Evening all

Haven't been around for a while.  Good to see not a lot's changed.

The last year has been an interesting year in my education of running a 
business.  If anyone reading is thinking of taking someone on as a business 
partner then contact me first and I'll try and save you the blood, sweat, 
tears and cash that my education has cost me.

Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is 
born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on 
http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk

What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he 
less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the 
bit that I remain unconvinced about.

Hope everyone is well.

Andy Jacobs

On Jul 3, 7:47 am, "Insight Creative" 
wrote:
> Evening all
>
> Haven't been around for a while.  Good to see not a lot's changed.
>
> The last year has been an interesting year in my education of running a
> business.  If anyone reading is thinking of taking someone on as a business
> partner then contact me first and I'll try and save you the blood, sweat,
> tears and cash that my education has cost me.
>
> Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is
> born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts onhttp://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>
> What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he
> less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the
> bit that I remain unconvinced about.
>
> Hope everyone is well.
>
> Andy Jacobs

Hi Andy.
I have recently introduced some payed services into my Free Web Design
Online service, so I am in a similar boat with makeing sure everything
is a OK.
In terms of your new site, it looks quite good, although the text
seams quite small.
http://freewebdesignonline.org is my latest effort.
Mind you, I don't think I even had the domain name last time you
posted and I would not have had the website hosting and domain name
service set-up.
--
Regards Chad.

In uk.net.web.authoring message <a4-dnUxc6fpFt9DXnZ2dnUVZ8hudnZ2d@bt.com
>, Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:47:06, Insight Creative 
posted:

>http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>
>What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he
>less common browsers.

Try Firefox (I have 3.0.11) with View, Zoom, Zoom Text Only, zoomed in a
lot.  Or Safari 4.0.

Try Chrome, zoomed out a lot, though that should not much matter.

Should a questionnaire require Word?

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
 Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

At 22:47:06 on Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Insight Creative 
 wrote in 
:

>I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on
>http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>
>What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he
>less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the
>bit that I remain unconvinced about.

I'm afraid I've got bog-standard Firefox 3 - but the "you" of "hello how 
are you?" overlaps the first two lines of text unless I enable 
Javascript.

 From a personal-aesthetic angle, while the sky/clouds effect is very 
clever, I would quickly get bored with it when trying to find hard 
information on the site and discovering that a quarter of my screen (or 
considerably more at 800x600) is blocked.  Have you thought about 
confining it to the Home Page only, and letting other pages scroll 
normally?  Sure, making it fixed provides easy access to the menu even 
after getting to the bottom of the page - but there's plenty of room in 
the footer to include a wee text-only menu, to save people from having 
to scroll back up again.  Just a thought!
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
news:qXfWOFIzYlTKFweA@molly.mockford...
> At 22:47:06 on Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Insight Creative 
>  wrote in 
> :
>
>>I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on
>>http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>>
>>What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he
>>less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the
>>bit that I remain unconvinced about.
>
> I'm afraid I've got bog-standard Firefox 3 - but the "you" of "hello how 
> are you?" overlaps the first two lines of text unless I enable Javascript.

Hmm... the css fallback from the sIFR is obviously not quite right.
>
> From a personal-aesthetic angle, while the sky/clouds effect is very 
> clever, I would quickly get bored with it when trying to find hard 
> information on the site and discovering that a quarter of my screen (or 
> considerably more at 800x600) is blocked.  Have you thought about 
> confining it to the Home Page only, and letting other pages scroll 
> normally?  Sure, making it fixed provides easy access to the menu even 
> after getting to the bottom of the page - but there's plenty of room in 
> the footer to include a wee text-only menu, to save people from having to 
> scroll back up again.  Just a thought!

I know what you mean.  It's a neat trick but, having lived with the site for 
a few days, even I view it as a bit of a cheap trick.

Thanks for the feedback (everyone!)

Andy Jacobs
www.builtwithinsight.co.uk

At 20:16:25 on Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Insight Creative 
 wrote in 
:

>I know what you mean.  It's a neat trick but, having lived with the site for
>a few days, even I view it as a bit of a cheap trick.

And just wait till you get a series of clients, all wanting you to do 
exactly the same thing on every page of their sites! ;-)
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

"Insight Creative"  writes:
<snip>
> Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is 
> born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on 
> http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>
> What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he 
> less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the 
> bit that I remain unconvinced about.

Firefox 3.0.11 and Epiphany (uses the same rending engine) I can't see
any of the heading text (it's a coloured rectangle).  If I turn JS off
I see it, but then the Featured Works are all listed and the layout is
rather odd.

IE8: the "you" overlaps the following text.

IE6: the layout is odd.

IE7: fine.  I'm guessing you use IE7!

-- 
Ben.

Insight Creative wrote:
> Evening all
> 
> Haven't been around for a while.  Good to see not a lot's changed.
> 
> The last year has been an interesting year in my education of running a 
> business.  If anyone reading is thinking of taking someone on as a business 
> partner then contact me first and I'll try and save you the blood, sweat, 
> tears and cash that my education has cost me.
> 
> Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is 
> born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on 
> http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
> 
> What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he 
> less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the 
> bit that I remain unconvinced about.
> 
> Hope everyone is well.
> 
> Andy Jacobs 
> 
> 

Well, my browser is a bit unusual - Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; 
en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090218 Firefox/2.0.0.19

That's running on Sun workstation running Solaris 10

As others have commented, that silly scroling with the sky would soon 
get irritating.

The site looks good, but the next in several parts is invisible, unless 
I try to highlight it. These bits are all invidible

1) Home page ok.

2) Word format is a no-no as far as I am concerned. At least make it 
available as an open-office file, too.


3) Much of th next is hidden, and only shown when highlighted.
* On the 'About who we are' there's an oragnage bar at the top, and 
green and orange rectangles on the right. The text in them can't be see, 
but if I run the mouse over it, like you would when cut/pasting, then it 
can be seen.

4) Text being hidden is on most pages.

5) Why not submit it to the W3C validators, then it should work on anything.





* quote from Helen Kent, Gate-A-Mation

-- 
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange'  take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches.

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:17:08 +0100, Dave  wrote:

>5) Why not submit it to the W3C validators, then it should work on anything.

In an ideal world, yes.

There are no significant errors on the page AFAICS

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:47:06 +0100, "Insight Creative"
 wrote:

>Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is 
>born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on 
>http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk


I like the cute little bird.

Just as long as people don't think you're 'cheep'.


gd&rlf

"Ben Bacarisse"  wrote in message 
news:0.df77da5ea858573a07b2.20090704003509BST.874ottnxw2.fsf@bsb.me.uk...
> "Insight Creative"  writes:
> <snip>
>> Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is
>> born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on
>> http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>>
>> What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of 
>> he
>> less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the
>> bit that I remain unconvinced about.
>
> Firefox 3.0.11 and Epiphany (uses the same rending engine) I can't see
> any of the heading text (it's a coloured rectangle).  If I turn JS off
> I see it, but then the Featured Works are all listed and the layout is
> rather odd.
>
> IE8: the "you" overlaps the following text.
>
> IE6: the layout is odd.
>
> IE7: fine.  I'm guessing you use IE7!

Actually, no.  I'm using FF3.0.11 as well on a PC and it looks fine.  Also 
looks fine on the office on IE8, and on FF and Safari on a Mac.  It's the 
sIFR so I think I might get rid of that and go back to a web safe font.  I 
think there's a problem using older versions of sIFR on Flash Player 10 and 
with newer versions on Flash Player 9.

What version of Flash Player are you using?

Andy

"Dave"  wrote in message news:4a503757@212.67.96.135...

> 2) Word format is a no-no as far as I am concerned. At least make it 
> available as an open-office file, too.

I run Open Office on my Mac and it opens Word files with no problem.  What 
we wanted was for people to be able to fill them in and e-mail them back. 
Word seemed the obvious choice.

Andy

Geoff Berrow wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:17:08 +0100, Dave  wrote:
> 
>> 5) Why not submit it to the W3C validators, then it should work on anything.
> 
> In an ideal world, yes.
> 
> There are no significant errors on the page AFAICS

Well, on my browser they are VERY significant, as I can't read a lot of 
the text unless I click the text, then move the mouse along it.

But as I say, my setup, with a Sun running Solaris is not that common. 
But the OP did want feedback fromp people running unusual browsers.

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Insight Creative"  writes:
> <snip>
>> Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is 
>> born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on 
>> http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>>
>> What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with some of he 
>> less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the 
>> bit that I remain unconvinced about.
> 
> Firefox 3.0.11 and Epiphany (uses the same rending engine) I can't see
> any of the heading text (it's a coloured rectangle). 

Same here, with my firefox runnign on my Sun workstation. I posted 
details easlier, but we seem to have the same issue.

"Insight Creative"  writes:

> "Ben Bacarisse"  wrote in message
> news:0.df77da5ea858573a07b2.20090704003509BST.874ottnxw2.fsf@bsb.me.uk...
>> "Insight Creative"  writes:
>> <snip>
>>> Any road up, Redcat is now just a holding company and Insight Creative is
>>> born.  I'd be interested to know the panel's thoughts on
>>> http://www.builtwithinsight.co.uk
>>>
>>> What I'd be most interested in is whether anyone out there with
>>> some of he
>>> less common browsers.  The site uses sIFR for the headings and that's the
>>> bit that I remain unconvinced about.
>>
>> Firefox 3.0.11 and Epiphany (uses the same rending engine) I can't see
>> any of the heading text (it's a coloured rectangle).  If I turn JS off
>> I see it, but then the Featured Works are all listed and the layout is
>> rather odd.
>>
>> IE8: the "you" overlaps the following text.
>>
>> IE6: the layout is odd.
>>
>> IE7: fine.  I'm guessing you use IE7!
>
> Actually, no.  I'm using FF3.0.11 as well on a PC and it looks fine.

How odd.  Well, you have another data point, for it's worth.

> Also looks fine on the office on IE8, and on FF and Safari on a Mac.

I should have said it was fine in Safari, sorry.  The IE8 rendering
is, now I think about it, without Flash.  I do IE6,7,8 in VMs and
installing everything on every one is real pain and I think I have not
done Flash on the IE8 one yet.
 
> It's the sIFR so I think I might get rid of that and go back to a web
> safe font.  I think there's a problem using older versions of sIFR on
> Flash Player 10 and with newer versions on Flash Player 9.

It seems to be more trouble than it is worth, at least if this is a
typical use-case.

> What version of Flash Player are you using?

On FF: 10.0 r12 (Linux port, of course).
>
> Andy 
>

-- 
Ben.

Insight Creative wrote:
> 
> "Dave"  wrote in message news:4a503757@212.67.96.135...
> 
>> 2) Word format is a no-no as far as I am concerned. At least make it 
>> available as an open-office file, too.
> 
> I run Open Office on my Mac and it opens Word files with no problem.  
> What we wanted was for people to be able to fill them in and e-mail them 
> back. Word seemed the obvious choice.
> 
> Andy

RTF is probably preferred, or offer several alternatives... Or perhaps 
just provide and online form.

The majority of people will be able to handle Word documents perfectly 
well, but it might inflame a small minority...

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:50:33 +0100, Dave  wrote:

>Geoff Berrow wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:17:08 +0100, Dave  wrote:
>> 
>>> 5) Why not submit it to the W3C validators, then it should work on anything.
>> 
>> In an ideal world, yes.
>> 
>> There are no significant errors on the page AFAICS
>
>Well, on my browser they are VERY significant, as I can't read a lot of 
>the text unless I click the text, then move the mouse along it.

I meant as far as the validator is concerned.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:22:15 +0100, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

> Should a questionnaire require Word?

Especially a questionnaire whose results are emailed back - why couldn't 
it all be done by a simple web form?

I know why some people might do it that way, but not anyone who's trying 
to sell their services as a web design expert. Unless it's a sledgehammer/
nut anti-spam measure?

-- 
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk  ==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

"anahata"  wrote in message 
news:X_qdnbJLErD7DcnXnZ2dnUVZ8sli4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:22:15 +0100, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
>> Should a questionnaire require Word?
>
> Especially a questionnaire whose results are emailed back - why couldn't
> it all be done by a simple web form?
>
> I know why some people might do it that way, but not anyone who's trying
> to sell their services as a web design expert. Unless it's a sledgehammer/
> nut anti-spam measure?

Or it could just be that giving them a Word document to fill in and e-mail 
back gives them the opportunity to sit down and give well considered answers 
involving others instead if trying to get the online form filled in in one 
session.

Andy

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:04:31 +0100, "Insight Creative"
 wrote:

>Or it could just be that giving them a Word document to fill in and e-mail 
>back gives them the opportunity to sit down and give well considered answers 
>involving others instead if trying to get the online form filled in in one 
>session.

In which case an "editable PDF form" is more accessible (in both
disability and software availability terms) than a Word document. Even
an RTF document would be better than a Word one.