|
|
Posted by John Henry on 08/24/05 18:18
Onideus Mad Hatter <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in
news:efqmg1ln8hrfhv0j68dplcfaemuqkiqgac@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:12:50 GMT, John Henry
> <jhd@NOSPAMinsurgent.orgNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>> He's the one who needs to back it up, Cheerleader.
>
>>No, no I don't.
>
> Yeah, yeah ya do.
>
>>> I've already got a
>>> ton of user feedback telling me what my sites work with and what
>>> they don't.
>
>><insert 'The Lurkers Support Me In E-Mail'>
>
> Boy you really are retarded, Sunshine. Did you just miss all those
> threads I made about Mac and Linux beta testers? And it's not about
> "support", you drooling little melodramatic asshole, it's about what
> works and what doesn't, not much emotional content there. Where as
> with you, holy bejesus, every other post you make yer practically
> throwing a screaming fit about something.
He said, in the midst of 180+ lines of screaming fit.
>>> All he's got is ASSumptions
>
>>And ten years' experience plus half an associates' degree in web
>>design.
>
> Considering how gawd awful your sites look
Really? What's "awful" about them? They're easy to read and navigate,
make good use of color and white space, have a simple layout that caters
to the natural patterns of the eye as they read web pages, don't make use
of bad color combinations or obscure fonts, aren't loaded down with 4Mb
flash animations and proprietary bells and whistles...c'mon, DB, you've
got so much criticism to offer, howsabout making some of your blather
actually *mean* something?
> you really shouldn't go
> around claiming chit like that. You don't have 10 years experience,
> kiddo.
My first site went up in September of 1995. I've maintained a constant
presence on the 'net since then, and since 1998 I've always had at least
two sites online.
> Collectively you probably only have about 5 to 10 hours worth
> of REAL experience
I have *pages* with more time in them than that, idiot.
> and because of you're a Ritalin addict most of that
> 5 to 10 hours was just wasted. Further, I'm bettin that most of that
> time was spent doing third rate homework assignments that you probably
> found to be more of a chore than fun.
No, actually. Of course, some of my coursework was boring and dull - a
lot of it, in terms of doing new things since 90% of it was review for me
anyway - but when given the chance, I'd just turn in whatever I was
currently working on for my own site or a client site. Two birds with
one stone and all that.
> Yer nothing but a fuckin poser,
> d00d. My grandmother hyped up meth with an iMac and a copy of
> Dreamweaver could design better sites than you.
She's more than welcome to try.
>>I'd be getting the other half now, but I've got too damn much work to
>>handle full-time school and full-time web design.
>
> Full time workin at McDonalds you mean.
No, if I meant that, I'd have said it.
> If you had a full time job
> doing web design you wouldn't need a degree in it, you moron.
I own a web design business, dolt. I put far more than 40 hours a week
into it. Regrettably, many of those hours aren't paid, but that's the
nature of self-employment.
> Second
> of all, "full-time school" where you're talking all web development
> courses...yeah, if you actually had 10 years of experience you would
> be able to breeze through those classes like they were nothing.
And I did.
> Here's a neat lil fact for ya, my AA degree (which normally takes two
> years to get), I got it in one. How? Simple, all my electives were
> computer classes and I passed out of EVERY class within the first
> week. *shrugs*
And in the North Carolina College system, the only classes in the AAS-IT
curriculum that allow for testing out are crap like keyboarding, algebra,
and basic English - all of which I did, indeed, test out of. The others,
it's simply not an option. And really, I didn't mind - any fool knows
that any opportunity to learn something should be taken advantage of, and
since I was, until I started school last year, completely self-taught,
there are many things that I had never covered in my work, just because I
never had reason or opportunity to do so. Although in that regard I
probably got more outo f my multimedia and graphic design classes, I did
manage to learn some new things in my coding classes as well. I'd
probably have learned more if the idiots that run the state college
system hadn't based their web design curriculum largely around Adobe
GoLive, which makes the garbage generated by FrontPage look positively
elegant.
> Why can't you do the same?
Because it's not an option, and I doubt very seriously that it's an
option in your state, either. Then again, you lying through your teeth
trying to impress people with achievements you've never done is nothing
new for you.
> I mean, you said you've got TEN YEARS of
> experience, hell as far as web design I've only been doing it for like
> 5 or 6, so what's your excuse?
English not your first language?
>>Plus the degree was just window dressing for my resume anyway - if I'm
>>making it on my own, I don't really *need* window-dressing for my
>>resume.
>
> What you need is to stop runnin at the fuckin mouth and start
> learning.
Says the guy who literally discovered Flash *last week*.
> And a lil thing to keep in mind...web design isn't purely
> about code. Web design actually covers a wide range of subjects from
> database management
Every page on LowGenius.Com is dynamically generated from information
stored on a SQL Server back-end.
> to graphic design
All of the graphics on all my sites are original creations, unless
otherwise noted.
> to layout
Again - what part of the layout of my sites is a problem for you?
> to coding to file
> encoding methodology,
Yeah, I really need to learn how to encode in "HTML sucks"
> etc, etc, etc. Unless you're badass in ALL
> those areas no one is ever going to take you seriously...no one that
> matters anyway.
My checks cash. That's serious enough for me.
> I'm sure your dribbling little pages can sure get
> your great aunt Mildred and the rest of the fam singin yer praises,
> but then I find most parents these days think their kids are
> "technical geniuses" by default. Lil Johnny Stupid can get the VCR to
> stop blinkin 12:00 so he MUST be a computer genius. *rolls eyes*
>
> You got LIED TO, Bitch.
When you said you had a degree, or when you said you'd tested out of
required classes?
>>> and I'm certainly not gonna go and
>>> do his dirty work for him. Rule number one in web design...unless
>>> you tested it, assume it doesn't work.
>
>>Tested in IE, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, and the text portions in
>>Lynx. I don't have a mac, but I do have friends who use macs, and
>>none of them have reported any current problems.
>
> Lurkers supporting you in email, huh?
No - they don't read AUK, and I usually communicate via Trillian/GAIM.
>>I also participate in several
>>mailing lists and so forth, to ensure that I can have a wide variety
>>of browsers and platforms when I say "site check, please."
>
> 1. Are these technical mailing lists?
Define "technical mailing lists" Technically, they're mailing lists.
People like John Viescas - who literally wrote the book on SQL Server -
participate in some places; obviously MMDevNet and MSDN have their own
advantages, as do the macromedia.* groups and others.
> 2. What are you specifically ASKING in these messages?
Depends on what I'm working on at any given time. Duh. Sometimes it's
just a request for a site check/feedback; other times I may have
technical questions. I think the last time I actually faced something
that I couldn't do was working out the javascript for some of the high-
bandwidth pages on the RLTT site, but as I recall I ended up working that
out on my own anyway. Typically I can find the information I need on the
web, these days.
> I mean most any site will "work" to one degree or another on any given
> browser, the point is similarity, getting a site to look exactly the
> same on one browser as it does on another (obviously with browsers
> like Lynx there are some limitations).
You haven't answered my question - which browsers are MY sites NOT
compatible with, that YOURS are?
>>Does *anyone* here have a problem seeing my sites, other than the
>>high- bandwidth area of roadlesstraveled.com (which makes heavy use of
>>graphics, iframes, and javascript, and is therefore not likely to work
>>in legacy browsers)? Can you, DB, provide a genuine screenshot of my
>>site 'not working' or being 'incompatible' with any modern browser?
>
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/LowGenius%20-%20Netscape.p
> ng
Why, sure enough. I thought I'd fixed that once, but no matter, I'll
take care of it in a few minutes.
> In Netscape and FireFox some of yer sites text winds up
> colliding/overlapping and looks 8 shades of sloppy. In Netscape your
> lil image there doesn't have the bluish backdrop that it has in IE.
That would be due to the fact that the 'bluish backdrop' - actually a
dropshadow - is an effect proprietary to IE that I neglected to delete
from the stylesheet you happened to be viewing the site through:
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.DropShadow(Color=#538397,
OffX=0px, OffY=0px, Positive=true);
Thanks for pointing that out; again, I thought I'd deleted it. It's gone
now.
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/LowGenius%20-%20IE.png
> In IE your search tool winds up floating off the page and there are
> horizontal scroll bars.
The search tool float (which isn't "off the page" but merely above the
top margin of the masthead) is one of those weird IE div rendering
things. I could fix it, but frankly I liked the way it looked when I saw
it - that kind of layign across the border thing gives it an illusion of
depth that I like, so I left it as it was.
> Well, that was easy. Now you go and check out the latest Backwater
> site, Kiddo, you'll find that it looks EXACTLY the same on ALL major
> browsers, from Netscape to IE to FireFox to Konqueror to Opera, etc,
> etc, etc. Really about the only one it won't look exactly the same on
> is Lynx, but that's kind of a given.
And it takes over a minute to load on a cable connection...
>>Hey, here's an idea!
>>
>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lowgenius.com%2F
>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.backwater-
>>productions.net&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline
>
>>Valid HTML sucks.
>
> Valid W3C sucks actually. Apparently reading comprehension isn't your
> strong suit.
Apparently you can't tell the difference between "comprehension" and
"mistyping."
>>Jesus CHRIST!
>>
>>Your fucking front page is taking me over a minute to load on a cable
>>connection!
>
> Awww, my site is teaching diddums patience, how cute!
I'm sure your clients will appreciate this approach.
>>http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.backwater-prod
>>uctions.net/wwcc/yoga-online/ Result: Failed validation, 11
>>errors
>
> Of course that site would fail validation, I made it when I wasn't
> giving a rats ass about the W3C...not only that but my employer
> specifically said they wanted it to work in IE and didn't care at all
> about any other browsers (in fact even made a reference about cross
> browsers and cross dressers...he, he, he...it was really funny).
It's your job as a designer to help your clients understand why cross-
browser compatability is important. Now, given that your client looks
likely to have perhaps a dozen or so visits in a given week, maybe it's
not important to him that one of those visits might not see his site the
way they should...but given IE's declining market share - my logs show a
steady drop over the last two years in IE use from around 98% to around
92% - it's still something that should be addressed.
Then again, if your businesss philosophy begins and ends with "I'll take
advantage of client ignorance any time I can if it means I can get away
with half-assing a job," then I can see your point.
>>I'd check your other client sites, but oh, gee, it looks like they've
>>changed providers. Funny, that.
>>
>>Idiot.
>
> How's that fantasy land workin for ya, Stupid?
Where are the sites you had listed as clients the last time I looked at
your site, maybe 18 months ago?
> Do be sure and let me
> know when your sites stop looking like ass and look the same in at
> LEAST the three major browsers (IE, Netscape & FireFox)
Netscape stopped being a 'major browser' a couple of years ago when they
ceased development on it. The "new" Netscape - the one that wasn't even
supposed to exist - is just Firefox with a Netscape skin.
That top-margin thing in IE does kind of bug me, but not enough to worry
about. It certainly doesn't affect the functionality of the site.
So when were you going to prove that your sites are "more compatible"
across browsers and platforms than mine are?
> Oh hey, free cl00, why don't you try actually SETTING the fonts that
> your sites are using, that way they won't default to the browsers
> default (which is what's causing most of your formatting collisions
> and wanders). Oh but you have "10 years of experience" so I'm sure
> you already knew that, huh? ^_^
Feel free to point out which of the fonts on my sites aren't set...oh,
that's right, you don't use style sheets either. I guess the absence of
the deprecated FONT tags in the HTML must be what led you to make such an
obviously mistaken statement.
--
John Henry
alt.usenet.kooks Hammer of Thor - May 2005
NEW site! www.lowgenius.NET
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|