Precise Estimating Ltd

Must have been a corrupted install that had missing files or something, or a glitch in the Matrix. Glad you got it sorted eventually.

👍

Looks like a path error, you will need to go through and fix these, you can find more info here.

I'm not sure what the error is I'm afraid, but this may help.
There's no benefit to echoing out HTML like metatags, and you'll find it a real pain to add expressions around this without having to do a bunch of string concatenation, but it's your call.

You don't need the <?php tags unless you want to execute code between them, for something like metadata you don't need them.
Just having the below will work:
<meta charset="utf-8"> <!--Slider--> <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.3/jquery.min.js"></script> <script src="/js/slider/responsiveslides.js"></script> <!--CSS--> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/css/main.css"> <!--SEO--> <meta name="google-site-verification" content="ZXcHD9Q3tEXYvuwvh_w2tRapMzVMsevPs7bKNaLEmmI" /> If you wanted to add PHP just add it as blocks inside the template:
<meta charset="utf-8"> <!--Slider--> <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.3/jquery.min.js"></script> <script src="/js/slider/responsiveslides.js"></script> <!--CSS--> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/css/main.css"> <!--SEO--> <meta name="google-site-verification" content="ZXcHD9Q3tEXYvuwvh_w2tRapMzVMsevPs7bKNaLEmmI" /> <title><?php echo 'Site Name'; ?></title> <?php include('navigation.php'); ?>  

Hi Pete,
 
Nice work, take my comments with a pinch of salt as I'm a novice - I think it would look great if you had the flame/ background as a movie. It would look so cool with him spinning the glasswork with the flame. Just a 5 second clip looping would look awesome in my humble opinion.
Though it's just occurred to me that may not be possible on wordpress.

Why are you making this so complicated?
 
Forget all the zoomy fading stuff and and just put your tagline on the page. There are a zillion other things you need to get sorted before adding any effects either at the top or the bottom.
 
And don't worry about Google indexing things in a particular way. It doesn't work like that. Google will compare the content with the page title, H1, inbound link anchor text, trust marks and citations and from there determine for which keywords the page should rank for.
 
however to answer your question, it may not be working because you have you have extra closing divs and some weird positioning in the CSS

It's not about the spec, it's down to the OS on a mac and that it is unix based, which is also the case for most servers. Maybe this isn't so important for design but for development it makes things much smoother, and communication with the server more straightforward.
 
The Unix command line is also far better than that used by windows, I've got a Windows machine at home and a mac at work and doing things like installing Node, Ruby and so forth is far easier on my mac than my windows machine. (Ruby being pre-installed) I'll pay you if you can find a big name developer at a conference who isn't using a mac. (Provided the don't work for MS). there is also a lot of development software that isn't available on Windows, like codeKit. This article does better job of explaining than I can http://code.tutsplus.com/articles/one-developers-switch-from-pc-to-mac--net-11831 (Don't agree with the great hardware but but the stuff about the shell is what I'm talking about).
 
If you want to be an uber geek then a hackintosh is a good way to go.http://www.hackintosh.com/
 
There are two back-end developers at our place who use 'windows' machines, but since installed Linux for the reasons mentioned above. I haven't but I do plan on changing to a Mac book pro before the years end.
 
Btw I still recommend windows to all non developers or friends who just use a machine for web browsing or simple tasks, then a windows machine is better value for money.

Generating content with JS does not guarantee that it will not be indexed .
Google and other search engines can actually run JS on a page and decide that the generated content should be indexed. There are better ways to do exclude content from indexing. Try a noindex tag:
<html> <head> </head> <body> <p>This content will be indexed</p> <!--noindex--> <p>This content will not be indexed</p> <p>Place your animation elements here</p> <!--/noindex--> <p>This content will be indexed</p> </body> </html> BTW your JavaScript syntax is wrong.
It is innerHTML not InnerHTML, and the ID you want to select is a string so it should be in quotes
document.getElementById("the-id-must-be-in-quotes").innerHTML = "The string you want to generate";

Maybe you should try to animate the transform:scale() property rather than the font size.
Transform properties are made exactly for that sort of thing, and are much smoother as they are hardware accelerated on many devices (calculations can be done by the graphic card rather than the OS/browser).
 
Also changing font sizes can give you problems as browsers set initial values for properties like line-heights, margin etc. which also would have to be animated for accurate results.
 
Try this instead:
@keyframes zoomin { 0% {transform: scale(1); /*Full size*/} 90% {transform: scale(0.5); /*Half size*/ opacity: 100;} 100% {transform: scale(0.5); opacity: 0;} }

https://www.codecademy.com/

This is something I've been wondering about for a while now, as I have done one or two jobs that would be difficult to actually show in my portfolio, so a testimonial would at least show that I have done these things.
 
The thing is, a point my husband brought up and one I had been considering, is that how does anyone know you haven't just made up the testimonial? Do people actually trust them? I personally do, in most cases; I am however very gullible and overly trusting in general.

You should be using a build tool to automate repetitive tasks like minification, autoprefixing, concatenation, image compression. You can add watchers to watch files for changes and automatically update the browser.
This is how modern website development is done, you won't find Dreamweaver being used in a professional environment.

Being set in REMs makes no difference it's weather the number is circumstantial or not, if it's temporary then that's fine. Occasionally the are unavoidable in which case you comment what the number means for future reference / use a Sass variable. Must in most cases magic numbers can be removed when things are well structured.

I won't mention the ID's but I will mention the magic numbers, where have those odd numbers come from in your margins?

For some context on what magic numbers are and why they're bad http://csswizardry.com/2012/11/code-smells-in-css/#magic-numbers

I suffered badly from my back and certainly doesn't have good implications on your mental health if you are prohibited and disabled in any way. I was in agony for three years then I had an operation on my back and it's been so much better since.
 
It's inspiring to see that the capable people on this site came from shabby beginnings and did it all by themselves, they have my utmost respect and I think if you stick with it you will get there too.
 
I agree with you that once you work full-time the time to practice and learn becomes greatly decreased, and your progress will be prolonged.
I am not the brightest bulb in the pack and I've just spent two months trying to get some social share buttons implemented. Working 10 hours a day; I know it's sickening! So I really need the time to learn.
I'm not sure where you are based but if you are in the Lodon area we may be able to use you for and odd day once in a blue moon, with the pay being better than other part-time work - dependant on your back conditions. We don't have regular work so don't rely on us as it's all feast or famine in our company.
 
My advice would be to set a target of say 6 months - 1 year to really try to learn and develop sites (we have some ideas if you need some) and get cracking. You will have no money for this time and it will not be easy but anything that pays well isn't easy and sacrifices must be made. Just look at the sacrifices those have made above.
 
Best of luck and I hope you stick with it.

I'm not saying it's a bad library, I just think keyframes can be just typed out yourself but I guess a library such as this makes it a little easier for those who are new to CSS animations For a timeline beyond anything basic I'd probably err towards something like GSAP.
 
When compared with JavaScript it can require a lot of work and expertise to get things performing at a high frame-rate or for complex timelines. Which is why I advocate more for a library such as GSAP to be used.

I've not really used Animate.css as I don't think you really need a library for CSS animations as they are pretty simple compared to JavaScript. But being a CSS library it won't need any JS to run.
 
Autoprefixer should be part of a build process. You can use tools like Gulp or Grunt, even NPM scripts. If you're new to build tools I suggest you look around for some Gulp tutorials

*If you use something like autoprefixer then you never have to even think about vendor prefixes again, I suggest you add autoprefixer to your build process

A library like GSAP is considerably better for performance than what that tutorial is demonstrating, for a start in the tutorial the scroll handler is not debounced and they are not using RequestAnimationFrame. These two are critical to getting a great frame rate and avoiding things like layout trashing etc.
I love building things myself and have experimented a lot with building out scroll animations, but to get strong performance is way more difficult than you think. GSAP has actually been bench tested to perform better than pure CSS animation in many circumstances, it is an extremely well written library.

Definitely recommend stripping out only the animations you require (if you're using something like animate.css).
 
You could even go one step further and do away with libraries such as wow.js - they're totally unnecessary. Here's a great tutorial on how to handle triggering animations on scroll.

I've used Animatate.css a lot, it's extremely lightweight if you just choose the animations you need. Each one is a single piece of Sass or CSS (if you used the compiled version) that can be ripped out and placed in your stylesheet. Then there's one main animate class that you also take, to trigger the animation.
 
Typically you see this library used with something like Wow.js or Scroll Reveal, so that animations appear when you scroll to an element.

There's not much point for CSS as it's so simple anyway. For JavaScript then for performance reasons it's a good idea for anything beyond the most basic of animations. look at http://greensock.com/gsap

Another option, would be to commission an in house development server, if you have the budget setup a linux box which is similar if not identical to your live server.
 
That's the kind of setup we have where I work, and then we are able to allow clients access to the sites on the dev server, which they can review before we push the work to the live server.
 
Again this would prob take time to setup but once it's up in theory you shouldn't have to make changes to it afterwards.

If you need to replicate an exact live environment then Vagrant is definitely the right option. I can't help with that myself, but something like Youtube should be full of tutorials.
 
The alternative would be to look at the 5.5.24 changelog to see if any changes in the build have affected your site.