«

"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
news:hrmokm$e7p$...
> rf wrote:
>> "Jenn"<> wrote in message
>> news:hrlpd1$nv8$...
>>
>>> awe.. I'm really kind of shy about my sites especially since most people
>>> here like to code everything in CSS. This is my favorite site I
>>> designed
>>> and built. http://cdkdistribution(dot)com [replace the dot with .]
>>
>> What's with the obfuscation?
>>
>>> owners said I had a month and I could do anything I wanted to as far as
>>> building a site goes for them...
>>
>> This what the owners had in mind?
>>
>> http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/cdk.jpg
>>
>>
>
> What I get too, unless you settle for 11-pixel font! Good thing your not
> too worried about valid markup, although I have seen much worse
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcdkdistribution.c om>
>
> and
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fprofwebsolutions. com>
>
> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&amp;uri=http%3A% 2F%2Fprofwebsolutions.com>
>
>


Like I said .. screw the validators! LOL
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:42:39 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writ:

> freemont wrote:
>
>> Ed Mullen writ:
>>> 3. She's not given any concrete examples of her work or sites to
>>> support her statements. Which leads me to suspect she may be just
>>> trolling for effect. For someone with such lengthy purported
>>> experience she is profoundly out of touch with current/recent (like,
>>> what? ... the last ten years?) thinking on these topics.
>>
>> She's publicized these two before:
>> <http://pqlr.org/>
>> Which is just, uh... well, you decide. And - ...
>> And now a third site for that door & cabinet place that renders in
>> about 1/3 of my screen. This Oklahoman needs to stop arguing and
>> rethink her ways. I mean, look at this:
>>
>> <http://i39.tinypic.com/974t1j.png>
>
> The cabinet site also reveals what Jenn thinks is an "include" file, is
> in reality an <iframe>. <g> [relating to a question I asked her in
> another thread.]
>
> Scrollbars everywhere at cdkdistribution.com and very user-unfriendly
> with all the micro-fonts.

Yup. And here are more, found by following the "Website by" email to her
site:

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

More left aligned tables, fixed at or around 800px wide. (And I have to
wonder what copyright.html, linked to at the bottom of the above page,
would contain if it existed.)

In spite of it all, though, when I see something like

<http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/artex/home.htm>

I see something that - if in fact it is all her original work -
demonstrates a real potential for graphic design. The middle section of
that page looks interesting to me. But the sites themselves are a mess.

<!--begin upper Text Table row-->
<tr>

<td width=518 height=84 valign=top align=left>
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Our site has been designed for you to learn more
about the "ARTEX ADVANTAGE".<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Artex is more than just a rent-a-captive. Its
suite of innovative products and<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;approaches is designed to put insured and
agents in control and capture the anticipated<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;profits carriers build into their
programs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Artex’s unbundled
approach offers many of<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the benefits of a
captive without the disadvantages of capitalization,
offshore board<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;meetings, regulatory
headaches and complex tax planning.
</a>.</P>


</td>
<!--end upper Text Table row-->

Heheheh. Whew! What a mess.
--
� "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

Jenn wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>> And now a third site for that door & cabinet place that renders in
>>> about 1/3 of my screen. This Oklahoman needs to stop arguing and
>>> rethink her ways. I mean, look at this:
>>>
>>> <http://i39.tinypic.com/974t1j.png>
>>
>> The cabinet site also reveals what Jenn thinks is an "include" file, is
>> in reality an <iframe>. <g> [relating to a question I asked her in
>> another thread.]
>>
>> Scrollbars everywhere at cdkdistribution.com [in Firefox] and very
>> user-unfriendly with all the micro-fonts.
>
> naaaaaa ... that site has no includes! It's all basic html.
> Although, I do like how iframes work and use them off and on when
> needed. LOL

LOL.

> it was put together as quickly as I possibly could
> considering I had to gather all the content, plus I had to take
> pictures for their site. They wanted it to work in IE, which is what
> their clients used at the time,

I have never had a client say "I want it to work in IE." My clients all
know that I know a far lot more than they do about the construction of a
web site, so the coding is left to me. Most of them don't even know
"other" browsers exist (until/unless I mention it). They only give
design and layout recommendations - and content, of course.

> and they approved the design and functionality. It's what *they*
> wanted... and was done like 5 yrs ago ...

The code is last-millennium, though.

> the scrollbars show up in Firefox on one page... no biggie.

On *all* pages. And, ohbytheway, this is how Opera sees it:
http://tekrider.net/usenet/cdk.jpg

> They loved it... loved the fonts .. loved the way their individual
> products were displayed. Give THEM what THEY want is how I feel
> about it. They don't care about the code. If they like it... that's
> what they get.

Of course you give them what they want. But who is responsible when a
visitor complains, "I looked at your site with Safari on my Mac laptop,
and the pages are all broken." Or, "I just got a new netbook, and boy is
your site messed up!"

> Oh .. and the pqlr.org site was built like 8 yrs ago.

Only eight? (Code looks much older.) And in eight years, you've not
fixed any of it -- now that you know what to fix, you should make plans.

> The bbs is a separate installation ...

Obviously, and I've never said anything about your BB. You didn't design
that.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

"freemont" <> wrote in message
news:8d562$4bdee8da$6216f11c$...
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:42:39 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writ:
>
>> freemont wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Mullen writ:
>>>> 3. She's not given any concrete examples of her work or sites to
>>>> support her statements. Which leads me to suspect she may be just
>>>> trolling for effect. For someone with such lengthy purported
>>>> experience she is profoundly out of touch with current/recent (like,
>>>> what? ... the last ten years?) thinking on these topics.
>>>
>>> She's publicized these two before:
>>> <http://pqlr.org/>
>>> Which is just, uh... well, you decide. And - ...
>>> And now a third site for that door & cabinet place that renders in
>>> about 1/3 of my screen. This Oklahoman needs to stop arguing and
>>> rethink her ways. I mean, look at this:
>>>
>>> <http://i39.tinypic.com/974t1j.png>
>>
>> The cabinet site also reveals what Jenn thinks is an "include" file, is
>> in reality an <iframe>. <g> [relating to a question I asked her in
>> another thread.]
>>
>> Scrollbars everywhere at cdkdistribution.com and very user-unfriendly
>> with all the micro-fonts.
>
> Yup. And here are more, found by following the "Website by" email to her
> site:
>
> <http://profwebsolutions.com/>
>
> More left aligned tables, fixed at or around 800px wide. (And I have to
> wonder what copyright.html, linked to at the bottom of the above page,
> would contain if it existed.)
>
> In spite of it all, though, when I see something like
>
> <http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/artex/home.htm>
>
> I see something that - if in fact it is all her original work -
> demonstrates a real potential for graphic design. The middle section of
> that page looks interesting to me. But the sites themselves are a mess.
>
> <!--begin upper Text Table row-->
> <tr>
>
> <td width=518 height=84 valign=top align=left>
> <P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Our site has been designed for you to learn more
> about the "ARTEX ADVANTAGE".<br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Artex is more than just a rent-a-captive. Its
> suite of innovative products and<br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;approaches is designed to put insured and
> agents in control and capture the anticipated<br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;profits carriers build into their
> programs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Artex's unbundled
> approach offers many of<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the benefits of a
> captive without the disadvantages of capitalization,
> offshore board<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;meetings, regulatory
> headaches and complex tax planning.
> </a>.</P>
>
>


Design and graphics are my first love incorporated into websites .. html
being an equal love next to design and graphics.

That site was built about 9 or 10 yrs ago... sure, my skillset and code
ability back then needed improvement, but I got paid good money, and the
people I worked for at the time knew what my skill level was back then.
They actually helped me improve alot as I continued working for them, which
again, was ON-THE-JOB-PAID training. They got what they needed for a good
price, and I got paid a decent wage and got to work from home, too boot.

FWIW... this site: http://profwebsolutions.com/ ... was put together just to
have a place to display some examples (and progress) throughout the time
I've been working. It's not set up to be anything fancy.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
> ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ?freemont? <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

Jenn wrote:

> Like I said .. screw the validators! LOL

Wow! Pride in ones craft, a true hack.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
news:hrmptq$8u6$...
> Jenn wrote:


>> and they approved the design and functionality. It's what *they*
>> wanted... and was done like 5 yrs ago ...
>
> The code is last-millennium, though.

well.. yeah ... 5 years is a long time ago as far as advances and new code
is created. Considering I have always been on my own learning this stuff, I
really do think I made good money at it despite being so imperfect at it.

>> the scrollbars show up in Firefox on one page... no biggie.
>
> On *all* pages. And, ohbytheway, this is how Opera sees it:
> http://tekrider.net/usenet/cdk.jpg

I don't think back then Opera was a popular browser. Most regular people
back then only ever heard of IE. LOL

>> They loved it... loved the fonts .. loved the way their individual
>> products were displayed. Give THEM what THEY want is how I feel
>> about it. They don't care about the code. If they like it... that's
>> what they get.

> Of course you give them what they want. But who is responsible when a
> visitor complains, "I looked at your site with Safari on my Mac laptop,
> and the pages are all broken." Or, "I just got a new netbook, and boy is
> your site messed up!"

If/when they ask for any edits or updates, they usually email me, but they
are so busy making money based on that little imperfect 5 yr old website,
they haven't had any updates for a long time.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
news:hrmps8$fnb$...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> Like I said .. screw the validators! LOL
>
> Wow! Pride in ones craft, a true hack.
>


hey ... money says it all in the end ... a person can be straight as an
arrow and have code that never shows anything wrong with it on a validator,
and not make alot of money at their craft. On the other hand, a person
(like me) just does the best they can with the knowledge they have, and make
a living wage for 14 yrs, and even get on the job training along the way.

Sometimes, perfection isn't all it's cracked up to be, and just trying to
live in an imperfect world as an imperfect human being ends up being the
better choice.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:14:00 -0500, Jenn writ:

> I'd love to see some of your work freemont

Sure. For future reference, a search of the group would turn most of
these up.

<http://cea8.org/> << Last job I got.

Notice how the phpBB forum is integrated to look like the site it's a
part of. Notice how the site uses all of your browser window, and is
centered there. Notice how the fonts are readable.

freemontsoffice.com is just waiting for me to get a circular tuit and
redo it. It was my first domain, and it shows.

<http://thomaselectricalservicesinc.com/> was done for my brother.

<http://gilbertappliance.com/> was my first paying gig.

<http://lewispaulthomas.net/> is the result of a rush of blood to my head
one night. It's an ugly, screwed-up aberration of a website, and I
know it, and I don't care. It's a plaything for me, and I think it's
beautiful. I am particularly proud of this page:

<http://lewispaulthomas.net/eyesore.php>

But like all my sites, it's a fluid layout, and it doesn't break to
pieces when the font size is changed, and every page validates. And once
again, the forum (which is long dead and just there for archival reasons)
looks like the rest of the site. As does the photo gallery.

There are a few more. I don't depend on website money, and I certainly
don't call myself a "designer". I am not the least bit artistic, and if a
site that I create ends up looking somewhat nice, it's purely accidental.
But I take pride in the markup and code I write. It might not always be
the best it can be, but I try. And when someone smarter than I recommends
a practice, I take heed. You should, too. Relying on your customers and
their checkbooks for feedback on quality, when they manifestly know jack
**** about websites, is a mistake. They're just thrilled to see their
names on the Web.
--
� "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

"freemont" <> wrote in message
news:671ca$4bdeef29$6216f11c$...
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:14:00 -0500, Jenn writ:
>
>> I'd love to see some of your work freemont


> Sure. For future reference, a search of the group would turn most of
> these up.
>
> <http://cea8.org/> << Last job I got.

I have to confess... I lied ... I'm really not good at being critical of
other peoples work because I don't want to hurt them or discourage them.
Mostly I try to encourage people when they show me their work.

The link above.. I remember it. It worked out nicely as far as I can see.
If the people you do the work for are happy with it,,, that's all that
counts, imo.

> Notice how the phpBB forum is integrated to look like the site it's a
> part of. Notice how the site uses all of your browser window, and is
> centered there. Notice how the fonts are readable.
>
> freemontsoffice.com is just waiting for me to get a circular tuit and
> redo it. It was my first domain, and it shows.

yes .. My own bbs I really didn't care to do any sort of mirroring to my
original site. They were meant to be independent of each other. My bbs is
more along the lines of a political/debate newsgroup, but my homepage,
pqlr.org, was meant to be a creative expression .. a place to put Christian
short stories that I wrote and other texts I might want to put there.

> <http://thomaselectricalservicesinc.com/> was done for my brother.
>
> <http://gilbertappliance.com/> was my first paying gig.
>
> <http://lewispaulthomas.net/> is the result of a rush of blood to my head
> one night. It's an ugly, screwed-up aberration of a website, and I
> know it, and I don't care. It's a plaything for me, and I think it's
> beautiful. I am particularly proud of this page:

ROFLOL ... no comment.......

> <http://lewispaulthomas.net/eyesore.php>
>
> But like all my sites, it's a fluid layout, and it doesn't break to
> pieces when the font size is changed, and every page validates. And once
> again, the forum (which is long dead and just there for archival reasons)
> looks like the rest of the site. As does the photo gallery.

I don't know how to code in php, but I did one site that I installed a
shopping cart that was in PHP and I did edit it to mirror their website
design.

> There are a few more. I don't depend on website money, and I certainly
> don't call myself a "designer".

I'd say I'm more of a designer at heart.

> I am not the least bit artistic, and if a
> site that I create ends up looking somewhat nice, it's purely accidental.

I've always been creative, too.

> But I take pride in the markup and code I write.

I suppose I take pride in continuing to learn as I can and in the process of
learning I earn a decent pay check.

> It might not always be
> the best it can be, but I try. And when someone smarter than I recommends
> a practice, I take heed. You should, too. Relying on your customers and
> their checkbooks for feedback on quality, when they manifestly know jack
> **** about websites, is a mistake. They're just thrilled to see their
> names on the Web.

Generally, a good portion of the world would be considered smarter than me
as far as code goes, but I make up for that with learning new things on the
fly as I need them for websites my clients want. IMO, that's the best
anyone can do.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

Jenn wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> and they approved the design and functionality. It's what *they*
>>> wanted... and was done like 5 yrs ago ...
>>
>> The code is last-millennium, though.
>
> well.. yeah ... 5 years is a long time ago as far as advances and new
> code is created. Considering I have always been on my own learning
> this stuff, I really do think I made good money at it despite being
> so imperfect at it.

To me, it is not all about the money. Pride in workmanship is important
as well. Ex: if you are showing a prospective client your work, and
that client has Opera, you've probably lost a job.

>>> the scrollbars show up in Firefox on one page... no biggie.
>>
>> On *all* pages. And, ohbytheway, this is how Opera sees it:
>> http://tekrider.net/usenet/cdk.jpg
>
> I don't think back then Opera was a popular browser. Most regular
> people back then only ever heard of IE. LOL

Opera has always (15 years?) had a small and faithful following. It is
an excellent browser - and is the default browser on quite a large
number/percentage of mobile devices.

>>> They loved it... loved the fonts .. loved the way their individual
>>> products were displayed. Give THEM what THEY want is how I feel
>>> about it. They don't care about the code. If they like it...
>>> that's what they get.
>
>> Of course you give them what they want. But who is responsible when a
>> visitor complains, "I looked at your site with Safari on my Mac
>> laptop, and the pages are all broken." Or, "I just got a new
>> netbook, and boy is your site messed up!"
>
> If/when they ask for any edits or updates, they usually email me, but
> they are so busy making money based on that little imperfect 5 yr old
> website, they haven't had any updates for a long time.

It isn't up to your client to tell you to fix your code. If/when they
get the call from the netbook/Mac/Opera user, they will probably think
"oh, it's the browser's fault. Use IE; it works there." No, it's your
fault.

This is steadily getting to be a non-IE world. At most of my sites, IE
is below 60%. But if you think turning away 40% of your clients'
business is an okay thing ... well ... wait until the client finds out
he might nearly double his income.

Your disdain LOL for validation LOL is not understandable LOL.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul