not only own more expensive computers than average, but also tend to buy more over the Web as a group, according to some polls I've seen.
Minor? Maybe so, but if I were trying to sell something over the Web, I would most definitely want those 7.2 million people with such habits visiting my site. And I would be happy if I had 5% of them spend $10 each on average. Heck, I'd be happy with $5. If you do the math, you'll see that those links stop being so laughable all of a sudden :)
Regards,
Ok so I just read the documentation I found at the safari site. First the safari javascript ref omits the onresize event. Next it suggest looking at the Gecko Dom which does include the onresize event.
So my questions to you as an expert with 6 years experience are:
1. does the safari javascript/dom include the onresize event?
2. does the safari javascript/dom allow event listeners as defined in the Gecko DOM because the safari javascript reference makes no mention of the addEventListener.
3. The answer to question 2 above can be determined by looking at how my page opens in safari. The default sizes I gave were for 1024x768 resolution screen. If your screen is bigger than that did the page open with a full screen? If it did then the event handler for the onload event is working and the handler for resize event is not. If the page did not start in fullscreen but with a window which occupies only part of the screen then handler is not working. So which is it? Knowing this will help fix the problem.
n.b. making reference to w3c standards is of no use since there is no guarantee that any browser has implemented them in full and once you get into the dom all bets are off. My bet is that the safari implementation is limited since the code I used is basic for starting up a page. It only tries to set a width and a height value.
Please also note that I'm not really interested in standards but more interested in making my page work. Standards are not the reason it doesn't work. The reason is that the Safari implementation is different than Firefox and IE.
Rob,
I said that I had a little over 8 years of web design experience, the last 6 standards compliant. I did not claim to be a JavaScript expert. To be clear about that, I am familiar with it as much as I need to be, but I am no expert at it. When I need an expert, I hire one.
Having said that, JavaScript implementation among browsers leaves a lot to be desired. That has nothing to do with standards either, as both the DOM and JavaScript are standardized. That is also why most experts advise very cautious and light use of it, and only when absolutely necessary and never for major functionality.
To answer your questions: I don't know off hand, I would have to do some digging to find out. But to be honest, so can you, as you are the one who needs the answers more than I do. I provided you the links where digging is most likely to net usable results.
You can also do a simple experiment - create a very simple page with nothing else on it except the event you want to examine and then redirect the output to an alert. If you want to get a little fancier, do a simple if-else. But don't use the page you already have problems with to determine anything!
On the last note: I don't have money invested in standards, I care about them only because they make my life easier and my job more enjoyable. I have a feeling that yours would be too if you cared about them more, but it's your choice to make and your page to maintain. Standards are never the reason the page does not work, but they usually are the reason it does. ;-) And your page isn't failing because of faulty browser but because you chose a faulty method.
What I don't understand after all this discussion is why on Earth are you basing the functionality of your site on a notoriously unreliable and flaky client-side langugage such as JavaScript while having at your disposal infinitely more controllable server-side language such as PHP on the backend?
To wrap this discussion up: I would template the pages in semantically valid xhtml, style and position them through CSS but script them on the server. That way I would not depend on browsers almost at all, save for an odd bug here and there, which is also part of my job to be aware of.
Regards,
Marko,
Since I don't have a mac or safari browser testing is difficult. If I had, then I would not be asking for the information. You cannot test browser event listeners using PHP.
to get to the bottom of this problem could some one visit THIS PAGE (http://www.visualperception.net/misc/screen.htm) using safari and copy and paste the resulting onscreen text into a message. Then I should be able to fix the problem. (I think)
thank you for your persistence.
Ted Harris
20-Feb-2006, 07:17
Hi Rob,
Your mail bounced back. Here is the messge from onscreen in Safari:
document.getElementById
document.documentElement && document.documentElement.clientWidth != 0
Browser appName is: Netscape
Browser appVersion is: 5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/417.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.8
Browser userAgent is: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/417.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.8
Browser appCodeName is: Mozilla
Browser appMinorVersion is: undefined
screen.width = 1920 pixels
screen.height = 1200 pixels
screen.availWidth = 1920 pixels
screen.availHeight = 1124 pixels
White document.body.clientWidth = 1270 pixels
White document.body.clientHeight = 961 pixels
White window.innerWidth = 1270 pixels
White window.innerHeight = 961 pixels
White document.documentElement.clientWidth = 1270 pixels
White document.documentElement.clientHeight = 961 pixels
Yellow divid.offsetWidth = 1143
Yellow divid.offsetHeight = 864
Yellow divid.style.width =
Yellow divid.style.height =
Henry Ambrose
20-Feb-2006, 07:19
I just emailed you the code displayed in Safari but it bounced.
What all this is about is to MAKE IT EASY for people to communicate with you. As in making your site easy to view and allowing easy communication. Neither one of those things happens now.
I suggest you look at all thats been written above and consider that making the world conform to your and Microsoft "standards" is a waste of everyone's time. If someone buys your pictures its not because your website amazed them. Its because they can see your excellent pictures. The way to do this is to conform to "their" standards, that big overriding standard being that your site just plain works in their browser.
Frank, Marko, paulr and others have given you really excellent advice. Now I'm giving you some more advice especially in my second paragraph above. And here's a bit more -- I mean all this kindly and in a sense of helping -- you're misssing the boat when you design a needlessly complicated site that does not work properly. Its about your pictures and letting people see them easily - not your coding prowess - unless you really are seeking work as a web developer. Its also about having an email address that works.
Being accessible, simple, easy, perhaps even elegant is how you reach people. And your coding can be that way too.
Yer Tiz (http://www.visualperception.net/) again
My site may now work but then again maybe not. The fault lies in the implementation of the Document Object Model in Safari which seems to be different from both IE and Firefox. Without access to Safari on a Mac and the necessary software to analyse the contents of the DOM then I can't be sure exactly what the resolution is and I ain't about to buy into macs.
THE FAULT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STANDARDS except that if it has then Safari is as much to blame as anything I have written since it has chosen to implement an alternative set of "features" at the core level to other browsers.
rob: Since I don't have a mac or safari browser testing is difficult. If I had, then I would not be asking for the information. You cannot test browser event listeners using PHP.
Duh, it was just getting late, I guess, and I'm all too used to having both sitting on my desk here. I see you have taken care of testing for Safari already, but my main point was: why bother with JavaScript at all when you already have far superior and robust scripting envorionment on your server in the form of PHP. You need to break out of that box and think a little different here (no pun intended).
Henry is absolutely right - you do have great pictures and you are greatly diminishing your chances of having them seen and bought by as many people as possible by needlessly complicating your site design.
But in the end, it all comes down to this: We have offered you the best collective advice and help we possibly could and it's now up to you to make use of it or not.
Good luck,
Frank Petronio
20-Feb-2006, 12:25
Good luck with that strategy. People who surf with Macs and use Safari aren't very likely to be good customers anyway. They don't know anything about photography, shopping online, or art. If I was selling something in a creative field, I'd ignore the Mac crowd too, because we all know the Mac users don't appreciate creativity..
Frank you got it all wrong...
People who use Macs want to be different, they don't want to be "Standard". They would wince at the thought of a "Standard" website. They would cower in fear at the thought of being exposed to a web site created using predefined "rules". Force them to use a standard PC and they would shrivel and die. They think standards stifle originality. They think standards are for those who want to follow and not to lead. Hell, if ain't different, it ain't worth having...
I regularly use Macs for most things I do, surfing included. When I surf, I use Safari.
Until today, I had absolutely no clue how clueless I really am when it comes to photography, shopping online, art or standards...
Thanks Frank and Rob for this epiphany!
:)
"Henry is absolutely right - you do have great pictures and you are greatly diminishing your chances of having them seen and bought by as many people as possible by needlessly complicating your site design."
My site design is extremely simple. It only has four boxes and the main box has some tables in it for simplicity instead of tricksy CSS. If you can't see how simple it really is then....
As for javascript: All I want to do is set two style values at the onload event. If thats too much for Safari or for the Standards sicophants then I think that says it all. Had the setting of two style values worked the site would have worked normally. The experts out there espousing a complete redesign of the site for the sake of two style values being set correctly need to think about that.
"People who use Macs want to be different, they don't want to be "Standard". They would wince at the thought of a "Standard" website."
maybe i'm not a typical mac user (or is this just one more level of wanting to be different ...?) but i'm one of the most crotchety, impatient web surfers i know. if there's some gratuitous flash intro that doesn't have a "skip" button, i'm out the door. especially at a photography site. i want to see the work, and i want the presentation to serve the work, not the web designer's whims.
rob's site looks simple enough to me. as long is displays well on all the major browsers and the work is edited well, i think it's a winner.
also, for what it's worth, i just checked my own site statistics, and on average found that 74% of the hits were from windows, 24% from mac, and the remaining 2% from linux or "other." As far as browsers, 61% were explorer, 20% safari, 16% firefox, with nothing else over 2%.
Hey rob,
Relax, man. I was just trying to help, and it's not like I'm charging you or something. My browser is working just fine with all the sites I find worth looking at. It's your site that's not working in it. You asked for help and you got a ton of free advice. You're equally free to make whatever you want of it, it's your pics and your site.
Since I don't really enjoy being called a sicophant in return for several hours of trying to help you, I won't be wasting any more of your time. Nor mine, for that matter.
Have a nice day.
Frank Petronio
20-Feb-2006, 17:54
yeah, I'd be happy to help again too - if I didn't get abused
oops,
That was a bit strong now I think about it. Heat of the moment, no offence intended.
You have enough people commenting on the web issues....
The images are fabulous, you have an excellent "eye" !
thanks wg,
all I've got to do now is convince people to buy some of them.
That'll be the really hard part.
Bob_5853
20-Feb-2006, 19:54
Sorry I can't see them with Safari.
try it again. I have made a change and it should work now.
Bob_5853
21-Feb-2006, 08:43
Yep works now. Nice site.
this time I think I may have cracked it. One more test in Safari please.
Yer Tiz (http://www.visualperception.net/)
thank you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.