J
Jonty
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2
Hi Mr.47
- OS ~ Windows XP Home SP1
- Connection ~ 56k
- Resolution ~ 1024x768 with ClearType™ enabled
- Internet Explorer 6 SP1
- Mozilla 1.4a
- Mozilla 1.3
- Opera 7.03
U
[UKLans]Khan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #3
Yo,
OS: Windows XP Pro - SP1
Connection: 10MB
Res: 1024x768
Browser: IE 6 SP1
Comments:
Looks fine, everything how it should be
Khan
OS: Windows XP Pro - SP1
Connection: 10MB
Res: 1024x768
Browser: IE 6 SP1
Comments:
Looks fine, everything how it should be
Khan
M
mookie
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
osx 10.2.4 on my lurvely new ibook :>
mozilla 1.3 final and ie 5.2.2 both work fine
sometimes the simplest designs are the best
edit-
1024x768 and 1meg by cable
mozilla 1.3 final and ie 5.2.2 both work fine
sometimes the simplest designs are the best
edit-
1024x768 and 1meg by cable
M
Mr. 47
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
thanks,
would any one mind if I included your comments etc in my course work???
thanks again,
I'm supprised at mozilla, it usually messes up my sites...
would any one mind if I included your comments etc in my course work???
thanks again,
I'm supprised at mozilla, it usually messes up my sites...
J
Jonty
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
Since you've asked, here are a few comments Now please keep in mind that these are absolutely not criticisms. Everyone has their own way of working, so please don't take anything personally
In terms of the overall appearance, the site is easy to read and navigate. The use of emboldened headings and horizontal rules provides further structure, although I feel the news and events information (date, description etc) could be more clearly separated than it is at present (perhaps by borders around each section, or via different background colours etc).
The black and white colour scheme creates a high contrast environment, which can help to assist people with minor visual disabilities (sites with only minor differences in text colour and background colour can be illegible). The text can also be adjusted in size via the browsers, which further assists both disabled users and those people who merely prefer text at a specific size.
In terms of the source code, it's a shame the site doesn't validate to any specific standard. With only a few changes it could at very least validate as HTML 4.01 compliant, if nothing else. In fairness, I understand you may not be assessed on this kind of thing, but it doesn't hurt to try If you need a hand, just shout.
In terms of the scripting, I can only guess at what's going on behind the scenes. However, it does seem impressive and it runs without a hitch (It's even nice that if you break the ?page= query string, it doesn't all ground to a halt).
Finally, a couple of very few minor things. The date format isn't particularly standard (i.e. people are expected to read in words like 'of' and 'th'). Thus, you could still use the date() function, just with the more standardised syntax (i.e. 8 April, 2003). Also, "Todays Date:" should be "Today's date" with an apostrophe
Anyway, like I say, that's being excessively critical. Keep up the good work
Kind Regards
Now please keep in mind that these are absolutely not criticisms. Everyone has their own way of working, so please don't take anything personally In terms of the overall appearance, the site is easy to read and navigate. The use of emboldened headings and horizontal rules provides further structure, although I feel the news and events information (date, description etc) could be more clearly separated than it is at present (perhaps by borders around each section, or via different background colours etc).
The black and white colour scheme creates a high contrast environment, which can help to assist people with minor visual disabilities (sites with only minor differences in text colour and background colour can be illegible). The text can also be adjusted in size via the browsers, which further assists both disabled users and those people who merely prefer text at a specific size.
In terms of the source code, it's a shame the site doesn't validate to any specific standard. With only a few changes it could at very least validate as HTML 4.01 compliant, if nothing else. In fairness, I understand you may not be assessed on this kind of thing, but it doesn't hurt to try
If you need a hand, just shout.In terms of the scripting, I can only guess at what's going on behind the scenes. However, it does seem impressive and it runs without a hitch (It's even nice that if you break the ?page= query string, it doesn't all ground to a halt
).Finally, a couple of very few minor things. The date format isn't particularly standard (i.e. people are expected to read in words like 'of' and 'th'). Thus, you could still use the date() function, just with the more standardised syntax (i.e. 8 April, 2003). Also, "Todays Date:" should be "Today's date" with an apostrophe
Anyway, like I say, that's being excessively critical. Keep up the good work
Kind Regards
M
Mr. 47
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
well, were I come from the date is always written like that, maybe its the pubic school education round here but I like the date as it is, also there's not very much all tha special about the PHP, the only reason there's 'safety rope' on the page string is so i can use that page as an index... the rest i just basic PHP & MySQL, apart from one problem I had with MySQL date format...
returns 0, so I had to use:
Code:
date(Y-M-d);returns 0, so I had to use:
Code:
$mysql_date = date(Y_M_d);
$replace = "_";
$with = "-";
$mysql_date = str_replace($replace, $with, $mysql_date);
M
Mr. 47
Guest
- Thread starter
- #8
OK, thanks for all you comments but what I really need, after reading the CW help, is screen shots of the site, any page, in any browser or res, thanks Alex.