Hi Folks,
For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
here:
http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
Enjoy!
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>
> Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
Interesting - thanks for the review. Everything I've heard about this
little gauge has been positive!
One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 2.0.0.1 or Safari 2.0.4,
both for Mac OSX). The text and photos are laid out much to wide for
the browser window, so I have to scroll side to side to read each
line. Don't know anything about web design, so I can't suggest what
might be wrong, but I thought I'd provide some user feedback.
Thanks again,
Andy
On 2 Apr, 05:31, "Andy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
> properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 2.0.0.1 or Safari 2.0.4,
> both for Mac OSX).
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
is probably the culprit.
My day job is connected to web geeking. I see a page this bad (abused
<blockquote>, <font>, <table>) and I really can't bear to look at it.
Post a link to c.i.w.a.h / alt.html.critique and you might get some
suggestions or even a makeover.
Sorry folks.
Yes, it's the operator.
Yes, I use FrontPage.
No, it doesn't produce pretty-perfect code. But, I just don't have
the time to muddle around hand coding everything. And, I've seen some
pretty ugly (and mostly non-functional) hand coded pages too. Bottom
line, I'm responsible for the code on my site no matter how I decide
to generate it. So, I apologize for the mishap.
There are a whole bunch of photos showing the results of each angle
test. I wanted a way to give people easy access to them without
forcing everyone to go through each photo. So, I used a FrontPage
photo gallery. I re-did the page using smaller photos (for those who
wish to view the page using a 640x480 display) and corrected an
oversight in the table definition (a fixed width when it should have
been variable).
Try it now and let me know if it works any better.
Thanks,
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com
On Apr 2, 11:10 am, alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"alexy" wrote in message
>
> >> Looking at the source, I found the following hint as to possibly why:
> >> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
>
> >Bullshit ... as with most woodworking, it's not the tool, it's the operator.
>
> Well, I certainly agree with you on ultimate responsibility. And I'm
> sure there are lots of well-bahaved sites created with front page. But
> I also suspect that it is much easier to create IE-specific
> non-standard html in frontpage than in many other authoring tools.
>
> But this is just speculation, subject to change based on comments from
> web authoring experts. One has posted here pretty much confirming my
> suspicion.
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Ed Bennet's Page can be corrected by removing the code:
bgproperties="fixed"
FROM THE LINE:
<body background="/wood.jpg" bgcolor="#000000" text="#FFFF00"
link="#00FF00" vlink="#00FFFF">
Next time, before ranting, try copying the code to a text editor,
saving it to your HD and looking at it. If you discover the suspect
code, delete it, save the edited file and load it. Then you can
ctually turn your bitching into what is called constructive something
or another.
NORM
On Mar 30, 6:13 pm, "Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
> Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
> here:
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>
> Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]://www.ts-aligner.com
Thanks "NORM" for the info. I updated the page, give it a try and let
me know if it works. If it does, then I'll have to update all the
pages on my web site (vast numbers!). I guess Firefox (and perhaps
others) can't handle the fixed background ("watermark" option in Front
Page). Sad, because I like the look of floating text over black limba
dovetails. Oh well!
BTW, I've seen a number of reviews on this Wixey Digital Angle Gauge
(online and in magazines). They all use test cuts as their "standard
of measure". Unfortunately one person's "dead-on" test cut could be
off by miles to another. I figured that a more rigorous (scientific,
educated, reasonable) approach might be appreciated. I think people
want to know if the device is accurate. So, I tested it against known
and certified accurate standards. So, you don't have to wonder if my
idea of a test cut will satisfy your needs for an accurate device.
Questions and comments, as always, are welcome!
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com
On Apr 3, 8:49 am, "Hoosierpopi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Bennet's Page can be corrected by removing the code:
> bgproperties="fixed"
>
> FROM THE LINE:
>
> <body background="/wood.jpg" bgcolor="#000000" text="#FFFF00"
> link="#00FF00" vlink="#00FFFF">
>
> Next time, before ranting, try copying the code to a text editor,
> saving it to your HD and looking at it. If you discover the suspect
> code, delete it, save the edited file and load it. Then you can
> ctually turn your bitching into what is called constructive something
> or another.
>
> NORM
>
> On Mar 30, 6:13 pm, "Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Folks,
>
> > For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
> > Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
> > here:
>
> >http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>
> > Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
>
> > Enjoy!
>
> > Ed Bennett
> > [email protected]://www.ts-aligner.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm......
I used the SuperBar page as a base for this page. Didn't muck around
with the formatting (tables, background, etc.). Maybe I did something
inadvertently. I'll try to figure out what the difference is.
Ed
On Apr 3, 1:35 pm, alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Thanks "NORM" for the info. I updated the page, give it a try and let
> >me know if it works.
>
> Still doesn't work right, Ed. But I think we are getting much closer
> (see below).>If it does, then I'll have to update all the
> >pages on my web site (vast numbers!).
>
> Won't be necessary. Everything else works right (well, okay, I didn't
> check all of them, but spot checking 5 or 6 other pages, they work).
> So it's just a matter of finding out what is different about this
> page. Specific pages I know work right in FF: Comparisons to MasteGage
> Pro, Redline X, Superbar, and product description page for TS-Aligner
> Jr lite.> I guess Firefox (and perhaps
> >others) can't handle the fixed background ("watermark" option in Front
> >Page). Sad, because I like the look of floating text over black limba
> >dovetails.
>
> No, that works fine on the other pages.
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Not your fault Alexy. I worked on the page into the wee hours. I
used the validator that Bruce suggested to make a whole bunch of
changes (the "doctype" being one). In the end, I just couldn't get
the slideshow style gallery to work properly. It is the culprit. It
messes with the page formatting and screws up table definitions
somehow. I'm currently looking for another slideshow package that
works better. In the meantime, I put up a matrix of thumbnail
photos. Ugly but functional. And, you'll notice that the background
is no longer fixed. Oh well!
Thanks,
Ed
On Apr 4, 7:42 am, alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"alexy" wrote in message
>
> >> Superbar page still behaves right and wixey page doesn't.
>
> >Try refreshing the page or deleting your browser cache.
>
> Thanks, Swingman. I did that yesterday
> (tools/options/priacy/cache/clear cache now) in FF, but was still
> getting the "broken page". Also got it when I loaded it directly into
> OpenOffice Writer. But this morning, all is copacetic. I don't know
> the mechanics of the web well enough--could this have been being
> cached somewhere else, such as at my ISP, which prevented the change
> from being propagated, e.g, until the date changed?
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Swingman wrote:
> Well, a former "web authoring" expert, who was on the beta before VM FP 1.0
> was released some 14 years ago, long before MSFT and most of today's "web
> authoring experts" could spell "www", still says bullshit.
>
> It's a tool, and like any other tool that is perhaps too easy to use in the
> hands of the plentiful and ubiquitous dufus of today, it is often misused
> ... and, just like in woodworking, irrational kneejerks will continue to
> blame the tool because of the brand.
In this particular case it may have been operator error. But do you deny that
in the interest of "productizing" Microsoft has added several nonstandard
"extensions" to the HTML generated by Front Page?
The original statement that use of FP made it more likely that other browsers
could not read a page so generated was and is true. It's happened all too
often. It even happened way back when IE and Netscape were the only choices.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Ed Bennett wrote:
> There are a whole bunch of photos showing the results of each angle
> test.=A0=A0I=A0wanted=A0a=A0way=A0to=A0give=A0people=A0easy=A0access=A0=
to=A0them=A0without
> forcing everyone to go through each photo.=A0=A0So,=A0I=A0used=A0a=A0=
FrontPage
> photo gallery.=A0=A0I=A0re-did=A0the=A0page=A0using=A0smaller=A0photo=
s=A0(for=A0those=A0who
> wish to view the page using a 640x480 display) and corrected an
> oversight in the table definition (a fixed width when it should have
> been variable).
>=20
> Try it now and let me know if it works any better.
>=20
Fixed it for me. I'm using Firefox 1.0.6 with Slackware Linux 10.1.
--=20
It's turtles, all the way down
B A R R Y wrote:
> Ed Bennett wrote:
>> Sorry folks.
>>
>> Yes, it's the operator.
>> Yes, I use FrontPage.
>
> FWIW...
>
> I enjoyed your test and can care less what the page looked like. It
> got the information across.
>
> If folks want to see what a REALLY basic page can look like, try this:
>
> http://www.duats.com/
>
> The first page you'll hit is as fancy as it gets, but it works great.
>
>
Ed is selling stuff ... you aren't.
Contrary to casual appearances, Ed is not running these tests as a
public service ... he's making a case for why you should buy his device
in preference to the Wixley device. And ... except in one extremely
limited circumstance ... he's right.
But making the reader work for the information is likely to kill his
sales pitch ... and his sales.
Your viewers apparently need your site more than you need them. If the
situation were reversed, your web site design would change or you would
go out of business.
I think Ed understands something about our comments that you do not. I
think he understands that our comments are intended to help him make a
buck. I, personally, would like for him to get feeelthy stinking rich so
he could buy stuff from me. ;-) Lots of stuff!
Bill
--
http://nmwoodworks.com/cube
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000730-2, 04/03/2007
Tested on: 4/4/2007 1:05:20 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
"Hoosierpopi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Bennet's Page can be corrected by removing the code:
>bgproperties="fixed"
>
>FROM THE LINE:
>
><body background="/wood.jpg" bgcolor="#000000" text="#FFFF00"
>link="#00FF00" vlink="#00FFFF">
>
Thanks for the suggestion, but that made no difference on my viewing
it in FF 1.5.x or 2.0.x in WinXP.
>Next time, before ranting, try copying the code to a text editor,
>saving it to your HD and looking at it. If you discover the suspect
>code, delete it, save the edited file and load it. Then you can
>ctually turn your bitching into what is called constructive something
>or another.
Easy for you to say<g>. For those of us who know squat about html, the
best we can do is let Ed know about the problem and offer testing
assistance.
Any other ideas?
BTW, I saved the file as you suggested, and opened it in
OpenOffice2.2. In table properties, I marked the checkbox for
"relative" under width, left it at 100%, and saved it. The resulting
file opens and displays correctly under Firefox. But at that point,
openoffice has generated its own html file, and I don't have the
knowledge to spot the differences. If anyone would like, I'd be glad
to email that file, so that maybe an easy fix can be identified for
Ed.
>
>NORM
>
>
>On Mar 30, 6:13 pm, "Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
>> Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Ed Bennett
>> [email protected]://www.ts-aligner.com
>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"alexy" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >"alexy" wrote in message
> >
> >> Looking at the source, I found the following hint as to possibly why:
> >> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
> >
> >Bullshit ... as with most woodworking, it's not the tool, it's the
operator.
> But this is just speculation, subject to change based on comments from
> web authoring experts. One has posted here pretty much confirming my
> suspicion.
Well, a former "web authoring" expert, who was on the beta before VM FP 1.0
was released some 14 years ago, long before MSFT and most of today's "web
authoring experts" could spell "www", still says bullshit.
It's a tool, and like any other tool that is perhaps too easy to use in the
hands of the plentiful and ubiquitous dufus of today, it is often misused
... and, just like in woodworking, irrational kneejerks will continue to
blame the tool because of the brand.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
On 30 Mar 2007 15:13:24 -0700, "Ed Bennett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
>Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
>here:
>
>http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>
>Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Ed Bennett
>[email protected]
>http://www.ts-aligner.com
Hey Ed,
Thanks for the review. I think I need one of those in my shop so long
as it doesn't take up any floor space.
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>
>>One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
>>properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 2.0.0.1 or Safari 2.0.4,
>>both for Mac OSX). The text and photos are laid out much to wide for
>>the browser window, so I have to scroll side to side to read each
>>line.
>Similar issue with Firefox 1.5.0.11. Opened with IE, and it wraps the
>text for the width or the window.
Meant to add: both in winXP
>
>> Don't know anything about web design, so I can't suggest what
>>might be wrong, but I thought I'd provide some user feedback.
>I don't know squat about html, either, but suspect this page is using
>some non-standard IE-specific way of formatting text.
>
>Looking at the source, I found the following hint as to possibly why:
><meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>OK, see if this fixes it!
It's working correctly now!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Ed Bennett" wrote in message
> Yes, I use FrontPage.
Ditto ... please don't misconstrue the "dufus" remark in my previous, it was
not intended to include either of us. :)
> oversight in the table definition (a fixed width when it should have
> been variable).
Looking at the original earlier, that is exactly what appeared to be the
cause.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Not your fault Alexy. I worked on the page into the wee hours. I
>used the validator that Bruce suggested to make a whole bunch of
>changes (the "doctype" being one). In the end, I just couldn't get
>the slideshow style gallery to work properly. It is the culprit. It
>messes with the page formatting and screws up table definitions
>somehow.
That's what I was guessing. One more thing you might want to try.
Yesterday, I loaded (read only) the wixey page into an old copy of
FrontPage 4.0 I had on another computer. I then went into
tools/page_options/compatability, and set browser to IE and Navigator
and browser version to 4.0 and up. I don't remember if I turned off
FrontPage extensions, but I think I did. I then saved to my hard
drive, and viewed it fine in firefox. BUT I DID NOT SCROLL DOWN TO THE
SLIDESHOW GALLERY, so I am not sure whether this fix broke that.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sorry folks.
No problem. I think the original was offered in the spirit of alerting
you to something you probably weren't aware of; I know mine was.
>Try it now and let me know if it works any better.
That didn't fix it. I'll email you a jpg of my desktop with he same
page opened in identically sized Firefox and IE windows, so you can
see what is happening. Text is not wrapping correctly.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Using IE, it looks just fine.
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
> > properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 2.0.0.1 or Safari 2.0.4,
> > both for Mac OSX). The text and photos are laid out much to wide for
> > the browser window, so I have to scroll side to side to read each
> > line. Don't know anything about web design, so I can't suggest what
> > might be wrong, but I thought I'd provide some user feedback.
>
>
> Me too. (I'm on Linux/Firefox). I think the background art is the problem.
>
> It's really a pain to have to scroll right and left several tiimes
> just to read a couple of lines.
>
> --
> Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
> $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
> In this particular case it may have been operator error. But do you deny
that
> in the interest of "productizing" Microsoft has added several nonstandard
> "extensions" to the HTML generated by Front Page?
Of course they did ... and you knew that before you posted the question. But
then, so did Netscape. IIRC, at the time there was no reasons to not to, and
all for the most practicial of reasons, reasons that were at the time in the
spirit of the original specification - to solve immediate problems with a
new medium.
That said, many of those reasons have now grown to a signifcance that rivals
that of relgious fundamentalism.
> The original statement that use of FP made it more likely that other
browsers
> could not read a page so generated was and is true.
About the only time I've ever seen any browser I use, and I've used them
all, to "not read a page" at all was with bullshit like "Flash" ... much
worse than MSFT ever was in subverting the www HTML spirit, IMO.
> It's happened all too
> often. It even happened way back when IE and Netscape were the only
choices.
I don't really don't use IE, except as a check when I do my little ww web
page these days, mostly I use FF by choice. All my FP webs have always been
read handily by any browser I use since day 1.
There is simply no excuse in blaming the tool if they don't.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
Ed Bennett wrote:
> Sorry folks.
>
> Yes, it's the operator.
> Yes, I use FrontPage.
FWIW...
I enjoyed your test and can care less what the page looked like. It
got the information across.
If folks want to see what a REALLY basic page can look like, try this:
http://www.duats.com/
The first page you'll hit is as fancy as it gets, but it works great.
Nice review Ed...
I got your tool and my get one of these also..
Ed Bennett wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> For all who are interested and/or curious. I put the Wixey Digital
> Angle Gauge to the test in my Metrology Lab this week. Results are
> here:
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>
> Let me know if you have any questions/comments.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
> http://www.ts-aligner.com
>
"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks "NORM" for the info. I updated the page, give it a try and let
>me know if it works.
Still doesn't work right, Ed. But I think we are getting much closer
(see below).
>If it does, then I'll have to update all the
>pages on my web site (vast numbers!).
Won't be necessary. Everything else works right (well, okay, I didn't
check all of them, but spot checking 5 or 6 other pages, they work).
So it's just a matter of finding out what is different about this
page. Specific pages I know work right in FF: Comparisons to MasteGage
Pro, Redline X, Superbar, and product description page for TS-Aligner
Jr lite.
> I guess Firefox (and perhaps
>others) can't handle the fixed background ("watermark" option in Front
>Page). Sad, because I like the look of floating text over black limba
>dovetails.
No, that works fine on the other pages.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>OK, see if this fixes it!
>
>I re-did the whole thing again based on the SuperBar page. I'm sure
>this time that I didn't muck with anything. Just a bunch of copy/
>paste operations. If SuperBar works OK, then this page should work
>OK. Let me know.
>
>Thanks,
>Ed
Curiouser and Curiouser!
Superbar page still behaves right and wixey page doesn't.
Same thing happens for me if I open them in openoffice writer.
Blanchard said that an earlier fix worked for him in an earlier
verison of FF, on linux. Anyone else using a non-IE browser still
following this discussion? If so, what results are you getting?
Comparing source on the two pages, I see that the wixey page has the
following line at the top.
*************
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
*************
That line does not appear on the other. Is that indicative of some
setting in Front page that might have changed between the time you
created the superbar version and when you created this wixey version?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"alexy" wrote in message
>
>> Superbar page still behaves right and wixey page doesn't.
>
>Try refreshing the page or deleting your browser cache.
Thanks, Swingman. I did that yesterday
(tools/options/priacy/cache/clear cache now) in FF, but was still
getting the "broken page". Also got it when I loaded it directly into
OpenOffice Writer. But this morning, all is copacetic. I don't know
the mechanics of the web well enough--could this have been being
cached somewhere else, such as at my ISP, which prevented the change
from being propagated, e.g, until the date changed?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"alexy" wrote in message
>
>> Looking at the source, I found the following hint as to possibly why:
>> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
>
>Bullshit ... as with most woodworking, it's not the tool, it's the operator.
Well, I certainly agree with you on ultimate responsibility. And I'm
sure there are lots of well-bahaved sites created with front page. But
I also suspect that it is much easier to create IE-specific
non-standard html in frontpage than in many other authoring tools.
But this is just speculation, subject to change based on comments from
web authoring experts. One has posted here pretty much confirming my
suspicion.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
>One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
>properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 2.0.0.1 or Safari 2.0.4,
>both for Mac OSX). The text and photos are laid out much to wide for
>the browser window, so I have to scroll side to side to read each
>line.
Similar issue with Firefox 1.5.0.11. Opened with IE, and it wraps the
text for the width or the window.
> Don't know anything about web design, so I can't suggest what
>might be wrong, but I thought I'd provide some user feedback.
I don't know squat about html, either, but suspect this page is using
some non-standard IE-specific way of formatting text.
Looking at the source, I found the following hint as to possibly why:
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> writes:
> Thanks "NORM" for the info. I updated the page, give it a try and let
> me know if it works.
There are other ways to check these things out.
Paste in your URL on this page
http://validator.w3.org/
I pasted Ed's URL in, and it found 71 errors.
And to show that I'm being fair, I tried it on one of my pages
that I hadn't checked before, and it found more than 1000 errors. Gulp!
Well, I've been meaning to fix that page anyhow. :-)
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
>> http://www.duats.com/
>> The first page you'll hit is as fancy as it gets, but it works great.
For chuckles I ran the validator.w3.org test on this page, and it found 66 errors.
It's very humbling...
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
alexy <[email protected]> writes:
> alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, see if this fixes it!
>
> It's working correctly now!
Great for me as well!
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Ed Bennett" <[email protected]> writes:
> There are a whole bunch of photos showing the results of each angle
> test. I wanted a way to give people easy access to them without
> forcing everyone to go through each photo. So, I used a FrontPage
> photo gallery. I re-did the page using smaller photos (for those who
> wish to view the page using a 640x480 display) and corrected an
> oversight in the table definition (a fixed width when it should have
> been variable).
I have a 1400x1050 monitor (Firefox 1.5.0.10/Linux), and the page
http://www.ts-aligner.com/ts-aligner-jr-lite-vs-wixey.htm
is not wide enough. The paragraph starting with "I used my Starrett
AG16LM angle set as standards for the testing." is three lines long,
and I have to scroll back and forth 5 times to read three lines.
I have my default font set to "16"
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Andy" <[email protected]> writes:
> One comment, since you asked... The page linked above doesn't fit
> properly with either browser I tried (Firefox 2.0.0.1 or Safari 2.0.4,
> both for Mac OSX). The text and photos are laid out much to wide for
> the browser window, so I have to scroll side to side to read each
> line. Don't know anything about web design, so I can't suggest what
> might be wrong, but I thought I'd provide some user feedback.
Me too. (I'm on Linux/Firefox). I think the background art is the problem.
It's really a pain to have to scroll right and left several tiimes
just to read a couple of lines.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.