Adam

You need to provide a lot more information.

Free hosts are pretty unreliable and probably include adverts. I would just purchase a cheap shared host, there's plenty with pay monthly options. Checkout the dedicated thread.

JS can "see them", just not using document.getElementById(). You need to find the elements based on the name attribute. This is where frameworks like jQuery come in handy, so you can use a simple selector, like: $('select[name=thirdDD2]')...This is of course possible with native JS, using document.querySelector(), however it's not supported in older browsers. That means to remain cross-browser compliant, you need to include some fall back code that will use document.getElementsByTagName (which is well supported) and filter out the element with the right name attribute. If you use jQuery (up to v1.9) it will provide that fall back code for you.

Mmm.. You do realise you're floating a DIV there, right? Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with your code, I use similar tricks myself, but I just think you have some mixed up views regarding floats and you're pushing them onto people pretty aggressively. There's nothing wrong with using them, so long as you understand why they have the side-effects they do. Saying: Is complete bollocks, to be honest. If in your experience you've had that happen then it's down to something you did wrong. Also using inline-block like G+ is great, but there's still one or two quirks you have to be aware of. Plus support in earlier IE versions is a bit dodgy. All it comes down to is knowing the different techniques and picking the right tool for the job.

Not sure if its because I've just woken up, but I can't seem to make any sense from your last post? 625 images would be 10 images? Wha?

I don't really see what that has to do with a map? You can't trigger a screen grab from the server. Not unless the client has some special software installed and grants you permission. A standard website cannot do it though.

An output buffer would take a few milliseconds to process the mark-up for that number of images. It's only mark-up after all, unless you base64 encode the image data or something? The problem is that you're forcing the user to download 625 images all at once! You should lazy-load them. Define the div the correct width and height to contain them all, but only load the actual image when it's needed, or when it's say one or two images out of view. Otherwise you're going to waste a tonne of bandwidth and slow down the initial page load like crazy, if not crashing the browser. You'll need to use JS, but I suspect you'll be able to download a jQuery plug-in or something to handle it.

Capture an image? Of the user's screen? You can't do that. Would you like it if a website could take screenshots of what you're seeing whenever it wanted?

Err.. Yeah this is a blatant rip of codcanyon. I'm willing to bet you didn't get their prior permission? READ THESE

a. Half of your graphics are really bad quality. They almost look like they were made with MS Paint! I would get that sorted first off. Secondly, a lot of the text on the left column and footer is really low contrast compared to the background. Will be hard to read for some. To be honest, the site just looks a little too bland. Nothing strikes out. b. In what way? Did I enjoy reading it? Not in the way you claim to specialise in: "We make sure that people who visit your site are truly amazed by its relevance." I'm not really sure what you actually do? c. Wouldn't think so. Not to be harsh, I just don't think your website conveys much. Perhaps consider hiring a designer?

Mmm.. did you actually ask a question at any point?

I don't think you appreciate how it works here. You can't just send us to some pretty suspicious looking download site so we can get your code, then finish it off for you. You need to use a paste site, like pastebin, to show it us and explain in detail what's wrong and/or what you're struggling with.

Nobody will be interested in a site with no features

You can use the :hover psuedo class: http://jsfiddle.net/8QwNX/ Really old browsers like IE6 won't support :hover on elements other than anchors (<a>), but that's acceptable for most.

What is the "blink effect" exactly?

What do you expect to achieve with JavaScript? Looks like this is the ugly image you're talking about: "<img src=\"http://www.mydomain.co/user/images/classified/no-image.png\" width='100'>" Just change the PHP so it doesn't show that when the image column is empty: <?php $image04 = !empty($rows['image04']) ? "<img src=\"http://www.mydomain.co/user/{$rows['image04']}\" width='100'>" : ""; ?>

Not sure if you've ordered one yet, but you might be interested in PCPartPicker.

+1 to this. Google Web Fonts makes it really easy to embed them, and they generally look pretty consistent across all browsers and operating systems.

Why do you need to physically send the email? Just mock the mailer and ensure it receives what it should. Otherwise your tests are dependant on some outside system that could fail for reasons completely unrelated to your code, which will screw up the CI environment for no reason. There should be other checks in place to spot issues with the network. Plus, as your test suite grows, you don't want 30 seconds waits dotted around, it will take forever to run them all.

The problem is you're only binding the handler to the elements already defined in the page. When new content is loaded in, they're not bound to the handler. What you need to do, and what is more efficient than binding the same handler to every link, is to delegate the responsibility to a parent element that listens for clicks on child elements: $('#wrapper').on('click', 'a', function() { // Handle here });Now even if the content of #wrapper changes, the handler still exists and intercepts any click events on anchors as they bubble up the document.

Just curious, why are you wanting to echo from an automated test? By nature they shouldn't fail, except during the initial development or after changes, but in those cases at the end is surely fine?

I agree, the design needs a lot of work. For something this concerned over security, I would also expect to connect via SSL.

If you're handling the data yourself then you need to make sure you're PCI compliant. Even if you're not storing the data permanently, you need to make sure you're not breaking any violations for that short amount of time it exists on your server. Also make sure you aren't accidentally storing it for a longer period of time without realising; error and access logs for example! You need to be really careful. If your servers are compromised and someone's bank details are taken and you're not PCI compliant, they'll come down on you like a tonne of bricks! As for showing the form again, I wouldn't redirect, I would just render the form again? Redirect the request internally to the right controller, if that makes sense?

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. Which version of Firefox on what OS are you testing? Could you create a http://jsfiddle.com so we can view the behaviour not working ourselves?

You forgot to add your changes!