You said he’s using an old computer and won’t upgrade, I don’t know how it works with Apple and Safari regarding old OS and browsers, but I know old Windows won’t let you upgrade IE.
Eg, I have some machines running XP at work and XP won’t let you upgrade IE beyond version 8. But it’s not a problem, because there is nothing to stop me from installing the latest version of Firefox or Chrome if I want an up-to-date browser. I would think the same would be true for an old Apple OS.
I honestly think your problem here is not EMs or different browser quirks, but the client. I would reiterate what Paul said about the web and print being different mediums. I don’t expect the web to behave like print any more than I would expect print to behave like the web. They are vastly different mediums and should not be looked upon in the same way.
#####[off-topic]
I had a problem loading the site so tested it using Pingdom.com
29.11 seconds to load the 3.3MB page - I dread to think the mobile Wifi loading time 
I would also check the following free tools:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
I also checked the “Art” links and found numerous missing pages? If the page is not active I would not have a link.
I would also be tempted to have all links in lower-case, far simpler and less complications.
###Edit:
I forgot to mention the image sizes. There are numerous free online sites that reduce image file sizes without noticeable loss in quality. This would make a tremendous difference to the web-page loading times.
This is true. I’m running XP Pro and I can’t update IE beyond 8. So, I don’t use IE at all anymore.
I do think his problem is his old version of Safari. I don’t know how old his computer is, but he has told me that he doesn’t want to upgrade because he wouldn’t be able to use PhotoShop -1, which he says has features no longer available on the newer versions. Whatever they are, I don’t know, because I don’t use PhotoShop.
The only comparison I was trying to make between the Web and print media is in terms of advertising. With a wide screen, you can create art that helps sell the the company, and product or service, much like in print. In other words, you can create an “image” for your company through the use of art, display that art, with a nice wide headline, sub-head and then add your copy block (or blocks). I just don’t think the mobile devices with their small screens lend themselves well to that usage. After all, a business Website (at least for a lot of businesses) is for advertising. “Who we are, what we do, why you should choose us.” Show some photos and boom, you have an effective marketing tool. This is what I did with my first business site when we were doing ceramic tile installations: Kinsman Tile I still get calls from that site, even though I have retired from that business (I leave the Website up for the info it provides).
Hmmm, for me it loads instantaneously. Neither has he complained that it takes a long time to load.
He sends me the images which he creates, and has me upload them. I don’t do anything to them.
I think the page loads quickly because the image files are cached.
Try using CTRL-F5 to clear the cache or manually clear the browser cache or use another browser.
I do use Photoshop, and the mind boggles to think what features are in version1 that were dropped in subsequent versions.
Version 1, really? That is ancient, I mean 1990, that computer belongs in a museum! Or do you mean CS1 circa 2003?
I agree, mobile browsing is not a patch on desktop, I personally find it cumbersome and tedious. But consider that (and I’m pulling figures from the air here, but they are within a ballpark) old browser users make up about 1 or 2% of web users and mobile around 50% and growing. So when he talks about “losing business” by not supporting old browsers…
I actually believe that site would work well on mobile with modernised html and css. The structuring of the images would have to change, but the overall look could be retained.
Probably because you have them cached, I was going to mention speed also, it is slow and could be greatly optimised.
And here is the problem. If I were to make that site the images would be structured differently. There are several unnecessarily large images, 960 x 1446 is the first one.
For me, the images of the cars would be on their own, on alpha, as would the logo at the bottom. The background would be a css gradient, you could add a 1px wide fallback for the cavemen.
Suddenly you have slashed a huge amount of data, speeded up the page load and introduced the possibility of a responsive layout if you dare consider it.
I did notice a missing closing quote on the meta description tag.
Oh, just saw in the metadata on that image, he’s using Photoshop CS, not v1, I thought that can’t be true.
I would have done it that way too. I don’t know why he did it like that. It makes no sense. I guess it’s because that’s how he’s used to working. He wanted something up and running quickly. It isn’t happening that way. Would have been just as fast for me do do as you suggest (and they way I always work) with a background image, and the car photos placed using CSS positioning and the same slide show JavaScript.
This is a guy very set in his ways, and I don’t tell him how to work. I don’t want to argue with him. Already got in a minor argument with him this morning over Apple vs. PC. He’s a died in the wool Apple user. Thinks it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. He told me “Most people have Apples” In a quick search, I found that Microsoft owns 93% market share of the OS market. So, I guess most people don’t have Apples. I don’t want an Apple. They’re overpriced, and you can only use Apple products. You can’t even buy an Apple except in an Apple store.
But, that’s a topic for another thread.
I tried Ctrl F5 and reloaded. Still loaded pretty quick. About one second as opposed to “instantaneous” as I said above. Stuff like that doesn’t bother me. It isn’t like you are sitting there waiting. Once it was loaded, the other photos in the slide show were “instantaneous.”
Where? I’m not seeing it.
<meta name="description" content="Automotive designs />
<meta name="keywords" content="custom auto, automobile, classic cars" />
Oh, wait. I see what your referring to. Thanks Going to have to call you “Eagle Eyes.” LOL
The sit is still under construction. I don’t know yet if he is going to have anything for those links. I built the menu assuming he had something in mind. Just doing some advance work. He keeps changing his mind about things.
His mock-up shows upper case for the main menu and the main headings under Art & Design. That’s the way he wants it, but I am not opposed to upper case for menu items. I have done that before myself. Why a problem?
I doubt 29 seconds is what it took to load the page. It isn’t always the page … it’s the Web. Even after I first uploaded the images and tested the site live for the first time, it loaded nearly instantaneously. He never said anything about slow load time either, and he wouldn’t have had it cached the first time he went to the site. I don’t think it’s a problem. Now, for dial-up users that may be a different story. But I doubt any of his clients or potential clients are on dial up. They are all in and around Cleveland, OH. That’s his target audience.
One problem is that many screenreaders will spell out words that are written in all caps. Better to use CSS text-transform: uppercase; to capitalise for you.
That’s something I didn’t know. I’ll bear that in mind from now on. (Fortunately, I don’t think there are many places where I have used all caps.)
Huh! I always wondered what the purpose of that style property was for! So, I type in lower case but style it using the text-transform property. I’ll have to try it.
Actually though, I don’t think he’s worried about anyone using screen readers. I seriously doubt any of his clients are vision impaired.
It isn’t really necessary to design for all possibilities. Just as it isn’t necessary to design to accommodate every browser that was ever built. If we did that, we’d still be designing for Netscape Navigator, because “someone might still be using it!”
Careful, he may not be worried but you both actually have a duty of care to make sure that the site is accessible to assistive technologies as well as to ‘normal’ people. The w3c accessibility guidelines are a must read for any respective designer.
You don’t have to go overboard with it but you do have to understand the implications whether the client likes it or not. We see the same arguments about accessibility time and time again, usually from beginners or part timers in the industry (but not always as some professionals are also lacking), and its not an issue that can be dismissed lightly. The usual argument is that ‘a blind man is going to buy my painting’ or similar nonsense like that. Low vision is only one of many disabilities that you need to cater for or at least address but there are many other facets to accessibility.
If you read the guidelines you will see that it is a win win situation for the sites that are designed with accessibility in mind as they often benefit normal users just as much as they do disabled users or robots like google.
In the end its simply about professionalism and doing a job well which means following the guidelines for the industry that you work in. We could all do better and I’m no saint when it comes to accessibility but I do know what’s right and what’s wrong (which probably makes me more guilty when I scrimp on something).
I’m sure @Stomme_poes or @TechnoBear would have a lot to say on this subject 
Baloney. My only duty is to my client, who is paying the bill. If he wants to pay for all the special coding and crap that makes it accessible to people that aren’t likely to be his clients I’d gladly comply. But the W3C isn’t paying the bill and is not my client. Their “guidelines” are of no interest to me. That’s like telling me I have a duty to provide wheelchair ramps in my home in case someone in a wheelchair comes to visit.
Some people can’t read. Are we to provide an audio version for them? Sorry. I’m afraid I’m going to be “non-compliant.”
The site was taking a very long time to load and I thought there was a problem so I used the free third-party test site to test the loading time. As mentioned the site took 29.11 seconds to fully load and I think it was from San Jose, California.
I have just tried again using a different browser and the site took about ten seconds before anything was rendered and over 30 seconds for the full page to load.
After the images were cached the page refreshed virtually instantly. First time visitors to the site will experience very slow loading times.
I think it is far better to have links to valid empty pages rather than non-existent pages because I think it gives the site an initial bad ranking.
As far web-pages and image file names are concerned I believe the convention is to have all lower-case. The big corporate sites all use lower-case. Do you know of any popular sites that do not follow the convention?
As a designer I think you should enlighten your client and make him aware of any possible problems.
It’s true, it is slow to load. When I first looked at it, I was at work, where we have a vary fast fibre connection, and it took a while to load. At home, with a more basic broadband connection, it was even slower.
But I already explained why, and how to improve it, and you know this already.
If he’s making the background plates up in Photoshop, I’m sure the various elements will be separate layers, so he could easily save them as separate individual files.
That’s exactly what I mean about print being a different medium to the web. The way you prepare artwork for one medium, is not correct for another. If he were producing artwork to be two colour spot printed, he wouldn’t hand the printer a bunch of CMYK separations, or they would be quickly handed back to him. As his “publisher” you require artwork that is fit for purpose in the medium you work with.
R[quote=“WOtis, post:36, topic:208166”]
Baloney
[/quote]
Yes I often talk baloney especially at Christmas.