|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 08/05/07 05:29
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:18:47
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>>>>> I don't need bunnies, so I use news.individual.net for $14/year as
>>>>> my primary.
>>>>
>>>> I tried that when I decided to go hi-speed but had trouble with the
>>>> payment methods. The rules are different for Americans and
>>>> Europeans, - worse for the former. They try to dun your cc (for cc
>>>> usage, I guess) _as well as_ the normal charge, and I would have
>>>> none of it.
>>>
>>> I'm the former. I had no issues with them the two times I've paid
>>> for the service.
>>
>> So? Then I guess they tried to stiff me. This is no fantasy; the
>> charge was on my bank account until I had it removed. (-Only about
>> $3, but it's the principle... I also couldn't get thru to their
>> hotline to inquire.)
>>
>> Did you use a cc?
>
> Visa. $12.46 in April last year and 13.91 this April. No other
> charges.
Hmm, I wonder what happened? Maybe there're getting greedy with new
users, I dunno. I may still have the documentation on the whole thing.
Will have to look.
>> I've looked at your current effort a few times, and it seems pretty
>> damn good to me. Probably the best thing to remember when
>
> Why, thank you.
>
> My main goal has been simplicity and speed. I love fast downloading
> sites; I'm heavily influenced by the plain-jane pages I get from
> many/most of the Linux documentation and help sites, RFC sites, and
> stuff like that. Unless I'm *looking* for images, I don't need them --
> they're of little use on an informational pages. I'm on a dialup, and
> I
> have and will try to continue NOT making stuff that takes two minutes a
> page for the other good folks that are, for whatever reason(s) on
> dialups.
You're a man after my own heart. -Er, shark. Although my site is
virtually all thumbnail links and images, I have 2 index pages: one
normal and one lite. Even the normal one's fast; it has a handful of
small images and (now) a short video which, however, only loads for hi-
speed users. (Opera may be a temporary exception, but I'm working on
that.)
The lite page loads almost instantly, even on dialup. It's basically just
2 columns of links and a form, although it can be set at the visitor's
option to provide hover images related to the links. All the fancy stuff
is javascript but completely non-essential.
> I'm snooping for two- or three-column nontabled layouts to work from
> for
> the new site. That doesn't imply that I'm using tables now. But I did
> for one version of my present hobby site years ago. I learned a lot
> with that, though. Not just in terms of coding; also a pain in the ass
> maintainance was.
You might try experimentally floating a few divs and applying a little
padding just to see what happens. The hard part is height-matching, if
that becomes necessary.
>> html-page-making is that there are bound to be roadblocks because the
>> standards aren't fully "set" yet and the browsers render markup
>> differently, anyway. In some ways I think it's all a bunch of crap
>> little better than what was around in the early nineties. The _move_
>> towards standardization is good, but the reality of the current
>> implimentations...? I dunno. I think they could have done better.
>
> Another advantage to keep it simple is that I can do reasonably well
> without being a Wizard. :)
Simplicity also abets functionality no matter how much of a wizard one
is. Complicated things tend to break easily in html.
> I test new stuff and changes in FF, Opera, Konqueror, lynx
> and...uh...what's that other one...the legacy browser...oh, yeah -- IE.
I don't have any Linux or Mac stuff, so I tend to stick with "the big
three": IE (6 and 7), FF/SeaMonkey, and Opera. I _hope_ my site works
in browsers like Safari and Konqueror, but if not, -oh, well.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|