|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/08/07 20:23
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:aeqkg3ln6all7sc70j6pga6rclqeq3ctlc@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:31:55 -0500, "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, you retard, the point of the design is to cater to the
>>> lowest mainstream resolution while still allowing for a centered
>>> position on higher resolutions. So you're not really reducing the
>>> amount of space you have. An alternative design would include two
>>> base resolutions, say 800x600 and 1024x768+. Another reason why it's
>>> a good design is that the extra space can be used for ad banners and
>>> other site tools...not that you would have any fuckin clue about that,
>>> your sites aren't making you any money. LOL
>
>>wow.
>
> Yeah, you and yer lil online boyfriend sure got bitch slapped, huh?
> And hell, I haven't even replied to all that other idiocy you posted
> yet. LOL, you would think after awhile you morons would figure it out
> that I actually ENJOY ripping you apart at every other post. ^_^
>
>>so you justify one bad design by saying *other* bad design strategies
>>warrant it.
>
> Uh, excuse me, retard, but the only "bad" thing you morons were able
> to say about the design (it leaves extra space), was soundly ripped
> apart.
really? where? how?
> I mean in either design form (unless you're taking about a perfect
> liquid form...
<read, OMH made up jargon that only means something to OMH>
> and you're not, because I'm the only one who has sites
> like that),
<which explains why, it only applies to OMH>
apparently, based on your client *demand*...no one WANTS 'perfect liquid'
shit.
> in either form you have to settle on a base resolution
> (you could go with more than one), but the bottom line is that no
> matter how many base resolutions you choose there will ALWAYS be some
> resolutions in which the resolution of the user's monitor exceeds the
> intended display size of the content. In a portal form, when that
> happens, the content will stay centered in the users view, in a non
> portal form it'll default into the upper left hand corner, leaving
> skewed content.
>
> The only REAL argument against the form (which is now out dated),
yes, leave yourself a means to backpeddle.
> and
> it's no surprise that neither of you two idiots has figured it out, is
> the comparison of a portal form to a centered form. In the later the
> content will stay centered and will default to the top of the page.
> Some will say this is better in that most users view the top of the
> screen first when going to a site and then next look to the center.
> This is why ad banners are most often at the top of the page. But
> then, that's part of the point. Because ad banners are most often at
> the top of the page, that OLD study no longer holds as much relevancy.
> People now often DO NOT look first at the top of the page because most
> people expect to see ad banners at the top of the page, thus, NOW, the
> most important part of the screen, is the middle (also why those
> centered Flash ad banner pop ups are becoming so popular).
>
>>ROFLMAO
>>
>>
>>now, please do go on and show that you can do what gillet just did...using
>>less resources and unnecessarily pigeon-holing the end-user into a
>>particular[ly stupid] technology. hmmmmm, c'mon cupcake.
>
> Hey, retard, in case it skipped you (of course it did, why am I
> asking), I already proved that the concept could be achieved in Flash
> with LESS size, GREATER cross compatibility (mine will even work on IE
> 5 on teh Mac) and with the added benefits of custom, embedded fonts
> and proper font anti-aliasing:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/URAMORON.swf
>
> ...yeah, you get to look stupid now. Have fun with that! ^_^
'proved the concept'...no, you MENTIONED the concept. proof is vastly
lacking. IE...great! now run it in tbird, ff, netscape, etc...then run it on
a mips, spark, etc.. oh wait, you CAN'T. lol. 'greater cross
compatibility'...tis to laugh.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|