Mainly photos of sculpture

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mary England - 31 Dec 2004 11:24 GMT

Hi,
I have a 'takey' request, so appologies in advance... As a favour to a
friend, I designed a website of photos of sculpture, and also his
drawing. I built it using a WYSIWYG program that I am not sure is too
good. It displays well using the browsers I use, on the computer I use,
but I was wondering whether you good folk could take a look on your
machines and report faults, or just things you don't like?
The website of sculpture and drawing is at:
http://www.3ene.com
Thanks - and if you need to know anything about sculpture or casting,
then join me at alt.sculpture and I'll be happy to return the favour!
Have a good New Year.
Mary

Reply to this Message

Journalist-North - 31 Dec 2004 13:49 GMT

(snip)

I built it using a WYSIWYG program that I am not sure is too

> good. It displays well using the browsers I use, on the computer I use,
> but I was wondering whether you good folk could take a look on your
> machines and report faults, or just things you don't like?

(snip)

> Mary

----------------

I've seen a LOT more nasty, poorly/overly designed, and, frankly, crap
websites then good ones. Yours is plain and because it is, IMO, it tends to
fall in the "better" or "good" category. The simple design of the site
doesn't detract from the content or the message.

Works nicely on PC using XPPro and the latest Firefox browser with a
1024x768 screen resolution. Checked some, but not all, of the links and they
work as they should.

There are lots of verification tools available on-line to check that the
html code works across OSs and browsers of different types and versions. Go
here and have a look - run some of the tests. DON'T be put off by error
messages as the test may be (is) comparing the html code to a newer standard
than the one designed into the site by the creation software... if it works
across a variety of browsers... it works. The errors you will see (and they
represent multiple repeats of only one or two issues) seem to point to
comparison with latest html standards and not necessarily the coding
standard imposed by the software that created the site. This is NOT a
problem.:

http://www.freewebsiteproviders.com/website-tuneup.htm

In particular, you can see how the code/website looks with various levels of
newer or older html de-coding as managed on various browsers here. NONE fail
to display the site content in a readable form, though you will see that all
are not necessarily displayed the same way or even with the same fonts and
trim. That is NOT necessarily a problem:

http://www.anybrowser.com/siteviewer.html

Will search engines find the site based on key words? See for yourself:

http://www.anybrowser.com/EngineView.html

Journalist

Reply to this Message

Gene Palmiter - 31 Dec 2004 16:38 GMT

I would prefer to not have forced width. I have a large monitor and can see
more if you would let it go wider. All seems to work fine though.

> Hi,
> I have a 'takey' request, so appologies in advance... As a favour to a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Have a good New Year.
> Mary

Reply to this Message

ZONED! - 31 Dec 2004 18:09 GMT

>I would prefer to not have forced width. I have a large monitor and can see
>more if you would let it go wider. All seems to work fine though.

I agree with the forced width issue.

>> Hi,
>> I have a 'takey' request, so appologies in advance... As a favour to a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> Have a good New Year.
>> Mary

Reply to this Message

ZONED! - 31 Dec 2004 18:13 GMT

>Hi,
>I have a 'takey' request, so appologies in advance... As a favour to a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Have a good New Year.
>Mary

Mary,

This seems a bit off topic in the NGs that you posted in, perhaps a
web design or HTML group may offer more insight. However since you
posted here ( I am reading in rec.photo.digital ) I am curious about
the photography itself. Did you take the pictures? I might recomment a
bit more light or reflectors to fill in some of the lost shadow
details.

Reply to this Message

Mary England - 31 Dec 2004 18:34 GMT

No - I didn't take the photos myself. I'll pass your comments on --
I'm pretty sure that he takes them himself, (he's got no money, so
that's just my assumption... however, he has had a fair amount of
critical success so one or two might be press photos.) I know that some
are definitely slide scans from 35mm.
I totally understand what you mean, but I think that some of them look
sort of more 3D for having lost shadow.

Reply to this Message