http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk

Or

I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access to
a PC from home.

It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
think it's half way decent.

Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I flagged
this.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>
> Or
>
> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access to
> a PC from home.
>

> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
> think it's half way decent.
>
> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I flagged
> this.
It's both a useibility issue and an accessibility issue.
If a particularly large audience (those useing IE) on a PC with the
default settings can't increase font-size to make content readible
then how the hell do you expect them to access it.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

>
> --
> Andy Jacobshttp://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

"Andy Jacobs"  wrote in message 
news:C3875967.ED51%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk...
> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>
> Or
>
> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access 
> to
> a PC from home.
>
> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
> think it's half way decent.
>
> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I 
> flagged
> this.

Well, when I took a quick peek at the home page last night I honestly 
thought you were having a laugh, but I was being rushed out so didn't 
comment. I thought you were better than that.

I'll only get accused of revengeful dissin' so I'll zip it.

---dE|_---

On 14/12/07 11:52 am, in article
207586e7-af93-4bca-9c0f-325fe46ef56e@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>> 
>> Or
>> 
>> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access to
>> a PC from home.
>> 
> 
>> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
>> think it's half way decent.
>> 
>> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I flagged
>> this.
> It's both a useibility issue and an accessibility issue.
> If a particularly large audience (those useing IE) on a PC with the
> default settings can't increase font-size to make content readible
> then how the hell do you expect them to access it.
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

Precisely, you're leaning against an open door here, Chaddy.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

In uk.net.web.authoring message <C3875967.ED51%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
, Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:27, Andy Jacobs 
posted:

>http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk

Using XP sp2 IE6, 1280*1024 CRT.

No entirely good.  Text is set smaller than my preference and does not
re-size in IE6.  Words are illegible under the slanted £24.99.  Not good
to say just £24.99 if VAT is to be added?  Red is not a good colour for
normal text.  No whitespace under "site costing thousands of pounds." in
IE6.  To me. "Call Us On:" looks bad : "Call us on", "call us on", "CALL
US ON" all better.

"Standard Features" looks like a link, but is not.  Under that, to match
others, ".co.uk address" should be "a .co.uk address " or ".co.uk
addresses".

"of £24.99 + vat." - should be VAT.

"the same reliability as any site costing".  No.  Any is like all, and
there exists no doubt at least one expensive, unreliable site, and there
might be a site more reliable than you can offer. Try "the same
reliability as a site costing" implying a typical case.

"business level" requires a hyphen.  Also "startups".

"We can do this to. Just contact".  But to what?  Have another o.  Then
"and an outline specification if the budget it suitable." makes no
sense.

"PO9 1HS" has very small-looking digits on my machine; don't know why.
Other digits look OK.

How about having the four tabs a size bigger?

You claim "make it legal".  You should know relevant UK/EU (and W3<g>)
law, but do you know, for example, Thai law?  Obviously you seek UK
business - it mat be illegal to exclude other EU (so you might need to
read up Polish law) - but ISTM that the claim is too broad to sustain.
It might be unsafe to put anything like "for UK businesses"; "for UK/EU"
might do.

"No up front costs. Just great looking web sites for a fixed monthly
fee" is also hard to read, black on patterned blue.

At the foot, "Powered by Redcat Media" : I can scarcely see "Redcat
Media", let alone read it.

Might it be worth having a page expanding modestly on "Standard
Features"?  Remember that Old Fred the Grocer may be advised by a
computer-enthusiast nephew.

Is the site itself intended to be representative of what a customer
would get?  If so, that could be made explicit.

How about a mention of site maintenance - can the customer do it, if
details change?  Who will own the copyright of what?  I guess the
customer needs to own his own text and images, you need to own the code;
but who owns the aesthetics?

Does W3 like having its icons squashed?

If I were commercial, I think I'd prefer to remove leading whitespace
from the served version, though perhaps not justifiable.  With adequate
tools, it should be the work of a moment to do.


I drove nearly past you last month (M27 to A3(M)), then met a major
hold-up on the A3.  Shouldn't have tried to avoid the advertised one on
the M3.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   DOS 3.3, 6.20 ; WinXP.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
 PAS EXE TXT ZIP via  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
 My DOS  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.

On 14/12/07 1:00 pm, in article S7v8j.8861$h35.4514@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,
"dE|_"  wrote:

> 
> "Andy Jacobs"  wrote in message
> news:C3875967.ED51%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk...
>> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>> 
>> Or
>> 
>> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access
>> to
>> a PC from home.
>> 
>> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
>> think it's half way decent.
>> 
>> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I
>> flagged
>> this.
> 
> Well, when I took a quick peek at the home page last night I honestly
> thought you were having a laugh, but I was being rushed out so didn't
> comment. I thought you were better than that.
> 
> I'll only get accused of revengeful dissin' so I'll zip it.

No, go for it!  My feeling is that if you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen.  I wouldn't give it out if I couldn't take it back.

So you thought I was better than what?  From a design perspective, a quality
of code perspective?

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On 14/12/07 6:05 pm, in article
UbarjmKeXsYHFwF5@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid, "Dr J R Stockton"
 wrote:

> In uk.net.web.authoring message <C3875967.ED51%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
> , Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:27, Andy Jacobs 
> posted:
> 
>> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
> 
> Using XP sp2 IE6, 1280*1024 CRT.

<snip long and really useful crit>

Thanks for that John.  I will go through that and try and address some of
those.  You obviously took a lot of time to put that crit together and it's
much appreciated.

> I drove nearly past you last month (M27 to A3(M)), then met a major
> hold-up on the A3.  Shouldn't have tried to avoid the advertised one on
> the M3.

Next time, don't drive past, pop in.  We have a damn fine coffee machine and
I can make the best Fairtrade, organic decaf this side of the Nantucket
lightship (or should that be light-ship?)

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On 14/12/07 6:05 pm, in article
UbarjmKeXsYHFwF5@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid, "Dr J R Stockton"
 wrote:

> In uk.net.web.authoring message <C3875967.ED51%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
> , Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:27, Andy Jacobs 
> posted:
> 
>> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
> 
> Using XP sp2 IE6, 1280*1024 CRT.
> 

I'm making most of the changes but I would questions a couple of your
points...

> Not good
> to say just £24.99 if VAT is to be added?

I don't think it's necessary when you're dealing business to business.  When
I quote prices to clients I never include VAT.

> "PO9 1HS" has very small-looking digits on my machine; don't know why.
> Other digits look OK.

Georgia uses a sort of sub-script for numbers.  I like Georgia but the
numbers are my least favourite bit.  Could that be the problem.

> You claim "make it legal".  You should know relevant UK/EU (and W3<g>)
> law, but do you know, for example, Thai law?  Obviously you seek UK
> business - it mat be illegal to exclude other EU (so you might need to
> read up Polish law) - but ISTM that the claim is too broad to sustain.
> It might be unsafe to put anything like "for UK businesses"; "for UK/EU"
> might do.

Hmmm...  I see your point but it could be over complicating things.  Have
you seen the solicitor's Merry Christmas?  It's one of those "By accepting
this Christmas wish you are accepting that there is no guarantee of a merry
Christmas whether written or implied..." and goes on for about half a side
of A4.  The point of this site is to open a dialogue, not to cross every t
and dot every i.  There are loads of places that this could be picked up,
I'm just not sure how appropriate it is to fix it.

> Is the site itself intended to be representative of what a customer
> would get?  If so, that could be made explicit.

No, it needn't be representative.  I've signed up 2 people this week and I'm
hoping to have another 2 or 3 next week.  Once they're done I'll put a
portfolio page on.

> 
> Who will own the copyright of what?  I guess the
> customer needs to own his own text and images, you need to own the code;
> but who owns the aesthetics?

I think that in the UK, the designer owns the copyright of everything bar
the content, even if the client's paid for it.

> 
> Does W3 like having its icons squashed?

Probably not :o)

> 
> If I were commercial, I think I'd prefer to remove leading whitespace
> from the served version, though perhaps not justifiable.  With adequate
> tools, it should be the work of a moment to do.

Sorry, I don't understand this bit at all?  What leading whitespace?

Cheers

Andy

On Dec 15, 4:01 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 14/12/07 11:52 am, in article
> 207586e7-af93-4bca-9c0f-325fe46ef...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >>http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>
> >> Or
>
> >> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access to
> >> a PC from home.
>
> >> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
> >> think it's half way decent.
>
> >> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I flagged
> >> this.
> > It's both a useibility issue and an accessibility issue.
> > If a particularly large audience (those useing IE) on a PC with the
> > default settings can't increase font-size to make content readible
> > then how the hell do you expect them to access it.
> > --
> > Regards Chad.http://freewebdesignonline.org
>
> Precisely, you're leaning against an open door here, Chaddy.
>
Well, I had a look again in IE6 just befor and I notice that you
havn't changed the font-size.
I would suggest that who ever is doing your CSS needs to be re-
trained.
BTW I had a long day yesterday.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 15/12/07 4:04 am, in article
02faa0b0-7b9f-4a96-8c80-6c95e994b445@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Dec 15, 4:01 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 14/12/07 11:52 am, in article
>> 207586e7-af93-4bca-9c0f-325fe46ef...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>>>> http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>> 
>>>> Or
>> 
>>>> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access
>>>> to
>>>> a PC from home.
>> 
>>>> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
>>>> think it's half way decent.
>> 
>>>> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I
>>>> flagged
>>>> this.
>>> It's both a useibility issue and an accessibility issue.
>>> If a particularly large audience (those useing IE) on a PC with the
>>> default settings can't increase font-size to make content readible
>>> then how the hell do you expect them to access it.
>>> --
>>> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesignonline.org
>> 
>> Precisely, you're leaning against an open door here, Chaddy.
>> 
> Well, I had a look again in IE6 just befor and I notice that you
> havn't changed the font-size.
> I would suggest that who ever is doing your CSS needs to be re-
> trained.

I've changed it to ems now and it matches on my Mac with the px version (at
my normal font size anyway). I'd be grateful if someone could sanity check
it in IE.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 15/12/07 4:04 am, in article
> 02faa0b0-7b9f-4a96-8c80-6c95e994b...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 4:01 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 14/12/07 11:52 am, in article
> >> 207586e7-af93-4bca-9c0f-325fe46ef...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
>
> >> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> >>> On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >>>>http://www.small-business-web-site-design.co.uk
>
> >>>> Or
>
> >>>> I've only tested it in FF on my Mac at the moment as I haven't got access
> >>>> to
> >>>> a PC from home.
>
> >>>> It's been a bit of a rush job so there may be bits that need tidying but I
> >>>> think it's half way decent.
>
> >>>> Chaddy - Yep, px again but the CSS was already being produced when I
> >>>> flagged
> >>>> this.
> >>> It's both a useibility issue and an accessibility issue.
> >>> If a particularly large audience (those useing IE) on a PC with the
> >>> default settings can't increase font-size to make content readible
> >>> then how the hell do you expect them to access it.
> >>> --
> >>> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesignonline.org
>
> >> Precisely, you're leaning against an open door here, Chaddy.
>
> > Well, I had a look again in IE6 just befor and I notice that you
> > havn't changed the font-size.
> > I would suggest that who ever is doing your CSS needs to be re-
> > trained.
>
> I've changed it to ems now and it matches on my Mac with the px version (at
> my normal font size anyway). I'd be grateful if someone could sanity check
> it in IE.
>
It does not look good, in IE or FF.
You need to fix the other widths as well so that it page re-sizes to
fit the text. Otherwise things just get messed up.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

"Andy Jacobs" wrote in message
>> Well, when I took a quick peek at the home page last night I honestly
>> thought you were having a laugh, but I was being rushed out so didn't
>> comment. I thought you were better than that.
>>
>> I'll only get accused of revengeful dissin' so I'll zip it.
>
> No, go for it!  My feeling is that if you can't stand the heat, get out of
> the kitchen.  I wouldn't give it out if I couldn't take it back.
>
> So you thought I was better than what?  From a design perspective, a 
> quality
> of code perspective?

The 800px fixed width is quite old fashioned from a coding and perspective.

I don't like the faint colours, particularly the orange, it all just looks 
like something from a Nintendo game.

Is the idea of the super-simple look to give the overall 'we are cheap' 
impression? Even if it is, I'm sure your CSS guy can invest a bit of time 
into screen stretch fluidity.

Take another look at your black footer. I highlighted it and found text that 
must have been 1px fonts. Looked like suspicious small print but it is 
actually a phone number & credit to Red Cat.

Zania from ChromeCat is the marketing wizard in my team, so I can't go 
judging your sales approach as it is a black hole to me.
I'm waiting for her additions & edits of the content, what's there now is my 
draft.

Dr John's comments summed up all the commercial stuff, so there is my 
opinion; Looks too cheap, given the title of your post I truly thought you 
bunged the home page together on DW in an hour to take the p*ss out of mine.

---dE|_---

On 15/12/07 2:24 pm, in article VsR8j.6965$ov2.900@newsfe5-win.ntli.net,
"dE|_"  wrote:

> 
> "Andy Jacobs" wrote in message
>>> Well, when I took a quick peek at the home page last night I honestly
>>> thought you were having a laugh, but I was being rushed out so didn't
>>> comment. I thought you were better than that.
>>> 
>>> I'll only get accused of revengeful dissin' so I'll zip it.
>> 
>> No, go for it!  My feeling is that if you can't stand the heat, get out of
>> the kitchen.  I wouldn't give it out if I couldn't take it back.
>> 
>> So you thought I was better than what?  From a design perspective, a
>> quality
>> of code perspective?
> 
> The 800px fixed width is quite old fashioned from a coding and perspective.
> 
> I don't like the faint colours, particularly the orange, it all just looks
> like something from a Nintendo game.
> 
> Is the idea of the super-simple look to give the overall 'we are cheap'
> impression? Even if it is, I'm sure your CSS guy can invest a bit of time
> into screen stretch fluidity.

You really need to look at what is current with regard to design.  I'd be
interested if you can come up with a list of 5 sites that you feel define
good design at this sort of level.  I'm talking about blue chips with shit
loads of content, just sites aimed at (possibly) both our target audiences.

> 
> Take another look at your black footer. I highlighted it and found text that
> must have been 1px fonts. Looked like suspicious small print but it is
> actually a phone number & credit to Red Cat.

I think that's fixed now I've changed to ems.  I can't see too much as I'm
on FF on a Mac and it looks fine.  I can't check on IE until Monday in the
office

> 
> Zania from ChromeCat is the marketing wizard in my team, so I can't go
> judging your sales approach as it is a black hole to me.
> I'm waiting for her additions & edits of the content, what's there now is my
> draft.
> 
> Dr John's comments summed up all the commercial stuff, so there is my
> opinion; Looks too cheap, given the title of your post I truly thought you
> bunged the home page together on DW in an hour to take the p*ss out of mine.

We'll see :o)

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

In uk.net.web.authoring message <C388889D.EDD1%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
, Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:23:09, Andy Jacobs 
posted:

>Next time, don't drive past, pop in.  We have a damn fine coffee machine and
>I can make the best Fairtrade, organic decaf this side of the Nantucket
>lightship (or should that be light-ship?)

I only visit places with working teapots.  And you shouldn't have been
working at that time on a Sunday evening.


The site has changed.

On <http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk/>, Zoom just changes the spacing of the
W3 icons; on <http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk/news>, the read headings on
the left also change.  Partial zooming is a sign of inconsistent design
or implementation.  OH!! that's not what I was meaning to re-view.

The site has changed, but not so much.


Top heading "Small Business Web Site Design" - IE6 standard size, the
bottom of the "g" is cut off.  Additionally, when Zoomed, the
"pictorial" aspect of that part degenerates.  Still no whitespace under
"site costing thousands of pounds.".  In !all browsers!  that should
read "... of pounds?".

At IE6 normal size, the tab labels, being centred in sufficient space,
look OK.  But Zoomed, they reach the edges.  ISTM you need either an
  at each end of each word, or some CSS padding.

It appears designed fixed-width in px.

Now an impoverished short-sighted reader will have a small display (in
inches) and maybe 800*600 px, but a rich long-sighted reader will have
both more inches and more px.  But their screens may well subtend equal
angles from their eyes.  If they Zoom so the text *appears* the same
size, they should get matching text composition, with the rich one
having smoother characters.  Opera Zoom seems to do that.

Evidently you cannot design for IE6 without having IE6!  And for IE7 the
above are all OK.


In "about" : para 3 - I'd have used five and four, not figures; YMMV.
Compare para 4 & 1 - SBWSD should be SBWSDC ?  Para 2 "companies
succeed" - personal preference "companies to succeed".  Shift bulleted
list right, rather than outdented??

In "prices" : para 2 "design fees and no hidden", I'd put "fees,".

I think you need to indicate what size site the standard charge covers.
It would be good to have that SBWSDC site itself be typical, in which
case it needs a contact form and a thank you page.  You could add a page
of sample statistics, headed something like "This is an example and
would not be shown publicly".

At the top, "No up front costs. Just ..." - IMHO, "up-front"; line-end
needs full stop.

At some IE7 zooms, in index.html, the text overlaps the coffee-cup
graphic.  Perhaps a margin could be styled - actually, I can't find the
graphic in View Source.  Also the text under "Standard Features" can
overlap.  IE7 bug?

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   IE 6.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
 PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
 Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

In uk.net.web.authoring message <C3889C5A.EDD6%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
, Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:47:22, Andy Jacobs 
posted:
>On 14/12/07 6:05 pm, in article
>UbarjmKeXsYHFwF5@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid, "Dr J R Stockton"
> wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.web.authoring message <C3875967.ED51%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
>> , Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:27, Andy Jacobs 
>> posted:

>> "PO9 1HS" has very small-looking digits on my machine; don't know why.
>> Other digits look OK.
>
>Georgia uses a sort of sub-script for numbers.  I like Georgia but the
>numbers are my least favourite bit.  Could that be the problem.

Yes; I think they overdid it.

>> You claim "make it legal".  You should know relevant UK/EU (and W3<g>)
>> law, but do you know, for example, Thai law?  Obviously you seek UK
>> business - it mat be illegal to exclude other EU (so you might need to
>> read up Polish law) - but ISTM that the claim is too broad to sustain.
>> It might be unsafe to put anything like "for UK businesses"; "for UK/EU"
>> might do.
>
>Hmmm...  I see your point but it could be over complicating things.  Have
>you seen the solicitor's Merry Christmas?  It's one of those "By accepting
>this Christmas wish you are accepting that there is no guarantee of a merry
>Christmas whether written or implied..." and goes on for about half a side
>of A4.  The point of this site is to open a dialogue, not to cross every t
>and dot every i.  There are loads of places that this could be picked up,
>I'm just not sure how appropriate it is to fix it.

I can't see how to do it both elegantly and compactly enough.  You do
give an 0845 phone number and not a +44, which is a hint for foreigners!

>> Is the site itself intended to be representative of what a customer
>> would get?  If so, that could be made explicit.
>
>No, it needn't be representative.

That might be useful - after all, you *are* a small business.

>  I've signed up 2 people this week and I'm
>hoping to have another 2 or 3 next week.  Once they're done I'll put a
>portfolio page on.

Yes, I saw the comment in the source.

>> Who will own the copyright of what?  I guess the
>> customer needs to own his own text and images, you need to own the code;
>> but who owns the aesthetics?
>
>I think that in the UK, the designer owns the copyright of everything bar
>the content, even if the client's paid for it.

But what if the client provided outline draft drawings of the pages?  He
might expect, then, to be able to take the site as you have made it and
transfer it to some other host; or Grocer Geoff might like to give a
copy to cousin Butcher Bill who might only change the words.  I don't
know the answers; but IMHO IANAL there needs to be a clear understanding
before work is started, and it *might* be appropriate to hint on the
site of the existence of copyright considerations.  At your prices, I
guess that you're intending to use little true innovation per customer,
even if all the sites look different.

Remember, you don't want to be in the right in a dispute with a
customer; you want instead to avoid the dispute entirely.


>> If I were commercial, I think I'd prefer to remove leading whitespace
>> from the served version, though perhaps not justifiable.  With adequate
>> tools, it should be the work of a moment to do.
>
>Sorry, I don't understand this bit at all?  What leading whitespace?

Shown in View Source.  The whitespace at the start of HTML lines does
not affect the display (if you avoid <pre>) but is transmitted albeit
maybe compressed.

All my pages are shown, frequently while editing, and just by typing TRY
at a command prompt (note - TRY is 3 adjacent letters!) to run a batch
file (which includes running TIDY).  The line
                   MT  /q /x     %1 / \s+$ = ""
removes (prompted) all trailing whitespace from the HTM files; ^\s+
should remove leading whitespace.  You probably don't know MT (MiniTrue)
but perhaps have other tools of that nature, SED for example.

The first time I did that, ISTR reducing the total filesize by at least
1% - not worth much, but worth the negligible effort.  Of course, your
editing process does not leave trailing whitespace.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   IE 6.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 I find MiniTrue useful for viewing/searching/altering files, at a DOS prompt;
 free, DOS/Win/UNIX, <URL:http://www.idiotsdelight.net/minitrue/> unsupported.

On 15/12/07 10:03 pm, in article C389FF9D.EEC2%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk,
"Andy Jacobs"  wrote:

> On 15/12/07 2:24 pm, in article VsR8j.6965$ov2.900@newsfe5-win.ntli.net,
> "dE|_"  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> "Andy Jacobs" wrote in message
 
> I'm talking about blue chips with shit
> loads of content, just sites aimed at (possibly) both our target audiences.


Sorry, that should have been "NOT talking about..."

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk