quote:Originally posted by USS_Delphronta: TARGET="_top" that means it replaces the WHOLE screen not the right side.
Ahh, I see. Well, that IS good, and just fine. I simply was not able to ascertain that before since there the link was bad.
quote:And in IE is autofuckingmatically changes \\ to// so it dont matter.
Yes, but IE is quite possibly the worst browser ever made, simply because of Microsoft's habit of controlling every possible aspect of a computer.
The purpose of a computer program -- especially a browser -- is to do what it's told, not make assumptions based on the ignorance of those who use it. If you're going to make use of a tool, be sure you know how to operate it properly before you start!
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.
-------------------- “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
posted
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.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, do you have permission to show those SevTrek strips?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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!
-------------------- “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
posted
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.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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!
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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. )
-------------------- “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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
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. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
