RE: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-22 Thread Shaun Canning
Thanks Norm!

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web Site Take Two

Nice stie, great stuff!
Norm

Shaun Canning wrote:

>www.heritageservices.com.au
>  
>





Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-22 Thread Norm Baugher
Nice stie, great stuff!
Norm
Shaun Canning wrote:

www.heritageservices.com.au
 




Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Brian Walters
Shaun

Appearances can be deceptive.

CSU (Wagga campus) kindly agreed to host the ASGAP website but I don't work
there.  They've given use access to their server which is really great and has
allowed up to create a much larger web site than would have been possible otherwise.


Cheers

Brian


+

Brian Walters
Australian Plants Societies
http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:12 , 'Dr. Shaun Canning' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:

>Thanks Brian, that's what I'll do!
>
>P.S. I see you work for CSU? That's my old stomping ground (Albury)
>
>Cheers
>
>Shaun
>


 Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com



Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Dr. Shaun Canning
Thanks Brian, that's what I'll do!

P.S. I see you work for CSU? That's my old stomping ground (Albury)

Cheers

Shaun

Brian Walters said:
> G'day again Shaun
>
> Actually what I was getting at was not moving the external links to a
> separate
> page but including a window "target" in the HTML code so that the external
> link
> opens in a new, separate window rather than replacing your page.
>
> Most HTML editors should be able to do this but, in any case, you can edit
> the
> code manually.  For example, in the paragraph under "Wittenoom Gorge" on
> your
> home page there is a link to Mesothelioma Web.  The code for the link is:
>
>  href="http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mesothelioma.htm";>mesothelioma.
> 
>
> When someone clicks on this link the Mesothelioma Web site replaces your
> page and
> the visitor might not return.  However, the following code would open
> Mesothelioma Web in a new window and leave your page active.
>
> http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mesothelioma.htm";
> target="window1">mesothelioma. 
>
>
> Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know.
>
>
> +
>
> Brian Walters
> Australian Plants Societies
> http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:12 , 'Dr. Shaun Canning'
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:
>
>>Thanks for the positive comments Brian. Much appreciated. I will indeed
>>move the links to a separate page. In fact, I might get rid of that stuff
>>altogether. Undecided as yet.
>>
>>Thanks again...
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Shaun
>>
>>
>>Brian Walters said:
>>> Shaun
>>>
>>> Really impressive site - I looked mainly at the flower shots as that's
>>> my
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> I liked the clarity in the thumnbnails and the sharpness of the scans
>>> generally.
>>>  Were all of these taken with the *istD or have some of them been
>>> scanned
>>> from
>>> slides and then worked over in software?
>>>
>>> I've got quite a lot of wildflower shots on slides but I've found it
>>> difficult to
>>> get decent scans.  My transparency adaptor attached to the Epson 1650
>>> Photo
>>> scanner gives results which are acceptable for the web but not much
>>> else
>>> and I've
>>> found the quality of Kodak Photo CD scans ranges from excellent to
>>> abysmal
>>> with
>>> most being just OK.
>>>
>
>
>>> Back to your website - I agree with earlier comments about the size of
>>> the
>>> images
>>> and I still think they are a bit large.  Is there a reason why they
>>> need
>>> to be
>>> that large?   As a viewer of the site, I would prefer if they could fit
>>> on
>>> the
>>> screen without scrolling.
>>>
>>> The only other thing I can think of is the way you reference your
>>> external
>>> links.
>>>  At present, anyone who clicks on the "mesothelioma" link, for example,
>>> gets
>>> taken away from your site and may not return.  It might be worth
>>> "targeting" the
>>> external links to a separate window so that your site stays active.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>
>
>  Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
>
>



Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Brian Walters
G'day again Shaun

Actually what I was getting at was not moving the external links to a separate
page but including a window "target" in the HTML code so that the external link
opens in a new, separate window rather than replacing your page.

Most HTML editors should be able to do this but, in any case, you can edit the
code manually.  For example, in the paragraph under "Wittenoom Gorge" on your
home page there is a link to Mesothelioma Web.  The code for the link is:

http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mesothelioma.htm";>mesothelioma.


When someone clicks on this link the Mesothelioma Web site replaces your page and
the visitor might not return.  However, the following code would open
Mesothelioma Web in a new window and leave your page active.

http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mesothelioma.htm";
target="window1">mesothelioma.   


Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know.


+

Brian Walters
Australian Plants Societies
http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/


On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:12 , 'Dr. Shaun Canning' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:

>Thanks for the positive comments Brian. Much appreciated. I will indeed
>move the links to a separate page. In fact, I might get rid of that stuff
>altogether. Undecided as yet.
>
>Thanks again...
>
>Cheers
>
>Shaun
>
>
>Brian Walters said:
>> Shaun
>>
>> Really impressive site - I looked mainly at the flower shots as that's my
>> interest.
>>
>> I liked the clarity in the thumnbnails and the sharpness of the scans
>> generally.
>>  Were all of these taken with the *istD or have some of them been scanned
>> from
>> slides and then worked over in software?
>>
>> I've got quite a lot of wildflower shots on slides but I've found it
>> difficult to
>> get decent scans.  My transparency adaptor attached to the Epson 1650
>> Photo
>> scanner gives results which are acceptable for the web but not much else
>> and I've
>> found the quality of Kodak Photo CD scans ranges from excellent to abysmal
>> with
>> most being just OK.
>>


>> Back to your website - I agree with earlier comments about the size of the
>> images
>> and I still think they are a bit large.  Is there a reason why they need
>> to be
>> that large?   As a viewer of the site, I would prefer if they could fit on
>> the
>> screen without scrolling.
>>
>> The only other thing I can think of is the way you reference your external
>> links.
>>  At present, anyone who clicks on the "mesothelioma" link, for example,
>> gets
>> taken away from your site and may not return.  It might be worth
>> "targeting" the
>> external links to a separate window so that your site stays active.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Brian
>>


 Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com



Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Dr. Shaun Canning
Thanks for the positive comments Brian. Much appreciated. I will indeed
move the links to a separate page. In fact, I might get rid of that stuff
altogether. Undecided as yet.

Thanks again...

Cheers

Shaun


Brian Walters said:
> Shaun
>
> Really impressive site - I looked mainly at the flower shots as that's my
> interest.
>
> I liked the clarity in the thumnbnails and the sharpness of the scans
> generally.
>  Were all of these taken with the *istD or have some of them been scanned
> from
> slides and then worked over in software?
>
> I've got quite a lot of wildflower shots on slides but I've found it
> difficult to
> get decent scans.  My transparency adaptor attached to the Epson 1650
> Photo
> scanner gives results which are acceptable for the web but not much else
> and I've
> found the quality of Kodak Photo CD scans ranges from excellent to abysmal
> with
> most being just OK.
>
> Back to your website - I agree with earlier comments about the size of the
> images
> and I still think they are a bit large.  Is there a reason why they need
> to be
> that large?   As a viewer of the site, I would prefer if they could fit on
> the
> screen without scrolling.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is the way you reference your external
> links.
>  At present, anyone who clicks on the "mesothelioma" link, for example,
> gets
> taken away from your site and may not return.  It might be worth
> "targeting" the
> external links to a separate window so that your site stays active.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
> +
>
> Brian Walters
> Association of Societies for Growing Australian Plants
> http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP
>
>
>
> Shaun Canning wrote:
>
>>Hi Gang,
>
>>Kevin rightly mentioned that the images on my revamped website were too
>>large, which indeed they were. So, I have revamped the site for the
>>second time to reduce the size (and download time) of the images. None
>>are now larger than about 250k.
>>
>>Please have a look and send some feedback. There was very little last
>>time, and I'm hoping it was because the images were too big, not because
>>they are crap!
>
>
>
>
>
>  Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
>
>



Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Brian Walters
Shaun

Really impressive site - I looked mainly at the flower shots as that's my interest.  

I liked the clarity in the thumnbnails and the sharpness of the scans generally.
 Were all of these taken with the *istD or have some of them been scanned from
slides and then worked over in software?

I've got quite a lot of wildflower shots on slides but I've found it difficult to
get decent scans.  My transparency adaptor attached to the Epson 1650 Photo
scanner gives results which are acceptable for the web but not much else and I've
found the quality of Kodak Photo CD scans ranges from excellent to abysmal with
most being just OK.

Back to your website - I agree with earlier comments about the size of the images
and I still think they are a bit large.  Is there a reason why they need to be
that large?   As a viewer of the site, I would prefer if they could fit on the
screen without scrolling.

The only other thing I can think of is the way you reference your external links.
 At present, anyone who clicks on the "mesothelioma" link, for example, gets
taken away from your site and may not return.  It might be worth "targeting" the
external links to a separate window so that your site stays active.

Cheers 

Brian

+

Brian Walters
Association of Societies for Growing Australian Plants
http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP



Shaun Canning wrote:

>Hi Gang,

>Kevin rightly mentioned that the images on my revamped website were too
>large, which indeed they were. So, I have revamped the site for the
>second time to reduce the size (and download time) of the images. None
>are now larger than about 250k.
>
>Please have a look and send some feedback. There was very little last
>time, and I'm hoping it was because the images were too big, not because
>they are crap!





 Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com



RE: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Shaun Canning
www.heritageservices.com.au


Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web Site Take Two

Shaun, can you post the site address again?
Norm

Shaun Canning wrote:

>Hi Gang, 
>
>Kevin rightly mentioned that the images on my revamped website were too
>large, which indeed they were. So, I have revamped the site for the
>second time to reduce the size (and download time) of the images. None
>are now larger than about 250k. 
>
>Please have a look and send some feedback. There was very little last
>time, and I'm hoping it was because the images were too big, not
because
>they are crap!
>
>  
>





Re: Web Site Take Two

2004-04-21 Thread Norm Baugher
Shaun, can you post the site address again?
Norm
Shaun Canning wrote:

Hi Gang, 

Kevin rightly mentioned that the images on my revamped website were too
large, which indeed they were. So, I have revamped the site for the
second time to reduce the size (and download time) of the images. None
are now larger than about 250k. 

Please have a look and send some feedback. There was very little last
time, and I'm hoping it was because the images were too big, not because
they are crap!