PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Meh, mines allready pumped up 
At least pple arn just posting +1.
yet.
At least pple arn just posting +1.
yet.
New design at Fanout
- Thread starter Odin
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Most of your posts are spam, some are funny others are just annoying.
More entertaining than most tv programmes for sure.
Oh, right on topic...
What's the topic again? Web standards? Follow them!
Err...
Go W3C! Go WaSP!
Anything else?
Uhm... if you're still getting raped by the Microsoft Internet Explorer (or Konqueror if you're on Linux/KDE), switch to Mozilla or Firefox today. If you'd prefer to use something more commercial, just use Opera.
Hm... that's enough advertising for one post, I think.
Oh, right on topic...
What's the topic again? Web standards? Follow them!
Err...
Go W3C! Go WaSP!
Anything else?
Uhm... if you're still getting raped by the Microsoft Internet Explorer (or Konqueror if you're on Linux/KDE), switch to Mozilla or Firefox today. If you'd prefer to use something more commercial, just use Opera.
Hm... that's enough advertising for one post, I think.
EnderWiggin
First time out of the vault
Our webmaster has been in the hospital, and I've been out of town for a funeral.
But when I did get back in town, I did change around the site a bit. The site uses CSS and is valid HTML. I validated it via W3C.
There is a pure HTML version with no flash, with an image map (right-clickable links) and no status-bar script down on the bottom.
I have no qualms with a Flash menu, but I wasn't the one who did the original design. I just cleaned it up a bit, and I'm no web-guru.
I'm busy with a bunch of other things and the website isn't really my domain.
On the topic of browsers, I use Maxthon which is more feature rich than Firefox, and crashes a lot less. It has full compatibility with all the IE browser-specific tags, yet is built on a completely new engine. I highly recommend it.
I've had a few issues in testing where Mozilla didn't seem to like HTML tags that W3C liked just fine.
But when I did get back in town, I did change around the site a bit. The site uses CSS and is valid HTML. I validated it via W3C.
There is a pure HTML version with no flash, with an image map (right-clickable links) and no status-bar script down on the bottom.
I have no qualms with a Flash menu, but I wasn't the one who did the original design. I just cleaned it up a bit, and I'm no web-guru.
I'm busy with a bunch of other things and the website isn't really my domain.
On the topic of browsers, I use Maxthon which is more feature rich than Firefox, and crashes a lot less. It has full compatibility with all the IE browser-specific tags, yet is built on a completely new engine. I highly recommend it.
I've had a few issues in testing where Mozilla didn't seem to like HTML tags that W3C liked just fine.
EnderWiggin said:
Woho, hold your horses! The W3C Validator only checks whether the syntax is correct, not whether the markup makes sense.
Valid markup isn't neccessarily good markup.
DarkUnderlord
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Too late. Heh. I'm getting there though.Ashmo said:
I think...
EnderWiggin
First time out of the vault
I'm fairly happy with the site.
I think the status bar script could go on the flash version as well, but I don't see any other glaring changes that need to be made.
Why don't you take another look at the changes I made and see what else you recommend?
I think the status bar script could go on the flash version as well, but I don't see any other glaring changes that need to be made.
Why don't you take another look at the changes I made and see what else you recommend?
PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
My only advice is to make it 56k freindly :-p
EnderWiggin
First time out of the vault
Have you reloaded the page and seen it in the past few days?
There is now a pure HTML/low-bandwidth version for 56kers. Check it out.
There is now a pure HTML/low-bandwidth version for 56kers. Check it out.
DarkUnderlord
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
... and wow it looks... exactly the same as the high-bandwidth version. What exactly is the difference, I mean apart from the lack of Flash menu?
I thought the entire difference WAS the flash menu?
EnderWiggin
First time out of the vault
The graphics are compressed well, and people who connect at 33k say even the flash version loads fast, so I didn't feel the need to strip down the low bandwidth version more.
The low bandwidth version has no flash, and I ditched the javascript on the status bar. The Flash version will see some changes as we work on that.
I think this site is an excellent example of what some nice artwork and flash design can do with a Fallout site.
http://fallout.art.pl/
I like the simple flash menus, the custom cursors, and the static effect a lot.
Ashmo, if you've advice for the site, I'd appreciate it. I'm handing the reigns back over to the webmaster. Right now the two versions are differen html files all together.
He wants to just use iFrames, and only seperate the navigation menu so we don't need to update two pages for everything. I was thinking of doing server side includes.
The reason I have two seperate versions of each page right now is to have load times be as fast as possible for those on dial-up.
What's your opinion on the matter?
Edit: Also, I got all the HTML Validated, but the CSS won't validate.
W3C doesn't like the scroll-bar commands. Is there a way to do the scroll-bar commands with valid CSS?
The low bandwidth version has no flash, and I ditched the javascript on the status bar. The Flash version will see some changes as we work on that.
I think this site is an excellent example of what some nice artwork and flash design can do with a Fallout site.
http://fallout.art.pl/
I like the simple flash menus, the custom cursors, and the static effect a lot.
Ashmo, if you've advice for the site, I'd appreciate it. I'm handing the reigns back over to the webmaster. Right now the two versions are differen html files all together.
He wants to just use iFrames, and only seperate the navigation menu so we don't need to update two pages for everything. I was thinking of doing server side includes.
The reason I have two seperate versions of each page right now is to have load times be as fast as possible for those on dial-up.
What's your opinion on the matter?
Edit: Also, I got all the HTML Validated, but the CSS won't validate.
W3C doesn't like the scroll-bar commands. Is there a way to do the scroll-bar commands with valid CSS?
I think you mean styling the scroll bar, a trickery invented by MSIE which also only works with MSIE because it's not real CSS.
No, as it's not part of the standard, you can't validate it.
it's also not page styling but modification of the browser's GUI. Scroll bars are not part of your website, they are only part of the browser GUI, so there is no sane reason to manipulate them (that includes reinventing the wheel with flash scrollbars).
If he is going to put the navigation into a frame, I am going to put something hard into a place you don't want it to be.
Server side includes are the way to go if you are not generating the pages dynamically already.
The reason is that FRAMES are not meant to be abused for that. Some browsers don't support frames (yes, I know that that mostly concerns text browsers, but there are blind people out there too and blind people use text browsers).
In such browsers you will usually be prompted which of the frames you want to open. The very idea of putting the entire navigation into a seperate file is insane anyway (it also tends to screw up deep links, such as those presented by Google a lot).
You don't need a low bandwidth version. If you need one, you are doing something wrong. Ensure that your page works with Flash/Java/Stylesheets/images off, that's all. If people are on a slow connection and want fast content, they will disable images in their browsers, not to mention Flash. If they don't, they'll have enough problems going anywhere anyway.
Keep your markup clean and don't bloat it.
To get a general idea of what CSS and HTML are really all about (not the shit they tell you in internet related magazines), check out http://www.csszengarden.com and take a look at a couple of the designs they let you chose from.
All designs use the same HTML and only different stylesheets and images (linked to via the stylesheets). While the HTML is a bit bloated with divs and spans and has way too many classes and IDs assigned, that was only done in order to allow the absolute maximum of customizability.
No, as it's not part of the standard, you can't validate it.
it's also not page styling but modification of the browser's GUI. Scroll bars are not part of your website, they are only part of the browser GUI, so there is no sane reason to manipulate them (that includes reinventing the wheel with flash scrollbars).
If he is going to put the navigation into a frame, I am going to put something hard into a place you don't want it to be.
Server side includes are the way to go if you are not generating the pages dynamically already.
The reason is that FRAMES are not meant to be abused for that. Some browsers don't support frames (yes, I know that that mostly concerns text browsers, but there are blind people out there too and blind people use text browsers).
In such browsers you will usually be prompted which of the frames you want to open. The very idea of putting the entire navigation into a seperate file is insane anyway (it also tends to screw up deep links, such as those presented by Google a lot).
You don't need a low bandwidth version. If you need one, you are doing something wrong. Ensure that your page works with Flash/Java/Stylesheets/images off, that's all. If people are on a slow connection and want fast content, they will disable images in their browsers, not to mention Flash. If they don't, they'll have enough problems going anywhere anyway.
Keep your markup clean and don't bloat it.
To get a general idea of what CSS and HTML are really all about (not the shit they tell you in internet related magazines), check out http://www.csszengarden.com and take a look at a couple of the designs they let you chose from.
All designs use the same HTML and only different stylesheets and images (linked to via the stylesheets). While the HTML is a bit bloated with divs and spans and has way too many classes and IDs assigned, that was only done in order to allow the absolute maximum of customizability.