|
|
Post by Eat Your Uncle on Apr 30, 2004 19:26:49 GMT
IS IN ENGLAND WHAT?
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 2, 2004 22:16:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eat Your Uncle on May 2, 2004 23:14:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 2, 2004 23:40:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eat Your Uncle on May 3, 2004 9:30:18 GMT
IN BRITTTTAN EVERYTHING IS FINE IN BRIRRRTIN EVERYTHING IS FINE IN BRRRIRTIN EVERYTHING IS FINE I GOT YOUR GOOD THINGS AND YOU GOT MINE
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 3, 2004 15:43:34 GMT
IN BRITTTTAN EVERYTHING IS FINE IN BRIRRRTIN EVERYTHING IS FINE IN BRRRIRTIN EVERYTHING IS FINE I GOT YOUR GOOD THINGS AND YOU GOT MINE that's true |
|
|
|
Post by Eat Your Uncle on May 3, 2004 17:19:03 GMT
I GOT A BRTTAIN FACE I GOTTA I GOTTA BRRIITTIN FACE UH-HUH UH-HUH UH-HUH UH-HUH OOH! |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on May 3, 2004 22:07:54 GMT
Is your ass Brittann too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eat Your Uncle on May 4, 2004 0:41:47 GMT
Is your ass Brittann too? RULE BRRTANNIA |
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on May 11, 2004 19:14:19 GMT
|
|
The Blueprint Hacker
Guest
|
Post by The Blueprint Hacker on May 11, 2004 21:23:14 GMT
ok GKN if you want to disagree about IE thats cool! Only 90% of computer users use it  I just think thies days you "web designers" if you can call your self one should be using imaging programs to creat the design and layout of the site then note pad to construct it! obviously you havnt done that! Have you used notpad or a HTML creator? As for web browsers... enlighten me, maybe I could learn somthing here, What do you think i should be using and why is that better than ie? (you cant say IE is crap because it came from the MS offices, it has to be a good reason) That should get ya thinking!!!  in the mean time... keep it real ian beal!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on May 11, 2004 21:44:29 GMT
ok GKN if you want to disagree about IE thats cool! Only 90% of computer users use it I just think thies days you "web designers" if you can call your self one should be using imaging programs to creat the design and layout of the site then note pad to construct it! obviously you havnt done that! Have you used notpad or a HTML creator? As for web browsers... enlighten me, maybe I could learn somthing here, What do you think i should be using and why is that better than ie? (you cant say IE is crap because it came from the MS offices, it has to be a good reason) That should get ya thinking! in the mean time... keep it real ian beal! Obviously my partner-in-crime has used Notepad, considering I've watched him do it. We use programs like GIMP and PSP to create transparent PNGs, hence not needing any other image programs. IE's not technically a web browser anyways, and if you actually knew your own little bit about computers (which, evidently, you don't) Microsoft programs are terribly unstable, as are the operating systems themselves. However, you don't get any competition from the superb Linux OS or the fantastic Mozilla range (programs include the beautiful web browser, Firefox) as Microsoft are corrupt and steal all competition, which happens to be the reason they're being sued. Look at www.mozilla.org or www.linux.org, they'll teach you why. I'll leave GKN to discuss why Mozilla's so much better. Y'know, actually trying them might do you some good. |
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 11, 2004 23:01:07 GMT
I believe this is the first known instance of a thread which is entirely off-topic becoming on-topic. Congratulations to all involved. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) create and publish (quite explicit) web standards describing how web pages should be displayed. Incidentally, Microsoft is/was one of the major players in creating these standards. The reason Firefox is a better web browser than Internet Crapsplorer (as far as I'm concerned) is that what it displays on the screen better matches what the W3C says it should. IE also doesn't display transparent PNGs (Portable Network Graphics) properly - the background becomes a solid colour (grey, I think). Whether you like the user interface is a matter of personal taste; I prefer Firefox to other browsers I've tried. Another cool thing about Firefox is Adblock - it eradicates adverts from within web pages, based on your list of URLs. I didn't know the Google adverts above existed for several weeks, until I visited the forums with IE. The Twaddle's pages were indeed all created in Notepad, from scratch. (Note that this doesn't include the forums - they're provided by a free host). I must confess the front page of the site doesn't fully validate as proper XHTML. One isn't really supposed to nest lists within lists, but that was the only semantic way to do the flowing menu on the front page - it is a list of lists, so I've marked it up as such. By the way, the flowing menu doesn't show in IE (it wouldn't even if the appropriate trick was done validly). The majority of graphical "what you see is what you get" web page generators spit out invalid HTML - mainly because proper XHTML can't really be written on a WYSIWYG basis. The exception to this is Nvu, based on Mozilla code; it doesn't give optimal code, but its output is valid, "proper" code. I didn't create the layout using an image program (unless you count doing quick layout sketches in Paint). The site is laid out using CSS, which provides for a liquid layout. The site should look OK at any (reasonable) text size (not just the five IE allows) and at virtually any screen resolution. The layout will only break if the text is incredibly large in relation to the window size - large enough to make words take up the entire width of their allotted space (the Articles heading on the front page is usually the first to go). On the topic of image creation: the logo was created using the oddly-named Sodipodi vector graphics editor. The shape is all worked out as lines and angles, rather than on a dot-by-dot basis. I then exported the images into either the Gimp or Microsoft Paint, depending on what type of image I wanted. Transparent ones are all done with the Gimp (but then you won't see transparency if you use IE). Major reasons I don't like IE: page display: it ignores hover effects; it positions backgrounds wrongly it ignores PNG transparency interface: it's slow the scrolling is jerky and painfully slow it's inextensible (there are over 100 Firefox extensions at the moment) other things: the latest version is two and a half years old (my Firefox is from one month ago; check the timestamp on these, bearing in mind that the time is about 8 hours behind British time) there will be one new version of IE before 2006 (not counting necessary security fixes) - there will be a newer version of Firefox tomorrow and a new release version next month IE is closed source - only Microsoft knows what goes on inside, only Microsoft can fix security holes - anyone can see what's inside Firefox and fix any problems they find (malicious changes won't be approved) IE is only available for Windows - OK I'm not planning on using Linux or a Mac, but if I did I could run Firefox on them IE has a technology called ActiveX which lets people do a lot of (nasty) things without asking it's built in to Windows, so if/when IE goes balls-up, your entire system goes balls-up too About market-share: about 90% of web users use IE; people are switching away from it, not to it, so the trend is away from IE. Not that this makes IE bad, the point is that its market share doesn't make it good either. The fact that it's made by Microsoft doesn't come into it. If Microsoft made a web browser that was better than Firefox I'd probably switch to it. Finally, another one for your open-source goodness list: OpenOffice.org - I use OOo despite "owning" *cough-cough* Microsoft Office 2002. If you don't fancy shelling out for an office suite (or even if you do), try it. The same goes for Firefox - give it a bash, don't reject it at the first sign of something you don't like (it can probably be changed), and see if you still prefer IE. Y'know you could register for an account and then you'd be able to create threads and post ( almost) anywhere  |
|
The Blurpting Hacker
Guest
|
Post by The Blurpting Hacker on May 12, 2004 16:34:07 GMT
Ok... where do i start, for one I didn't say there is anything wrong with "The Twaddle" so there is no need for MDG to start crying! This simple a disagreement of opinion between me and Mr GKN so stay out of it!!! Right sir GKN, Firstly I'm not going to disagree with everything you do, I admire your great faithfullness to the almighty notepad! Althought HTML generators are very usefull and have lots of advantages (and i do use them alot) I belive you can't beat a bit of DIY "Tweaking" with notepad! so at least we agree on one thing! as for www.mozilla.org/ well i think that simple boils down to a matter of oppinion! I Cant and wont say it's worse or better that IE cos I haven't used it, however I belive that web designers dont realy have a choise about some things like with web briowser they use or screen resolution ect, I think that we should be following the mojority of web users because that is who we are catering for... no point is having this outstanding award winning site if only 5% of internet users can view it! any way i think the mozilla topic should be droped because it has ran it's corse and well... lets just agree to disagree! as for the The World Wide Web Consortium well...  they and no other organisation have no right to say what a website should look like, each individual site has requirments and must meet the users needs! simple as that! I think each site should be aimed at a specific target group and be created accordinly! and PNG's judt dont do it for me. They are not ment for the web, Portabkle beign th key word, they are designed to be transfaired between a network and able to be edited later hence why they can be saved as layers... if you look the GIF and PNG file of exactaly the same image the gif would be smaller thus making th page loads quicker without losing any quality! |
|
TBH the blueprint hacker
Guest
|
Post by TBH the blueprint hacker on May 12, 2004 16:47:07 GMT
One thing i forgot... I must admit it is very cleaver that a web browser can detect those adverts and block them, I'm impressed although it does worry me that any browser can alter the apearance of your site!
One thing though what about thies sites which provide free services and religh on the income from adverts.. this could have a massive effect of the web industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eat Your Uncle on May 12, 2004 20:58:23 GMT
How does one 'suck a fuck'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 13, 2004 21:14:38 GMT
Ok... where do i start, for one I didn't say there is anything wrong with "The Twaddle" so there is no need for MDG to start crying! This simple a disagreement of opinion between me and Mr GKN so stay out of it! It's an open forum - he can join in (you don't have to listen to him  ) HTML generators are good if you prefer to see something as you're making it. My only beef is that they have a tendency to spew out invalid HTML (I'll come to this in a sec). Other than that, they're great. No, I agree with you completely. There is no point in having a site people can't use, which is why I code to web standards (see below) I wouldn't recommend you try the Mozilla suite - it's just plain ugly. Give Firefox a bash though. The W3C isn't trying to say what a website should look like; it's trying to say what you need to write to get it looking how you want. The point of using standards is that everyone's on the same page. If everyone's using the same standard, what you see in one browser will be (near enough) identical to any other browser. If you write something "for" Mozilla/Firefox (i.e. according to W3C specs), every web browser should be able to understand it. I'll point it out again - Microsoft helped invent these standards, so IE should have no problem. I've written a longer discussion on web standards, so I'll point you to it rather than repeating myself. The Web is a network. They're portable over the web. Saving an image as PNG and as GIF often gives an unfair comparison - you lose quality when you save as GIF, but not when you save as PNG. (I'm basing this quality loss on the fact that GIFs can only use up to 256 colours (which exact colours depends on the individual image); PNGs can have as many as you fancy.) Try saving as a GIF first (so you lose any quality that's gonna be lost), then resaving as a PNG, so you have the exact same image. The PNG will probably be smaller. I'm not convinced PNGs can do layers (if you've got an example, that'd be great). PNGs can do semi-transparency if this is what you mean (GIFs, by the way, can't). One thing i forgot... I must admit it is very cleaver that a web browser can detect those adverts and block them, I'm impressed although it does worry me that any browser can alter the apearance of your site! The site exists to serve the user (else why bother making it?). Users should be able to resize text and images, remove stuff and change the colour or position of things as much as they like. Of course, there's no guarantee it'll look seamless once they've finished, but they should be allowed to do it. For example, you can change the volume, brightness and colour saturation on your TV - this is a similar thing. One can do all of the things I mention above with a Mozilla browser and some XHTML/CSS knowledge (there's no button to change things' colours or anything, but it's quite possible once you know how) Yup ;D Web browsers routinely block pop-up ads - this is an extension of that. Websites can put out whatever they like - I can choose to ignore as much of it as I want. Most people change the channel when adverts come on TV, and TV channels can quite successfully rely solely on adverts to fund themselves - ITV, Channel 4 and Five, for example. Subscription is another option, successfully pulled off by Sky - that sort of thing works on the web too. I agree that sites that rely heavily on advertising won't like it, but they haven't cottoned on, so far. They've no real way to stop us, and they seem to be doing OK for the moment. And finally, the internet was originally set up for universities and the USA military, to distribute information in case of an attack on any one location. It wasn't designed for commercial content; arguably the Web was, but as it comes over the internet it'd never realy work anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 13, 2004 21:16:38 GMT
How does one 'suck a fuck'? like to know |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on May 14, 2004 0:24:10 GMT
Wake up, Donnie...
|
|
The Blueprint Hacker
Guest
|
Post by The Blueprint Hacker on May 17, 2004 22:58:42 GMT
Hmmmm, lots of very interesting point there, infact losts of interesting points from the two of us, I had anothe look on moo quack woof tweet meow today and i spotted one pice of html that I like... when the user hovers over the menu not only can they click onm the text but the whole box, I havnt had time to search through your code to find the tags but i'm guessing you used some kind of table to do this.. not bad work there, if you check out www.altmusic.net the same type of thing is done! Any chance of sharing youyr secrate? |
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 17, 2004 23:44:28 GMT
Hmmmm, lots of very interesting point there, infact losts of interesting points from the two of us, I had anothe look on moo quack woof tweet meow today and i spotted one pice of html that I like... when the user hovers over the menu not only can they click onm the text but the whole box, I havnt had time to search through your code to find the tags but i'm guessing you used some kind of table to do this.. not bad work there, if you check out www.altmusic.net the same type of thing is done! Any chance of sharing youyr secrate? Not a table in site* on mqwtm - even the contents lists on the front page (which look tabular) aren't tables - they're styled lists. At altmusic, only the text itself is the link, but when you click on the box, you're taken to the appropriate document, imitating the function of a proper link. I don't know even basic javascript - mqwtm uses CSS to accomplish the block link trick. I simply set the link element to {display:block}. You might like to have a look at these stylesheets (particularly the latter) to see the actual code (it was ages ago that I wrote it, so you'll forgive me for not remembering it off the top of my head. Yes, you will  ) css/edge is a great place to learn CSS tricks. It's a few years old but some browsers haven't even caught up yet. * I intended to write "sight" but subconsciously inserted a rubbish pun... and didn't notice... I need help  |
|
|
|
Post by Geg on May 17, 2004 23:49:20 GMT
Something to bear in mind is that, when using CSS, what something appears to be makes no difference to what it actually is. For example, the menu is actually a list (that's right - <ul>s and <li>s)... because it's a list of links.. so I wrote it as a list. Then I made it look fancy. (Same thing at The Twaddle.)
|
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on May 19, 2004 9:06:04 GMT
do you think he was sleepgolfing :flip: |
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Nov 21, 2004 19:46:03 GMT
do you think he was sleepgolfing :flip: Sleepgolfing - we should do this. |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Nov 22, 2004 0:18:26 GMT
Take out golf and count me in
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Nov 22, 2004 0:19:55 GMT
Take out golf and count me in OK, sleeping: 3... 2... 1... Go! |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Nov 22, 2004 0:20:45 GMT
Win!
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Nov 22, 2004 0:23:52 GMT
Why aren't you sleeping? Here, copy this:  or this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Nov 22, 2004 0:25:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Dec 11, 2004 20:29:48 GMT
|
|
I just think thies days you "web designers" if you can call your self one should be using imaging programs to creat the design and layout of the site then note pad to construct it! obviously you havnt done that! Have you used notpad or a HTML creator? 
in the mean time... keep it real ian beal!!!
they and no other organisation have no right to say what a website should look like, each individual site has requirments and must meet the users needs! simple as that! I think each site should be aimed at a specific target group and be created accordinly!
)
)