comments on website please?

Hi, I have put together my first website, I would be grateful if you could
have a look and tell me how I could improve it. All advice welcome Many
thanks in advance Rob P-W

http://rob1963.photium.com/

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:27:50 +0100, robert palmer-wilson wrote:

Hi, I have put together my first website, I would be grateful if you could
have a look and tell me how I could improve it. All advice welcome Many
thanks in advance Rob P-W

http://rob1963.photium.com/

Looks all right. It would be nice to have navigation from one 'gallery' to
another. I would also suggest you validate your work. There is a free
validator for html/xhtml as well as a CSS validator at www.w3c.org.
Validation is not a huge item for desktop users. If you would like users
of hand held mobile devices to be able to access your site - it is more of
an issue. These are generally much less powerful devices which are more
dependent on having things 'right'.

Message-ID: from ray
contained the following:

http://rob1963.photium.com/

Looks all right. It would be nice to have navigation from one 'gallery' to
another. I would also suggest you validate your work. There is a free
validator for html/xhtml as well as a CSS validator at www.w3c.org.
Validation is not a huge item for desktop users. If you would like users
of hand held mobile devices to be able to access your site - it is more of
an issue. These are generally much less powerful devices which are more
dependent on having things 'right'.

I'm sure he has no control over this, it seems to be an out of the box
template site.

See http://www.photium.com/
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:50:57 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote:

Message-ID: from ray
contained the following:

http://rob1963.photium.com/

Looks all right. It would be nice to have navigation from one 'gallery' to
another. I would also suggest you validate your work. There is a free
validator for html/xhtml as well as a CSS validator at www.w3c.org.
Validation is not a huge item for desktop users. If you would like users
of hand held mobile devices to be able to access your site - it is more of
an issue. These are generally much less powerful devices which are more
dependent on having things 'right'.

I'm sure he has no control over this, it seems to be an out of the box
template site.

See http://www.photium.com/

I'm not so sure. Don't see why he could not 'tweak' the deployed pages. At
any rate, the lack of compliance does not seem horrid - I submitted his
home page and found only two errors.

Geoff Berrow wrote:
Message-ID: from ray
Looks all right. It would be nice to have navigation from one
'gallery' to another. I would also suggest you validate your work.

I'm sure he has no control over this, it seems to be an out of the box
template site.

The OP asked for feedback on the design of the site, didn't he?

Not that web site design has anything to do with photography, but we also
accomodate running shoes, satellite TVs, Islam, and political rantings in
this NG.

jue

Message-ID: 2G4ri.2967$id4.1705@trndny05 from Jürgen Exner contained
the following:

I'm sure he has no control over this, it seems to be an out of the box
template site.

The OP asked for feedback on the design of the site, didn't he?

No he asked how he could improve it.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:13:35 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote:

Message-ID: 2G4ri.2967$id4.1705@trndny05 from Jürgen Exner contained
the following:

I'm sure he has no control over this, it seems to be an out of the box
template site.

The OP asked for feedback on the design of the site, didn't he?

No he asked how he could improve it.

And validation would certainly improve it - at least for mobile handheld
devices.

Message-ID: from ray contained
the following:

No he asked how he could improve it.

And validation would certainly improve it - at least for mobile handheld
devices.

No. Validation will not help those in the slightest. Validation simply
means you have created your site to comply with a standard you have
declared. And if you've created your site using someone else's site
creation wizard, there is bugger all you can do about it.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Geoff Berrow wrote:
Message-ID: from ray
contained the following:

No he asked how he could improve it.

And validation would certainly improve it - at least for mobile
handheld devices.

No. Validation will not help those in the slightest. Validation
simply means you have created your site to comply with a standard you
have declared. And if you've created your site using someone else's
site creation wizard, there is bugger all you can do about it.

????
I'm mystified. What ever happened to using your favourite editor to fix
coding problems?

jue

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:06:22 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote:

Message-ID: from ray contained
the following:

No he asked how he could improve it.

And validation would certainly improve it - at least for mobile handheld
devices.

No. Validation will not help those in the slightest. Validation simply
means you have created your site to comply with a standard you have
declared. And if you've created your site using someone else's site
creation wizard, there is bugger all you can do about it.

I believe you are incorrect on both points. If your pages are validated,
they are much more likely to run on low powered, palm type devices and
display properly than if they are not.

A text editor can fix any incompatibility in the code if you are patient
and know what you are doing.