The Daniel Collection - website update

Your comment on not being able to go back to where you had scrolled down to is fair - at the moment I do not know how to fix this issue but am looking into it. Bent out of shape - oh dear, I've barely started! Hmm constructive feedback - I do not consider being termed a) a yahoo (I presume the poster did actually understand the Lilliput reference?!) b) a spammer c) someone trying to drive up ad revenue d) a twit either constructive or conducive to civil exchange. If you want to interpret my responses to such ignorant posts pompous -

*shrugs* then that's fine with me.

They may not have said it in a PC way but what they said is true. It's obvious that you intended to put together a professional classy site - and you've succeeded no question. I'm sure you know that sites today are very complex, putting together a site without any "bugs" is next to impossible. But the scroll feature is a bit annoying. It took me a couple of minutes to realize I have to drag my cursor over the top arrow to move the list down, that to me wasn't a problem. What was a bit tedious was after looking at a particular item the site returns you to a main menu but doesn't remember where you were on that list. Being that your menu of turners quite long, I as a viewer of you site have to keep scrolling down to where I last was. Thankfully the names change color ever so slightly to indicate a viewed link or I'd be lost. If I wasn't a turning fanatic I would probably leave soon after I had viewed the names that can be easily listed on my screen.

Reply sent off-list

Thankfully this feature is easily gotten around even in IE. I admit I've grabbed a couple of the pictures for my reference data base. At present have over 4000 digital pictures of furniture and turnings spanning about 700 years of world history. I hope you only look at this as a compliment. You have pictures there that are (to me) worthy of saving for use as inspiration on future work.

Why don't you do yourself (and your career) a favor and purchase some books on web site usability.

Now, if you really don't care if people visit or stay at your site, that's fine, do whatever you want. However, if you want people to visit, stay at, and go back to your site, then you have to keep their overall experience in mind, and no matter how pretty the pages are (they are quite attractive), if navigation is cumbersome, you *will* lose visitors. Again, if you don't want visitors, that's all fine - but the facts that you took the time to create the page and that you invited people to visit seem to indicate that you *would* like some. I could be wrong.

As another tip, don't ask people for feedback if you can't take it. Bill offered a pretty straight-forward, objective, non-offensive comment, and you jumped down his throat and told him not to go back. That's not only amateur, that's just juvenile.

steve

Since our web designer has been picking apart responses including typos and things the rest of us ignore because we make these sorts of mistakes ourselves...

In your file

you willfind... line 98: to be fully compliant with HTML 4.01 your 'style' element must have a type attribute --

line 158: you have typed 'valign-' when you really meant to type 'valign='. This error is found in your home page also -- on line 141.

line 232: HTML 4.01 and XHTML require the "type" attribute to specify the scripting language for the "script" element. For example, use type="text/javascript" for JavaScript.

Actually, though, the html on this page is remarkably error free except for the above.

Bill

Bill

Balanced - and I thank you for note only the tone but the effort gone into making this post. I will review and amend.

Jonathon

I repeat the invite - which you have seem to have chosen to ignore. Prove yourself to be anything other than an armchair critic and show you can do more than just quote a few phrases (there are quite a few books here in my library btw including one from which the layer coding is derived - and that by a Dreamweaver alpha tester - go figure - Dreamweaver 4 magic, New Ryders,Al Sparber - ISBN no available by request!) You presume to assume about my career?! On the basis that you have decided that this is what I do for a living - this is the platform for your criticisms? I was not aware that posters were psychic - and bad ones at that. Arrogant presumption. When you assume (you'll love this) you only make an ass . well guess the rest. Mr Wolfe - this website is a service. Not a revenue stream as another poster *assumed*, not a spam effort (same poster) and I am not a "twit" (same twit poster).. If you or others don't like the syle or the scrolling, the photography or whatever element - then please feel free to ignore future update advices - if in the light of this screed I can be bothered to make them. However, feedback from "interested" woodturners who are keen to view a collection on the web (and there are few enough of those) tells me that they soldier on through all these patent inadequacies. The choice is yours - and as I dont track repeat visits I have no opinion on them.

The suggestion of plastering some form of copyright symbol all over them is gaining weight or perhaps leaving the images as thumbs and only providing larger versions upon request. I view the fact that you have seen fit to take the images despite this entry level precaution this as a mixed compliment - and would have expected to have been asked. There is a copyright notice on the site ????

.

It would appear that you are using my post to condemn the group as a whole and avoid the criticism you invited. If you want to bitch at me, feel free, but don't use me as a brush with which to paint the rest of the group.

My post was a response to your obvious irritation at actually receiving the constructive criticism of others, which you had requested.

a. I read Gulliver's Travels about 20 years ago, but do not remember the reference you make. If I cared, I suppose I could find it in my collection and refresh my memory. I don't care enough to spend the time.

b, c, d. Usenet groups are frequently subjected to "false flag" posts which are intended to lure people into visiting a web site for no other reason than to increase the hit count on the site and thus generate advertising revenue. Your original post and your response to the (invited!) criticism of it bear a striking resemblance to previous such spams and spammers.

It's true that I did not offer any constructive criticism, as I'd already seen how you responded to it, so didn't bother.

As far as "civil exchange" goes, so far I believe I'm the only one who has approached being less than civil. If it was unwarranted, then I apologise.

On the other hand, a word of advice, if you intend to frequent Usenet groups, you need to grow a thicker skin or face endless frustration and irritation.

Mike Patterson Please remove the spamtrap to email me. "I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

Mr Patterson I have no particular width of brush in mind but the tenor of your post is not incosistent with others in this thread - therefore my responses I believe to be suitably measured in tone and content. Several people have received more considered posts off-list and responses to posed questions. In fact I am extremely familiar with USENET and this group in particular having been a contributor since at least 2002. Your apology is noted - gratefully - and I consider the matter closed. The comment is likewise returned to you. As to endless frustration / irritation - watch this space.

Jonathon

Are you associated with this filth Jonathon?

I'm very dissapointed in you. I expected more from a gentleman such as yourself. Bill is right. He said you were a depraved,effiminate limey with bad teeth. I should have listened. I should never have posed for those boudoir photos. I feel so dirty. If you ever dare to step foot on US soil again Bill and I will teach you a lesson in manners and morality you wanker. God Bless, Al Kyder

I'm just pointing out that you come across as a major ass. You're welcome for the clarification on that point.

Perhaps the answer is password access

Wouldn't bother me at all if you limited it to people on your immediate LAN.

I had visited it. I got about two artists into it before I got tired of the navigation of the site and left. I didn't mention it because you didn't particularly seem to care about anyone's actual experience.

You're pretty funny. You blast the very first person with constructive criticism, then wonder about how quickly the thread turns unconstructive. You have yourself to thank for that.

The site didn't work too well for me either..........until I finally figured it out. You roll the mouse pointer over the up or down arrows to start scrolling. Roll the mouse pointer off the arrows to stop scrolling. I found it to be...........cumbersome.

Barry

PS One who solicits constructive criticism.........shouldn't be offended when it arrives.

the non-intuitive

slow and hard to get

snipped-for-privacy@sandjay.co.uk

Hi Jonathan

I checked out your site. I am sure you put a lot of work into it, probably a lot more work than I have put into my sites. I am a turner, not a computer person. I built my own sites with the attitude that people are there to see my turning, not how much I know about HTML coding. It has been my experience that people like simple, not complex - well, most people anyway. One of the most common feedback comments I get regarding my sites is that they are relatively easy to navigate.

I do not know whether or not you will consider this constructive or not, but here goes anyway. Make it simple and keep it simple. Not only will that enable people to enjoy it, it will save you time and frustration trying to make it go. I too found it very frustrating to figure out how to work the scroll bars. I also did not care for the feature that caused a picture to close when I clicked anywhere on my screen, even off the window in which the picture was being displayed. I am not sure what the goal is there, but again it was very frustrating to me. After trying to get through a couple of the people listed on your site, I just gave up and went about my business. I do not have time to try to decipher a website. That is too bad really, since I would like to see some of the work you own and are displaying. Maybe I'm just a big dummy, but who cares? I don't. I am sure you don't.

You should not ask questions to which you do not want to hear the answers. You seem to take delight in jumping all over people who did nothing more than answer your post. I think you need to lighten up some. You posted here inviting turners to come and see your efforts, and to offer comments as well. It looks to me like you came here with a chip on your shoulder, looking for a fight. If it weren't for the extensive work you have obviously done on your site, I would put you down as a troll and ignore you completely. You have invited the things others are writing with your initial ripostes, and I cannot imagine that you are surprised it is snowballing.

Now, I realize that in the light of these comments, I may be excoriated by your rapier like wit. You might tell me not to come back to your site. You might even (gasp!) plonk me! I will not be lying awake tonight worrying about these horrendous possibilities. And, if you think I am going to worry about your not buying my work in the future, guess again. I'm not some starving artist kissing up to pretentious collectors in an attempt to make a living. I make simple stuff for regular people to buy, and if they buy it, great. If they don't, there is always someone else.

Oh yeah, I know Albert LeCoff personally too, although I will confess I have not seen him in years. I even worked for him for a while at his invitation. I know David Ellsworth personally - I live just down the road from him. So what? That doesn't make me a better person. It just means we know each other. In fact, I know a bunch of turners who are famous, some not so famous, and some completely unkown. The vast majority of them are nice friendly people. I don't know what your problem is. It seems like you have a lot to offer, but it just might not be as important to the rest of us as you seem to think.

The pages, while beautifully made, are too slow to load (I have DSL with

768k download speed). I'll give it one more try in a day or two. Except for the speed, I can't see much wrong with the site. That said, due to the speed issue, I didn't browse much beyond 4-5 photos in the gallery.

Bill

Right click works for me (Mozilla 1.7.3). Are you certain it's disabled?

Bill

The site itself and the full-size pictures are slow to load. On the chance that the server housing the site is simply swamped at the moment or that there is some other impediment to fast transmission, I will return in a day or two. I have 768 / 160K ADSL so it was a surprise to me for the index page to take a full 30 seconds to resolve.

I don't see or understand what the fuss is about people 'taking' a copy of one or more photos. Your computer delivered the photos to the United States and this practice is legal under our laws. What is not legal is for us to re-distribute them (with or without gain) without accreditation for incidental use or without permission when the use goes beyond 'incidental'. In other words, I am allowed to retain a copy for my own use, even printing it out so that I can carry it with me.

I 'took' a copy of two of the pictures for use as desktop backgrounds. I expect to study them to learn from them and, hopefully, to improve my own turning. Under our laws regarding copyright, this is permitted. They will join a photograph of an Irish (my ancestral homeland) sunset and some pictures from the Hubble space telescope.

If we place your photographs in a book and distribute it without compensating you, then you have a legitimate complaint. But there really isn't any foundation for complaint if we take a copy of a photograph for personal use.

The web site is impressive. Congratulations on a job well done. Comments about the posting announcing it being spam were ill-considered. The ensuing debate placed no one in a good light. Hopefully it is over.

Bill

The web sites below are butt-ugly and I have next to no time to improve them.

I don't care to get into "double-dog-dare" contests with you. Sorry. You asked for the feedback, you got it, end of story. If you can't take it, go cry to someone who cares.

You don't seem to have have mentioned any books on usability. Maybe I missed something, but the last time I looked, reading a book on layers or Dreamweaver didn't comprise anything like a text on usability. There is an entire industry around usability, be it web sites, coffee pots, or lawn mowers, and so searching Amazon for the term "usability" will get you a pretty good list.

(snip)

I guess I must have been wrong, it must not be your career if that's your attitude - or you'd be collecting unemployment. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with real-world web sites has found that just because a portion of very-interested persons keeps going to your site, it doesn't mean that a lot of other people turn away. I could go into the six years of data that I've got from over 50 *very* active web sites (thousands of hits per minute, how many do you get a week?), and into how many hundreds of thousands of dollars we have poured not only into analysis of the data, but into active testing and research on how usability and other factors influence site visits - but I really don't think you'd care. And even if I was inclined, it still wouldn't matter: There's a vast wealth of resources on the subject out there for you if you're interested. You can take them or leave them as you please.

In the end, because I haven't taken your petty, school-yard challenge to have something along the lines of a web-site duel, I imagine that your injured ego will prevent you from even considering anything I've said - let's even say that you "won" because I declined the challenge. That's fine with me, I have no interest in hearing any more of your blather, and have now kill-filed you. If I offended you, I apologize - but I still invite you to expand your horizons for your own benefit.

steve