Re: I have a problem with this:

[Jenn]

awe.. I'm really kind of shy about my sites especially since most people
here like to code everything in CSS. This is my favorite site I
designed
and built. http://cdkdistribution(dot)com [replace the dot with .]

What's with the obfuscation?

owners said I had a month and I could do anything I wanted to as far as
building a site goes for them...

This what the owners had in mind?

http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/cdk.jpg

What I get too, unless you settle for 11-pixel font! Good thing your not
too worried about valid markup, although I have seen much worse

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://cdkdistribution.com>

and

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://profwebsolutions.com>

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...warning=0&amp;uri=http://profwebsolutions.com>

Like I said .. screw the validators! LOL

 

[freemont]

Ed Mullen writ:

She's publicized these two before:
<http://pqlr.org/>
Which is just, uh... well, you decide. And - ...
And now a third site for that door & cabinet place that renders in
about 1/3 of my screen. This Oklahoman needs to stop arguing and
rethink her ways. I mean, look at this:

<http://i39.tinypic.com/974t1j.png>

The cabinet site also reveals what Jenn thinks is an "include" file, is
in reality an <iframe>. <g> [relating to a question I asked her in
another thread.]

Scrollbars everywhere at cdkdistribution.com and very user-unfriendly
with all the micro-fonts.

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Heheheh. Whew! What a mess. :-D

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

And now a third site for that door & cabinet place that renders in
about 1/3 of my screen. This Oklahoman needs to stop arguing and
rethink her ways. I mean, look at this:

<http://i39.tinypic.com/974t1j.png>

The cabinet site also reveals what Jenn thinks is an "include" file, is
in reality an <iframe>. <g> [relating to a question I asked her in
another thread.]

Scrollbars everywhere at cdkdistribution.com [in Firefox] and very
user-unfriendly with all the micro-fonts.

naaaaaa ... that site has no includes! It's all basic html.
Although, I do like how iframes work and use them off and on when
needed. LOL
LOL.

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

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

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

The code is last-millennium, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bbs is a separate installation ...

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

 

[Jenn]

Ed Mullen writ:
3. She's not given any concrete examples of her work or sites to
support her statements. Which leads me to suspect she may be just
trolling for effect. For someone with such lengthy purported
experience she is profoundly out of touch with current/recent (like,
what? ... the last ten years?) thinking on these topics.

She's publicized these two before:
<http://pqlr.org/>
Which is just, uh... well, you decide. And - ...
And now a third site for that door & cabinet place that renders in
about 1/3 of my screen. This Oklahoman needs to stop arguing and
rethink her ways. I mean, look at this:

<http://i39.tinypic.com/974t1j.png>

The cabinet site also reveals what Jenn thinks is an "include" file, is
in reality an <iframe>. <g> [relating to a question I asked her in
another thread.]

Scrollbars everywhere at cdkdistribution.com and very user-unfriendly
with all the micro-fonts.

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Like I said .. screw the validators! LOL

Wow! Pride in ones craft, a true hack.

 

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:


The code is last-millennium, though.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jenn]

Wow! Pride in ones craft, a true hack.

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

Sometimes, perfection isn't all it's cracked up to be, and just trying to
live in an imperfect world as an imperfect human being ends up being the
better choice.

 

[freemont]

I'd love to see some of your work freemont

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jenn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've always been creative, too.

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

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

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

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

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your disdain LOL for validation LOL is not understandable LOL.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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

Code for a particular browser and that is what you get. When a client
looses sales that is no LOL.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp
that is served as "Content-Type: text/plain"
Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

 

[freemont]

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp that is served as
"Content-Type: text/plain" Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

/me shakes head

But, hey - if they PAID her, it's ok!

Oh, um, LOL.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp
that is served as "Content-Type: text/plain"
Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

Simple! Bad headers, improperly setup server and IE does not properly
follow protocol and handle content via the Content-Type

Etag: "ddbabd5-3e85-41cf6978d6040"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 16005
Last-Modified: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:55:37 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 16:49:45 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.15 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.15 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5
mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635

200 OK

 

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:

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

Well.. to me ... it's about several things at the same time. Growing,
learning as I go, earning an income, plus I try to never say *it can't be
done* to my clients, so I try to find a way to do what they want, even if I
don't have the skill at the time, I research it until I find something that
will work and learn how to do it as I go. I love LOVE LOVE to be creative,
do graphics... have tennis matches (image contests), and just try to do the
best I can do with what knowledge I have. There will always be someone with
more skill than I have, which can get very discouraging at times, but I have
to tell myself that I can only do as good as I can do with the knowledge I
have at the time. In the years since I coded those websites, I've improved
alot... still will never be up to perfection, but I'm getting paid to do
something I really enjoy doing. Only God knows how far I can go, and I
think He gets most of the credit for the opportunities I've had over the
years to make money at what I love doing.

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

.... back then... it wasn't an issue! LOL

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

Well.. up until now I've never gotten any of those calls.

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

Well at this time, I work for people who want code to work on various
versions of IE, and Firefox.... so that's what I do, and since it's a
monster of a site that was originally coded soley via CSS, and is a
concoction of aspx/ascx/rss feeds/video feeds/(I use includes here) just to
name a few file types , I make it do what they ask! LOL The people who
coded it in CSS will tell me... *that can't be done*... well.. I usually go
looking for a way to make it happen despite them saying it can't be done,
and over a 4 yr period there's only been 1 time that it really couldn't be
done... the other 500 times it COULD! LOL It's been very much a learning
experience and on the job training - a nice challenge for sure.

The bottom line is will people pay you for what you can do for them with a
website .... <shrugs>

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp
that is served as "Content-Type: text/plain"
Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

Simple! Bad headers, improperly setup server and IE does not properly
follow protocol and handle content via the Content-Type

I think I said that LOL.

 

[Jenn]

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp
that is served as "Content-Type: text/plain"
Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

roflol .. that site was done like 10 yrs ago ...

 

[freemont]

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp that is served as
"Content-Type: text/plain" Firefox and Opera just show the source
code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

Simple! Bad headers, improperly setup server and IE does not properly
follow protocol and handle content via the Content-Type

I think I said that LOL.

LOL you did LOL... but jonathan said it different! LOL

 

[Jenn]

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

<http://profwebsolutions.com/>

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

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp that is served as
"Content-Type: text/plain" Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

/me shakes head

But, hey - if they PAID her, it's ok!

Oh, um, LOL.

yep .. it's about a 10 yr old site .. and they paid for it 10 yrs ago... it
doesn't exist anymore on any live site.

 

[freemont]

There is a link on that page. "RPS INSURANCE GROUP (IE Only)"
http://profwebsolutions.com/webdesign/rps/RPS.asp that is served as
"Content-Type: text/plain" Firefox and Opera just show the source code.

I guess that is why it only works in IE... :-( [obligatory LOL]

roflol .. that site was done like 10 yrs ago ...

LMAO (for real)

This is getting comical.

So. "If it's an old site, why fix it?" That the reasoning?

If it's not worth fixing, why is it still up?