I think I found the problem with the pixel gaps, kind of; it seems to have to do with your using img tags for the various elements, and so can be solved by instead setting the images as the table cell backgrounds.
EDIT: It was back when we were first talking about table vs div; I was bored, so I checked to see how hard it would be to do everything with DIVs; eventually I got it, mostly, and found that there were also no pixel gaps, but I think that's also because I set div backgrounds instead of putting the images in img tags.
Hmm. I could try doing that and see what happens (setting the images to the cell backgrounds). It's a pretty minor fix.
...and yeah, once I have time (and am bored enough) I may redo my site without the tables...it's just that I imagine it would take longer to figure out all the cross-browser bug-fixes, as I wouldn't even know what to expect.
The textbox area, however, already has an image set to the background (it was a quick and dirty fix to the hex code for the background not matching the background color of my other images).....and a gap is still showing up there.
On the contact page, your email address should ideally be a mailto: link, but it at least make it text so it can be cut and pasted and that people using accessibility tools can access it.
I generally want a title image to link me back to the main page (this is completely personal preference)
None of your pages have anything in the <title> tag
I don't like your use of target="_blank" for the gallery links, and I'm not alone. Have you considered another option for your gallery?
browser compat seems good, when I did more web development I had a system set up with older version browsers on it, but not anymore, so it's only been tested with the latest versions.
By the way, your website uses a large amount of vertical space. I had to scroll a lot which is sometimes a downside to website viewing with the type of layout you've chosen (with what appears to be a frame). Even maximized I had to scroll.
Other than that, no complaints, it looks really presentable and, like your other work, is amazing.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I've made some progress identifying your pixel gap problem, and it seems that the underlying problem is that something's not listening to your widths, and your whole table is a pixel wider than it should be. I'm still trying to figure out where something's gone wrong, though...
EDIT: No, that's not it...though your spash image is only 899 out of the 900 pixels it perhaps ought to be...
EDIT II: Nevermind, it is it...Gimp's measurement tool confirms your table is somehow 901 pixels...
EDIT III: Found it! Look at your colspans...you've got everything but the update row with a colspan of 3, when your structure doesn't fit that; the shadow columns shouldn't have a colspan, and everything else ought to have a colspan of just 2 (for the two halves of the update part). I bet if you fixed that, you wouldn't even need to make the img tags backgrounds.
By the way, your website uses a large amount of vertical space. I had to scroll a lot which is sometimes a downside to website viewing with the type of layout you've chosen (with what appears to be a frame). Even maximized I had to scroll.
Other than that, no complaints, it looks really presentable and, like your other work, is amazing.
By the way, your website uses a large amount of vertical space. I had to scroll a lot which is sometimes a downside to website viewing with the type of layout you've chosen (with what appears to be a frame). Even maximized I had to scroll.
Other than that, no complaints, it looks really presentable and, like your other work, is amazing.
What resolution are you running at?
1280x1024
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Just commenting from a business/design prespective. I know mine is pretty much low-average for the none-widescreen styles. However, aside from some really high end arts people, you shouldn't really go past that, but I'm not saying 800x600 or anything like that.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It fits with the style of the layout decently. I just don't want a technicality to hurt her chances since she's so god damned talented. And I know plenty of places that are really finicky about shit like that.
Also when you get back to this thread ND, can you resend me that PM from a month ago about where to locate all those clay products? I, uh... accidentally deleted it.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I could probably change the size of the layout relatively easily....I got complaints from people using my old site that the layout was too small for their monitors....I tried to make this layout larger (I'm working at 1680 x 1050), but maybe I went overboard, if you're having to scroll. Especially for the "1280x1024 and under" group - that probably covers half of the people that visit my site. RAGH
when you get back to this thread ND, can you resend me that PM from a month ago about where to locate all those clay products? I, uh... accidentally deleted it.
On the contact page, your email address should ideally be a mailto: link, but it at least make it text so it can be cut and pasted and that people using accessibility tools can access it.
I generally want a title image to link me back to the main page (this is completely personal preference)
None of your pages have anything in the <title> tag
I don't like your use of target="_blank" for the gallery links, and I'm not alone. Have you considered another option for your gallery?
browser compat seems good, when I did more web development I had a system set up with older version browsers on it, but not anymore, so it's only been tested with the latest versions.
• I'll fill in the title sections...I skipped some stuff initially to just get the site up, but I'll put that in.
• I'll consider linking the title image - I hadn't thought of that.
• I've considered a lot of different options for how to do the gallery...I got a lot of feedback from people on what they'd prefer to see...when I suggested this solution (opens in new window, with forward and back links), I think everyone was generally okay with it. It's also a personal preference, actually - I hate having to reload a gallery page. I also tend to prefer opening multiple windows at once (if they're very large images). The link'd guy makes a point or two I can agree with, regarding the "_blank"...eh....I don't know. I'll consider changing it, maybe more seriously than everything else.
• I had a looooot of problems with spam when I had a text email address...to the point of getting 15+ spam emails a day. I think I found a javascript snippet once that broke up the parts of the email address so spam bots wouldn't recognize it, and that allowed a "mailto" link. But I tend to think that most people don't use the "mailto" function, and it would be better to just have a text address for copy-pasting (totally agree there). I'm just not sure how to avoid the whole spam problem if I do put a text link down.
EDIT III: Found it! Look at your colspans...you've got everything but the update row with a colspan of 3, when your structure doesn't fit that; the shadow columns shouldn't have a colspan, and everything else ought to have a colspan of just 2 (for the two halves of the update part). I bet if you fixed that, you wouldn't even need to make the img tags backgrounds.
*gasp*...if this works, 1,000 hearts
actually
1,000 hearts just for trying to figure it all out!
I normally wouldn't notice but it looked like you were trying to do the "look in the middle" sort of style. Otherwise you make me look like a retarded monkey in terms of website design.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
On the contact page, your email address should ideally be a mailto: link, but it at least make it text so it can be cut and pasted and that people using accessibility tools can access it.
I generally want a title image to link me back to the main page (this is completely personal preference)
None of your pages have anything in the <title> tag
I don't like your use of target="_blank" for the gallery links, and I'm not alone. Have you considered another option for your gallery?
browser compat seems good, when I did more web development I had a system set up with older version browsers on it, but not anymore, so it's only been tested with the latest versions.
Definitely agree with the title linking to the index page.
But I thought the mailto linking was just asking to have your inbox spammed to hell.
I have always found putting figure drawings on a portfolio website to scream armature (unless you are a fine artist). Being able to draw a figure well is such a given especially in the concept art industry, and by putting them up there I feel like people are saying 'look! I can draw the figure!'
I have always thought that if you have to prove that you can draw a figure, then you have problems. The figures in any other work you have up there should prove well enough that you know how to draw them.
I could probably change the size of the layout relatively easily....I got complaints from people using my old site that the layout was too small for their monitors....I tried to make this layout larger (I'm working at 1680 x 1050), but maybe I went overboard, if you're having to scroll. Especially for the "1280x1024 and under" group - that probably covers half of the people that visit my site. RAGH
when you get back to this thread ND, can you resend me that PM from a month ago about where to locate all those clay products? I, uh... accidentally deleted it.
On the contact page, your email address should ideally be a mailto: link, but it at least make it text so it can be cut and pasted and that people using accessibility tools can access it.
I generally want a title image to link me back to the main page (this is completely personal preference)
None of your pages have anything in the <title> tag
I don't like your use of target="_blank" for the gallery links, and I'm not alone. Have you considered another option for your gallery?
browser compat seems good, when I did more web development I had a system set up with older version browsers on it, but not anymore, so it's only been tested with the latest versions.
• I'll fill in the title sections...I skipped some stuff initially to just get the site up, but I'll put that in.
• I'll consider linking the title image - I hadn't thought of that.
• I've considered a lot of different options for how to do the gallery...I got a lot of feedback from people on what they'd prefer to see...when I suggested this solution (opens in new window, with forward and back links), I think everyone was generally okay with it. It's also a personal preference, actually - I hate having to reload a gallery page. I also tend to prefer opening multiple windows at once (if they're very large images). The link'd guy makes a point or two I can agree with, regarding the "_blank"...eh....I don't know. I'll consider changing it, maybe more seriously than everything else.
• I had a looooot of problems with spam when I had a text email address...to the point of getting 15+ spam emails a day. I think I found a javascript snippet once that broke up the parts of the email address so spam bots wouldn't recognize it, and that allowed a "mailto" link. But I tend to think that most people don't use the "mailto" function, and it would be better to just have a text address for copy-pasting (totally agree there). I'm just not sure how to avoid the whole spam problem if I do put a text link down.
First off, 15+ pieces of spam? Are you kidding?
A lot of people do use the mailto: link, especially if they are using outlook (EDIT: which people at businesses often will be doing) or outlook express, because it causes a new message window to open with the address already in there. You should always try to make contacting you as easy as possible. But more than that, you break accessibility. A person with poor vision or who is legally blind and is using a screen reader will not be able to find your email address and will basically not be able to navigate your site at all because of the lack of alt tags on your images.
I uh. I don't know if a blind person is really her target audience.
It'd be like making a store that sells custom, on-site, fitted cleats handicap accessible.
Someone who's blind or with really poor vision should be more worried about why and how they navigated to a site dedicated to pictures. Maybe that's just me.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If you are running a webpage to promote yourself or do any sort of business function, it should always be about what is easier for the user and not what is easier for you.
If someone wants to send you an email and they can't cut and past the text, well, I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but it really annoys me, and I know why you did it. You're making things harder on me so that it's easier for you.
As far as the ALT tags go, I can't honestly see a reason to use them....because if somebody is legally blind (or borderline), I have no idea what they could possibly get out of my site. If I had a blog or something, sure...but essentially the entire purpose of the website is to display imagery. I just can't see how adding "Blue Creature"...."Speedpaint"...."Figure17" would help. Even if I added ALT tags solely to the navigation images...what would the point be, if the rest of the site is essentially pointless to somebody who can't see it? I can absolutely understand the necessity in other cases, but I just don't see the point here.
You should know that making your site inaccessible to the blind because you don't know what they would get out of it is discrimination.
Also my aversion to them comes from the fact that I like to keep my HTML as clean as possible, and aside from the validation (which only brings up my lack of Alt tags as an issue), I think they'll just clutter it.
Nobody is looking at your code except for designers, and they will understand why you have to have alt tags.
I'm giving you the advice you should have if you want to promote yourself as a web designer. Accessibility and proper validation are absolutely important, especially for corporate clients who in some jurisdictions can be legally required to make their sites properly accessible. I'm not just making this shit up.
I don't really want to have a back-and-forth with you about how we disagree with eachother. You've given me some good advice, and other advice that I disagree with.
Just for the record - the main purpose of my site is for artwork, not webdesign. As somebody who only knows HTML and CSS, I doubt I'd be getting any "big" clients, especially corporate. If I'm ever approached to design a website, it's by an individual who's not looking for anything complicated.
I think you're being a little ridiculous about how you're viewing this, but I don't want to get into a debate. As I've mentioned, I think some of what you said is definitely something to think about, and thank you for taking the time to give me that advice.
"This is a painting of a Blue Creature, which looks totally awesome, and is amazingly rendered. I mean, the thing's got spiky-ish hair, and three horns, and is about the sweetest creature design in history
:P
EDIT: To make this a more useful post, is the splash image going to rotate?
EDIT: To make this a more useful post, is the splash image going to rotate?
Nah. I may change it after it's been up for awhiiiiiile...but my current plan is to a different image (the same size) in an orange color scheme, and another one in a blue-purple scheme, and have those be the images for the contact and "about me" pages.
I'll probably replace the images with others once I start doing some more work in color.
Hah, I may delete that, actually...it was the title-image for my old site....and the original wasn't much bigger than that - I started a practice drawing and gave it more detail than I thought I would..
On my work laptop, it clips at the right above those two footer bars in Chrome, and halfway through the row with the text in IE7.
1280x800 screen resolution.
NotASenator on
0
RadioKillerbringer of death to antiquated technologya methlab in MORegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I just went through 15 pages of awesome and spectacular. I do love your more hand drawn pieces, like in the beginning, but your sculpture pieces are amazing, especially the hair. I think I will watch this thread.
Posts
EDIT: It was back when we were first talking about table vs div; I was bored, so I checked to see how hard it would be to do everything with DIVs; eventually I got it, mostly, and found that there were also no pixel gaps, but I think that's also because I set div backgrounds instead of putting the images in img tags.
...and yeah, once I have time (and am bored enough) I may redo my site without the tables...it's just that I imagine it would take longer to figure out all the cross-browser bug-fixes, as I wouldn't even know what to expect.
The textbox area, however, already has an image set to the background (it was a quick and dirty fix to the hex code for the background not matching the background color of my other images).....and a gap is still showing up there.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Lovin' that statue one.
I've moved everything in the "test" section to the main directory, so now the redesign is officially up! Wooooo
[Edit] CELEBRATORY TOTP #2!
(I contributed
browser compat seems good, when I did more web development I had a system set up with older version browsers on it, but not anymore, so it's only been tested with the latest versions.
By the way, your website uses a large amount of vertical space. I had to scroll a lot which is sometimes a downside to website viewing with the type of layout you've chosen (with what appears to be a frame). Even maximized I had to scroll.
Other than that, no complaints, it looks really presentable and, like your other work, is amazing.
EDIT: No, that's not it...though your spash image is only 899 out of the 900 pixels it perhaps ought to be...
EDIT II: Nevermind, it is it...Gimp's measurement tool confirms your table is somehow 901 pixels...
EDIT III: Found it! Look at your colspans...you've got everything but the update row with a colspan of 3, when your structure doesn't fit that; the shadow columns shouldn't have a colspan, and everything else ought to have a colspan of just 2 (for the two halves of the update part). I bet if you fixed that, you wouldn't even need to make the img tags backgrounds.
What resolution are you running at?
1280x1024
I was more blah about the iframe on the gallery page. I've never been a fan of them.
Also when you get back to this thread ND, can you resend me that PM from a month ago about where to locate all those clay products? I, uh... accidentally deleted it.
Will do!
Oh, thanks! It's gone between 4 and 5 stars ever since the "stars" actually went up, and I didn't know it had gone to 5 again. Thankya!
• I'll fill in the title sections...I skipped some stuff initially to just get the site up, but I'll put that in.
• I'll consider linking the title image - I hadn't thought of that.
• I've considered a lot of different options for how to do the gallery...I got a lot of feedback from people on what they'd prefer to see...when I suggested this solution (opens in new window, with forward and back links), I think everyone was generally okay with it. It's also a personal preference, actually - I hate having to reload a gallery page. I also tend to prefer opening multiple windows at once (if they're very large images). The link'd guy makes a point or two I can agree with, regarding the "_blank"...eh....I don't know. I'll consider changing it, maybe more seriously than everything else.
• I had a looooot of problems with spam when I had a text email address...to the point of getting 15+ spam emails a day. I think I found a javascript snippet once that broke up the parts of the email address so spam bots wouldn't recognize it, and that allowed a "mailto" link. But I tend to think that most people don't use the "mailto" function, and it would be better to just have a text address for copy-pasting (totally agree there). I'm just not sure how to avoid the whole spam problem if I do put a text link down.
*gasp*...if this works, 1,000 hearts
actually
1,000 hearts just for trying to figure it all out!
I'll edit my htmells asap.
Definitely agree with the title linking to the index page.
But I thought the mailto linking was just asking to have your inbox spammed to hell.
I have always found putting figure drawings on a portfolio website to scream armature (unless you are a fine artist). Being able to draw a figure well is such a given especially in the concept art industry, and by putting them up there I feel like people are saying 'look! I can draw the figure!'
I have always thought that if you have to prove that you can draw a figure, then you have problems. The figures in any other work you have up there should prove well enough that you know how to draw them.
Just my two cents.
I've seen some bots that can scrape emails from images though.
First off, 15+ pieces of spam? Are you kidding?
A lot of people do use the mailto: link, especially if they are using outlook (EDIT: which people at businesses often will be doing) or outlook express, because it causes a new message window to open with the address already in there. You should always try to make contacting you as easy as possible. But more than that, you break accessibility. A person with poor vision or who is legally blind and is using a screen reader will not be able to find your email address and will basically not be able to navigate your site at all because of the lack of alt tags on your images.
It'd be like making a store that sells custom, on-site, fitted cleats handicap accessible.
Someone who's blind or with really poor vision should be more worried about why and how they navigated to a site dedicated to pictures. Maybe that's just me.
If someone wants to send you an email and they can't cut and past the text, well, I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but it really annoys me, and I know why you did it. You're making things harder on me so that it's easier for you.
No, I was being sarcastic.
You should know that making your site inaccessible to the blind because you don't know what they would get out of it is discrimination.
Nobody is looking at your code except for designers, and they will understand why you have to have alt tags.
I'm giving you the advice you should have if you want to promote yourself as a web designer. Accessibility and proper validation are absolutely important, especially for corporate clients who in some jurisdictions can be legally required to make their sites properly accessible. I'm not just making this shit up.
Just for the record - the main purpose of my site is for artwork, not webdesign. As somebody who only knows HTML and CSS, I doubt I'd be getting any "big" clients, especially corporate. If I'm ever approached to design a website, it's by an individual who's not looking for anything complicated.
I think you're being a little ridiculous about how you're viewing this, but I don't want to get into a debate. As I've mentioned, I think some of what you said is definitely something to think about, and thank you for taking the time to give me that advice.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
That's what the longdesc tag's for:
:P
EDIT: To make this a more useful post, is the splash image going to rotate?
Good choice on the central image, it's a good one and the colors compliment the rest of the site beautifully.
Nah. I may change it after it's been up for awhiiiiiile...but my current plan is to a different image (the same size) in an orange color scheme, and another one in a blue-purple scheme, and have those be the images for the contact and "about me" pages.
I'll probably replace the images with others once I start doing some more work in color.
My only suggestion would be to make it so your horizontally long images aren't so small in comparison to your vertically large ones.
INSTAGRAM
If it looks good in IE (no gaps), then I'll change the rest of the code!
[2/22 edit]I'm removing this URL...the site's been updated now and the test page worked.
Hah, I may delete that, actually...it was the title-image for my old site....and the original wasn't much bigger than that - I started a practice drawing and gave it more detail than I thought I would..
Is anything supposed to look different in this version?
Hopefully, it's supposed to not have any pixel gaps when viewed in IE. The normal index file ( and all the other pages up) have pixel gaps.
I need to reboot to look at it in IE, but I'm working right now and it would be a pain.
On my work laptop, it clips at the right above those two footer bars in Chrome, and halfway through the row with the text in IE7.
1280x800 screen resolution.