Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.


Lew

Sorry, no experience with their stuff.

On Jan 5, 11:47*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote the following:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.


Lew

It's a good design, but that's not why you wanted me to visit the site,
is it?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article , "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the
HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org shows 139 errors and 55 warnings.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

I'd be a little leary

Would that be Timothy's great-grandson, or what?

In article , Elrond Hubbard wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

I'd be a little leary

Would that be Timothy's great-grandson, or what?

LOL -- obviously I meant leery... Next time, I'll just write "wary" or
"cautious" -- I know how to spell those!

On Jan 5, 6:53*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the
HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows 139 errors and 55 warnings.

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
incorrectly.

Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
Errors, 34 warning(s)
Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)
www.google.com has 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)

I found it hard to find a website with few errors.

In article , GarageWoodworks wrote:
On Jan 5, 6:53=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Lew Hodgett" s=
wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit =
that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through th=
e
HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows 139 errors and 55 warnings.

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
incorrectly.

Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets
standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and
what's not.

Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
Errors, 34 warning(s)

So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!)
Imagine my surprise.

Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)

Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as
FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.

www.google.com has 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)

So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a
better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.

I found it hard to find a website with few errors.

That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
ibm.com -- zero
sony.com -- zero
w3.org -- zero
mit.edu -- zero
xkcd.com -- zero
navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
craigslist.org -- one error, one warning

On Jan 5, 2:47*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

I use MS Frontpage.

Although the tool referenced reports 45 errors, the site
(www.rexn.com) appears to work well enough for my purposes.

But, thanks for the "checker" as I will use it to clean up some of the
errors I introduced when adding non MSFP bits to the site.

On Jan 6, 8:27*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , GarageWoodworks wrote:



On Jan 5, 6:53=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Lew Hodgett" s=
wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit =
that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through th=
e
HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows139 errors and 55 warnings.

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
incorrectly.

Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets
standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and
what's not.



Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
Errors, 34 warning(s)

So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!)
Imagine my surprise.

Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)

Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as
FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.

www.google.comhas 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)

So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a
better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.



I found it hard to find a website with few errors.

That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
ibm.com -- zero
sony.com -- zero
w3.org -- zero
mit.edu -- zero
xkcd.com -- zero
navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
craigslist.org -- one error, one warning

Nice try...

Sony.com is their opener which directs to --- http://www.sony.com/index.php
which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)
w3.org is not clean either but better. Try -- http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
5 Errors
http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
xkcd.com store --- http://store.xkcd.com/ --- 798 Errors, 29
warning(s) http://xkcd.com/about/ ----5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp ---21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

On Jan 6, 12:19*pm, GarageWoodworks
wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:27*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:



In article , GarageWoodworks wrote:

On Jan 5, 6:53=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Lew Hodgett" s=
wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit =
that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through th=
e
HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows139errors and 55 warnings.

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
incorrectly.

Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets
standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and
what's not.

Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
Errors, 34 warning(s)

So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!)
Imagine my surprise.

Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' (http://
www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/) has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s)

Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as
FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either..

www.google.comhas42 Errors, 2 warning(s)

So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a
better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.

I found it hard to find a website with few errors.

That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
ibm.com -- zero
sony.com -- zero
w3.org -- zero
mit.edu -- zero
xkcd.com -- zero
navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
craigslist.org -- one error, one warning

Nice try...

Sony.com is their opener which directs to --- *http://www.sony.com/index.php
which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)
w3.org is not clean either but better. *Try --http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
5 Errorshttp://xkcd.com/about/* 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)
xkcd.com store ---http://store.xkcd.com/*--- *798 Errors, 29
warning(s) * *http://xkcd.com/about/* *----5 Errors, 31 warning(s)http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp*---21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

That wrapped funny after posting. Here it is again:

Sony.com is their opener which directs to --- http://www.sony.com/index.php
which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)

w3.org is not clean either but better. Try -- http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
5 Errors

http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)

xkcd.com store --- http://store.xkcd.com/ --- 798 Errors, 29
warning(s)

http://xkcd.com/about/ ----5 Errors, 31 warning(s)

http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp ---21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:04:25 -0800 (PST), the infamous Hoosierpopi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 5, 2:47*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

I use MS Frontpage.

Page Affront? Joys!

--== Friends don't let friends use Front Page ==--




--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

In article , GarageWoodworks wrote:

Sony.com is their opener which directs to --- http://www.sony.com/index.php
which has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)

w3.org is not clean either but better. Try -- http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
5 Errors

http://xkcd.com/about/ 5 Errors, 31 warning(s)

xkcd.com store --- http://store.xkcd.com/ --- 798 Errors, 29
warning(s)

http://xkcd.com/about/ ----5 Errors, 31 warning(s)

http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp ---21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

OTOH, with the exception of w3.org, none of those sites are attempting to
advise people on web page design, either... I stand by my original comment,
that I'd be suspicious of a web design service that can't get its *own* pages
right; there's rather little reason to believe they'd do any better for a
customer.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.


Do you like Their web site?

"LDosser" wrote:

Best business advice I ever got was 'stick to your knitting'.

I can relate.

What is their Knitting? If you say 'software development', you got
it wrong. Their 'knitting' is marketing and selling a bunch of stuff
that never made it to number one or even number ten. Some of it may
even be packaged freeware. A company with a very similar name
recently lost a class action suit for sending customers "FREE
SOFTWARE" that was, in fact, not free. Be wary.

They bought out some utility software I used several years ago from an
outfit in Denver, and moved it.

Somebody updated it and they are selling it under their logo.

I bought the updates and have been happy with them.

Long ago recognized that my days engineering things were best kept in
the "funzie" category, I've moved on to other things.

Appreciate the comments.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"LDosser" wrote:

Best business advice I ever got was 'stick to your knitting'.

I can relate.

What is their Knitting? If you say 'software development', you got
it wrong. Their 'knitting' is marketing and selling a bunch of stuff
that never made it to number one or even number ten. Some of it may
even be packaged freeware. A company with a very similar name
recently lost a class action suit for sending customers "FREE
SOFTWARE" that was, in fact, not free. Be wary.

They bought out some utility software I used several years ago from an
outfit in Denver, and moved it.

Somebody updated it and they are selling it under their logo.

I bought the updates and have been happy with them.

Long ago recognized that my days engineering things were best kept in
the "funzie" category, I've moved on to other things.

Appreciate the comments.

You're welcome.

You might also take a look he http://www.tucows.com/

I've found some useful bits and pieces there.

In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s


Nope. I do all my web work using nothing more than a text editor.

In article ,
GarageWoodworks wrote:
On Jan 5, 6:53*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s

Have some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that
can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the
HTML validator athttp://validator.w3.orgshows 139 errors and 55 warnings.

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating
incorrectly.

Wrong. They validate _exactly_ to the standards. They are the people who
*make* the standards.


Microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) has 395
Errors, 34 warning(s)

That's _no_ surprise. Microsoft can't do _anything_ "according to accepted
standards." "Enhance and extend" is a corporate *requirement*.

There's more than a little truth in the old joke: "Microsoft buys Electo-Lux;
makes extensive product design changes. Now they have a product that _doesn't_
suck!"

In article ,
Hoosierpopi wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:47*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

I use MS Frontpage.

Although the tool referenced reports 45 errors, the site
(www.rexn.com) appears to work well enough for my purposes.

In the browsers you've checked it with, that is. grin

If it passes the validator, 'error free', it is guaranteed to appear
consistently, and 'as intended', in any standards compliant browser.

To d*mn many "web-designers" think that if it renders in MSIE (*maybe*
they check with Firefox, 'for completeness') that it is correct and
good for everybody. Ever hear of 'lynx' -- a text-only browser that
works from character-mode terminals? Used _extensively_ by the blind,
because screen-readers work with it -- and it cam provide visible/audible
labelling of all the links on a page.

But, thanks for the "checker" as I will use it to clean up some of the
errors I introduced when adding non MSFP bits to the site.

Then go through and clean out all the sh*t that MSFP puts in. You'll
have a much better site for the experience. grin

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:51:19 -0600, the infamous
(Robert Bonomi) scrawled the following:

In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about
below?

http://tinyurl.com/y95348s


Nope. I do all my web work using nothing more than a text editor.

NoteTabPro. ASCII editing on steroids. Reformats whole pages of caps
in a single bound!

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

Doug Miller wrote:
:
:I found it hard to find a website with few errors.

: That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to)
: standards. :-) Some succeed, though:
: ibm.com -- zero
: sony.com -- zero
: w3.org -- zero
: mit.edu -- zero
: xkcd.com -- zero
: navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial
: craigslist.org -- one error, one warning
:


Add to that www.opera.com, which also makes a browser that strictly
adheres to international standards.

-- Andy Barss