I was trying to make a picture on my website larger. Although I increased the box dimensions for it, and increased the size of the image in the file to match, the darn thing won't show any bigger.
I'm thinking it might be one of the Style selections I have on the page somewhere taking control.
I have a few things were I put notes on things saying I have to adjust something in the CSS because it overrides the html setting. But I never put such a note here where this image is giving me problem, and ran out of time to worry about it.
I've found one heck of a lot of quirks in HTML5 for things that just worked in both HTML and XHTML.
Like you and UEFI, trying to figure out some things about HTML5 is driving me bonkers, over and above forgetting what some of the commands mean. I've now figured that out, but it seems everything in HTML5 has interactions with other things, which I consider a BUG, even if they don't.
At one time I had image uploads to Twitter and a few other places worked out so they didn't get cropped.
But every time you turn around, they seem to change something and one image will get cropped, while another one does not. It's a guessing game trying to figure out which ones will and which ones won't. In some cases it has to do with how much text is in the box before or after the image, at other times it seems to make no difference.
On Farcebook, I will see where someone posted a picture and the whole image is visible.
Somebody shares it and it is still fully visible, but let another person share it and it is cropped.
Some large pictures get shrunk down to fit, and others just get cropped off.
And the frau's cell phone will show an image one way, like the puzzles I work that she takes a picture of and posts on Farcebook from her cell phone. She will crop the image down to the very edge of the picture so no pink is showing around it from the backboard I work them on. Looks perfect on her phone, and is cropped properly. If she e-mails me a copy it is always perfect. But on Farcebook you still see some of the pink edge on some, and part of the picture is cropped. Like as if the puzzle was slid over 1/4 inch, when it doesn't look like that on the phone or in an e-mailed copy. STRANGE!
FAVICONS are another thing. I remember working very hard to get a logo to look right in that 16 x 16 pixel square.
Then I discovered I could do them in 32 x 32 and they would display properly.
Fast forward a couple of years, and I can take an Image, like a photo of me as used on my websites, and condense and compress it all the way down to 32 x 32 and it is still clear as a FAVICON. I'm sure you noticed that on my website.
Unless they are replacing it with a WARNING saying NOT SECURE, hi hi. It is supposed to have the Informational instead of the Not Secure. It's just another gimmick to get money out of folks.
[SPLIT] Software Updates
Forum rules
Post a new topic to begin a chat.
Any topic is acceptable, and topic drift is permissible.
Post a new topic to begin a chat.
Any topic is acceptable, and topic drift is permissible.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Just as a matter of housekeeping, I split this post into a thread of it's own because it was a little bit off topic where it was originally posted.
~forumadmin
_________________________________________
I've stopped trying to figure out how Facebook does things long ago. There are times, such as with the manipulation of your images, when the formatting on Facebook seems to violate the rules. Truth is they do violate the rules. Like any other big website they take ownership of the format and do things behind the scenes that can't be done via conventional methods. While all that is true, there is also the issue of buggy and fault prone software. Facebook in particular has to appear normal on every type device imaginable. It's a monumental task and I'm certain there are engineers at FB who can't quite figure it all out. It's hard to say why your particular image is a problem, but I would not rule out incompetence on their part.
HTML5 isn't any more complicated than it's predecessors. It has a lot more functionality and features newer than HTML4 can handle. In some cases you can't upgrade HTML4 into HTML5. It has to be rewritten from scratch. And, of course, when you do that you need to know all the things you forgot about HTML5. CSS has remained pretty much the same and can handle much of the formatting HTML5 provides. The inheritance ability of CSS can be confusing. You need to know about priorities as well in order to get the look you desire. I don't think it's all as complicated as you suggest, but it sure ain't easy either.
~forumadmin
_________________________________________
I've stopped trying to figure out how Facebook does things long ago. There are times, such as with the manipulation of your images, when the formatting on Facebook seems to violate the rules. Truth is they do violate the rules. Like any other big website they take ownership of the format and do things behind the scenes that can't be done via conventional methods. While all that is true, there is also the issue of buggy and fault prone software. Facebook in particular has to appear normal on every type device imaginable. It's a monumental task and I'm certain there are engineers at FB who can't quite figure it all out. It's hard to say why your particular image is a problem, but I would not rule out incompetence on their part.
HTML5 isn't any more complicated than it's predecessors. It has a lot more functionality and features newer than HTML4 can handle. In some cases you can't upgrade HTML4 into HTML5. It has to be rewritten from scratch. And, of course, when you do that you need to know all the things you forgot about HTML5. CSS has remained pretty much the same and can handle much of the formatting HTML5 provides. The inheritance ability of CSS can be confusing. You need to know about priorities as well in order to get the look you desire. I don't think it's all as complicated as you suggest, but it sure ain't easy either.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Now that I'm back working with HTML5 and using Bootstrap CSS and their commands, I'm getting a lot of my reasoning back behind why I did some things a certain way.
I should have looked up what a couple of the problems were that I solved so I could post them here for you to see.
But I honestly have not figured out the hows and whys of the reason I had to change some settings from style to CSS, other than they wouldn't do what I expected them to do.
One of my major problems is the way I set up my websites early on, back in the straight HTML days, before CSS.
When I converted them up to XHTML/CSS I wanted them to look almost identical, and I did manage to do that.
Although my main Index page had all the links added at the bottom like in HTML. in XHTML I added a Topical Index at the top of the page, sorta like buttons are used now.
So, from the Index page, you clicked a Topic. This took you to a page for that Topic where all the links were.
Then you looked down the links and when you found the one you wanted, it took you to the page you were after.
When I moved from my first provider to Comcast, I added all the links from the Topic pages at the bottom of the Index page and called it the Visitors Center.
Later when it became necessary to move up to XHTML/CSS, in order for everything to work like it did before, I had to have additional folders. In the Root folder is where the Index page resides. I moved all the Topic pages to a folder I named IndexedPages, and all the actual documents to a folder named HTMLPages.
Everything always worked great this way, until Google started marking them NOT MOBILE FRIENDLY, hi hi.
With HTML5 I decided to add Buttons, instead of the Topical Index links. The Button took the place of the Topical Page, and all the links were under the buttons, Almost. Some Topical Pages had way to many links to put them under the buttons, or they were tiered. From the Topic Page you had a Sub-Topic Page for several of the links on the Topical page.
Yes it was getting more and more confusing.
Plus the biggest problem was, so many websites and linked directly to both the topical page and well as the document itself. So to be safe, I maintained the original placement of all the items, even though I now had buttons to take you to them. Talk about creating a royal mess, hi hi. So this is why my StoneBroke Manor page still looks like it always did, but the RoaringFalls website is done in Bootstrap and looks and works much better.
When I was forced to move from Comcast to a new host, all of my links would no longer work from other websites, so I figured this was the time to clean everything up.
I started doing that, but then time got away from me, and my new page I put up, was the same old, and now many have linked to it again.
What you see on-line if you go to my websites is nothing like the pages I have on my computer being revamped, and which have sat idle for like 4 or 5 years. I wanted to keep the look, but do things entirely differently. I started, didn't finish, and now have to relearn what I was thinking and how to do it, hi hi.
Such is life I suppose!
I'm still just using Gedit to do my writing on. I have a BlueFish editor, but don't really like it much.
I don't know the name of the program that lets me see the code in one window and the finished project in the other window. This might be a setting in BlueFish, but I've not had time to see what all the newer versions have in them.
I might be missing the boat by not looking into BlueFish closer. It might have just what I need to keep from closing and opening the html page I'm working on.
With separate monitors, I can split the monitors and do it that way, I've worked like that before too and it was great. But not live, like I've seen in some program video's I've watched, that showed every change you make on the other screen live.
It does look weird when you add a line but not closed it yet, so everything goes haywire for a second on the live screen, hi hi.
I know there are WYSIWYG html programs out there, but they add way to much garbage to the final output.
And I like to minify my uploaded code and compress the images. Not that I always do so.
OK, off my soapbox!
I should have looked up what a couple of the problems were that I solved so I could post them here for you to see.
But I honestly have not figured out the hows and whys of the reason I had to change some settings from style to CSS, other than they wouldn't do what I expected them to do.
One of my major problems is the way I set up my websites early on, back in the straight HTML days, before CSS.
When I converted them up to XHTML/CSS I wanted them to look almost identical, and I did manage to do that.
Although my main Index page had all the links added at the bottom like in HTML. in XHTML I added a Topical Index at the top of the page, sorta like buttons are used now.
So, from the Index page, you clicked a Topic. This took you to a page for that Topic where all the links were.
Then you looked down the links and when you found the one you wanted, it took you to the page you were after.
When I moved from my first provider to Comcast, I added all the links from the Topic pages at the bottom of the Index page and called it the Visitors Center.
Later when it became necessary to move up to XHTML/CSS, in order for everything to work like it did before, I had to have additional folders. In the Root folder is where the Index page resides. I moved all the Topic pages to a folder I named IndexedPages, and all the actual documents to a folder named HTMLPages.
Everything always worked great this way, until Google started marking them NOT MOBILE FRIENDLY, hi hi.
With HTML5 I decided to add Buttons, instead of the Topical Index links. The Button took the place of the Topical Page, and all the links were under the buttons, Almost. Some Topical Pages had way to many links to put them under the buttons, or they were tiered. From the Topic Page you had a Sub-Topic Page for several of the links on the Topical page.
Yes it was getting more and more confusing.
Plus the biggest problem was, so many websites and linked directly to both the topical page and well as the document itself. So to be safe, I maintained the original placement of all the items, even though I now had buttons to take you to them. Talk about creating a royal mess, hi hi. So this is why my StoneBroke Manor page still looks like it always did, but the RoaringFalls website is done in Bootstrap and looks and works much better.
When I was forced to move from Comcast to a new host, all of my links would no longer work from other websites, so I figured this was the time to clean everything up.
I started doing that, but then time got away from me, and my new page I put up, was the same old, and now many have linked to it again.
What you see on-line if you go to my websites is nothing like the pages I have on my computer being revamped, and which have sat idle for like 4 or 5 years. I wanted to keep the look, but do things entirely differently. I started, didn't finish, and now have to relearn what I was thinking and how to do it, hi hi.
Such is life I suppose!
I'm still just using Gedit to do my writing on. I have a BlueFish editor, but don't really like it much.
I don't know the name of the program that lets me see the code in one window and the finished project in the other window. This might be a setting in BlueFish, but I've not had time to see what all the newer versions have in them.
I might be missing the boat by not looking into BlueFish closer. It might have just what I need to keep from closing and opening the html page I'm working on.
With separate monitors, I can split the monitors and do it that way, I've worked like that before too and it was great. But not live, like I've seen in some program video's I've watched, that showed every change you make on the other screen live.
It does look weird when you add a line but not closed it yet, so everything goes haywire for a second on the live screen, hi hi.
I know there are WYSIWYG html programs out there, but they add way to much garbage to the final output.
And I like to minify my uploaded code and compress the images. Not that I always do so.
OK, off my soapbox!
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
HTML5 was still new when I last touched it. Even then I only did one web page with it, and that is the portal page for this website. You and I got the same message from Google back then and we both tried to comply with their demands. I've looked at the home page on my clever phone and it works great. So does the format in these forums. As far as I can tell, it is all mobile friendly. About a month ago Google decided there were problems with that portal page. One was the font size being incorrect. The font size is correct according to the hard code so that I simply am ignoring the robots over in Google-land. Then again, I have only one page in their crosshairs. You have a couple major sized sites.
Back in my days at Motorola I found a text editor called EditPlus. I don't know if they have a Linux version but the Windows version does everything I need it to do, and more. It even has an FTP client built into it. When I select HTML format for the text editing the program does a lot of formatting for me. It makes the indents so that the flow is obvious and there are color changes for keywords and reserved words and a few other things. It's much better than a plain text editor because of all the fancy embellishment to the coding area. Clicking a button in the program puts a copy of what I have in the editor into the browser of my choice. That used to be Opera, because if it worked there it worked in all browsers. Not sure that is the case anymore. If I was happy with what I saw, then I'd just click the FTP client and it would upload the page to the server. I'd then check to see that it looks as expected on the server. I could have the CSS and any scripting pages all going at the same time in the format they are intended to be in. I know it's all serial and no line feeds when it gets fed to the web server, but humans have a hard time reading that kind of stuff.
Bootstrap and it's cousins didn't exist when I worked for a living. What I looked into since then is overkill. I suppose it would work to your advantage having such large websites, but you truly do need to revamp a whole lot in order to take advantage of all that Bootstrap can do. I wonder if you considered using a site map page to show all your links. It turns out that including one also helps boost your visibility in web searches. That's because the crawlers don't go as deep as you may have your links nested, but if they were all on a single page they would all be indexed. In any case, I'm glad it is coming back to you. Obviously you are not totally brain dead.
Back in my days at Motorola I found a text editor called EditPlus. I don't know if they have a Linux version but the Windows version does everything I need it to do, and more. It even has an FTP client built into it. When I select HTML format for the text editing the program does a lot of formatting for me. It makes the indents so that the flow is obvious and there are color changes for keywords and reserved words and a few other things. It's much better than a plain text editor because of all the fancy embellishment to the coding area. Clicking a button in the program puts a copy of what I have in the editor into the browser of my choice. That used to be Opera, because if it worked there it worked in all browsers. Not sure that is the case anymore. If I was happy with what I saw, then I'd just click the FTP client and it would upload the page to the server. I'd then check to see that it looks as expected on the server. I could have the CSS and any scripting pages all going at the same time in the format they are intended to be in. I know it's all serial and no line feeds when it gets fed to the web server, but humans have a hard time reading that kind of stuff.
Bootstrap and it's cousins didn't exist when I worked for a living. What I looked into since then is overkill. I suppose it would work to your advantage having such large websites, but you truly do need to revamp a whole lot in order to take advantage of all that Bootstrap can do. I wonder if you considered using a site map page to show all your links. It turns out that including one also helps boost your visibility in web searches. That's because the crawlers don't go as deep as you may have your links nested, but if they were all on a single page they would all be indexed. In any case, I'm glad it is coming back to you. Obviously you are not totally brain dead.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Gedit highlights in a few colors the various codes, almost the same as BlueFish.
But it doesn't have a self-check for mistakes or missing elements or delimiters.
However, if you do make a mistake, most of the text beyond it is black, which helps.
I tried a site map once and never could get it to pass the W3C validation, so gave up on the idea.
I do have a couple of codes in the header to request browsers to follow the links.
I assume this works, because if I request a certain page in a search engine, it usually has it listed.
FWIW: Web crawlers is one reason I added the place called Visitors Center.
This way all the links to every page, no matter how deep, is there on the index page.
It might be why the search engines find them?
With Bootstrap, you can remove all the stuff you don't use to make it lighter.
But if you ever visit a website with Bootstrap, from what I understand, it stays in your computers memory somewhere, so the next time you visit a website that uses Bootstrap it loads faster, unless the version number is different.
Even so, today's websites are so fast, I'm told you don't really need to minify person web pages or even compress images as tight as I was doing in the past.
I always have to clear my cache and history to check how fast one of my pages loads.
Because the next time I load it, it is almost instant.
A few years ago, there was a definite time lag in loaded the first time I hit my own website.
But now, you can hardly see any difference. Faster than you can hit the button on a stopwatch twice, hi hi.
I was using Windows XP when I built my first websites on Inlink my first ISP with web space.
They were very simple to do back then. Just set it up like a Word document, then save as html.
Then open it as html and see what parts didn't work right and make the couple of minor adjustments and you were good to go. Trouble is, it had tons of garbage code it didn't need in it.
So, I learned to clean it all up. Another caveat back then, you couldn't use notepad, because it added characters which blew the html page out of the water. So I used the plain text editor program, forget the name of it, wait I think it was just called Text Editor, hi hi. It didn't mess up the html on you.
The BIG THING back then was you had to write different pages for different browsers.
People who used Netscape had to be sent to one page, while those using the other main browsers could see the original page, except for a few. Somewhere in my archives I have a sample of my early web page as it appeared on like 10 different browsers. Don't even remember all their names anymore. Most faded away into oblivion.
But it doesn't have a self-check for mistakes or missing elements or delimiters.
However, if you do make a mistake, most of the text beyond it is black, which helps.
I tried a site map once and never could get it to pass the W3C validation, so gave up on the idea.
I do have a couple of codes in the header to request browsers to follow the links.
I assume this works, because if I request a certain page in a search engine, it usually has it listed.
FWIW: Web crawlers is one reason I added the place called Visitors Center.
This way all the links to every page, no matter how deep, is there on the index page.
It might be why the search engines find them?
With Bootstrap, you can remove all the stuff you don't use to make it lighter.
But if you ever visit a website with Bootstrap, from what I understand, it stays in your computers memory somewhere, so the next time you visit a website that uses Bootstrap it loads faster, unless the version number is different.
Even so, today's websites are so fast, I'm told you don't really need to minify person web pages or even compress images as tight as I was doing in the past.
I always have to clear my cache and history to check how fast one of my pages loads.
Because the next time I load it, it is almost instant.
A few years ago, there was a definite time lag in loaded the first time I hit my own website.
But now, you can hardly see any difference. Faster than you can hit the button on a stopwatch twice, hi hi.
I was using Windows XP when I built my first websites on Inlink my first ISP with web space.
They were very simple to do back then. Just set it up like a Word document, then save as html.
Then open it as html and see what parts didn't work right and make the couple of minor adjustments and you were good to go. Trouble is, it had tons of garbage code it didn't need in it.
So, I learned to clean it all up. Another caveat back then, you couldn't use notepad, because it added characters which blew the html page out of the water. So I used the plain text editor program, forget the name of it, wait I think it was just called Text Editor, hi hi. It didn't mess up the html on you.
The BIG THING back then was you had to write different pages for different browsers.
People who used Netscape had to be sent to one page, while those using the other main browsers could see the original page, except for a few. Somewhere in my archives I have a sample of my early web page as it appeared on like 10 different browsers. Don't even remember all their names anymore. Most faded away into oblivion.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Ahhhhh, now I'm thinking of all the fun I had with good ol' javascript. It was a NIGHTMARE. LOL But, javascript had flow controls and that is how you determined which browser is viewing your page. The coding was different for several, and as you would expect Internet Explorer was the most obnoxious. Using javascript eliminated the need for a separate page for each unique browser view. It added complexity to the main page however. That is the reason why I wrote my .html to work in Opera browser. You had to do things slightly different in order to render the page the way you intended. Most of the time the end result was universal and could even be read in IE6. There were exceptions, of course, but then Opera decided to kill it's old browser and come up with an entirely new rendering engine. Nothing worked after that. LOL
You are correct about most of the lag due to loading has been overcome by faster Internet speeds. Today things are loading at gigabyte speed and it hardly makes a difference how your page is written. The most obnoxious part of web page viewing is the browser itself. Chrome is a greater resource hog than all of Windows 10. It takes up more RAM and runs more processes than an entire operating system. It's one reason I don't use Chrome browser.
You are correct about most of the lag due to loading has been overcome by faster Internet speeds. Today things are loading at gigabyte speed and it hardly makes a difference how your page is written. The most obnoxious part of web page viewing is the browser itself. Chrome is a greater resource hog than all of Windows 10. It takes up more RAM and runs more processes than an entire operating system. It's one reason I don't use Chrome browser.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I lost over an hour trying to figure out why when I changed the color of the text in a certain container sub-division why the Breadcrumb text did not change along with it.
I did add a new entry which is not on any of my other pages to force it to change, but I shouldn't have had to do that.
I looked back at all of my html pages where I used different colors for the header texts, and I saw no difference in those pages, other than the wording in the header fields, and the style sections where the colors were changed. I did not remove or add anything to the style changes made in the html document. So why does it work perfectly on all pages except the one I was working on. The color is NOT selected in the BootstrapCSS file itself.
I finally added a new line in the style section of the html page to override whatever was making it not change.
Heck, I even went to some existing pages that work right, and made changes to them also, and it took in the breadcrumb as expected. So this one really has me baffled. I never had to name a color in the style for breadcrumb, just size. I do have a style line that changes the color to gray for the name of the page and words YOU ARE HERE, and of course the roll-over colors.
I'm sure it is something I probably did, but if so, on a cut n paste page, it should be identical and work identically.
As I said, I made copies of several pages just to test the header text color changes, and it worked on all of them just fine, just not this one page. Strange, very strange!
I did add a new entry which is not on any of my other pages to force it to change, but I shouldn't have had to do that.
I looked back at all of my html pages where I used different colors for the header texts, and I saw no difference in those pages, other than the wording in the header fields, and the style sections where the colors were changed. I did not remove or add anything to the style changes made in the html document. So why does it work perfectly on all pages except the one I was working on. The color is NOT selected in the BootstrapCSS file itself.
I finally added a new line in the style section of the html page to override whatever was making it not change.
Heck, I even went to some existing pages that work right, and made changes to them also, and it took in the breadcrumb as expected. So this one really has me baffled. I never had to name a color in the style for breadcrumb, just size. I do have a style line that changes the color to gray for the name of the page and words YOU ARE HERE, and of course the roll-over colors.
I'm sure it is something I probably did, but if so, on a cut n paste page, it should be identical and work identically.
As I said, I made copies of several pages just to test the header text color changes, and it worked on all of them just fine, just not this one page. Strange, very strange!
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
You are missing a semi-colon somewhere on that errant page and thus altering the style. Well, I can't know for certain what is going on because I've not seen what your code looks like, but a lot of those quirks are simply typos or omissions. Sometimes it's the browser that screws up so that you need to look at those pages in several different ones. If it turns out to be a browser issue, you have my sympathies. LOL The styles have priorities built in to where they are declared, i.e., be they in a separate style sheet, a style declaration on the html page, or in line with the content. Some properties do not get inherited and other override what was inherited. Then there are classes that must be declared properly, which is where I suspect your quirk is assuming you are using them. It can be messy especially when working inside a framework like Bootstrap. I have no idea how they structure things. Anyway, it seems as if you have a work around. No problems if it looks right.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Yes, some things must be used in a specific order, and in some cases cannot be used at all in other places.
Even if it looks right on the browser W3C will not pass it and call it an error.
But my issue is, each copy works perfectly, it is only a cut n paste, where I changed the text color, nothing else.
All pages work as expected, except one, and as I said, it's a cut n paste, and I double checked before making any other changes. This is why I was so baffled.
When I type a line like
<p>The quick brown fox & hound race is underway.</p>
The & is highlighted, meaning it is correct.
But if I change to a header
<h3>The quick brown fox & hound race is underway.</h3>
The & remains black, indicating it is not recognized.
Even so it looks right on Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.
I know I don't have to use & and just use an ampersand & instead. It's just proper to escape the & character.
If I recall using <strong> in a header, although it works, it remains black, meaning not correct code.
It shows up as expected in the browsers though.
I'll find out when I run it through W3C to see what errors I get.
Even if it looks right on the browser W3C will not pass it and call it an error.
But my issue is, each copy works perfectly, it is only a cut n paste, where I changed the text color, nothing else.
All pages work as expected, except one, and as I said, it's a cut n paste, and I double checked before making any other changes. This is why I was so baffled.
When I type a line like
<p>The quick brown fox & hound race is underway.</p>
The & is highlighted, meaning it is correct.
But if I change to a header
<h3>The quick brown fox & hound race is underway.</h3>
The & remains black, indicating it is not recognized.
Even so it looks right on Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.
I know I don't have to use & and just use an ampersand & instead. It's just proper to escape the & character.
If I recall using <strong> in a header, although it works, it remains black, meaning not correct code.
It shows up as expected in the browsers though.
I'll find out when I run it through W3C to see what errors I get.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
It has to do with the way HTML encodes characters. Unfortunately, I don't recall a lot more and would have to do as much research as you are doing to get the definitive answer. I don't think the rules for encoding change between paragraphs and headers, but there may be something in the styling somewhere that causes what you are observing. If you can't "see" the problem when you examine the code, you probably are looking in the wrong place. That's why I think it could be a style issue located somewhere off the content pages you are examining. I can't guess what the validation checker would say about it, but they can be confused too. Just because it validates doesn't mean it's correct. Likewise, just because you get a validation error doesn't mean you did something wrong. There is some gray area.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
As far as the & goes, turns out it is the correct way, Gedit just didn't realize it is all.
I did hit another minor snag where I was getting a newline where I didn't want one.
And looking on-line, there were countless posts regarding the same issue, and all kinds of crazy solutions for the problem.
Using <br /> before a <ul> was not cutting it. I was still getting the line feed, because of <ul>
I tried a few things and not only got rid of the line, but also got the heavier text I wanted at the same time.
No one, in any of the posts I read, had come up with this solution.
Instead of using <p> <strong> Text Line <br />
I used <dl><dt> Text Line </dt>
<dd><ul> My list of li's
And ended it with </ul></dd></dl>
It worked perfectly, and W3C said No Errors Found, No Warnings Found.
I then ran it through the program that shows what it looks like on ten different browsers and it looks as expected.
The only thing is, I still end up with an extra page, and had to figure out with a way not to have a third page, else people wouldn't come look see, hi hi.
I'm a weird bird. Years ago, I wanted people to SEE my sub-Index Pages.
But then I added the info from the sub-index page to the actual page I wanted them to see. So no longer needed to use sub-index pages.
However, I still make a sub-index page just the same, and make the viewers page using my old style of including the sub-index page data on the page I link to.
And this is what is now causing me a conundrum.
NOW On my main page I now have buttons for each company, or other locations, so I don't need the extra links at the bottom anymore. That's all and good.
But I normally don't send anyone to the main page, I send them to the sub-domain, which had an Indexed Page that lead directly via a link to what they wanted to see. I never linked to the actual page at first.
BUT NOW, since I put the data on the indexed page on the page I want them to go to, I can have everything there.
I have five buttons on my Main Page, only two of these take you directly to the sub-domain page, the rest take you to the page of interest. But those who do take you to the sub-domain page, also have a drop down box so you can skip that page and go directly to the topic of interest.
My NEW Main Page I am working on, not up on-line yet has Six Buttons on the Main Page, the one of interest here is named Sales Department.
The drop down box contains links for Antiques, Vintage & Collectibles, Office Equipment, Household, and I might make one Featured, don't know yet.
To keep my website uniform, I have created a page named Sales Department that will not be linked to at this time. The drop down box will take you to the Vintage & Collectibles page so that button link has someplace to go. Then under Vintage & Collectibles, where I have a short list of the offerings, one being only the name of the items for sale, which will link to a page named Musical Instruments. The blurb on the Vintage & Collectibles page would normally be reprinted on the Musical Instruments page, because I thought about the published links going directly to the Musical Instruments page, then changed my mind. Because I will have other items listed on the Vintage & Collectibles page.
NOW here is my conundrum:
What I should do is have a link on Vintage & Collectibles page to each individual item for sale. But I will have different categories of items for sale. So I will list all the categories here that will take them to the proper page. In this case, a link to the Musical Instruments page.
But instead, to prevent having yet another html page, I am planning on putting any and all musical instruments, with their full description on this Musical Instruments page, which could possibly make it over bloated if I actually more than one to sell. But I don't, so I think I can get by doing it this. The Musical Instruments Page does not have the Vintage and Collectibles blurb on it. For this reason, public links will go to the Vintage & Collectibles page.
How will people know about the other pages I skipped over?
I use a Breadcrumb at the top of all my pages. A curious person may want to follow them back to the Main Page.
Which means, from the main page, I should have a way for them to move back to the Sales Department page which is currently not included, hi hi. I could change my button to read like those that go to sub-domains.
Heck, I guess I could make a sub-domain named Sales Department since I have unlimited sub-domains, hi hi.
I'll bet all that is clear as MUD, hi hi.
Simplified, here is my website.
#1 The Main Domain: My companies main website with links to my sub-domains and other features.
#2 Sales Department: This page is not linked to yet in any way, but will be in the breadcrumb.
#3 Vintage & Collectibles: This page shows a blurb about the featured offerings of each department.
#4 Musical Instruments: This page gives a full description of each musical instrument for sale.
No public link will go directly to #4 Musical Instruments. I want visitors to see the list of featured offerings on the Vintage & Collectibles page, then jump to the item of interest.
A second method could be like I did with my original StoneBroke Manor page and have a full index on the Main Page to everything and every page.
So it would be set up like a main index.
Sales Department (link)
.....Antiques (link)
.....Vintage & Collectibles (link)
..........Toys (link)
..........Books (link)
..........Musical Instruments (link)
..........Household Goods (link)
.....Office Equipment (link)
.....etc.
The trouble with doing it this way is I would have to KILL the Links to any page not necessary at the time. Which is why most of the links on my original website are black and turned off.
I actually thought of adding PDF pages under Musical Instruments to each individual instrument, but that would be yet another jump, although doing documents and converting to PDF is a whole lot faster than writing an html page.
Debi thinks I should just make ONE PAGE for the item I am selling and not include it with links to any of my other pages.
Trouble here is, my Host requires all displayed pages can be reached via link, and they do count a link from a breadcrumb as a link, I know because I asked about it. Like I can create a page named Sales Department that is not linked to directly from the main page, but is linked in reverse from a viewable page from the breadcrumb.
I think they do this to prevent people from using folders for storage only, on unlimited space accounts.
You can't sneak more than a few unused images into the GFX folder either.
But you can have a folder you use for images you will be using on-line that are not part of your website images.
But this type of folder has limitations, and although it is in my file, it is merely a part of my small cloud storage space, which isn't much. Less than I have for free on DropBox, which cannot be used for on-line images.
I've been warned about using places like PhotoBucket because they can use your photo's themselves if they want to. Don't know if that is true or not, but I do know if I post an image to Farcebook, they can use it too.
OK, enough rambling, I've probably worn out your eyeballs by now, hi hi.
I did hit another minor snag where I was getting a newline where I didn't want one.
And looking on-line, there were countless posts regarding the same issue, and all kinds of crazy solutions for the problem.
Using <br /> before a <ul> was not cutting it. I was still getting the line feed, because of <ul>
I tried a few things and not only got rid of the line, but also got the heavier text I wanted at the same time.
No one, in any of the posts I read, had come up with this solution.
Instead of using <p> <strong> Text Line <br />
I used <dl><dt> Text Line </dt>
<dd><ul> My list of li's
And ended it with </ul></dd></dl>
It worked perfectly, and W3C said No Errors Found, No Warnings Found.
I then ran it through the program that shows what it looks like on ten different browsers and it looks as expected.
The only thing is, I still end up with an extra page, and had to figure out with a way not to have a third page, else people wouldn't come look see, hi hi.
I'm a weird bird. Years ago, I wanted people to SEE my sub-Index Pages.
But then I added the info from the sub-index page to the actual page I wanted them to see. So no longer needed to use sub-index pages.
However, I still make a sub-index page just the same, and make the viewers page using my old style of including the sub-index page data on the page I link to.
And this is what is now causing me a conundrum.
NOW On my main page I now have buttons for each company, or other locations, so I don't need the extra links at the bottom anymore. That's all and good.
But I normally don't send anyone to the main page, I send them to the sub-domain, which had an Indexed Page that lead directly via a link to what they wanted to see. I never linked to the actual page at first.
BUT NOW, since I put the data on the indexed page on the page I want them to go to, I can have everything there.
I have five buttons on my Main Page, only two of these take you directly to the sub-domain page, the rest take you to the page of interest. But those who do take you to the sub-domain page, also have a drop down box so you can skip that page and go directly to the topic of interest.
My NEW Main Page I am working on, not up on-line yet has Six Buttons on the Main Page, the one of interest here is named Sales Department.
The drop down box contains links for Antiques, Vintage & Collectibles, Office Equipment, Household, and I might make one Featured, don't know yet.
To keep my website uniform, I have created a page named Sales Department that will not be linked to at this time. The drop down box will take you to the Vintage & Collectibles page so that button link has someplace to go. Then under Vintage & Collectibles, where I have a short list of the offerings, one being only the name of the items for sale, which will link to a page named Musical Instruments. The blurb on the Vintage & Collectibles page would normally be reprinted on the Musical Instruments page, because I thought about the published links going directly to the Musical Instruments page, then changed my mind. Because I will have other items listed on the Vintage & Collectibles page.
NOW here is my conundrum:
What I should do is have a link on Vintage & Collectibles page to each individual item for sale. But I will have different categories of items for sale. So I will list all the categories here that will take them to the proper page. In this case, a link to the Musical Instruments page.
But instead, to prevent having yet another html page, I am planning on putting any and all musical instruments, with their full description on this Musical Instruments page, which could possibly make it over bloated if I actually more than one to sell. But I don't, so I think I can get by doing it this. The Musical Instruments Page does not have the Vintage and Collectibles blurb on it. For this reason, public links will go to the Vintage & Collectibles page.
How will people know about the other pages I skipped over?
I use a Breadcrumb at the top of all my pages. A curious person may want to follow them back to the Main Page.
Which means, from the main page, I should have a way for them to move back to the Sales Department page which is currently not included, hi hi. I could change my button to read like those that go to sub-domains.
Heck, I guess I could make a sub-domain named Sales Department since I have unlimited sub-domains, hi hi.
I'll bet all that is clear as MUD, hi hi.
Simplified, here is my website.
#1 The Main Domain: My companies main website with links to my sub-domains and other features.
#2 Sales Department: This page is not linked to yet in any way, but will be in the breadcrumb.
#3 Vintage & Collectibles: This page shows a blurb about the featured offerings of each department.
#4 Musical Instruments: This page gives a full description of each musical instrument for sale.
No public link will go directly to #4 Musical Instruments. I want visitors to see the list of featured offerings on the Vintage & Collectibles page, then jump to the item of interest.
A second method could be like I did with my original StoneBroke Manor page and have a full index on the Main Page to everything and every page.
So it would be set up like a main index.
Sales Department (link)
.....Antiques (link)
.....Vintage & Collectibles (link)
..........Toys (link)
..........Books (link)
..........Musical Instruments (link)
..........Household Goods (link)
.....Office Equipment (link)
.....etc.
The trouble with doing it this way is I would have to KILL the Links to any page not necessary at the time. Which is why most of the links on my original website are black and turned off.
I actually thought of adding PDF pages under Musical Instruments to each individual instrument, but that would be yet another jump, although doing documents and converting to PDF is a whole lot faster than writing an html page.
Debi thinks I should just make ONE PAGE for the item I am selling and not include it with links to any of my other pages.
Trouble here is, my Host requires all displayed pages can be reached via link, and they do count a link from a breadcrumb as a link, I know because I asked about it. Like I can create a page named Sales Department that is not linked to directly from the main page, but is linked in reverse from a viewable page from the breadcrumb.
I think they do this to prevent people from using folders for storage only, on unlimited space accounts.
You can't sneak more than a few unused images into the GFX folder either.
But you can have a folder you use for images you will be using on-line that are not part of your website images.
But this type of folder has limitations, and although it is in my file, it is merely a part of my small cloud storage space, which isn't much. Less than I have for free on DropBox, which cannot be used for on-line images.
I've been warned about using places like PhotoBucket because they can use your photo's themselves if they want to. Don't know if that is true or not, but I do know if I post an image to Farcebook, they can use it too.
OK, enough rambling, I've probably worn out your eyeballs by now, hi hi.
The Alternatives
Take a look at this bfchat forum. What do you see? A single page with the topic of interest, of course. But, we have tens of thousands of topics to choose from, and guess what. They are not all on individual pages of their own. Each topic fits into an empty template that is filled by making queries to a database. Each record in that single database contains the topic content and a few indexing keys which allow you to extract a specific record, or topic in our case. The thing that fills up the blank templates is .... php. So, instead of having 50,000 links to each topic, the database creates a new page each time you click on the appropriate link. We have text as our content, but photographs and images of all kinds can be referenced in the database too. You can have multiple directories just for images that the database uses to compose web pages. If your ISP does not allow that, it's time to find a new ISP.
What we do here is based on what is done on any website where you make purchases. They don't have each item on a page of it's own. They have a database full of descriptions and links to appropriate images all resident on your web server. I fully understand that you do not have experience with php or databases. The next best thing might be to use something pre-made. I've not looked for such a thing lately, but I am certain you can get search scripts that you can simply drop into your web page and have your users do a search, thus eliminating the need for links. It's way easier to type in a few keywords than go through directories and sub-directories hoping to find something of interest. You know, like on the WalMart website; just type in "peas" and you get twenty seven images with short descriptions of the peas they have. Click any image and you get a full description. Likewise, the shopping cart scrips are readily available just as the search scripts would be. The problem, of course, is that you would have to learn how to use these scripts and integrate them into your website. You would essentially be rewriting it from scratch. The benefit of doing that is to simplify the site structure. Just upload an image and some descriptive text and the site will generate the appropriate pages for you.
Undoubtedly all that I suggested would be too much effort, even if it is elegant and consistent with what the rest of the world is doing. I've not seen the site you are talking about, but I can tell from what you are describing that it could be a navigation nightmare. The last thing you want to do is give your potential buyers a headache when they try to find something on your website. The rule is that if they can't get to where they want to go in under 5 seconds, you most likely lost a customer. You certainly reduce the return sales if your site is not super simple and easy to use.
What we do here is based on what is done on any website where you make purchases. They don't have each item on a page of it's own. They have a database full of descriptions and links to appropriate images all resident on your web server. I fully understand that you do not have experience with php or databases. The next best thing might be to use something pre-made. I've not looked for such a thing lately, but I am certain you can get search scripts that you can simply drop into your web page and have your users do a search, thus eliminating the need for links. It's way easier to type in a few keywords than go through directories and sub-directories hoping to find something of interest. You know, like on the WalMart website; just type in "peas" and you get twenty seven images with short descriptions of the peas they have. Click any image and you get a full description. Likewise, the shopping cart scrips are readily available just as the search scripts would be. The problem, of course, is that you would have to learn how to use these scripts and integrate them into your website. You would essentially be rewriting it from scratch. The benefit of doing that is to simplify the site structure. Just upload an image and some descriptive text and the site will generate the appropriate pages for you.
Undoubtedly all that I suggested would be too much effort, even if it is elegant and consistent with what the rest of the world is doing. I've not seen the site you are talking about, but I can tell from what you are describing that it could be a navigation nightmare. The last thing you want to do is give your potential buyers a headache when they try to find something on your website. The rule is that if they can't get to where they want to go in under 5 seconds, you most likely lost a customer. You certainly reduce the return sales if your site is not super simple and easy to use.
the Conundrum
I'll start this reply by reiterating what I already mentioned above "The rule is that if they can't get to where they want to go in under 5 seconds, you most likely lost a customer." A website such as the one you are describing needs to pay close attention to the KISS principle. There are people who are curious and will rummage though all the links on a website, but they are not buyers. They are geeks like me. LOL Because you have the potential to have many items for sale, it is critical for you to make a huge effort to simplify navigation. That's why I like the "search" approach. The customer goes from the landing page directly to where they want to be without a complex of directories and subdirectories to navigate. Once on the target page you can have a series of back links across the top just like we do for this website. That allows the viewer to back track if they so cared to.
Forcing your viewers to a page filled with links to your inventory items is risky. They may not be interested in the orchestra pit you have for sale and only want to look at the tympani's. A list of links is OK if you can keep it down to what one person can see and read in ... you guessed it ... 5 seconds. An alternative to that list of instruments would be a standard title bar that has 26 links across the top, one for each letter of the alphabet. Thus your Musical Instruments page would have all the normal description and the 26 alphabets across the top. Click "T" and the viewer is where they want to be in the percussion section; that is unless you also have trombones and tambourines for sale. LOL In that case those three "T" items might replace the alphabet links and get the potential buyer to his target in just two clicks.
Don't ever lose sight of how fragile your site viewers are. My point here is that it's a lot easier on the eyes to read a single line of links across the top of a page than it is to sort out an index and all it's sub-indexes. And, by the way, .pdf files are lovely. Avoid them like the plague. Most people have that all set up, but many viewers have no clue what a .pdf is and may not have the add-on or software to read them. Assume your site visitors have no clue about anything technical.
Also, there are some risks involved with putting all your eggs in one basket. It's the same risk as trying to navigate a maze of directory links. Not everybody has a Silver Yogi or an ASUS Tower. Those poor souls (probably using Windows 10 Home edition) may not be able to download a dozen instrument descriptions on a single page in under the 5 second limit. If there is anything worse than trying to plod through a mish-mosh of directory trees, it's waiting for a page to load. You know how that works, I'm sure. Even if I get that page in 4.9 seconds, I'm not going to waste any of my valuable time scrolling until I see something I might like. Do all you can to make those target pages load directly and as fast as the Internet will allow.
Yes, Debi has the right idea. Using the scheme you outlined each item should be on a page of its own. I have a feeling you are misinterpreting your hosting service requirements. Stand alone web pages are common practice. Keeping them on the server for future use is part of the "unlimited" in unlimited storage. You don't want to go crazy and keep a thousand unused pages up in your cloud, but a dozen or even a hundred won't be noticed by any server that I know of.
I don't know if I've been helpful or just rambling. I think I understand what you are talking about, but it is indeed complex. That is your style and I appreciate it. There are more efficient ways to do what you are trying to do, but they involve a great investment in learning and coding. I doubt that you have that much time to spare.
Forcing your viewers to a page filled with links to your inventory items is risky. They may not be interested in the orchestra pit you have for sale and only want to look at the tympani's. A list of links is OK if you can keep it down to what one person can see and read in ... you guessed it ... 5 seconds. An alternative to that list of instruments would be a standard title bar that has 26 links across the top, one for each letter of the alphabet. Thus your Musical Instruments page would have all the normal description and the 26 alphabets across the top. Click "T" and the viewer is where they want to be in the percussion section; that is unless you also have trombones and tambourines for sale. LOL In that case those three "T" items might replace the alphabet links and get the potential buyer to his target in just two clicks.
Don't ever lose sight of how fragile your site viewers are. My point here is that it's a lot easier on the eyes to read a single line of links across the top of a page than it is to sort out an index and all it's sub-indexes. And, by the way, .pdf files are lovely. Avoid them like the plague. Most people have that all set up, but many viewers have no clue what a .pdf is and may not have the add-on or software to read them. Assume your site visitors have no clue about anything technical.
Also, there are some risks involved with putting all your eggs in one basket. It's the same risk as trying to navigate a maze of directory links. Not everybody has a Silver Yogi or an ASUS Tower. Those poor souls (probably using Windows 10 Home edition) may not be able to download a dozen instrument descriptions on a single page in under the 5 second limit. If there is anything worse than trying to plod through a mish-mosh of directory trees, it's waiting for a page to load. You know how that works, I'm sure. Even if I get that page in 4.9 seconds, I'm not going to waste any of my valuable time scrolling until I see something I might like. Do all you can to make those target pages load directly and as fast as the Internet will allow.
Yes, Debi has the right idea. Using the scheme you outlined each item should be on a page of its own. I have a feeling you are misinterpreting your hosting service requirements. Stand alone web pages are common practice. Keeping them on the server for future use is part of the "unlimited" in unlimited storage. You don't want to go crazy and keep a thousand unused pages up in your cloud, but a dozen or even a hundred won't be noticed by any server that I know of.
I don't know if I've been helpful or just rambling. I think I understand what you are talking about, but it is indeed complex. That is your style and I appreciate it. There are more efficient ways to do what you are trying to do, but they involve a great investment in learning and coding. I doubt that you have that much time to spare.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I do a lot of web surfing when I'm looking for things, and honestly I always prefer the ones where I can look down a list like an index of items under that topic. That way I don't have to weed through or scroll down all of what is available.
In my case, I will never have but a couple of things to sell, so there won't be a long list.
There will only be one thing on the Musical Instruments page, a Rare Saxophone.
I have nothing else ready to put on-line that would need my website to explain it.
I can just put those things on public for sale websites usually in my own area only.
If I post on social media or elsewhere that I have a Rare Saxophone for sale, the link should take them directly to that page and that page only, which in this case would be the Musical Instruments page. On that point I will agree with you.
However there is pertinent information regarding all items that appear on the Vintage & Collectibles page.
On the Vintage & Collectibles page is where I will place the Featured Item, and the short blurb about the Saxophone.
But if they want to read ALL the data regarding same, then they would have to click on the Link to the Saxophone on the Musical Instruments page, where there is nearly a whole page of text about this instrument. Why it is rare, who owned it, and who owned the ones before it, and what about those make this one more special.
If I didn't use a Vintage & Collectibles page, everything on it would have to appear on EVERY Page of offerings.
This is why I think it is best to have the Saxophone as the Featured Item on the Vintage & Collectibles page.
Where there will be an Index of other such items for sale, if and when I have them, with links to their pages.
Since I am now using drop down Button Bars, I no longer need an Extended Index such as found on my original website.
But even then, I did have an Index in the left column of every page so they could move about without having to go back to the main page.
As far as my Roaring Falls page goes, I've had many tell me they like that new layout.
As I said, what you see on-line right now has not been updated since 2015, but the one I've been working on has removed all that stuff you currently see at the bottom of the page. The bottom Index is GONE on my new page here, that I hope to get uploaded soon.
FWIW: Websites that sell parts have a multi-tiered website, so you do have to navigate to what you want. And in most cases is much easier to use than let's say Amazon.
If I go to a plumbing website, there are tons of items for different purposes, and I don't want to weed through little pictures of things that don't have anything to do with what I'm looking for.
I have choices on the very first page as to Brand, or Type of product, or Type of repair item.
Some even have checkboxes so you can check all that apply, such as Kohler, Toilet, Flush Valve, and it will take you to the Kohler Flush Valves page where you can see a picture of only the Kohler branded flush valves.
If I did not select Kohler, and just selected Toilet, Flush Valves, it would take me an index page of images for all Flush Valves for all brands and generic.
I'm sure this is all done using PHP as you said.
RARELY If ever would I send someone to the Index.html page in a link. But they can get back to it using the breadcrumb.
Since I will be selling a Saxophone, to me it makes sense to send them to the SHORT BLURB on the Vintage & Collectibles page first. After reading the short blurb it may not be what they were looking for so they leave. But if it is the item they are interested in, THEN they can go see the Full-Description on the Musical Instruments page.
What I didn't want to do was cause them to have to jump again to a Saxophone Page, so the Musical Instrument page won't have an Index to take them a step further to learn more.
I also plan on turning off all links that have no offerings of things for sale.
Although I do consider it to be in poor taste to show links that go nowhere, hi hi.
Maybe I could just hide them too, that is always an option.
Enough rambling!
Oh, dig this. I made a mistake on a page, which caused something weird to happen.
I couldn't figure out where I made the mistake so thought the W3C checker would find it for me.
It didn't, it said No Errors, No Warnings, hi hi.
I finally found it. I had used a > where one shouldn't be, but it was fixed by < where it shouldn't be, so no error, hi hi.
I have to remember not to turn too many <!-- blah de blah's --> off in my <li>'s when using <dd><dl> hi hi.
You have to have at least to <li>'s if you use those other elements.
In my case, I will never have but a couple of things to sell, so there won't be a long list.
There will only be one thing on the Musical Instruments page, a Rare Saxophone.
I have nothing else ready to put on-line that would need my website to explain it.
I can just put those things on public for sale websites usually in my own area only.
If I post on social media or elsewhere that I have a Rare Saxophone for sale, the link should take them directly to that page and that page only, which in this case would be the Musical Instruments page. On that point I will agree with you.
However there is pertinent information regarding all items that appear on the Vintage & Collectibles page.
On the Vintage & Collectibles page is where I will place the Featured Item, and the short blurb about the Saxophone.
But if they want to read ALL the data regarding same, then they would have to click on the Link to the Saxophone on the Musical Instruments page, where there is nearly a whole page of text about this instrument. Why it is rare, who owned it, and who owned the ones before it, and what about those make this one more special.
If I didn't use a Vintage & Collectibles page, everything on it would have to appear on EVERY Page of offerings.
This is why I think it is best to have the Saxophone as the Featured Item on the Vintage & Collectibles page.
Where there will be an Index of other such items for sale, if and when I have them, with links to their pages.
Since I am now using drop down Button Bars, I no longer need an Extended Index such as found on my original website.
But even then, I did have an Index in the left column of every page so they could move about without having to go back to the main page.
As far as my Roaring Falls page goes, I've had many tell me they like that new layout.
As I said, what you see on-line right now has not been updated since 2015, but the one I've been working on has removed all that stuff you currently see at the bottom of the page. The bottom Index is GONE on my new page here, that I hope to get uploaded soon.
FWIW: Websites that sell parts have a multi-tiered website, so you do have to navigate to what you want. And in most cases is much easier to use than let's say Amazon.
If I go to a plumbing website, there are tons of items for different purposes, and I don't want to weed through little pictures of things that don't have anything to do with what I'm looking for.
I have choices on the very first page as to Brand, or Type of product, or Type of repair item.
Some even have checkboxes so you can check all that apply, such as Kohler, Toilet, Flush Valve, and it will take you to the Kohler Flush Valves page where you can see a picture of only the Kohler branded flush valves.
If I did not select Kohler, and just selected Toilet, Flush Valves, it would take me an index page of images for all Flush Valves for all brands and generic.
I'm sure this is all done using PHP as you said.
RARELY If ever would I send someone to the Index.html page in a link. But they can get back to it using the breadcrumb.
Since I will be selling a Saxophone, to me it makes sense to send them to the SHORT BLURB on the Vintage & Collectibles page first. After reading the short blurb it may not be what they were looking for so they leave. But if it is the item they are interested in, THEN they can go see the Full-Description on the Musical Instruments page.
What I didn't want to do was cause them to have to jump again to a Saxophone Page, so the Musical Instrument page won't have an Index to take them a step further to learn more.
I also plan on turning off all links that have no offerings of things for sale.
Although I do consider it to be in poor taste to show links that go nowhere, hi hi.
Maybe I could just hide them too, that is always an option.
Enough rambling!
Oh, dig this. I made a mistake on a page, which caused something weird to happen.
I couldn't figure out where I made the mistake so thought the W3C checker would find it for me.
It didn't, it said No Errors, No Warnings, hi hi.
I finally found it. I had used a > where one shouldn't be, but it was fixed by < where it shouldn't be, so no error, hi hi.
I have to remember not to turn too many <!-- blah de blah's --> off in my <li>'s when using <dd><dl> hi hi.
You have to have at least to <li>'s if you use those other elements.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I realize you have special needs and your website must comply with your abilities to maintain it. That's all well and good. My comments were of necessity general in nature and described what most would consider good practices. There are always exceptions to justify variations from the norm. As long as your web pages serve their purpose, who is to say they are wrong.
Syntax checkers are not perfect, as your W3C verification proved. Back in my programming days we tried to create one to verify simple coding of a piece of test equipment that was widely used. While the coding was simple and the number of variables were limited, you can't believe how many permutations there are which would be considered legal. We never did perfect it. The W3C group knows what is logically correct, but apparently they can't tell what is functionally correct. LOL
Syntax checkers are not perfect, as your W3C verification proved. Back in my programming days we tried to create one to verify simple coding of a piece of test equipment that was widely used. While the coding was simple and the number of variables were limited, you can't believe how many permutations there are which would be considered legal. We never did perfect it. The W3C group knows what is logically correct, but apparently they can't tell what is functionally correct. LOL
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Most of the folks I know are using Template driven websites, the Templates being provided by their overpriced hosting companies, Like NING as an example. Almost all hosting companies now provide WordPress Templates of several varieties, and basically make it easy for anyone to plug data into a form and have a website.
The trouble with this is all you see are what I call cookie cutter websites.
They may do all the functions the user needs, but no matter what they do, they will always look the same, and I consider it BORING.
I've actually had folks who visited my StoneBroke Manor website ask where I got the template and is it WordPress.
They liked my little sidebar and float images on the end pages, and even liked my Index on the main and intermediate pages. I told them the code is simple and they could just follow how I did it and make their own.
What I would get is I can't it has to be done on WordPress or something else like WordPress. They need it as a Template, hi hi.
Besides W3C, I also run my sites through Google Checker, and Mobile Compatibility Checker.
Google Checker is always trying to hawk something that they more or likely sell, which would improve my website.
The Checker my host provider has also suggests certain things to make my site more visible, probably selling something to get higher rankings, who knows.
Because my account is a personal account and not a business account, I cannot get things like a shopping cart or make sales directly from the website through other 3rd party shopping carts, although I know a few who are doing so in a roundabout way. They don't have a link, but tell you to go to PayPal and send the money that way to their e-mail address or PayPal account number.
Technically, I'm not starting a business selling things. The saxophone belonged to my father, but its value is too high to just list on a for sale site without a link to the full description and why I am asking the price I am for it. It may never sell at that price but who cares really. If nobody buys it, I will pass it on to my son when I croak.
The trouble with this is all you see are what I call cookie cutter websites.
They may do all the functions the user needs, but no matter what they do, they will always look the same, and I consider it BORING.
I've actually had folks who visited my StoneBroke Manor website ask where I got the template and is it WordPress.
They liked my little sidebar and float images on the end pages, and even liked my Index on the main and intermediate pages. I told them the code is simple and they could just follow how I did it and make their own.
What I would get is I can't it has to be done on WordPress or something else like WordPress. They need it as a Template, hi hi.
Besides W3C, I also run my sites through Google Checker, and Mobile Compatibility Checker.
Google Checker is always trying to hawk something that they more or likely sell, which would improve my website.
The Checker my host provider has also suggests certain things to make my site more visible, probably selling something to get higher rankings, who knows.
Because my account is a personal account and not a business account, I cannot get things like a shopping cart or make sales directly from the website through other 3rd party shopping carts, although I know a few who are doing so in a roundabout way. They don't have a link, but tell you to go to PayPal and send the money that way to their e-mail address or PayPal account number.
Technically, I'm not starting a business selling things. The saxophone belonged to my father, but its value is too high to just list on a for sale site without a link to the full description and why I am asking the price I am for it. It may never sell at that price but who cares really. If nobody buys it, I will pass it on to my son when I croak.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Yes indeed the Internet is turning into a cookie cutter batch of websites. There are advantages to that. For one thing the person who needs a website but doesn't have the time to learn how to make one rejoices that somebody did all the hard work for them. WordPress is a standard of sorts so that when you visit one site, you can easily feel comfortable visiting another of the same format. This familiarity goes a long way to keeping people interested in what you are doing. While the world is not entirely mobile, yet, there is a huge effort being made to set up websites that cater to the needs of mobile users. If your site is difficult to navigate on a mobile device, you just lost an interested viewer. And, just because you comply with all the requirements for a responsive web design, that does not make it user friendly or inviting of its own merit.
I don't think you have to worry about a lot of the things professional webmasters care about. Your site is more personal than commercial and your audience isn't going to be global in nature. You seem to be doing what you enjoy doing and that is a major part of doing it at all. If you happen to sell an heirloom in the process, that's a bonus. Being unique is appealing to a certain crowd. It's less appealing in this mobile age than it was at the height of desktop viewing. But then, you are not relying on mass appeal for success. Overall, you probably are doing the right thing for your circumstances.
I don't think you have to worry about a lot of the things professional webmasters care about. Your site is more personal than commercial and your audience isn't going to be global in nature. You seem to be doing what you enjoy doing and that is a major part of doing it at all. If you happen to sell an heirloom in the process, that's a bonus. Being unique is appealing to a certain crowd. It's less appealing in this mobile age than it was at the height of desktop viewing. But then, you are not relying on mass appeal for success. Overall, you probably are doing the right thing for your circumstances.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I tried WordPress when I was hand-writing Sudoku Puzzles level 5 or higher.
Every time I got them looking and working perfectly, WordPress would change how their templates work and mess up the whole thing.
After about six times of this, I just abandoned the project and WordPress completely.
I was planning on using the WordPress program, not the website, when I had to redo my web pages.
But at the time, I was on Comcast, and they didn't offer the base to use WordPress.
So I took the time to learn XHTML/CSS and redid my websites.
I've looked at my websites on the frau's Schmartz-Fone a few times.
Mainly because we had a visitor who asked about something, and it just so happened it was on my website to show them.
It all looked great.
I think the medical websites where I have to check on my own status are the worst designs ever.
Then if you go to a pharmaceutical website to look up something, it is quick and easy, but you have to work your way in several layers deep to get to what you want.
The hard part is, you have to know the medical name for the type of drug you are looking up.
I don't mean the name of the drug brand or generic name, you have to know the Class of Drug and that name, Like Athrosclerotic. They don't use simple things like LAMA, or LABA, etc.
Even so, you have to move from page to page before you finally get to the actual drug list, then it has more links as to which features and warning each has.
Smaller companies that don't have everything have a lot fewer pages to weed through, hi hi.
Every time I got them looking and working perfectly, WordPress would change how their templates work and mess up the whole thing.
After about six times of this, I just abandoned the project and WordPress completely.
I was planning on using the WordPress program, not the website, when I had to redo my web pages.
But at the time, I was on Comcast, and they didn't offer the base to use WordPress.
So I took the time to learn XHTML/CSS and redid my websites.
I've looked at my websites on the frau's Schmartz-Fone a few times.
Mainly because we had a visitor who asked about something, and it just so happened it was on my website to show them.
It all looked great.
I think the medical websites where I have to check on my own status are the worst designs ever.
Then if you go to a pharmaceutical website to look up something, it is quick and easy, but you have to work your way in several layers deep to get to what you want.
The hard part is, you have to know the medical name for the type of drug you are looking up.
I don't mean the name of the drug brand or generic name, you have to know the Class of Drug and that name, Like Athrosclerotic. They don't use simple things like LAMA, or LABA, etc.
Even so, you have to move from page to page before you finally get to the actual drug list, then it has more links as to which features and warning each has.
Smaller companies that don't have everything have a lot fewer pages to weed through, hi hi.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
All I want to do is go on line and click a few boxes for the prescriptions I want refilled. I'll pick them up tomorrow. You can't believe how difficult the major drug chains make that simple task. What is even more frustrating is that the websites for Walgreens or CVS seldom, if ever, agree with the pharmacist in the store. For example, I'll order a refill online and they will tell me to show up after 3:00 PM to pick it up. Bring $7.00 to pay for it. When I get to the brick and mortar shop there is no refill waiting for me to pick up. After explaining why I think there should be, they go into their computers and point out that the insurance company will not allow a refill for another four weeks. Come back then. Oh, and by the way, don't bother with the web site because it's not up to date.
The navigation on the drug store web sites do make sense if not being cluttered as well. They sell a lot more than prescription drugs and that is what they want you to see after all. There are no indexes on any of the ones I go to. It's all inline or search for what you want by name. I've never looked for a class of drugs to compare effectiveness or side effects, but in that case I would expect something like the Physicians Desk Reference. The information in that kind of listing would be encyclopedic in volume. Can't imagine how to shortcut that type of thing. Then, too, they are not selling anything and expect their visitors to stick around for more than the proverbial 5 seconds of search time.
As far as your Sudoku experiences on WordPress go, I think you were using the wrong app for what you wanted to do. WordPress is more or less a blog format and can accommodate puzzles only incidentally. There must be much better ways than WordPress to publish puzzles.
The navigation on the drug store web sites do make sense if not being cluttered as well. They sell a lot more than prescription drugs and that is what they want you to see after all. There are no indexes on any of the ones I go to. It's all inline or search for what you want by name. I've never looked for a class of drugs to compare effectiveness or side effects, but in that case I would expect something like the Physicians Desk Reference. The information in that kind of listing would be encyclopedic in volume. Can't imagine how to shortcut that type of thing. Then, too, they are not selling anything and expect their visitors to stick around for more than the proverbial 5 seconds of search time.
As far as your Sudoku experiences on WordPress go, I think you were using the wrong app for what you wanted to do. WordPress is more or less a blog format and can accommodate puzzles only incidentally. There must be much better ways than WordPress to publish puzzles.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Walgreens sends me an e-mail when my raft of drugs are due. I just click on the box in the e-mail, it opens my browser and the screen says we received your order and it will be ready for pick-up tomorrow after such n such a time.
They did something a few months back. All of my scripts used to be ready at the same time, but then as changes were made, they drifted apart so far that I had to run up there nearly once a week or more often.
They decided to make everything back on the same pick-up data and adjusted my refills so that would happen.
This is good because I'm on a 90 day refill cycle, so I only have to go up there once every three months now.
Unless I get a new script of course, which I have to go get right away, However, they may not fill the whole script, only enough so it lasts until my On Cycle Date and then I get a the full 90 day amount. I like that!
Many of the websites I visit with sale items are using WordPress. They have templates where you can show images of products with a description below them, and a link to a shopping cart.
Most of the publishers or book promoters websites now use WordPress, so they can show the books and a blurb about them, then take you to the authors page where it shows all their books with full descriptions.
But just like the troubles I had with WordPress, sometimes the images instead of being in-line across the page, and lined up in rows under them, like a grid. I've seen pages where the text was not under the pictures, where the rows were all uneven, when they were right the day before. All kinds of crazy things seem to happen with WordPress.
They did something a few months back. All of my scripts used to be ready at the same time, but then as changes were made, they drifted apart so far that I had to run up there nearly once a week or more often.
They decided to make everything back on the same pick-up data and adjusted my refills so that would happen.
This is good because I'm on a 90 day refill cycle, so I only have to go up there once every three months now.
Unless I get a new script of course, which I have to go get right away, However, they may not fill the whole script, only enough so it lasts until my On Cycle Date and then I get a the full 90 day amount. I like that!
Many of the websites I visit with sale items are using WordPress. They have templates where you can show images of products with a description below them, and a link to a shopping cart.
Most of the publishers or book promoters websites now use WordPress, so they can show the books and a blurb about them, then take you to the authors page where it shows all their books with full descriptions.
But just like the troubles I had with WordPress, sometimes the images instead of being in-line across the page, and lined up in rows under them, like a grid. I've seen pages where the text was not under the pictures, where the rows were all uneven, when they were right the day before. All kinds of crazy things seem to happen with WordPress.