posted
I kind of like the glowy button rollovers. But the ships section layout takes forever to load. A thumbnail gallery with available larger pictures would be more user friendly.
And pictures I can't right click on or drag into photoshop anger me. If I want it badly enough I'll grab it from my temp folder or take a screen shot and usually do so purely out of spite.
Not a bad layout, but if you feel it necessary to have your main nav in a frame, there's no reason to make it scrollable. You've got plenty of space to fit everything in vertically. There's certainly no reaosn to have it scroll horizontally. Set that width, my boy.
The resolution notice at the top is probably not necessary. If people know how to change their res and want to they will.
posted
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.
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i refuse to reset my resolution just to cater to people's websites...
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
And my computer is literally incapable of displaying such a resolution. I'm using a two-year-old iBook with a 12" screen and a maximum resolution of 1024x768.
Mandating a screen resolution for your website is evil, and pointless considering the web development tools available to everyone these days.
Furthermore, I noticed that you have a link to StarTrek.com in your left frame. I see two problems with that. First, the link is broken. Second, the StarTrek.com terms of service explicitly forbid displaying their site's content inside another website's frames. (And even if it weren't against their terms of service, it's considered extremely rude, regardless!)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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
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.
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
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.
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).
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.
That's why he recommended a minimum of 800x600 instead, since that's a bit more common, still.
quote:Most people I know have 1280x1024 or better desktop resolutions.
And I'm sure you know a very diverse section of the entire population of the Internet... like people with bad eyesight? People who're completely blind? People who prefer to use small resolution screens for whatever personal reason? People who can't afford to buy the latest LCD flatscreen monitor that's come out just because it is TEH R0XX0R?
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?
That's because most of those pages were designed back in 1998 or so and haven't been changed since. You spend most of your time browsing Geocities, don't you?
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!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
unless you don't use IE
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes, and that's what EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD uses!![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
