The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Please look at my site blah blah blah.
Before you do:-
. I'm an amateur photographer, so the photos are going to be pants
. the site design is supposed to be simple, the idea being that it doesn't detract from the photos ;^)
All feedback is welcome, positive or negative, and feel free to comment on the photo (there'll be a new one everyday or so) on the site itself.
[URL]http://beepclick.co.uk/[/URL]
Before you do:-
. I'm an amateur photographer, so the photos are going to be pants
. the site design is supposed to be simple, the idea being that it doesn't detract from the photos ;^)
All feedback is welcome, positive or negative, and feel free to comment on the photo (there'll be a new one everyday or so) on the site itself.
[URL]http://beepclick.co.uk/[/URL]
Page:
Tyla wrote:
> What screen res is that at?
800 X 600, browser is at full screen.
> What screen res is that at?
800 X 600, browser is at full screen.
Tyla wrote:
> Nice to see DC doing well for itself.
I've got 5 accounts with 'em.
:^)
> Nice to see DC doing well for itself.
I've got 5 accounts with 'em.
:^)
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Cool.
>
> Also cool is how digital-crocus seems to have appeared everywhere,
> odd how things take off.
I could chuck loads of business Lukes way of only he supported Windows! All our sites are with FastHosts and in all honesty they're crap. Slowly moving all our new stuff to linux/php so there will be scope for future work to be hostred at DC.
Nice to see DC doing well for itself.
> Cool.
>
> Also cool is how digital-crocus seems to have appeared everywhere,
> odd how things take off.
I could chuck loads of business Lukes way of only he supported Windows! All our sites are with FastHosts and in all honesty they're crap. Slowly moving all our new stuff to linux/php so there will be scope for future work to be hostred at DC.
Nice to see DC doing well for itself.
Nimco wrote:
> Yeah, or have the current photo as the middle thumbnail down the side,
> and the previous 2 above it, and the next 2 below it. Then fade the 4
> thumbnails that aren't for the current photo, and have the current
> thumbnail slightly larger than the others... Sorry if that didn't
> read very well, it's hard to explain.
You could set that as a CSS list using link effects to generate that kind of thing. Using a state called .current could be applied to the current TN to keep the tn image slightly larger or in a constant on state.
> Yeah, or have the current photo as the middle thumbnail down the side,
> and the previous 2 above it, and the next 2 below it. Then fade the 4
> thumbnails that aren't for the current photo, and have the current
> thumbnail slightly larger than the others... Sorry if that didn't
> read very well, it's hard to explain.
You could set that as a CSS list using link effects to generate that kind of thing. Using a state called .current could be applied to the current TN to keep the tn image slightly larger or in a constant on state.
cjh wrote:
> Tyla
> Looks good, but at the bottom of the page, that 'B' floats over the
> last part of the Kerry London Ltd link, making half of it
> un-clickable ([URL]http://www.chrisjhaig.co.uk/tyla.gif[/URL]).
What screen res is that at? I know it overlaps slightly below 800 wide, though the B may not be a permanent thing when they finalize that menu.
> Tyla
> Looks good, but at the bottom of the page, that 'B' floats over the
> last part of the Kerry London Ltd link, making half of it
> un-clickable ([URL]http://www.chrisjhaig.co.uk/tyla.gif[/URL]).
What screen res is that at? I know it overlaps slightly below 800 wide, though the B may not be a permanent thing when they finalize that menu.
Hmmm... wrote:
> LOL!
> After all the cr@p you write I thought this site would be perfect...
> It seems you haven't "excellently coded" the required
> fields in your forms!
> Required Fields !?!
Can't say I've checked them yet. Should be JS handling all of that at the moment. In all hosesty, they only paid £1500 for this with a 3 day turnaround on the project. SO it was launched without true testing. Will bug fix nextweek at somepoint.
*EDIT* Ah ha, tis only on form one which will be my developers fault as he changed the JS when he was creating the JMAIL script. Cheers for pointing that out, just need to re-point it to the correct JS file.
> Have you ever thought about learning SEO (Search Engine Optimisation)
> as I notice none of your sites are optimised at all?
Why bother when the client pays for sponsored links and gauranteed rankings. We also pay someone else to do that for us. Site is coded as discussed on the Al list Apart article on CSS and Search Engines.
> Lucky you don't do this as a job.........................
lol, you'd think buy now you'd get it that I do infact do this as a job and have done for over 6 years. Nothing is ever perfect, but it's close enough for the turnaround time required fo this. I personally wouldn;t have launched it untill it had been tested properly, but I didn;t have that luxury, though open to offers if anyone wants to do me a test report.
> LOL!
> After all the cr@p you write I thought this site would be perfect...
> It seems you haven't "excellently coded" the required
> fields in your forms!
> Required Fields !?!
Can't say I've checked them yet. Should be JS handling all of that at the moment. In all hosesty, they only paid £1500 for this with a 3 day turnaround on the project. SO it was launched without true testing. Will bug fix nextweek at somepoint.
*EDIT* Ah ha, tis only on form one which will be my developers fault as he changed the JS when he was creating the JMAIL script. Cheers for pointing that out, just need to re-point it to the correct JS file.
> Have you ever thought about learning SEO (Search Engine Optimisation)
> as I notice none of your sites are optimised at all?
Why bother when the client pays for sponsored links and gauranteed rankings. We also pay someone else to do that for us. Site is coded as discussed on the Al list Apart article on CSS and Search Engines.
> Lucky you don't do this as a job.........................
lol, you'd think buy now you'd get it that I do infact do this as a job and have done for over 6 years. Nothing is ever perfect, but it's close enough for the turnaround time required fo this. I personally wouldn;t have launched it untill it had been tested properly, but I didn;t have that luxury, though open to offers if anyone wants to do me a test report.
This was the kind of thing i was thinking of: [URL]http://www.xyme.net/general/sample.jpg[/URL]
Cool.
Also cool is how digital-crocus seems to have appeared everywhere, odd how things take off.
Also cool is how digital-crocus seems to have appeared everywhere, odd how things take off.
Azul wrote:
> It has a little smudge or something at the bottom of the screen, between "Powered by" and
> "Digital Crocus".
Jealousy is a terrible thing ...
;^)
> It has a little smudge or something at the bottom of the screen, between "Powered by" and
> "Digital Crocus".
Jealousy is a terrible thing ...
;^)
Nimco wrote:
> ... Then fade the 4 thumbnails that aren't for the current photo, and have the current
> thumbnail slightly larger than the others...
Good suggestion, but I want to keep it all fairly simple.
Cheers anyway.
> ... Then fade the 4 thumbnails that aren't for the current photo, and have the current
> thumbnail slightly larger than the others...
Good suggestion, but I want to keep it all fairly simple.
Cheers anyway.
Page: