Hi everyone, I don't know if any of you are interested in having a look or not, but I just finished uploading my latest Website:
Progressive Fighting System
Its a new site for my club. I took over the club in May last year & we've had a one page shoddy-looking placeholder Website at the above address since then.
I've finally finished the new site, and I'm quite proud of it. It is fully HTML 4.01 & CSS compliant and features a good deal of information about my club.
If you spot any bugs / mistakes, please let me know!
P.S. The "Lessons" & "Techniques" pages aren't quite finished - I'm going to add 100x100 pixel images to the left of each heading on those pages (similar to the Links page).
I can't add these images until I've taken enough photos at the club on Tuesday though!
Just finished my Progressive Fighting System website!
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
Just finished my Progressive Fighting System website!
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:30
It looks great IM, very professional. I like that you can change the colour scheme, that's a neat touch.
I see it's been designed for 1024x768. Is it too difficult to make resize and fill the screen for all resolutions? Oh and the Numbers of Visitors bit doesn't work.
p.s - Where's Bullets in the Links page?
I see it's been designed for 1024x768. Is it too difficult to make resize and fill the screen for all resolutions? Oh and the Numbers of Visitors bit doesn't work.
p.s - Where's Bullets in the Links page?
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
Thanks! 
Well its designed to work on 1024x768 or higher resolutions. I'm personally viewing it at 1680x1050. Its not difficult to build it so that it can resize to fill the screen, but some browsers don't cope properly with that feature, & I wanted to make it standards compliant (hence the logos, bottom right) so I dropped that feature & just made it fixed width.
As for the stat counter, are you sure you're not just blocking the script? It works fine on my 3 PCs & 2 of my friends'...
P.S. Your wish is my command!
Well its designed to work on 1024x768 or higher resolutions. I'm personally viewing it at 1680x1050. Its not difficult to build it so that it can resize to fill the screen, but some browsers don't cope properly with that feature, & I wanted to make it standards compliant (hence the logos, bottom right) so I dropped that feature & just made it fixed width.
As for the stat counter, are you sure you're not just blocking the script? It works fine on my 3 PCs & 2 of my friends'...
P.S. Your wish is my command!
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 18:27
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
Cheers. I thought the counter was working fine!
I can see the stats building up on my account over at www.statcounter.com...
I can see the stats building up on my account over at www.statcounter.com...
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:30
Which ones out of interest? Fair enough then btw.IronMonkey wrote:Its not difficult to build it so that it can resize to fill the screen, but some browsers don't cope properly with that feature
It's strange that my website does resize depending on the resolution and it's not in the slightest bit compatible with the latest standards. I don't use any form of style/frame and it resizes fine. I'm also confident all browsers will be fine with it too, not that it's remotely professional (it's not supposed to be) though:
www.alexmccaffrey.com
I don't believe so. I tried:IronMonkey wrote:As for the stat counter, are you sure you're not just blocking the script? It works fine on my 3 PCs & 2 of my friends'...
1. I stuck with IE7 as that has no plugins (FF2 does have Adblock Plus installed)
2. I tried it with IE7 and Protected Mode On and Off (i.e - Vista)
3. I even completely disabled my Kaspersky Internet Security program which does have an Adblocker too.
4. I also cleared all my IE7 Cookies, Cache and History (obviously with IE7 closed first)
Not just using the front end but by deleting the 3 folders in the Command Prompt (or what I could considering they're always in use). I use the Windows 95 DOS Deltree.exe command if you remember it. It's obviously not aware of "Windows Special Folders" and just delete the lot (unless it's in use), including System/Hidden/Read only files. So I can say for sure what can be deleted has been.
With all that off it still doesn't display in IE7. It could still very well be my PC, not sure how though.
Good manIronMonkey wrote:P.S. Your wish is my command!
Wicked 8) -
http://www.progressivefightingsystem.co ... /links.htm
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
Internet Explorer in particular doesn't like tables which have some columns with specific widths & others with no width value. IE gets confused & so just stretches all the columns out, which is no good for formatting.
Firefox does it too, although to a less ugly extent.
Your site resizes because it looks like it hasn't got any fixed widths, and also the design isn't too complicated. My source files are quite complicated to look at, although I've optimised them as much as I can.
I'm sure it must be something to do with your PC because everyone else (over 30 visitors) hasn't had a problem with the stat counter...
Firefox does it too, although to a less ugly extent.
Your site resizes because it looks like it hasn't got any fixed widths, and also the design isn't too complicated. My source files are quite complicated to look at, although I've optimised them as much as I can.
I'm sure it must be something to do with your PC because everyone else (over 30 visitors) hasn't had a problem with the stat counter...
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:30
Cheers for the clarification. You'd think IE7 would fix this. I guess not.
.
I've spent zero time on it as far as web design is concerned (it was never it's intention). I wasn't having a dig just pointing out oddly my site with zero formatting does resize and those that have formatting don't.
If I could be bothered I'd make it look better but really it's just a resource to display my photos.
Nope none.Your site resizes because it looks like it hasn't got any fixed widths
Not in the slightestand also the design isn't too complicated.
I've spent zero time on it as far as web design is concerned (it was never it's intention). I wasn't having a dig just pointing out oddly my site with zero formatting does resize and those that have formatting don't.
If I could be bothered I'd make it look better but really it's just a resource to display my photos.
Last edited by bradavon on 10 Feb 2008, 20:46, edited 2 times in total.
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
IE7 is still as useless as IE6 was! 
The problem with dynamic resizing on pages is that it relies on either no width properties being present, or widths being percentages of the page. You can't mix percentage-widths, pixel-widths & non-values & expect them to work.
Since I have used pixel-widths for very specific formatting on my site, it is not easy to get it to work as a dynamically resizing Website.
I'm not bothered, as the majority of Internet users have 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolution & it displays just fine in those resolutions (and anything above). Anything below that, I'm not bothered about. Those users should increase their resolution!
The problem with dynamic resizing on pages is that it relies on either no width properties being present, or widths being percentages of the page. You can't mix percentage-widths, pixel-widths & non-values & expect them to work.
Since I have used pixel-widths for very specific formatting on my site, it is not easy to get it to work as a dynamically resizing Website.
I'm not bothered, as the majority of Internet users have 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolution & it displays just fine in those resolutions (and anything above). Anything below that, I'm not bothered about. Those users should increase their resolution!
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:30
No surprise there. The engine is still very similar. A lot of the windows underneath are identical.IronMonkey wrote:IE7 is still as useless as IE6 was!
IE7 is a spruced up IE6.
Can't you set them all to the same percentage?IronMonkey wrote:You can't mix percentage-widths, pixel-widths & non-values & expect them to work.
True. My monitor is Widescreen which is too much to expect web designers to create pages for. The problem is magnified on Widescreen monitors.IronMonkey wrote:I'm not bothered, as the majority of Internet users have 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolution & it displays just fine in those resolutions.
Now more users are buying 17" 4:3 (and above) 1280x1024 is becoming more common. 1024x768 is grudgingly holding on though, despite the fact no 17" monitor uses it as it's native resolution, tell that to all those who set their 17" TFT monitor to it anyway. I cannot believe when people do that as it not only looks huge all the sharpness is gone.
Where I used to work it was policy to set all 17" 4:3 TFTs (which all the monitors were) to 1024x768. It always looked awful. People set it that way as when you switch to 1280x1024 it does look smaller but after a day of using it few could go back. My Mum first moaned when I set her 17" 4:3 TFT to 1280x1024 but I told she'd get used to it. I now know she'd complain if I put it back
Oh crikey I wouldn't either. 1024x768 has to be the bottom/minimum. Surprisingly many still use 800x600, they must be getting less as people move away from 15" monitors though.IronMonkey wrote:Anything below that, I'm not bothered about. Those users should increase their resolution!