I'm probably being over sensitive but....

After a skim through it's looking good to me. ^_^

Only thing I noticed is when you click to add white patterns:

"*SB1 is the only [b]forum[/b] of sabino for which we can test. Many other white patterns appear as and inherit as sabino but have no test."

On the horse portion, I don't believe so there are many, though I'm sure some have slipped through. I'm a grammar perfectionist, so if anyone sees anything (thanks Swing!), please say so!

Admin, why don't you ask them specifically where they are seeing errors, because we would like to fix it.

I did ask although I was a bit snide about it.

[quote]On the horse portion, I don't believe so there are many.[/quote]

You specify the horse potions. Is this because you just haven't looked much at the other sites or have I made a bunch of errors and your being nice?

I appreciate the feed back.

I've only skimmed the other sites - still trying to process all the information! Do you want me to proofread and correct?

If you have time that would be great. That goes for anyone else who wouldn't mind proof reading.

I'll read around and look for things. But don't get your feelings hurt, or else the internet wins, haha. You've put a lot of time into this site, I know it's your baby.

But your "Alot" made me think of this http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2…
and made me smile, haha! :grin:

I took a look and here are some I found:

be consistent about gray vs. grey (you use gray in the title but grey in the pull-down menu)

stray "> in pull-down menu for KIT (T RN: inheritance unknown)

for the KIT mutations, would it be easier to use check-boxes for each mutation instead of trying to list combinations in a pull-down menu? I don't know if it's likely (or possible?) to have a horse with tobiano, roan, and SB1, but if so the calculator would not have that as an option. I think check-boxes would also make the KIT selection more straightforward, and it would mean you don't have to make the screen as wide to accommodate all the text in that menu.

this is a stylistic choice, but I would revise "To date, there have been 12 different mutations of dominant white located" using the active voice, ie "To date, scientists have identified 12 distinct dominant white mutations" or something like that, and provide a reference

"Occu[b]rr[/b]ing" has two r's; on the results page it is spelled "Occuring"

when you mouse over the possibilities and the picture shows up, it does some weird stuff with rearranging the text on the screen and sometimes becomes unstable (the picture flashes) depending on where in the line you mouse over (not sure how to fix that)

in the text under the illustrations of the outcomes, I find the following:
-"Alle" instead of allele
-need line break or punctuation between base color and genotype (ie, instead of "Base Color is Chestnut Homozygous for the recessive Alle at Extension Homozygous for the recessive Alle at Agouti" have it read "Base color is chestnut: homozygous for the recessive allele at Extension, homozygous for the recessive allele at Agouti")
-there's a bug in how the text under the illustration is reported. For example, I did an eeaaCrcrTRN x eeaaTRN test cross, and under the TT offspring, the text under the illustration lists both homozygous tobiano and heterozygous tobiano

another minor thing I would change (and sorry, I don't know how) is to have the calculator remember your last input so that if you navigate 'back' from the results page to change something, it doesn't automatically clear it (and instead have a button that you can click to clear the entries and start over)

One last thing: it is possible to 'break' the calculator by picking too many things. I tried one cross with a bunch of dilutions and it was a little slow but it did produce all the results. Then I did another 'worst-case' cross where I selected all sorts of cr*p, and the calculator didn't even try to compute the results, instead just directing me to a page with no results. I think this is an entirely appropriate way for the calculator to respond, but you might want to have it give feedback in the form of an error message saying something about how the calculation has been suppressed because it would yield a gazillion possibilities, please try a simpler cross.

I don't want to seem too critical--overall I think it's a really neat tool, and the illustrations are great! :grin: Fixing the bugs will make it more streamlined though.

[quote]I don't want to seem too critical[/quote]

Please criticize! I don't mind criticism at all as long as you point out the things you feel I need to change. It does annoy me when people criticize and don't offer suggestions.

It's like saying to someone who just wrote a book, "You have some punctuation errors go fix them."

[quote]for the KIT mutations, would it be easier to use check-boxes for each mutation instead of trying to list combinations in a pull-down menu? I don't know if it's likely (or possible?) to have a horse with tobiano, roan, and SB1, but if so the calculator would not have that as an option. I think check-boxes would also make the KIT selection more straightforward, and it would mean you don't have to make the screen as wide to accommodate all the text in that menu.[/quote]

From what I understand it would be next to impossible to have a horse with tobiano, roan, and SB1. It would require two of the three to be linked and always inherited together. Since they are so close together a crossover would be next to impossible requiring a new spontaneous mutation.

I agree that it's a bit unwieldy the way but it is going to have to wait until I'm sure most of the bugs are fixed.

[quote]when you mouse over the possibilities and the picture shows up, it does some weird stuff with rearranging the text on the screen and sometimes becomes unstable (the picture flashes) depending on where in the line you mouse over (not sure how to fix that)[/quote]

I'm not sure how to fix this one either. I noticed it only happens when the results string is very long. I can probably force the result string to be under a certain width. I'll play with it.

[quote]another minor thing I would change (and sorry, I don't know how) is to have the calculator remember your last input so that if you navigate 'back' from the results page to change something, it doesn't automatically clear it (and instead have a button that you can click to clear the entries and start over)[/quote]

This may be browser dependent. When I hit the back button in firefox it does remember my choices. What browser are you using? A reset button is a good idea.

[quote]One last thing: it is possible to 'break' the calculator by picking too many things. I tried one cross with a bunch of dilutions and it was a little slow but it did produce all the results. Then I did another 'worst-case' cross where I selected all sorts of cr*p, and the calculator didn't even try to compute the results, instead just directing me to a page with no results. I think this is an entirely appropriate way for the calculator to respond, but you might want to have it give feedback in the form of an error message saying something about how the calculation has been suppressed because it would yield a gazillion possibilities, please try a simpler cross.[/quote]

Yes, this is something I should have caught and didn't. It takes a huge amount of memory if all the combinations are entered. On my home computer I raised the php memory limit to 500mb (way to much for a live website) and it was still using it all. I've added a short check before the script runs to check for to many choices.

Thanks so much for being so thorough. I have implemented the rest of your suggestions.