*TARGET>>>> Waterspider

[Waterspider]

"Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
news:evedul$h5b7@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> The other sites were nice, but again not centered.

Oh yeah, that forkin' centering thing! I would love to centre my pages but I
can't without losing the ability to paste my animated gif flag on top of my
banner. Yes, I'm rather enamoured with that...

[Waterspider]

"Linda Gerfen" <desertlane@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:evee8i$h5b9@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>
> I liked the first three but the fourth one with all the orange I can see
> why it's on your list for a major revision.

LOL-- I agree.

> My baby, online since 2000 and first built with NOF 4, is
> www.shoeboxrecipes.com - currently built with NOF 9. It went through a
> period of nearly two years using Mambo & then Joomla but I didn't like not
> having the hands-on feeling that NOF provides. Using a CMS is certainly
> easy to add new content but I missed NOF too much to continue along that
> path. I have other sites that I won't mention here (some use a CMS) but
> they're all due for major rebuilds in NOF 10 once I get my head wrapped
> around it.
I'm not familiar with Mambo and Joomla, but I've tried other web development
software and, like you, I still prefer NOF.

I like your site, and have even sent the link to a cooking-recipe freak
friend of mine cuz I know she'll love it. I like it because it's clean and
tidy (like a well-run kitchen), but I agree with you that the navigation is
a bit of a problem. I also like it because it's personal; it sounds like you
and I are sitting over a coffee chatting about menus. Although most people
hate the idea, I'd suggest that you have a photo of yourself on the site to
reinforce that personal connection. My only negative comment is that you've
let Google hijack it, and unless they're paying you huge amounts of money,
they don't deserve it! In looking around, it took me a bit to figure out
what was your website and what were links to Google ads. I'm not sure what
is the best way to remedy this, but perhaps a quick fix would be a banner
with larger type, and without links to ads. Back to the navigation, perhaps
two nav bars would tidy things up, one across the top for Articles, Links
etc. and one down the side for recipe sections (Breakfast, Salads, etc.)
Then each entry page to each section could be simply a linked list of
recipes with perhaps a 20-30 word description.

My friend Daryl would be wanting to have the whole thing in a php/MySql
database, but he's the guy who did www.penderharbour.com so we know how we
feel about his ideas.... <g>


Waterspider

[Waterspider]

"Linda Gerfen" <desertlane@gmail.com> wrote
>
> <snip> The site is currently approaching 900 pages and making navigation
> simple is my nemesis!

After hearing this, I have a much clearer picture of the problem.

I have tried using the NOF graphical
> navbars but that takes up a lot of space to do it right, even using the
> flyouts for related sections.

I've not tried this, but I wonder if a clear pixel gif could be used for a
nav bar button? This would allow an easy, automatic and space-efficient list
of formattable text links, and flyouts could be used.

Nevermind the multiple, duplicate graphics
> involved in generating the site as a result. I suppose I could "bite the
> bullet" and take that route with the next redesign.

This is something that bothers me too but I haven't figured a way around it.
Maybe some NOF expert out there? Hello? Can you help us?


Back to the drawing
> board. Also, I don't care for the looks of the text navbar when used
> vertically.
>
> I have also tried using javascript navigation found at Dynamic Drive but
> at best it looked clunky and ugly. To add to the dilemna, I've read that
> no website needs more than 7 items in the main navigation. Amazed that I
> still have any hair left after pulling it out over this.

I don't like to argue with the experts, but I don't agree with this. I think
nav items depend on the site and, although seven may be enough for most
business sites, content-rich sites may need two or three times that many.
I've used websites with a whole long list of nav buttons down the left side,
and I rather like the instant access to so many choices. They're often
categorized by colour, thus breaking up the list and assisting with
navigation.
>
> The site is constructed using 35 separate NOF files all brought together
> by each having the same set of identical "base" pages. Each of the "base"
> pages is further developed in its own .nod so no additional linking using
> actual URLs is required.

I wish I understood just what you're talking about here.... <g>
Would you happen to have a link that explains this procedure? It sounds
interesting.

Waterspider

[Linda Gerfen]

"Waterspider" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:evf26b$iuh7@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>
> "Linda Gerfen" <desertlane@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>> The site is constructed using 35 separate NOF files all brought together
>> by each having the same set of identical "base" pages. Each of the "base"
>> pages is further developed in its own .nod so no additional linking using
>> actual URLs is required.
>
> I wish I understood just what you're talking about here.... <g>
> Would you happen to have a link that explains this procedure? It sounds
> interesting.
>
> Waterspider
>
>

A picture or three might be worth a thousand words. Image1.jpg is the
"base", image2.jpg is the recipe section opened, and image3.jpg is the fish
section. Each of the other site sections work the same way. Hope this all
comes through as it's my first try at attaching such stuff.

Linda

[Micah Klesick]

Waterspider wrote:
> "Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:evedul$h5b7@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>> The other sites were nice, but again not centered.
>
> Oh yeah, that forkin' centering thing! I would love to centre my pages but I
> can't without losing the ability to paste my animated gif flag on top of my
> banner. Yes, I'm rather enamoured with that...
>
>

Try using CSS to do it. Also, what if you did put <center> into the
body section of the page you want centered, it might just do it.
Micah

[John M Reynolds]

I will try to be nice. If you can't tell by this, or the 10,000 pics of
my kids, I am a picture person.

www.penderharbour.org
I like the pictures. On the first page you used trees to frame the image,
used the lines of the dock to draw the viewer's eye to the boats, and have
a pleasant rule of thirds. The only two things I don't like about it are
the lighting and the clutter. The objects seem back lit. Perhaps
overexposing the picture a bit when you take it would be good, or from
another angle -- perhaps from the water. About the clutter, I have no
idea what is on the center left of the picture. Perhaps a bit of zoom
would still allow the framing effect while focusing on a smaller subject.
The Community and Visitor Guide pics are a bit dark too. Since you took
them with your G3, can you retake them now with your S3? Oh, and the
"Explore the original..." sentence is indented while the others are not.
The Events, Recreation and Nature screens are not loading properly, or is
vastly different from the first two with lots of white space and no
navigation.

http://www.midwaypower.com/
I only found a couple of small things. The lca logo is lower on the
services page than on the others. Only the Equipment photo is
underexposed.

http://www.salmonfishingbc.ca/
I like it. One suggestion is to get rid of the Home link and make the
logo the link to the home page since it is to the left of the nav bar. On
the home page, why are the bullets not lined up? And Cell phone is
spelled incorrectly on all pages.

I will leave the last site for now until it has been revised.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:14:21 -0400, Waterspider <nospam@all.com> wrote:

> Okay, fair is fair.
>
> I'm always happy to criticize you guys, so here's my entire collection of
> published internet websites, all done with NOF 4.1... hit me with your
> best
> shot!
> Honestly, I will appreciate all feedback-- positive feedback is great
> for my
> ego and negative feedback is great for my work.
>
> www.penderharbour.org - My baby... my idea, my photos, my art, my
> writing...
> soon to be replaced with a major NOF 10 revision and, hopefully, soon to
> earn some ad revenue.
>
> www.midwaypower.com - Client was a joy to work with, left artistic
> decisions
> up to me.
>
> www.salmonfishingbc.ca - Client and wife didn't always agree on what they
> wanted me to do.
>
> www.penderharbour.com - Geek buddy talked me into letting him set up site
> with php. It's next on my list for a major revision. To me, this is
> right up
> there on the list of Buttugly Websites... everything's wrong, the colour,
> the copywriting, the layout, the navigation. <cringe> Old saying... if
> you
> want something done right, do it yourself!
>
>

[Micah Klesick]

Reply interspersed
<g> Micah
Waterspider wrote:
> Reply interspersed
>
> "Micah Klesick" <Micah@creationtidbits.com> wrote ...
>> Waterspider wrote:
>>> Okay, fair is fair.
>> LOL
>>
>>> www.penderharbour.org - My baby... my idea, my photos, my art, my
>>> writing... soon to be replaced with a major NOF 10 revision and,
>>> hopefully, soon to earn some ad revenue.
>> Not bad, The white text on the right side is a little hard to see on the
>> edge. For some reason the yellow "quick links" looked out of place.
>> I think the site would look better centered. I have a 17in monitor, and
>> it fills a good 3/4 of it, it probably over fills it on 14 monitors.
>> I like the color scheme.
>
> Creepy. You've mentioned all the things I've changed in my revision. I
> ditched the right-hand vertical strip, replaced the Quick Links with a more
> subtle box of Uber Links and reduced the width of the page. I absolutely
> cannot figure out how to centre my pages; I don't think it's possible
> without the Dynamic Page option, and I don't want to go there because I lose
> the ability to layer graphics, i.e. the animated flag gif on the banner.
> Glad you like the colour scheme; it's not changed.

Glad I have some design in me. LOL

>>> www.midwaypower.com - Client was a joy to work with, left artistic
>>> decisions up to me.
>> Another site I think should be centered. The text on some of the pages
>> looks unconstrained. Also the text has to much bold. It might be better
>> with a different font that does not need to be bold.
>> I do like the short and sweet feel of it.
>
> Thanks! I agree that the bold looks a bit thick, but I was worried that some
> monitors might not display the white-on-blue clearly. At the time I didn't
> know how to create a transparent gif, and I'm not happy with the way the
> logos look pasted-on. The front-page logo was a nightmare of pixel editing!
> LOL, I've not looked at this one in a while... "Lineman Lance Seabrook" is
> now the company owner; his Dad is semi-retired.
>
>>> www.salmonfishingbc.ca - Client and wife didn't always agree on what they
>>> wanted me to do.
>>>
>> Then it is pretty good for having disagreeing clients. <g>
>
> LOL! They eventually split up. I'm not pleased with the logo-- it was a
> low-res gif that I used in a print ad for them, never expecting them to
> adopt it as a logo. Note to self: learn how to use Illustrator.
I just want PhotoShop. <g>
Gotta Watch them Customers.



>>> www.penderharbour.com - Geek buddy talked me into letting him set up site
>>> with php. It's next on my list for a major revision. To me, this is right
>>> up there on the list of Buttugly Websites... everything's wrong, the
>>> colour, the copywriting, the layout, the navigation. <cringe> Old
>>> saying... if you want something done right, do it yourself!
>> I totally agree. <g>
>
> I'm relieved to hear this. Hahaha-- had you said anything nice about it, I'd
> be really concerned about your sense of design.
>> Let me guess, you live in Pender Harbour. right? <g>
>
> Good guess!
>> Okay, I am going to let you look at all of my sites just for fun. <g>
>> Look at them and tell me what you think.
>
>> http://www.pilgrimsfaith.com - my sisters magazine.
> You're only 15??? No way! I apologize for being so hard on your work, I
> thought you were twice that.
Thats okay, you are not the first (for both) and I am VERY hard to
offend. <g>
The www.stanwood-camanobeekeepers.com was the first website I every
made, and that was when I started using NOF 7.5 and that was when I
started. That website is how I keep track of how long I have been doing
webdesign, I started it March last year, and that is how long I have
been doing webdesign.

You, my man, are going to go places and do
> great things with a start like this. Don't tell anyone your age though;
> better to let them think you're older and have way more experience. <g>
You're a little late, I never tell anyone my age, because a surprising
amount do not like a 15 year old telling them how to use NOF, which I do
quite often. <g> Not sure why, in Computers, age does not matter, it is
knowledge. But they take the advice better if they do not know. <g>


Oh
> yeah, your sister's site. I like it. Normally I wouldn't recommend that font
> (Georgia?) for body copy text, but it works well with the subject and the
> colour scheme.
Correct on the font type, but it went well. <g>

You shouldn't have capitalized "Three" (you find it). On the
> Current Issue page, however, you've used a font (Chiller or somthing like
> that) which probably won't display properly on a lot of browsers. There's
> less than ten reliable fonts, and a good idea to stick with them. Otherwise,
> make a gif or jpg of the text you want in uncommon fonts. One last thing...
> the Bible image is odd. Makes me wonder why it's there. Maybe it's a link? A
> mouseover says "Bible02 copy," which doesn't do a thing for me. I suggest
> that you find a better, smaller image, line it up under the nav bar and
> maybe put in a scripture quote for the mouseover. The site doesn't mention a
> particular religion, so someone like me has no clue which one it's about. Is
> this deliberate or an oversight?
The reason is that no one is supposed to see it except for the people
who get her magazine. So they all know that we are Christians, but I
will mention it to her.

Finally, I've always liked that NOF style
> and never had the opportunity to apply it. It works very well here. Kudos to
> Emily for being a publisher. Amazing family! I suppose next I'll be hearing
> that Andrew's hobby is nuclear physics...
Andrew is trying to take up webdesign, and he is only 9, my 12 year old
brother Aaron has his own haybaling business and his own tracter, I am
better at backing up trailers and driving tractors than most. <g>

Okay, on to the beekeepers...
>
>> http://www.stanwood-camanobeekeepers.com - my local beekeeping club.
>
> Excellent! Suggestions for improvements are minor. Nav Bar - make your boxes
> a touch wider so text doesn't get squeezed. Either don't frame any of your
> photos or frame them all with an identical border.
For some reason NOF will only let me put borders on certain pics, not
sure why. The Navbar is the default and cannot be changed and I do not
have PhotoShop to edit them anyway.

I find most animated
> features annoying, but I love the purple bees that light on the edge of the
> page, subtle and nice.... but why are they purple?
The reason they are purple is that at the time, they were the only ones
I could find, even now I cannot find any that are just the bee, (no
background.) Yes, I lot of people love them. I even have fen playing
with them. Did you mouse over them? Try it. <g>

Each page should have the
> same text font and size-- you've got something different happening all over
> the place. I'm looking at Mentors... text runs away, off the right edge of
> the background. Events - better in a list or a table; spacing is wonky. But,
> I'm sure you see this stuff anyway.
I agree, like I said this was my first website, and I have made about
8-10 more since and have been pretty busy. I did some changes site wide
before checking to see if they looked good, and they did not, so I
changed it back, but missed some pages, which explains the mentors page.

Again, you've made a perfect style
> choice. The swarm photos are awesome! I've got some good macro shots of
> honeybees on flowers (mostly lavender) if you'd like one.
both of those swarms are ones I took, the one on the fence was 50 yards
from our house, very cool, I got to catch it with my beekeeping mentor.
Now I am the mentor. <g> I take all the good bee pics I can get, If I
use them I will credit you if you wish. <g> One of my other programming
friends did a little beekeeping last year, and she took at video, which
I will be putting on the website, just a 8s flash, but I think it is a
good shot of a queen and her attendants. you will have to see it when I
put it up.

>
>> http://www.saveourbees.creationtidbits.com - my SAVE OUR BEES website.
>
> Yes, you need to put some text there. Oh my, you have no goals!!! <g>
> Looks like this is in the development stage,
Correct, I opened it for the first time less than 2 days ago, so that is
why there is not much text. <g>
so you can try a couple of
> things... get rid of the borders and different coloured text box
> backgrounds.
Umm, what different colored boxes?
If I do not use the borders it seems messier to me...
Check it again, as I changed it, and see if that was what you were
talking about.

Why don't you like borders?
The topic is fairly serious, so you want to focus on the
> content. Unless it's a title, don't centre it (block left is the easiest to
> read). I fixed that, had not noticed.

I like the way your Photo Gallery works, but all pics should be the
> same size.
that is a hard request, as there are many types of shots, and cropping
to make many of the beekeeping pics look really good.

Interesting topic; I'd not heard there was a problem.
>
Very big problem, I have 2/3 of my hives to it, some beekeepers have
lost 9,000 out of 10,000 hives to CCD.
I am surprised you have not heard about it as just about every radio
station and newspaper has had several articles on it.

>> http://www.creationtidbits.com - looking for a rework, just not sure what.
>> Creation Sciece, MY pet topic
>
> Waaay too busy, waaay too many boxes all over the place. And, be consistent
> with your text-- every page, same size, same font, always, always, always!
> You've put together some excellent styles on other sites, looks like this
> one needs one to give it some structure and form. You need a good navigation
> system too; as is, one gets the impression that some of those boxes are ads
> or links to other sites when in fact they're links to other pages in the
> site they're on.
okay, thanks for that, I was wondering what the problem was. <g> I will
have to get to work, (like I have the time) <g>
I will probably redo the site, it could probably win the ugly site
award. <g>

Oh yeah, about the ozone. <g> Ya think maybe if something
> could live without oxygen then maybe something else could live without an
> ozone layer?
NO! Are you ready? <g> You know what the Ozone Layer is for, right?
It keeps the Ultra-Violet rays from the sun. NOTHING, nothing can
escape those destructive rays, even the major Evolutionists have to
agree, and do. It kills all life, no matter how small or tough. Things
can live without oxygen, but like it said, when there is no oxygen,
there is no Ozone, and nothing can start with out a Ozone hole.
I always laugh at NASA and NOAA, spending Billions of our tax dollars to
try and prevent Global Warming and the Ozone hole from getting bigger.
But since they are Evolutionists, why don't they just let Nature take
it's course, as Evolution would prevail and things would go back to
normal, right? According to them, the temperature has risen and fallen
hundreds of times over the last 'billions of years'.
I just Love arguing Evolution Vs. Creation. <g>
check out http://creationscience.com/. It explains Creation Science
with 100% science. Not the best website design though. <g>
>
>> http://www.webtest.creationtidbits.com - In the subdomain, just about
>> done.
>
> Looks very professional, very good, very well organized. I really can't find
> anything here that I don't like, but I have to come up with some kind of
> suggestion. Hmmm... okay, how bout a higher quality image/s for the banner?
LOL, so there is a look you like!! <g> That is the first time you have
ever not found anything wrong with a site. <g> I feel like I am master
web designer now. LOL
>
>> http://www.store.cedarglenbees.com - the store part of
>
> Store part should like the rest of it.
Yes, I am not done with it yet, but I agree.
>
>> www.cedarglenbees.com, not finished yet.
>
> Okay, I've already had a shot at this one.
Yah you did! LOL
>
>> http://www.learnNOF.creationtidbits.com - My tutorial website on NOF
>
> So here you're taking the position of a professional website developer,
> qualified to advise/instruct others with the use of NOF. Quite a
> responsibility. It looks good... but... BACK AWAY FROM THE BORDERS!
Okay, I will pull the borders. Have you tried any of the tutorials?

You're
> getting better with consistence of font and size, but have another look at
> your site-- the objective is a seamless transition between pages. The frame
> for tutorials is unnecessary; just list them.
I did that to keep the page less cluttered, it is not needed, just
thought it would be a nice touch.

> Wow, that was quite an excursion-- with dinner and a phone call as
> interruptions. Hope some of my suggestions/opinions help you out. Thanks for
> sharing.
Thanks for helping. I have one request. If you have the time, I would
like to see exactly what yo envision for the Save our bees website,
maybe you could recreate it, just so we can see what you think the
perfect site would look like. <g>
Only if you wish.
Thanks,
Micah
>
> Waterspider
>
>

[Peter Cranfield]

Hi There

How about this for a photo replacment?

Same picture, much photoshop!

Peter
"John M Reynolds" <ju76yhnm@vianet.ca> wrote in message
newsp.tqkjr2trantjqu@amd133...
>I will try to be nice. If you can't tell by this, or the 10,000 pics of
> my kids, I am a picture person.
>
> www.penderharbour.org
> I like the pictures. On the first page you used trees to frame the image,
> used the lines of the dock to draw the viewer's eye to the boats, and have
> a pleasant rule of thirds. The only two things I don't like about it are
> the lighting and the clutter. The objects seem back lit. Perhaps
> overexposing the picture a bit when you take it would be good, or from
> another angle -- perhaps from the water. About the clutter, I have no
> idea what is on the center left of the picture. Perhaps a bit of zoom
> would still allow the framing effect while focusing on a smaller subject.
> The Community and Visitor Guide pics are a bit dark too. Since you took
> them with your G3, can you retake them now with your S3? Oh, and the
> "Explore the original..." sentence is indented while the others are not.
> The Events, Recreation and Nature screens are not loading properly, or is
> vastly different from the first two with lots of white space and no
> navigation.
>
> http://www.midwaypower.com/
> I only found a couple of small things. The lca logo is lower on the
> services page than on the others. Only the Equipment photo is
> underexposed.
>
> http://www.salmonfishingbc.ca/
> I like it. One suggestion is to get rid of the Home link and make the
> logo the link to the home page since it is to the left of the nav bar. On
> the home page, why are the bullets not lined up? And Cell phone is
> spelled incorrectly on all pages.
>
> I will leave the last site for now until it has been revised.
>
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:14:21 -0400, Waterspider <nospam@all.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, fair is fair.
>>
>> I'm always happy to criticize you guys, so here's my entire collection of
>> published internet websites, all done with NOF 4.1... hit me with your
>> best
>> shot!
>> Honestly, I will appreciate all feedback-- positive feedback is great
>> for my
>> ego and negative feedback is great for my work.
>>
>> www.penderharbour.org - My baby... my idea, my photos, my art, my
>> writing...
>> soon to be replaced with a major NOF 10 revision and, hopefully, soon to
>> earn some ad revenue.
>>
>> www.midwaypower.com - Client was a joy to work with, left artistic
>> decisions
>> up to me.
>>
>> www.salmonfishingbc.ca - Client and wife didn't always agree on what they
>> wanted me to do.
>>
>> www.penderharbour.com - Geek buddy talked me into letting him set up site
>> with php. It's next on my list for a major revision. To me, this is
>> right up
>> there on the list of Buttugly Websites... everything's wrong, the colour,
>> the copywriting, the layout, the navigation. <cringe> Old saying... if
>> you
>> want something done right, do it yourself!
>>
>>
>

[John M Reynolds]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:18:51 -0400, Peter Cranfield
<pcranfield@standcot.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi There
>
> How about this for a photo replacment?
>
> Same picture, much photoshop!
>
> Peter
> "John M Reynolds" <ju76yhnm@vianet.ca> wrote in message
> newsp.tqkjr2trantjqu@amd133...
>> I will try to be nice. If you can't tell by this, or the 10,000 pics of
>> my kids, I am a picture person.
>>
>> www.penderharbour.org

The picture you fixed, from http://www.penderharbour.org , is much
brighter, but does not look as natural. Of course, for a website where
people won't over analyse the picture like I have done, it would probably
do quite well. Good work on the brightness and getting rid of the
backlight. I would still like to see if the original picture could be
retaken or recropped though. Reduced clutter or zoomed in and, if
re-shot, sun at the photographer's back (even on a grey day) would be nice
touches too.

[Peter Cranfield]

"John M Reynolds" <ju76yhnm@vianet.ca> wrote in message
newsp.tqmflpj4antjqu@amd133...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:18:51 -0400, Peter Cranfield
> <pcranfield@standcot.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi There
>>
>> How about this for a photo replacment?
>>
>> Same picture, much photoshop!
>>
>> Peter
>> "John M Reynolds" <ju76yhnm@vianet.ca> wrote in message
>> newsp.tqkjr2trantjqu@amd133...
>>> I will try to be nice. If you can't tell by this, or the 10,000 pics of
>>> my kids, I am a picture person.
>>>
>>> www.penderharbour.org
>
> The picture you fixed, from http://www.penderharbour.org , is much
> brighter, but does not look as natural. Of course, for a website where
> people won't over analyse the picture like I have done, it would probably
> do quite well. Good work on the brightness and getting rid of the
> backlight. I would still like to see if the original picture could be
> retaken or recropped though. Reduced clutter or zoomed in and, if
> re-shot, sun at the photographer's back (even on a grey day) would be nice
> touches too.

Hi John

I would agree it is not quite as natural,, but often when the pictures are
small on a website they may look better with the extra colour saturation and
a slight 'artificial' nature to them. I usually make thumbnails much more
saturated than the real large picture.

Peter