Site critique please

[annc]

I'm redoing a site that I first designed many years ago, and have the design and content of the home page ready for critique (http://www.dressageit.com/nagstest). It validates with the W3C, gets a 100 score on sitening and displays as expected in Safari and Firefox on the Mac, and in Firefox, Opera and Mozilla on my Windows box.

But in IE6 (of course) there are a couple of problems. For a start, the right-hand column of pics sits up into the top banner; also, if I narrow the window, the entire centre column jumps down below the left-hand menu; and the flyout menu (hover over Events to see this) is in small text. It is the same size as the main menu in all other browsers.

I'm sure I knew once how to stop the centre column sliding down in IE6, but can't remember how. The other problems in IE are a mystery to me.

Any critical comments and advice welcome.

[annc]

Oh, forgot to mention – the links don't work yet.

[terrie]

annc: Oh, forgot to mention – the links don't work yet.LOL!!! I was just going to post that it looks great in Netscape 7.2 but the links don't work...'-}}

Some small things:

1. Intro section: "These facilities..." is indented. Intentionally?


2. In the "Training Events" section: "Many of our members..." is indented. Intentionally? Also, is "These events..." supposed to be a para on its own or is it is sentence in the "Many of our members..." para??

3. In the "Training Events" section: "Pony dressage..." is indented. Intentionally?


Aussie terminology question: "There are about 200 stables of solid construction on the grounds..."

Here in the States, "stables" means the building. What we would say is "there are about 200 stalls of solid construction on the grounds" perhaps adding "in X number of barns/stables"...

Sooo..."stables" refers to individual horse containers ('-}}) of some sort???

Oh! One last comment...great pics! Yours?

Terrie

[annc]

Some small things:

1. Intro section: "These facilities..." is indented. Intentionally?


2. In the "Training Events" section: "Many of our members..." is indented. Intentionally? Also, is "These events..." supposed to be a para on its own or is it is sentence in the "Many of our members..." para??

3. In the "Training Events" section: "Pony dressage..." is indented. Intentionally?Yes to all. Same as in print – First para after a head is flush left, all paras after that are indented. http://desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/images/smilies/wink.gif


Aussie terminology question: "There are about 200 stables of solid construction on the grounds..."

Here in the States, "stables" means the building. What we would say is "there are about 200 stalls of solid construction on the grounds" perhaps adding "in X number of barns/stables"...

Sooo..."stables" refers to individual horse containers ('-}}) of some sort???Here they can be either. I tend to say 'box' where you say 'stall', because a stall is usually what you get at the racetrack, where there is no space for the horse to turn around. 'box' is short for 'loose box'. But stable can mean either an individual box or a stable block. We usually do say 'stable block', but not always.

Oh! One last comment...great pics! Yours?Yes - all mine! Thanks.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

displays as expected in Safari and Firefox on the Mac, and in Firefox, Opera and Mozilla on my Windows box

I can't offer advice on the design details, but not showing right on 90% of people's screens (simple IE 6 users) would seem to be a fault: Firefox and Opera users should be considered, but not necessarily preferentially.

On the content, a small but to me important niggle: if you want to say that the arena measures 70 m by 30 m, an x is not a good substitute for a multiplication sign (though it looks similar in sans serif), and 70x30 m is not the way to express an area. It should be 70 m × 30 m.

You Australian dressage riders do yourselves well!

[annc]

I can't offer advice on the design details, but not showing right on 90% of people's screens (simple IE 6 users) would seem to be a fault: Firefox and Opera users should be considered, but not necessarily preferentially.I agree, Michael. that's why I've asked for help! http://desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/images/smilies/wink.gif I used to know the fix for this, but have forgotten it.

[terrie]

annc: Yes to all. Same as in print – First para after a head is flush left, all paras after that are indented.Ahhh...thought that might be what's going on...I'm a flush left person myself...somewhere along the line I stopped indenting...

That said, then shouldn't "These events are also..." be indented???


>>Here they can be either. I tend to say 'box' where you say 'stall',

Interesting...we don't use "box" but I know what it means from reading.


>>because a stall is usually what you get at the racetrack, where there is no space for the horse to turn around. 'box' is short for 'loose box'.

Even more interesting because we'd call that a "standing stall" (not seen much here in the States now) and all of them at the race track are full sized boxes/stalls...


>>But stable can mean either an individual box or a stable block. We usually do say 'stable block', but not always.

I'll remember that...I've seen "stable block" in books but it's not a common term here...

Ain't English grand!!! LOL!!!


>>Yes - all mine! Thanks.

You're welcome...you've got a nice mix on the page...what are you shooting with these days? I'm really pleased with the Canon Rebel XT I bought...it's soooo nice to have an slr and being digital just sweetens the deal...'-}}

Terrie

[iamback]

I'm sure I knew once how to stop the centre column sliding down in IE6, but can't remember how. The other problems in IE are a mystery to me.

Any critical comments and advice welcome.Looking (first) with Mozilla 1.7 on Win2K...

First thing that jumps out to me is that you have some elements (like headings) that have a white background, the page (body/html) does not. Makes for a pretty messy look! The second screen shot shows how the white background of a heading even continues "under" the image. (See attachments 1 & 2.) If you want a page to have a white background you must define it that way, otherwise it will be whatever the visitor has set as their default window background (off-white for me, easier on my eyes).

Second thing I notice: the flush/indented paras you are using may be the common thing in print but is an exception on the web, where the normal way is to have all flush-left paras with some whitespace between them. There is a reason for that: a page on the web needs to be "scannable" and for that the eye needs things to "land" on. Using simple paragraph blocks makes it easier for they eye to "track" down a block of text and land on individual paragraphs. For online text it's also harder for the eye to track along lines, and having separated paragraphs makes this easier, too. Reading online (on screen) is not the same thing as reading print - different "rules" apply. Indeed on your page I find it very hard to actually read the text, the large leadingmakes it even harder to see any paragraphs at all.

Third: I don't like the amount of whitespace between the masthead and the first h3 heading, especially with the photographs on the right starting higher - I'd give both the same top margin so they line up - and possibly do teh same for the menu on the left.

Fourth: irregular image placement. The first big image (under "Dressage Activities") starts right under the h4 heading but sticks out over the h5 heading; and it seems to have a right margin, so it's not flush right. The result looks rather messy to me. The second large image (under "Pony Dressage") starts right under that heading and is flush left, no extra margin there. So I'd at least make the first image flush right within the block. Preferably also start under the h5 heading, not the h4 one. Giving both a top margin so the top is flush with the top of the paragraph might look even better. You could "tie" the images to the paragraphs by nesting them inside the paragraph and then float them, giving them a top margin of zero or maybe a few pixels to visually line them up with the top of the paragraph. Same for the first picture on the page. But this is a matter of taste, mainly.

Fifth: Even more taste: I don't like how the page footer suddenly extends over two columns - I'd either have it across all three columns or only the middle one. And there's an awful lot of whitespace there between the line (border) and the text but none at all between the text and the bottom. (Attachment 3.)

Those are all things that are immediately apparent to me, without looking at any code at all (though I did look at some of the HTML to check upon what my eyes were noting).

Now... as to some of the problems you mention. First, I find your CSS somewhat hard to read with the "hacks" in there, so I'm not sure what is active and not (I never use hacks, period) and my suggestions may not apply or work.

1. The smaller text on the flyout menu is probably caused by this: * html ul li {
float: left; height: 1%;
font-size: .8em;
(...) IE (and possibly other browsers!) will interpret that so a nested li will have .8 the fontsize of its containing element. You may correct that with:
li li {
font-size: 100%;
} Put this after the first li rule. That states that the font size of a nested li element will have the same size as whatever li it's nested in. (You'd get the same problem with nested tables, and the solution is analogous, only slightly more complicated.) Another note about the menu: "Home" should not be a link on the home page (not even one that leads to the same page!).

2. Placement of the images on the right. (Is this block intended for more navigation? If not, why call that block "rightnav"?) I note that you have a negative top margin here; negative margins tend to be problematic. This probably causes the problem in IE with the block "going up". You will have more control over vertical placement if you wrap the whole page content (all three columns, or only content and right sidebar) within a "wrapper" div. You could use this to control even spacing with respect to the page head by giving it a specific top margin, and giving it a padding of zero. The right sidebar could then simply be floated right. (In theory, at least - test!)

3. The content column is much narrower in IE (5.01) than in Mozilla, and there's a lot of space between that column and the righthand sidebar - probably also the result of the negative right margin. (Negative right margin? I don't even know how to interpret that! Extend beyond the browser window? What do you expect that to do?) This probably also causes weird behavior when you make the window narrower. Looks like IE does a different calculation for what width the center column should have (it looks like it gets the width of the widest image in it), and when that becomes larger than there is space for in the window it naturally pops down below the menu.

4. The h3 does not have so much whitespace above it in IE as it has in Mozilla. Same for the h1 in the page head: there is quite a top margin in Mozilla (so it doesn't line up with the logo) that doesn't show in IE. The cause is that different browsers have different internal stylesheets: some give headings a top margin, some don't. Solve by setting an explicit top margin (and other margins if needed) for headings - you have none defined now so you get whatever a browser has defined in its internal stylesheet.

5. In IE there is a different space between the (rather blurry!) logo and the headings in the top area. Looks like the image has a padding-right of 20 pixels; try making that a margin instead.

I also had a quickie look with Opera 7.23 - it combines some of the problems of IE and Moz: images on the right moving up into the page head, yet other values for heading margins in its internal stylesheet. And where both Moz and IE have a little space between each of the sidebar images, Opera does not; a little space is better, and you could get it by giving the images there an explicit bottom margin. But Opera also tries to be "bug-complatible" with IE, but doesn't succeed completely - which makes it hard to tweak for. I tend to tweak (minimally) for IE and then accept what it looks like in Opera, unless it's way off.

I could probably come up with more, but as you start to tweak, other things will happen as a result, and whatever I come up with may no longer apply... and we've got to keep you busy :D

[annc]

Ahhh...thought that might be what's going on...I'm a flush left person myself...somewhere along the line I stopped indenting...Well, when you do magazines for a living, indenting becomes second nature, and flush left with a space above looks a bit like word-processing. http://desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/images/smilies/wink.gif

That said, then shouldn't "These events are also..." be indented???Indeed it should! Thanks for picking that up – on all my screens, the new para didn't show at standard width, and when I narrowed the window, I was watching the behaviour of the top text and photo.

Ain't English grand!!! LOL!!!Indeed! Life would be far less interesting if we all spoke it the same way.

what are you shooting with these days? I'm really pleased with the Canon Rebel XT I bought...it's soooo nice to have an slr and being digital just sweetens the deal...'-}}I'm using an Olympus E-20P, which I bought nearly three years ago. It is very forgiving, and I get some great action shots with it. The lens (as always with Olympus) is very good quality, but I badly need more zoom to get decent shots from a greater distance. I find I have to stand at B or E (half way along the arena) to get 8 x 10 photos after cropping that are mostly horse and rider, and this is what I need to sell them.

The indoor at Nambour is notoriously difficult for photographs, because it is actually open-sided, and has only the minimum of artificial lighting, with darkish skylights. So anything inside tends to be underexposed unless you stop right down, and then you get blurred movement and overexposed external backgrounds, which is not what you want for dressage. At the international event (CDI-W) last year, I was very disappointed with the results, but this photo (http://www.dressageaustralia.com.au), where I carefully worked on the horse and rider in Photoshop, shows how the Olympus lens gives minimal artifacts under quite difficult conditions. When I e-mailed the mother of the rider asking permission to use the photo there, she liked it so much she bought it! I did warn her I couldn't provide a high res version, but she bought it anyway and was very happy with the prints she got from it at a photo lab.

[annc]

Thanks for all that constructive criticism, Marjolein. You have given me a lot to think about (and work on!)

[Kelvyn]

I can't add to Marjolein's comments (although I disagree with never having a link to the home page on the homepage, as it has SEO value), but I could not believe my eyes when I first looked at the page. A nag in the UK is an old horse, ready for the knackers or glue factory.............

[annc]

but I could not believe my eyes when I first looked at the page. A nag in the UK is an old horse, ready for the knackers or glue factory.............Yes, it's a play on words. The club tries not to take itself too seriously.

[iamback]

I disagree with never having a link to the home page on the homepage, as it has SEO value I could imagine SEO value if the "Home" link on the home page were a fully-qualified URL. In this case, the href is to "#" - and try as I might, I can't see the SEO value of that. It's not as though the link description "Home" is a valuable keyword, is it? If it does have SEO value, please explain!

Still, I'd always put usability for humans before SEO value - and a link that leads to where you already are is simply confusing and wasting time.

[annc]

As I mentioned in my reply to my original message, none of the links work at the moment. I 'borrowed' that menu from another page, and had only fiddled with the menu text to get it to appear on the page. Most of the other pages don't even exist yet.

[Kelvyn]

I could imagine SEO value if the "Home" link on the home page were a fully-qualified URL.

Google has recommended (via Matt Cutts) that all homepage menu links should be fully qualified. The suggestion was that it makes spidering the site quicker and simpler - it does also appear to help with internal distribution of PR.

That is just a side issue, though.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

There are about 200 stables of solid construction on the grounds, as well as several yards.

I should have said '200 [loose] boxes . . .' rather than stables, but in England we don't speak your lingo. I even doubt if there are two hundred stables in and around Newmarket (and probably no dressage horses), each having a 'stable yard'.

[Michael Rowley]

Kelvyn:

A nag in the UK is an old horse

Not among riders, Kelvyn: a £50 000 dressage horse may be called a 'nag' by its owner, as often as not. In north Germany it would be 'mein Bock', and in south Germany 'mein Gaul', both rather deprecatory terms that may upset some people.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

Thanks for all that constructive criticism, Marjolein

I must say that I don't see many of them, viewing the page in Opera. I see perfectly well laid-out text and pictures against an all-white background. The heading directly under the other heading should not, I think, have so much space above it, but on this single page it's not something that stands out.

The custom of indenting the first line of a paragraph is one that is not so firmly fixed on the European continent as in England, but having a space before each paragraph would introduce too much white. I think the paragraphing is perfick.

[dthomsen8]

Google has recommended (via Matt Cutts) that all homepage menu links should be fully qualified. The suggestion was that it makes spidering the site quicker and simpler - it does also appear to help with internal distribution of PR.

Does that work out during development in Dreamweaver MX 2004? I am not sure I would want to do that at all, and probably not until development were substantially done.

[Kelvyn]

Does that work out during development in Dreamweaver MX 2004?

Of course, unless you are developing purely on a local server. In which case just enter the full url in the code when publishing the final version.

[iamback]

Google has recommended (via Matt Cutts) that all homepage menu links should be fully qualified. The suggestion was that it makes spidering the site quicker and simplerSure, I can understand that. But why should there be a link on the homepage to the homepage? How would that have SEO value (if all other pages link to the homepage and use a fully-qualified link for that)? I think it's just plain bad usability. I'd use the same wording and layout, but not make it a link - on any page that the menu item is for - thus giving the user an extra clue for "Where am I?".

it does also appear to help with internal distribution of PR.What is "internal distribution of PR", please? Is this about usability (and Public Relations) or about SEO (and Page Rank)? I don't understand the term "internal distribution".

[Kelvyn]

Is this about usability (and Public Relations) or about SEO (and Page Rank)? I don't understand the term "internal distribution".

Page Rank. Many sites have a higher PR for the index page than for other pages. The theory is that PR is better distributed by full urls.

[iamback]

Ann:
"Thanks for all that constructive criticism, Marjolein"

I must say that I don't see many of them, viewing the page in Opera. I see perfectly well laid-out text and pictures against an all-white background. The heading directly under the other heading should not, I think, have so much space above it, but on this single page it's not something that stands out. What version on Opera on which platform? Note that most of my comments were based on viewing in Mozilla 1.7 - I always start with that because it's the most CSS-compliant browser on Windows. I also pointed out that Opera (at least version 7) sets out to be bug-compatible with IE, which means that it has many of the same CSS-layout flaws that IE has. Tweaking for IE mostly means Opera will then display most things correctly as well. And "tweaking" does not mean making the code invalid, or adding hacks - just taking the layout difference and bugs in IE into account and work around them to the extent that is possible.

So if you don't see many of the things I mentioned, that could be entirely due to the fact that Opera "emulates" IE, bugs and all, while I mention first the things that jump out at me in the most standards-compliant browser. To get a reliable layout, that's what you need to start with, and make sure both your HTML and CSS is valid, and only then do whatever tweaks are necessary to work around the bugs in IE and Opera. If you try to do it the other way round, you'll find it's actually a lot more work. So that's why I start with mentioning the problems I see in Mozilla, then look with IE, and only then with Opera.

But the "extra space" above the h3 heading is something that does stand out for me (it's about the first thing I note! - but my eyes are trained to look for things "lining up"). My point here was - and this is a very important point - that this is not a bug anywhere, in any browser, or even in the stylesheet. It's just a problem of not explicitly defining a top margin (or any margin) for the heading. And if you don't you'll get the browser default, and browser defaults differ. Meaning you can never reliably line things up if you leave it to the browser to use its own default.

That's just one very obvious example, but browsers differ more in their internal stylesheets so it's something to take into account if you want to have CSS layout as consistent as possible between browsers: don't leave things to browser defaults (since you can't count on them), but be specific about what you want. This is not about bugs, it's simply about consistency - consistency you'll need if you want to line up elements on a page.

The custom of indenting the first line of a paragraph is one that is not so firmly fixed on the European continent as in England, but having a space before each paragraph would introduce too much white. I think the paragraphing is perfick."Having a space before each paragraph" sounds like you mean a whole blank line. But there's no need for that. To allow the eye to "land" on each paragraph and help with "tracking" lines across the page, you just need some whitespace between paragraphs that is (visually) more than the leading between the lines; in your stylesheet you can define exactly how much whitespace you allow between paragraphs, no need for a whole blank line.

[annc]

boxes . . .' rather than stables, but in England we don't speak your lingo. I even doubt if there are two hundred stables in and around Newmarket (and probably no dressage horses), each having a 'stable yard'.Sure, but the target audience will perfectly understand what I'm talking about here. http://desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/images/smilies/wink.gif

And I think you would be somewhat surprised if you checked – there are probably quite a few dressage horses in the Newmarket area. A friend spent several months working in a dressage and showing yard near Newmarket in the seventies, and dressage is a lot more popular now than it was then.

[annc]

It's just a problem of not explicitly defining a top margin (or any margin) for the heading. And if you don't you'll get the browser default, and browser defaults differ. Meaning you can never reliably line things up if you leave it to the browser to use its own default.Thank you for that. I was allowing the browsers to determine the top margin, and it is too large in all of them (and different, as you say). Silly of me not to work that out, because I actually worked out what was happening with the bottom margin in the h4 yesterday when I tried setting it to get it to sit closer to the line below, and discovered that a margin-bottom: 0 worked. I will be working on fixing all the problems today (did some serious lunching yesterday) and will post back here later.

[annc]

I think the paragraphing is perfick.Thank you, Michael.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

the target audience will perfectly understand what I'm talking about here

I was criticising, just surprised. There may be dressage horses around Newmarket, but the district is expensive, and you don't need large flat fields for gallops; of course economics isn't such a factor for dressage.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

Your comments about the background colour surprised me: I thought the background was white, viewed in Opera (8.5, I think; I dowloaded it recently).

The space between headings is always a problem if the layout program doesn't intervene helpfully. You can fix the spacing before & after for each heading, and if you like complication, you can have solutions for, say, H3 directly following H2, but often the desire for simplicity wins.

I never said anything about a line of space between paragraphs. I myself never have more than 6 p inter-paragraph spacing, but you often don't get the choice. I prefer no space, just a slightly indented first line (about 1 em). For display, the rules are different, of course, but it seems to me that Ann has aimed for (and got) a restrained text effect.

It seems to me that browsers shouldn't affect the display of pages on the Web, but SGML and its cut-down versions do seem to encourage that.

[iamback]

Your comments about the background colour surprised me: I thought the background was white, viewed in Opera (8.5, I think; I dowloaded it recently). You won't see it if you have your Windows window color set to white. If the background color isn't defined in the web page (either in HTML or in the CSS), then - in Windows at least - what the visitor (and designer!) will get is whatever is set up in the Windows color scheme as the default window color. All graphical browsers I know behave the same in this respect. Many, many designers never notice they're missing something because they have their window color set as white. (Now imagine what happens when someone with vision problems lands on such a site - who has a high-contrast color scheme with yellow characters on a black background...) Try changing your own window background to something else than white and browse with that for a week or so - you'll be stunned how many sites are missing something essential!


right-click on the desktop
Properties
Appearance tab
Item: Window
You get two color controls, one for the window (background), one for the text (foreground)
Choose at least for the background something that's not too obnoxious (so you can stand it for a week) but clearly different from white. (My off-white is RGB 247,245,242)
Save As... and give your new scheme a name, like "Web test". That way you'll be able to pick it again if you need it later.
OK


I never said anything about a line of space between paragraphs. I myself never have more than 6 p inter-paragraph spacing, but you often don't get the choice. With CSS you always get the choice. Besides, while I said that for on-screen reading it's better to have paragraphs separated by a little extra whitespace, you can still get rid of that for printing - simply by defining a print stylesheet.

It seems to me that browsers shouldn't affect the display of pages on the Web, but SGML and its cut-down versions do seem to encourage that.They have to. A page should display legibly without any stylesheet at all (an important test a designer must never forget) - which means a browser must have an internal stylesheet with default font faces, sizes, lineheights, and padding and margin for all elements. And there are no rules other than that it should be legible. The web never would have taken off without this! Allowing designers to override what browsers already did on their own (because they must) was a later development (causing much grief, alas).

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

Try changing your own window background to something else than white

I wouldn't dream of it. 'White' is what whoever made your computer screen aimed at when the screen was manufactured (and has probably changed slightly since then; it's what sunlight gives—and what an incandescent lamp gives, although it differs. I short, it is what you're used to at the time. Most people expect a white background, unless it's obviously tinted; I'm not surprised it's the default for any sane operating system, including Windows (if you regard it as one).

With CSS you always get the choice

That's nice of it—of course it does! I'm not saying that indenting paragraphs is better as a rule, because there's no rule, but just that it seems to me appropriate for Ann's particular layout. It would be absurd to lay down the law about viewing on screen and viewing as print. Admittedly, for the brash, lurid style of statement often found in Web pages, merely indenting a first line, even exaggeratedly, may get overlooked.

[iamback]

"Try changing your own window background to something else than white"

I wouldn't dream of it. 'White' is what whoever made your computer screen aimed at when the screen was manufactured (and has probably changed slightly since then; it's what sunlight gives—and what an incandescent lamp gives, although it differs. I short, it is what you're used to at the time. Most people expect a white background, unless it's obviously tinted; I'm not surprised it's the default for any sane operating system, including Windows (if you regard it as one). I only suggested that as a test - and as an easy way to test web pages for one thing easily assumed but often forgotten: that not everyone uses a white background. Using it as a test for a little while would give you an idea how many designers, even professional ones, fall into the trap of that false assumption.

The off-white I'm using comes with Windows as one of the standard choices, actually. For many people (including me) black on white on-screen provides a too great contrast and is very tiring on the eye - especially if you spend a lot of time reading on-screen. The very slight diference of that off-whit eactually makes it a lot easier. Many people do set their own color schemes, and not just for esthetic reasons - designers often forget this, and may create pages that are actually quite unusable or totally unreadable for people while they are totally unaware of the problem (like you were, because you didn't see it either :)).

Even if I would prefer a white background (which I don't), I would leave my window background at off-white, simply as a fool-proof way to detect errors.

[annc]

I only suggested that as a test - and as an easy way to test web pages for one thing easily assumed but often forgotten: that not everyone uses a white background. Using it as a test for a little while would give you an idea how many designers, even professional ones, fall into the trap of that false assumption.Indeed, and I am eternally grateful that you do that, because I had indeed inexplicably forgotten to set the body background to white, something I have always done, even back in the days before I used CSS. So you picked up my oversight, and I thank you!

[ktinkel]

… I had indeed inexplicably forgotten to set the body background to white …I forget that as well sometimes, but do usually set body background: transparent.

The reason is lost in the mists of ancient practice. Maybe Marjolein or someone can tell me why I do that (and if I need to continue).

[annc]

I forget that as well sometimes, but do usually set body background: transparent.

The reason is lost in the mists of ancient practice. Maybe Marjolein or someone can tell me why I do that (and if I need to continue).Maybe to avoid little coloured boxes around the links?

I can't believe I forgot to include it. I was so careful about the fonts and type size. Oh, well, just another sign of old age, i suppose.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

black on white on-screen provides a too great contrast and is very tiring on the eye

I find that depends on the general light level. During the day, the amount of light from the screen is no more than you'd expect from, say, a book if you're sitting by a window; but at night time I do find that the contrast between black and white on a screen is uncomfortable, and as I work at at screen quite a lot, even if I'm not translating, I prefer a blue background with reversed text. The only program that I know of that gives white letters on a blue background is Word (and that's said to be a copy of WordPerfect's white on blue), but since Word is a writer's main tool, that's all right.

Off-white is admirable for printed paper, and used to be used more than it is today.

Incidentally, a designer that makes his background for Web pages black should be put in stocks; the fashion is dying out, but obviously not quickly enough.

[terrie]

annc: Indeed it should! Thanks for picking that upYou're welcome...that was why I was confused about the indenting...when I was doing the layout for the local horsey mag, I did of course follow their standard using indents but when I'm doing my own stuff which is rarely if ever pub'd, I use flush left...


>>Indeed! Life would be far less interesting if we all spoke it the same way.

I think so too...'-}}


>>I'm using an Olympus E-20P, which I bought nearly three years ago. It is very forgiving, and I get some great action shots with it.

I looked seriously at the Oly line--I like Oly cameras!--specifically the E-300 and E-500 (just out) and in the end, decided that I'd go with the Rebel XT. I would loved to have bought the Canon D20 (couldn't even think about the higher end Canon cameras given their cost) but the $600 price diff was 2 lenses in my mind.


>>The lens (as always with Olympus) is very good quality, but I badly need more zoom to get decent shots from a greater distance. I find I have to stand at B or E (half way along the arena) to get 8 x 10 photos after cropping that are mostly horse and rider, and this is what I need to sell them.

Yeah, I know that feeling...what telephoto do you use?

I bought 2 Tamron lenses...the 28-75mm which is a fast lens but has turned out to be quite heavy and I need to play with more than I have and the 18-200mm which is turning out to be very nice and while a slower lens than the 28-75mm, I've bumped the ISO to 1600 and have found no real artifacts. With 8mp, I can crop pretty far down and still have something half way decent.


>>So anything inside tends to be underexposed unless you stop right down, and then you get blurred movement and overexposed external backgrounds, which is not what you want for dressage.

Indeed! I hate that...that's a fab photo by the way...


Terrie

[annc]

...what telephoto do you use?None. This was the last of the professional cameras with a locked in lens.

[terrie]

annc: None. This was the last of the professional cameras with a locked in lens.Oh bummer! I was thinking that perhaps my old 200mm Oly lens--from my OM-1--might fit your camera and since it appears that no one wants to buy my old system, I would have been happy to send you the lens to have and use...nevermind...'-}}

Terrie

[annc]

Oh bummer! I was thinking that perhaps my old 200mm Oly lens--from my OM-1--might fit your camera and since it appears that no one wants to buy my old system, I would have been happy to send you the lens to have and use...nevermind...'-}}

TerrieThanks for the thought, Terrie.

You might like to advertise it on eBay.

[terrie]

annc: Thanks for the thought, Terrie.They say that's what counts...'-}}


>>You might like to advertise it on eBay.

Yeah...I need to do that...a few months ago, I browsed around ebay to get an idea of what I might get but need to do that again and actually get it listed...should do that for my Epson 1160 too...

Terrie

[annc]

should do that for my Epson 1160 too...Yep. But the big stuff is a pain to ship when you're selling on eBay.

[terrie]

annc: Yep. But the big stuff is a pain to ship when you're selling on eBay.Printers particularly...I did ship my HP2P many eons ago...not fun...the Epson 1160 wouldn't be quite as bad because the printer itself is not as heavy...

Terrie

[annc]

Printers particularly...I did ship my HP2P many eons ago...not fun...the Epson 1160 wouldn't be quite as bad because the printer itself is not as heavy...Ye - a laser printer would be very difficult to pack and post. My 1270 wouildn't be much fun either, because of the size. What happens here is that for large items, people usually suggest that only those who can collect them bid. Of course, that can sometimes mean a lower price, but I'm close enough to a city of over 1 million people, so it would probably work.

[George]

Yep. But the big stuff is a pain to ship when you're selling on eBay.

I don't think so. I once bought a laser duplexer off e-bay, like new at a fantastic price (I mean hardly used at all, and I got it at a fraction of its value), and it weighed a lot -- I think maybe 45lbs, but when I picked it up, it seemed heavier, but that was maybe due to its dimensions. The shipper just put it in a big box that had a lot of foam balls. It all looked easy enough. It arrived fast and in just fine condition. The card board box was very thick. Shipping cost was $35. At the time, that wasn't even sales tax for buying locally.

Regards,

George

[terrie]

annc: My 1270 wouildn't be much fun either, because of the size. What happens here is that for large items, people usually suggest that only those who can collect them bid.I kept my 1160 box but it was destroyed in that flood I had a couple of years ago...

I figured if I ever do get around to selling it, I could go to the Container Store (very dangerous store that sells all sort of goodies including good shipping boxes in all sizes) or have the local UPS store pack it for an exorbitant price...'-}}

Terrie

[annc]

There are places here that will pack and courier things for you, but when I was thinking of giving Shane an old computer, the cost was something like $200.

[terrie]

annc: There are places here that will pack and courier things for you, but when I was thinking of giving Shane an old computer, the cost was something like $200.That's what the UPS store will do...I've never used it because I really can't see spending the money for something I can do myself with a good box, lots and lots of bubble wrap and some patience...'-}}

My sister uses them quite often and I must say, they do a nice job...

Terrie

PS...I like your "A"...'-}}