quote:

---

I have my resolution set at 1280 x 1024, if you have a smaller resolution it changes the entire perspective and makes things scroll that shouldn't.

---

A website should function properly AT LEAST at 800*600, preferably even at 640*80 with low colors. And it should load within a reasonable amount of time with a 56k modem.

If you use good HTML, there is NO reason to dictate browsers, resolutions or color settings.

About the design.. Well, it isn't very original, but it has a clear structure. Shame about the broken links, though. And uhm.. what's the point of that home page? No information on it at all.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, it's just that I'm a bit fanatic about web-standards
 

---

Posted by USS_Delphronta (Member # 1116) on :
 
Well lets start this off....

First, the link is broken
Well it works for me and for everyone else I know! Given that most people I know run windows 98se 2000pro or XPpro.

. . The content of this Web Site contains intellectual property that is protected from unauthorized use, copying and dissemination by copyright, trademark and other laws. If you link to this Web Site, we require that you follow these guidelines. The link to this Web Site must not damage, dilute or tarnish the goodwill associated with any PDE, Paramount Picture Corporation or related names and/or intellectual property, nor may the link create the false appearance that your web site and/or organization is sponsored, endorsed by, affiliated and/or associated with PDE, Paramount Pictures Corporation or their affiliated companies. You agree that you will not link to the Web Site from any source that is unlawful, abusive, indecent or obscene, that promotes violence or illegal acts, that contains expressions of racism, that is libelous, defamatory, scandalous, or inflammatory or is otherwise inappropriate. If you do link to the Web Site, you may link only to the home page, and not to any other page, directory or subdomain of the Web Site. Under no circumstances may you "frame" this Web Site or alter its intellectual property or content in any way. PDE reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate a link with any Web site that it deems inappropriate or inconsistent with the Web Site and/or these Terms. PDE is not responsible for the content or performance of any portion of the Internet including other Web sites to which this Web Site may be linked or from which this Web Site may be accessed. Users are requested to inform PDE of any errors or inappropriate material found on Web sites to which this Web Site is or may be linked.

Im not quite sure how you think I violated that terms of use. But it seems to me that your browser is non java/frames compatible.


A website should function properly AT LEAST at 800*600, preferably even at 640*80 with low colors. And it should load within a reasonable amount of time with a 56k modem.

Thanks Harry... I think that these are good points that I chose to violate, I think that its about time to up the resolution standards now that monitors can go very high, my monitor puts 640x 480 to shame. Most people I know have 1280x1024 or better desktop resolutions. When I browse a page thats designed for 640 by 480 I can barely read the text, the graphics are lame and few from lack of space... is that what we come to expect from the internet?
The horrible load times are my bad there no other way(other than a preload screeen) to make it better.

Shame about the broken links
Which ones? I cant fix it if I don't know its broken.
 

---

Posted by USS_Delphronta (Member # 1116) on :
 
http://65.25.81.113/links.gif

*edit by CC to un-break page layout*

[ September 12, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Charles Capps ]
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by USS_Delphronta:
First, the link is broken
Well it works for me and for everyone else I know! Given that most people I know run windows 98se 2000pro or XPpro.

---

Yes, and that's what EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD uses!

Looking at your second post with the screenshot of code, the problem is obvious -- you substituted back-slashes ("\") for forward-slashes ("/"). How someone can get confused by the two, I have no idea... unless they paid absolutely no attention to HTML conventions, anyway.

quote:

---

Im not quite sure how you think I violated that terms of use.

---

quote:

---

But it seems to me that your browser is non java/frames compatible.

---

Ah, sure. Blame it on the guy who's responding to the criticism that you requested in the first place.

I am using Apple Safari 1.0 (v85) on Macintosh OS X 10.2.6, with full Java, JavaScript, and Java applet compatability enabled. Safari is one of the most standards-compliant browsers out there today. There's nothing wrong with my browser, thank you very much.

Oh, and the last browser that was not compatible with frames was probably distributed back in 1996.

quote:

---

I think that its about time to up the resolution standards now that monitors can go very high, my monitor puts 640x 480 to shame.

---

quote:

---

Most people I know have 1280x1024 or better desktop resolutions.

---

quote:

---

When I browse a page thats designed for 640 by 480 I can barely read the text, the graphics are lame and few from lack of space... is that what we come to expect from the internet?

---

quote:

---

The horrible load times are my bad there no other way(other than a preload screeen) to make it better.

---

Well gee, maybe you COULD just provide links to your collection of images rather than loading numerous multi-kilobyte images all in the same page... but that would be too simple, wouldn't it?

I apologize for the somewhat excessive sarcasm, but one of the few things I can't abide is willful ignorance of web designers.

Take a look at my website via the link below -- Star Trek Minutiae. I make no shortcuts on designing an attractive site with clean graphics, but I also make sure that it's flexible and can be displayed at multiple resolutions and sizes. It's NOT that difficult if you take the time to learn!
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
 
i could ramp my res up to 1024 if i wanted to.. anything more is beyond my monitors capabilities.

and why don't i up my res? because its a pain in the ass to do, looks fucking stupid and i cant read the fucking text on anything.. its a matter of personal aesthetic preference. another of those aesthetics preferences involves not reading lame illiterate fanboy pages with no content and assembled with even less skill.
 

---

Posted by USS_Delphronta (Member # 1116) on :
 
Wow minuteman you had some pretty good stuff but I still disgree with one of your points

You really are clueless, aren't you? Assuming that your link to StarTrek.com worked, it would have displayed the site in the right frame of your site, while keeping the left frame the same. That creates the appearance and implication that someone else is running/endorsing/controlling StarTrek.com -- that's where the "framed" part comes in. Not to mention that it can seriously disrupt the display of StarTrek.com's pages (which is the rude part).


TARGET="_top" that means it replaces the WHOLE screen not the right side.


And in IE is autofuckingmatically changes \\ to// so it dont matter.

BTW try the link now from my web page I only changed the HTTP:// part it works but your BROWSER IS TOO DUMB
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
 
unless you don't use IE
 

---

Posted by USS_Delphronta (Member # 1116) on :
 
http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/linking/_A_TARGET_95y116y111y112y.html
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
It doesn't matter that IE translates \ to /. Real browsers actually do what the users tell them to rather than making up for the stupidity of the user.

Right now, I can't see your title image, because you're using the broken url images\title.gif

It took two and a half billion years to load your Ships page because you're doing mouseovers where you shouldn't be. Normal links == good.

Same thing for your Stations page.

Fix the resolution problems and things should be much better... Most of the world runs at 1024, followed then by 800, then by 1280. Designing for 800 or 1024 is the best practice. While I run at 1280x1024, I have all my browser windows at 800x600, which totally killed the purpose of your resolution-nagging Javascript. Nuke it.

I also take extreme exception to having my context menus broken. All you ended up doing is making me turn off Javascript.

And I finally recommend you run all of your pages through the XHTML validator. While there are no obvious nesting issues, you're using mixed case and are missing quotes around your attributes.
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by USS_Delphronta:
TARGET="_top" that means it replaces the WHOLE screen not the right side.

---

quote:

---

And in IE is autofuckingmatically changes \\ to// so it dont matter.

---

quote:

---

BTW try the link now from my web page I only changed the HTTP:// part it works but your BROWSER IS TOO DUMB

---

Very funny. Tell that to the people who have created Netscape, Mozilla, Camino, Firebird, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Amaya, Lynx, and probably a bunch of more obscure ones I've never heard of. My bet is that none of them would make that stupid "\"-to-"/" swap.
 

---

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
 
It uses frames with all the usability and accessibility problems they entail. And there's no useful noframes content.

The first page of the ships section downloads about 1.5Mb of images, which on my broadband connection took about a minute. If I had anything better to do I would have cancelled the download and left your site never to return. Imagine what the poor folks on dialup would have done.

And they can't even turn off image loading to speed things up because you haven't included any alt attributes on your images so they won't know where the linked images go, or which of the main images may be worth downloading.

Screen resolutions of 1280 x 1024 are not at all common. And even if they were most people with larger screen resolutions do not run their browsers full screen.

It hardly needs to be said that the page fails validation.

The home page - what's with that mess at the top? Looks like a screen dump of some bad Trek wingdings font. There's nothing on the home page that explains what the site is about.

There's a whole load of JavaScript that seems to be trying (and failing) to set cookies, play sounds, disable the right mouse button, etc. Ooo and coloured scroll bars. Bleargh. I had to go to the trouble of using IE to see all the above crap - Opera didn't let any of it work.

The site is a mess. Sorry but it is. Is your content worth struggling with all the above problems? I don't know, I gave up. I'll only return if people start saying that this site has absolutely wonderful content that can't be found anywhere else on the WWW, otherwise it's just not worth the hassle.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
All browsers except Opera, Konquerer and Mozilla (and maybe Safari, if it wasn't so... Maccish) should die. The world would be a happier place.
 

---

Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
 
As fairly inexperiences webmaster I would only like to say "1280 is bad, 1024 or 800 is good."
 

---

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
 
And no size at all is best.

Obviously images have inherent sizes that can not be worked around, so instead of putting large images into pages just link to them. Other than that avoid hard coding pixel sizes altogether and the page will adapt itself to most window sizes without too much trouble.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6:
i could ramp my res up to 1024 if i wanted to.. anything more is beyond my monitors capabilities.

and why don't i up my res? because its a pain in the ass to do, looks fucking stupid and i cant read the fucking text on anything.. its a matter of personal aesthetic preference. another of those aesthetics preferences involves not reading lame illiterate fanboy pages with no content and assembled with even less skill.

---

Now, I do agree that forcing people to a certain resulution is a bit facist. Especially 1280x1024. Can you imagine what that's like on a 15in monitor?

But I am confused a bit by the good Captain here. How is it a pain in the arse, and how does everything look stupid? It takes about 5 seconds, and everything just looks a bit smaller.

I do know a lot of mates who were using 800 x 600, and about a year ago I was bored and went on a crazy rampage of ordering them to put their resolutions up to 1024 x 768. And every single one of them told me that things looked small and stupid, and that the higher resultion was shit. I made them keep it up for two days. And after that, I made them go back to 800 x 600. And they immedietly complained that 800 x 600 looked far too big, and cramped, and shit, and they went back to 1024 x 768.

And the moral is: People will stick with what they have until forced to change. That's why you have people still using Netscape 4.7. That's why you still have people at 640 x 480. That's why you still have people using Windows 95, ferchisake.

What can be done? Nothing. People are happy as they are. Leave them. Although, Mikeyboy, trying upping your resolution for a day or so, and see if you get used to it. Things are a lot easier at a bigger resultion, and a 15inch monitor can (just about) cope at that size. If you don't like it, then go back. And get a pair of glasses to go with that nice uniform. And, er, try not to let conversations about monitor resultion drive you to an uncontrolable rage. You'll live longer. See more.

And Mr Delphronta: Are you serious when you say that "Most people I know have 1280x1024 or better desktop resolutions"? Honestly, who outside of Crazy Graphic Design People have a desktop resultion of higher than 1280 x 1024? Eh? NO-ONE. EVER. And quiet you at the back.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Also, do you have permission to show those SevTrek strips?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Yes, I do know what a 1280 x 1024 res looks like on a 15" monitor.... My 17" is still in MI....

So, where does this GATE system send one... Which galaxy is that in???

It isn't the concept that is bad, but the execution of said concept....

I did kill the viewing of the site, as for having dial up I would rather read old posts here than sit and wait for those to load.

Change the index page to a disclaimer:

This site is designed for IE 5.5+ only and a screen resolution of 1280 x 1024, and anything else can bugger off.

You may use that as a quote if you desire.
 

---

Posted by USS_Delphronta (Member # 1116) on :
 
Other than you might be on dialup I found out why the page loads so slow, my stupid ISP throttled my connection..........


Best dl rate I can get is about 125K/s from 800K/s two weeks ago.

Best upload is 40 K/s from around 400K/s 2 weeks ago.
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Don't tell me you're hosting the site on your home computer over your hose connection...

For anything approaching the kind of site you want, you've GOT to have a real web host!
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
It's almost like he's asking us to hack him...

No, but seriously, Delphronta, I realize the problem of making your site viewable in a broad variety of browsers is a major pain. As a matter of fact I've made something of a career of it. It takes what is already a fairly complicated process and just makes it exponentially more difficult. The question becomes do you want to turn away/exclude potential users or do you want a lot of people to visit your site. Because if you want the former I'd say you're well on your way. But if you want the latter you'll have to make some concessions about how your site is going to work. As it is you are driving potential users (and remember we're all trek-dorks here (and uncommonly tech-savvy ones at that) so really we are your target audience) away who might have otherwise enjoyed or appreciated what you have to offer.

It's just a question, and when you posted your link, I assumed that you had worked hard on this thing (which is evident btw) and were looking to get some strokes, some new users or at least some decent feedback, but when the first thing I see at your site is something telling me that I'm doing something wrong, well already I'm thinking this isn't a good place for me to go. But then I'm one of those leaf-nibbling, pseudo-hippie, mac-using, mosaic-remembering web-slingers so you can choose to ignore me because therefore I must be full of it. But you should at least listen to Charles for he is very wise with the ways of the web.
 

---

Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
I completely agree. Dictating what resolution to use is one of the biggest No-No's in webdesign.

But aside from that, try using some free manual like SelfHTML which is very good to get started and avoid the gravest mistakes.

And FCS don't assume that because it looks good on your monitor it will do on many others as well!
Oh and screw Javascript, what's wrong with plain simple HTML code? Sites can look just as good without JS, you know?
BTW, disabling right mouse-click also only works in IE - at least with your site!
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Re: disabling the right-click: That also doesn't work on any platform other than Windows.

Concerning browsers: granted, you probably don't have to go to the absurd extreme of making compatible code for Netscape 1 or IE 3, for example. I read just the other day that only 0.1% of all Web users out there are still using browsers that are older than NS4 and IE4.

I just downloaded a trial copy of Dreamweaver MX 2004 (I already own the previous version). The new update includes some fairly comprehensive browser check functions; I don't know the reliability of them, but any application that includes Safari in the list has got to be pretty good, IMO. I decided that, since barely 1% of people out there are still using NS4, and not many more using IE4, that I'm going to adjust my site primarily for NS6 and up, and IE5.5 and up. This lets me use some relatively recent techniques in my website, without totally breaking the site's layout if the browser can't handle all the CSS the way they claim it does. (Of course, if you design your site for Mozilla, it'll work fine in just about any recent browser anyway. )
 

---