|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 01/20/07 04:51
aa wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net>
>
>> Oh, I am very critical of my work. dorayme expressed it well, wish I that
> time to redo everything!
> You do not have to make excuses. Yet time is not an excuse in your case. If
> instead of harassing me here you work on your site, it will be up to the
> scratch
> You opted spend your time differently
Harassing, eh? Just because I am telling you things that you do not want
to hear that's harassment? Can't help you there.
My site is not the only thing I do, while a finishing up and compiling a
project, I have attempted to help you. You have successfully convinced
me that your not worth the effort
>
>> Although some could have couched criticism a bit, their points were very
> valid.
>
> I do not recall a single concrete piece of crittism. Will you fish them out?
> Actually I remeber one. Someone was annoyed with bg shot and hit sounds. The
> page is supposed to communicate an impression of shooting. Yet I was
> expected to rush to remove the sounds only to please some pain in the neck
> who fail to understand purpose of the site
>
>> Aside of the aesthetics
> This is a technical html NG. I did not come here to discuss aesthetics. If
> nevertheless I want, I'll ask
>
>> your site if fundamentally broken.
> Again unactionable generalities
Have given specifics you even comment on them below, maybe you do not
recognize what "broken" means
>
>> Images and text overlap
> Which particular and at which resolution?
Any!
Here is latest SeaMonkey:
http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/alt.html.20070119SM.jpg
alt.html.20070119SM.jpg (JPEG Image, 1014x817 pixels)
And even in security-riddled IE that I don't use:
http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/alt.html.20070119IE.jpg
alt.html.20070119IE.jpg (JPEG Image, 941x808 pixels)
And doing a little validation can get quite specific, I thought someone
else brought this to your attention,
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pifpaf.front.ru%2Findex_en.htm
Result for http://www.pifpaf.front.ru/index_en.htm - W3C Markup Validator
>
>> Tiny red text on black is very hard to read.
> this is easy to correct. Yet when did you watch it last time? Perhaps you
> sow 800x600 version in 1024x768? It has been changed.
> The reason for black background is that the system in question is used in
> darkness. Black bg helps to communicate that feeling
> Red is because the system shoots red laser beams. Becides any color on black
> bg is not too readable. But the color scheme is not discussed here. Font
> size could be increased
>
>> What little CSS styling is used is poor:
> "font-weight:bold; font-size:12px; font-family:tahoma;}"
>
> Where exacly you got this line from? I do not recall it
Sorry, JavaScript is disabled and you insert it via JavaScript so I am
not getting your stylesheet but form one of your IFRAMEs. Looking at
your stylesheets though suffer from similar pixel-fixed problems...
BTW in stylesheets units are always required except for 0 lengths and
the line-height property so
"width:290;"
is invalid.
>
>> 12px is both too small and inflexible, Tahoma does not exist on my
>> Mandrake and Fedora systems and no general font family was specified
>> which means a serif font will be used.
>
> see the prevuious remark
>
>> Ask a question and your going to get a direct response most
>> time, ask for critique and you'll get that too. Be a bit receptive and
>> you might find your markup may benefit.
>
> Actually I did exactly this - I asked a question. But instead of technical
> info I got moralizing.
> If you consider yourself an expers and hang out here to help non-experts,
> why not just to supply facts and stay away from moralizing?
> It is up you an individual to take a decision basing on what he reads here.
> Why you consider your duty to save his soul and keep turning him onto your
> faith? Is this because you do not charge for advice, you take moral reward
> this way?
Designing for a fixed screen site is a "technical" error with web
design, period. And no amount of "wishing" will make it otherwise, because:
A) You have no control over the visitor's screen size
B) You have no control over the visitor's screen resolution
C) You definitely have no control over the visitor's browser size
D) You have no control over the visitor's browsing device
E) You have no control over the visitor's fonts, font sizes that can
affect your layout
>> Your goal of designing for two resolutions is
>> misguided, a point that has been belabored in this and the other thread.
>> The reliance on client-side script to build your page is a big error...
>> When you've been informed of this you have lash out and other have
>> reciprocated. Hey, this is not kindergarten and Barney-land (that damn
>> insiped purple dinosaur) where everything is sugar-coated, this is
>> Usenet.
>
> See previous remark. Please do not start this again. Do something on your
> site instead. Or explain me about the JS hit counters as you were going in
> the next door thread but stalled.
In many ways, depends on the code, I don't waste my time with them, but
the important point is they collect the visit data and browser statics
and function via client-side which is dependent on the *client* which
you have no control. Therefore JS hit counters are inaccurate and
unreliable. What more do you need to know?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|