Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Getting the attention of spyware & adware perpetrators

Reply
Thread Tools

Getting the attention of spyware & adware perpetrators

 
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:07:42 +0000, Apollo wrote:


> "Leythos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:23 +0000, Apollo wrote:
>>>
>>> The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the wrapping
>>> looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
>>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg

>>
>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then
>> 6,
>> FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows
>> 98SE,
>> Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
>> their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at
>> 800x600,
>> 1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very
>> rare
>> these days.
>>
>>

> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does display
> fine in FireFox 1.00.
>
> I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too. With the
> amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is common, and pages
> should be tested at this resolution and maybe even higher.


800x600 is still used my many seniors and also my the visually impaired as
it presents a larger image on those 17/19 inch monitors. If you want to be
fully compliant you have to support 800x600 and 1024x768 for other users.

When we do a site it's always interesting to see how it renders on the
different browsers and the same browser on the different OS's (even on
different Windows OS's).


--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
Apollo wrote:
> "Leythos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and
>> then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test
>> on Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux
>> variant in order to make sure their pages are fully browser
>> compliant. They will also test at 800x600, 1024x768, and
>> sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
>> these days.

>
> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
> display fine in FireFox 1.00.
>
> I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
> With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is common,
> and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe even
> higher.


Everyone (not just you guys, all web designers) should stop thinking
about the size of the monitor, and think about the size of the browser
window. Which could be any size. Not everyone surfs with a maximized
browser window.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

<quote>
So there are two accurate answers to "Which resolution should I design
for?":

* All of them
* None of them
</quote>

One well-designed site will work everywhere.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:13:52 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Apollo wrote:
>> "Leythos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>
>>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and
>>> then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test
>>> on Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux
>>> variant in order to make sure their pages are fully browser
>>> compliant. They will also test at 800x600, 1024x768, and
>>> sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
>>> these days.

>>
>> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
>> display fine in FireFox 1.00.
>>
>> I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
>> With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is common,
>> and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe even
>> higher.

>
> Everyone (not just you guys, all web designers) should stop thinking
> about the size of the monitor, and think about the size of the browser
> window. Which could be any size. Not everyone surfs with a maximized
> browser window.
>
> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>
> <quote>
> So there are two accurate answers to "Which resolution should I design
> for?":
>
> * All of them
> * None of them
> </quote>
>
> One well-designed site will work everywhere.


While I agree with you, there is a practical limit of what can be done in
a completely random sized window. In many cases there are Intranet sites
that do more than just present text, many are conversions from C/S apps
that are now just web apps - most of those don't work well in less than
full screen. There are also many sights where scaling of all objects is
just not possible.

In general we don't do anything less than 800x600, and if the target is
mostly 1024x768 we will use that, but try and comply with 800x600 users -
it's really based on the target audience.

--
(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
Leythos wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:13:52 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Apollo wrote:
>>
>>> "Leythos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>
>>>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5
>>>> and then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They
>>>> will test on Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and
>>>> a Linux variant in order to make sure their pages are fully
>>>> browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600, 1024x768,
>>>> and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very
>>>> rare these days.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
>>> display fine in FireFox 1.00.
>>>
>>> I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
>>> With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is
>>> common, and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe
>>> even higher.

>>
>> Everyone (not just you guys, all web designers) should stop
>> thinking about the size of the monitor, and think about the size
>> of the browser window. Which could be any size. Not everyone
>> surfs with a maximized browser window.
>>
>> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>>
>> <quote> So there are two accurate answers to "Which resolution
>> should I design for?":
>>
>> * All of them * None of them </quote>
>>
>> One well-designed site will work everywhere.

>
> While I agree with you, there is a practical limit of what can be
> done in a completely random sized window. In many cases there are
> Intranet sites that do more than just present text, many are
> conversions from C/S apps that are now just web apps - most of
> those don't work well in less than full screen. There are also many
> sights where scaling of all objects is just not possible.


You can do anything you want on an Intranet. <g> You are in control.
Quite different on the WWW.

> In general we don't do anything less than 800x600, and if the
> target is mostly 1024x768 we will use that, but try and comply with
> 800x600 users - it's really based on the target audience.


All we need to do is _not_ specify pixel based sizes for layout. <g>
There is a knack to that, though... liquid design...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trinity
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
>FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
>Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
>their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
>1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
>these days.


What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth ****.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:39:46 -0800, Trinity wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
>>FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
>>Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
>>their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
>>1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
>>these days.

>
> What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth ****.


LOL.

--
(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

 
Reply With Quote
 
Harri Mellin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Trinity <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> >Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
> >FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
> >Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
> >their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
> >1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
> >these days.

>
> What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth ****.


what about Mosaic? if it don't look good on Mosaic it ain't worth ****.

what about Cyberdog? if it don't look good on Cyberdog it ain't worth
****.

what about AOL Browser? if it don't look good on AOL Browser it ain't
worth ****

=)

--
-------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams <http://www.webcams.zap.to>
-------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Watt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2005
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:57:11 +0100, Harri Mellin
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>it ain't worth ****


Heres some real world statistics based on 1.5m hits on
www.gibnet.com

Browser % of Total Visitors
------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Internet Explorer 6.x 70.56%
2 Internet Explorer 5.x 11.89%
3 Netscape 6.x 4.72%
4 Netscape 4.x 2.93%
5 Others 4,312 1.63%
6 Netscape 7.x 1.00%
7 Netscape 3.x 0.80%
8 Netscape 5.x 0.75%
9 Netscape 2.x 0.65%
10 Opera 0.52%

The balance consists of robots and insignificant things like web tv.

I'm still curious to know what this guy is spending $600 a month
on because its not a serious web designer.


--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2005
Jim Watt wrote:
> Heres some real world statistics based on 1.5m hits on
> www.gibnet.com
>
> Browser % of Total Visitors
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8 Netscape 5.x 0.75%


Your stats are skewed. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Watt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2005
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:24:00 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Your stats are skewed. <g>


Trust me - I have no shares in M$

Heres another site's stats;

Browser % of Total Visitors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Explorer 6.x 74.04%
Internet Explorer 5.x 11.25%
Netscape 6.x 6.78%
Netscape 2.x 2.54%
Netscape 4.x 1.16%
Netscape 5.x 1.00%
Others 0.46%
Netscape 7.x 0.46%
Netscape 3.x 0.31%
Opera 0.15%
-----------------------------------------------------------------

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spyware & Adware writers switching over to Mozilla marc@mercund.org Firefox 4 03-03-2005 11:46 PM
Question about possible spyware/adware/virus related to using Google Katie Computer Support 7 12-29-2003 09:30 PM
Protecting my computer from adware/spyware SW Computer Support 9 12-06-2003 11:31 PM
Adware and Spyware on system Shane Computer Support 10 10-04-2003 07:43 PM
popup adware spyware and spam Hugh Sutherland Computer Support 0 07-20-2003 05:56 AM



Advertisments