|
|
Posted by Blinky the Shark on 08/05/07 05:52
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:18:47
> GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>> Neredjojias wrote:
>>> 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 have connections within the industry. My uncle is a loan shark.
>>> 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.)
I hate long paper-towel-roll pages with tons of large images. My buddy
made one of those with photos of his new (and first) house a few years
back. I spent a whole evening making that into a gallery with a thumbs
page, and stuck it on Blinkynet for him.
> 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've never done a lick of js, at this point. Can't count on people
having it enabled.
>> 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.
Right.
>>> 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.
There ya go. And maintenence is more fussy.
>> 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.
Can check Konq. Link?
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|