fast michaels

Thanks Wizely I will make those changes. Jamest, you are right,it does break up. I think this is because I sized most things on percentages so there wouldn't be any scrolling on any browser, but not the images as I don't know how to size them to %, same goes for the text columns. Is this a bad way of sizing a site? any tips for correcting it. Much appreciated

Hello everyone. If you have time please check out this home page http://test.utuze.com/index1.php, and tell me what you think. Please be aware that the images on the page are there just as examples, they will not be the actual images used in the live version. The links aren't live yet. Please be honest (But not too honest for I am only small). Thanks everyone.

Well done mate, I'm going to buck the trend and say the first design is my choice. The second design initially looks maybe cleaner, but the more I look at it, it starts to loose its soul, it feels empty and on the edge of everything, rather then the centre of the hussle and bussel of a big city like Menila. It made me feel like I was all alone and out of the action, something like the sensation of being in Milton Keynes. The first one I like most, I feel like I'm part of the action, like i'm not missing out on anything, like I've been thrown into a metropolis. I would say though that the cityscape ends to soon and to clean on the left, I would extand it or overlay the end with one of your swerly werlies. If the site is to reflect Menila, and give the visitor a feel for the vibrant crusible that it is, the first one does that for me. The second one is way to clean, organised and maybe a little lifeless (Which Menila is not). Though as a graphical offering it really is extremely impressive. This is just my opinion. But I love the excitment of the first design. Amen

It's O.K. I've done it

Hi everyone. Just a quicky: I want to know how to set a header block and footer block so they stretch across the screen of any resolution of browser. Also I want to set the header and footer so they appear at the top and bottom respectively, of the viewable area, again on any resolution of browser. Basically so the header block apears at the top full width and the footer at the bottom full width with no vertical or horizontal scrolling. thanks in advance

Cheers mate thats brill. Keep them coming

I would like some advice please. I am thinking of making a change in career path, or maybe an addition to my existing. I have discovered I really enjoy website design / development so i am thinking of going in this direction, but I am unsure which aspect of website construction I want to specialise in. But I am sure the internet has so much potential that I would be wise to take part in its development in some way. What I am asking is which aspect of website construction has more demand and future scope. I have never been a wizz at maths but I would have said the coded side of web building has more future, but can someone who is not particularly good at mathmatical conceps learn coding enough to make a living out of it. I am more visually oriented but I bet the design aspect of web construction is so competitive. I could do both I suppose, but if I am going to take this up seriously, I want to pick the one that has most future and urning potential. Finally should I go for formal training in whatever area I choose, or can I pick it up enough from online tutorials and forums like this. Any guidence will be much appreciated.

Probebly like the apprentice but just arty, I wish I had the mind and balls to enter, someone on here might though. All the best to them

Thanks kid, if those images have been done with anti-alias on, how have they come up so clear with no halo effect. Thanks. I need the graphics to be png with transparency as the images will go on several different pages with different packground colours.

I did actually, id did this because i had a transaprent background which works best with anti aliasing turned off. If I turn it back on it will make the transparency rubbish, but I think you are right, it maight make the circle crisper. Thanks. I am aware of the problem in the early firefox browser issue (From the first poster) firefox 2 and earlier, but I had not found out how to cure it.

Please visit test.utuze.com On the right you will see two smallish images, they look realy pixelated and I don't know why. They have been created at 80px square, and that dimension has been specified in the code also. I created them in coreldraw and they look really smooth and crist in there. But now I have saved them in both jpg and png they look like flippin bitmaps. It looks really unprofessional. Can anyone help?

Whats the difference?

Just recently I uploaded a graphic in jpg format and it was really pixelated. This has never happened before and I can't work out why it just started. I saved the image in gif as well, with the same effect. I normally use jpg as it traditionaly offered me the best results, but this time it has come out really crap. Any idea why?

Really appreciate your advice man.

Your propbably right, but what I'm thinking is get to know gimp, ring that dry and then try photoshop. Thanks for your input

I have decided to go down the gimp route, so the link you gave is just what I needed. So merci

thanks Ravi, that does help

I understand that no package is going to make me a good designer, the package is just the tools, but that's my question, which has the best tools, the best range of tools and the ease of use of the tools. Balance that all with the cost of the package, which comes out on top? You understand, Thanks everyone

I need to start learning a decent photo and graphics editing package. I know of the reputation of photoshop and it's capabilities, However, I have been told that gimp is very good as well and does much of what photoshop does, but its free. If I learn photoshop I will have to eventualy buy it, which costs loads, but if gimp is similar then surely I should learn that and save money. What I am asking is which should I learn? I want to get to the point where I can design very impressive looking websites.

I actually like your logo. The quality of image is not brilliant, thats because you have saved it in a bmp I think. But the design itself is nice and simple and I guess reflects what you do. It may look a little better with everything a little thicker, try it see what you think. Also, spend some time making sure you choose the right colour, its displays as aluminus green when I download it. And save it in a different format like jpeg or gif. I prefer jpegs. for better clarity. But the design is good, you could spend hours messing around making it fancier and still come out with a design no better then you have now, and not reflecting what you do as well.

Yes your right. Thats the most pragmatic approach I suppose. Have a good evening mate.

Yes you are right. The only problem I can see with having the same keywords is that if those key word metatags do not reflect what is on every page, google and the like will not take to kindly to it. So unless every page content has the same keyword concentration, it may work against the site. Thats all. Anyway, your the expert, I'm just learning - but its as you say, its whatevers best for the hypnoticstate. But I do like your method.

Yes, I can see the benefit of your method, but how would you be able to asign individual page meta tags? you know, key words and titles, if its just the homepage dragging in text to change the content.

Dosn't he own Sainsburies now!

PHP is the way forward, though all your pages will have to be saved as .php files, if they are not already: Create a file called say "statistics.php" and create the statistical content in there using your normal html, you dont need to even use head or body tags, just the script you would use within those tags. then in all the pages you want the stats, place this code: <?php include("statistics.php");?>, in the place on the page where you want it to apear. Thats it all the best