Posted by Sebastian Eichinger on 05/30/06 11:55

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> You didn't solve the problem - you have just removed the small part of
> the problem that bothered you. By the way, my browser (IE 7 beta)
> signals JavaScript errors on the page. Haven't you tested the page with
> script error reporting switched on?

So, lets remember: my problem were the tooltips. Now i found a method to
avoid them. In my way of thinking this means: i solved it ;)

No, serious - do you have any other idea? Each one is welcome!

So, let's explain something: I'm no web-developer. I never learnt html
or css by visiting a seminar or reading a book. I'm just doing and
watching, then cleaning some errors, playing around a little, and
watching again. So: no - i never tested anything with "script error
reporting". How should i when i barely understand what you're talking
about? =)

So, what matters? Is it just the IE (as usual... ;) ) or are there
important errors i should have a look at? Then - how? Forgive me, but i
don't want to install the IE7. Not as a beta, and not as a final.
Because i just didn't need it.

I'm sure there is a way to check the errors without, can you (or anybody
else) help me to get this fixed?



> Your page is a striking example of the problems people create when they
> try to add "mouseover explanations" to things. Your special presentation
> style uses horrendously small font with very poor contrast between
> background and color. It's probably almost the worst you can do and
> still preserve the illusion that people can read it. (I wonder if you
> can even yourself read it, or whether you just think so because you
> remember what you have written.)

No reason to get angry - that's how this "sounds"...

And yes - my eyes sure aren't the best, but i can read this. Without any
problems.

I must say that you can be right - while i "tested" the page on
differend screens and resolutions from 1024x768 to 1600x1200, i didn't
since i made this popup-thing. I just hadn't the time to do, so far i
can say only this: on 1024x768 it's readable very good.

About the colors: the background is kind of "bright" and the text
someting like "very dark" - what more contrast do you want?


> The real problem that you should solve is that your link texts are
> cryptic, apparently in an attempt to make them look artistic and cool
> and enigmatic. But they are simply a mess, written in Europanto style
> (an absurd mixture of European language).

Of course it would be a solution to make language-portals. Strict-german
and strict-english, maybe.

But i guess this sould be my problem.

Be sure: everyone who is supposed to visit this more privat than public
page actually _can_ read and understand this.


> If you can produce some visual art, do so, but don't play with links.
> People who build an art gallery are not supposed to make the entrance
> and the doorways and the signs so cryptic that visitors don't know
> whether a door leads to a men's room, a ladies' room, a room with
> paintings, or to the backyard.

.... So you must be a programmer, or serious-minded webdeveloper, or
something like this. Are you? ;)

To pickup your example: What is wrong about a door completely designed
by an artist, not even looking like a normal door, when it has the - for
most people readable - designed text "men's room" on it?

Must be a horror to you, but kind of something absolutely fascinating to
me :)


>> And, because i like such
>> things: i wanted to customize the tooltips.
>
> Stop doing that in HTML authoring, unless you author for yourself only.
> Customize your own browsing experience if you like.

>>> Stop using JavaScript at least until you understand it.
>>
>> Why? What else then?
>
> Start from simple and logical HTML.

>> Do i have to learn Javascript befor i'm allowed
>> to create this thing?
>
> Yes. (Well, that's how things _should_ be, at least.)

Those suggestions doesn't make any sense to me.

In case of: "Huh! How can you say that! Die!"

Why there are thousands of methods to customize web-content, when - as
you say - it's "not allowed" to use them?

Guess this is the different thinking. The difference between "Save the
web-standards! Only use web-secure colors!" and "Oh, what does this code
do..?"



> Actually, for quite a many websites, it would be great improvement if
> they were turned into plain text.

.... are you kidding me? Have a look at your calendar, it's 2006! I would
cancel the contract with my ISP if most websites only are written in
plain text. For sure i'm not sorry about having an interest for some
well-looking content-things, even if they will not work on lynx (or
similar).

You're shocking me. I'm really happy this moment that not each
"webmaster" is thinking like you...


> But your strawman arguments are boring...

Could be. Could not be. Who knows, and - who cares?

As i told you, im no web-developer. To me, creating something what
pleases my mind is not a very easy thing. And it's much harder, well,
sometimes nearly impossible, if i'd be forced to use only strict html or
css, just the "secure tags" which will work on each browser. To me it
seems like creating something "artful" working on each (_each_!) browser
is nearly impossible.

But that depends on what you'r thinking of, when you're thinking about
something "artful", something "beautiful" - and for me, this would
include the popup-tooltips we were usually talking about.

Hey, because i forgot until now: don't care about the "cryptic linktext"
- i'll show the visitor (if there is one...) the original url. in the
tooltip. Beneath the text i added there. If you like that or not ;)

So, back to this script-error... That's not nice, if using js, i guess
at least it should work correct.

Have nice days, and even if we are not totally agreeing with each other
- thank you very much for your thoughts and your time for reading and
answering! ;)

Greets,

Seb

[Back to original message]