«

richard wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT), Travis Newbury
> <> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 21, 2:00�pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
> >> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
> >> >transitioning from anything.
> >>
> >> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
> >> recycle bin.
> >
> >I believe this response was uncalled for. Chaddy is no doubt in tears
> >right now, weeping (yes weeping) from the complete humiliation you
> >have brought on himself and his family name. You do realize the
> >ancient rules of honor from the Chaddy clan now requires him to either
> >give you a good verbal thrashing, kill your first born, or screw your
> >goat. Though I think the screwing your goat part was recent entry
> >into the rules.
>
>
> He's ****ed off because a few of us around here called his site,
> childish and amateurish.
Based on what you write in your post in this NG, you have not a clue
of what you are talking about.
I got a new client 4 days after the new site wnet live.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

richard wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
> <> wrote:
>
>> richard posted in alt.html:
>>
>>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
>>>
>>> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
>>> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
>>>
>>> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
>>> list so you can see how they ranked each week.

>>
>> Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
>> images?
>
> Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
> down a huge pic. I don't see the point.

A few bytes of size info in the code may seem a waste, but weigh that
against the seconds of time that may get wasted for large or complicated
pages whose final layouts depend on determining the eventual size of the
images. Doesn't seem to apply much (either the size or time) for your
dinky pages.

But: if I want to chop down a huge pic, I resize it in some graphics
software and serve only the size at which I want it displayed.

> Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
> something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
> your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
> nothing with it.

So use the title attribute for reasonable browsers like FF (and guess
what, IE6 uses title text as tooltip-like info, too). You answer
suggests you don't care about images "that might not show up for some
reason." FF *does* do something with alt text, in the appropriate
cicumstances.

>> (Firefox 2)
>> When I clicked on one of the years, I saw that something was loading, but
>> didn't see anything change. I eventually scrolled down to see the scrolling
>> list, but it wasn't intuitive to me. It is "below the fold" if you know what
>> that means.
>
> Show me a screen shot. What ever you click on should open in the
> iframe.

You don't need a screen shot. Do you? "Below the fold" refers to content
south of what the (typical or particular) user sees when viewing the
page in hir browser.

(The term comes from the newspaper biz, referring to front-page content
on the lower half of the page, not readily visible to prospective buyers
looking at a stack of folded papers.)

Since it's below the fold, the iframe content *won't appear* in any
screenshot. Which is part of the point.

>
>> Perhaps that would be better served as a separate page rather than in a
>> frame? Or, if possible, with a named anchor?
>
> I prefer the iframe as then you don't have to hit the back button or
> close out another window. Things may change in the near future as I
> have changed this thing a dozen times at least.
>

So the project isn't really done, then, is it?


--
John
Quote selectively for context. Trim the rest. Comment in line.
Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.

richard wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:56:44 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-08-21, richard wrote:
>>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
>>> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
>> The titles do not line up with the years in a narrow window:
>> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/oldies.jpg>
>
>
> I kind of figured some browsers might do that.
> Since you failed to mention which one you're using and the OS.

Do you want his list sorted alphabetically or by color?

The condition Chris mentions occurs on all graphical browsers,
independent of OS. Lynx can't render your info usefully anyway, so it's
no surprise you didn't test with it, but if you try with any other
browser, using a narrow window (or larger text, or both), then you
should see the problem Chris reports.


--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.

richard wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
> <> wrote:
>
> >richard posted in alt.html:
> >
> >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
> >>
> >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
> >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
> >>
> >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
> >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.
> >
> >Cool project!
> >
> >Couple of questions, though, just for my curiosity.
> >
> >Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
> >images?
>
> Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
> down a huge pic. I don't see the point.
That is cause your very much cluless!

> Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
> something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
> your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
> nothing with it.
DICK READ UP ON YOUR HTML!

WHY DO WE BOTHER!
You obviously don't give a **** about what any of us think your HTML
is invalid and you expect to get good feedback on your sites, your
having a laugh!
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
<spamlovermailbox-> wrote:

>
>
>richard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
>> <spamlovermailbox-> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >richard wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
>> >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
>> >>
>> >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
>> >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.
>> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
>> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
>> >transitioning from anything.
>>
>> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
>> recycle bin.
>To be honest, I really don't give a ****!
>It is your crap website after all.


I took a gander at your so called portfolio. The radio station site is
just as childish as your home page. The other one is just as bad.
Why do you highlight lines like that? You'd probably be better off
making that area a division then coloring the division background.
Along with some line seperation.

richard posted in alt.html:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
> <> wrote:
>
>>richard posted in alt.html:
>>
>>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
>>>
>>> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
>>> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
>>>
>>> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
>>> list so you can see how they ranked each week.
>>
>>Cool project!
>>
>>Couple of questions, though, just for my curiosity.
>>
>>Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for
>>the images?
>
> Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
> down a huge pic. I don't see the point.

Well, no, that's never the correct way to resize an image. The size
attributes in HTML allow the browser to begin drawing the page as designed
before the images have actually downloaded. The browser doesn't have to wait
for the image to know how much space it needs on the page.

> Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
> something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
> your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
> nothing with it.

Actually, AFAIK, only MSIE ever used the alt attribute for a tooltip. That is
not at all what it's intended for. I'm sure you already know where to look up
that information, though.

>>(Firefox 2)
>>When I clicked on one of the years, I saw that something was loading,
>>but didn't see anything change. I eventually scrolled down to see the
>>scrolling list, but it wasn't intuitive to me. It is "below the fold" if
>>you know what that means.
>
> Show me a screen shot. What ever you click on should open in the
> iframe.

It did. I just didn't realize it until I scrolled the page down far enough to
see it. My browser window's viewport is currently 1016x851. Even when
maximized on my 1680x1050 monitor, the hdr div, nav links and first table
very nearly take up all the vertical space in my browser's viewport.



--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin'

richard <> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
> <> wrote:
>
>>Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
>>images?
>
> Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
> down a huge pic. I don't see the point.

Huh? No, that's not what height and width attributes are for at all -
in fact, it's probably the *worst* reason to use them. Sizing an image
that way still makes the user download the large version, and browsers
don't do nearly as good a job at resizing as an image-editing app like
Photoshop or Gimp will do.

Size attributes are normally used to tell the browser how big the
image really will be, without resizing it. The browser can use that
info to lay out the page before it's even started downloading the
image data. Of course, the images will be empty frames until the image
data is downloaded, but at least they'll be in the correct places, and
of course the text will be readable immediately.

> Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
> something that might not show up for some reason.

Like, for example, if you're a blind user. Or a search engine - those
can't read images, but they can (and do) index the alt text.

> Or when you move
> your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing.

The value of the "title" attribute is commonly shown as a tooltip -
although the HTML spec doesn't guarantee that behavior.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

John Hosking <> writes:

> So the project isn't really done, then, is it?

Is *any* web site ever really done? Being able to endlessly update is,
after all, one of the many advantages the web has over paper. Of
course, being able to say "it's done" and never have to look at it
again is one of the advantages that paper has over the web. It's a
two-sided coin.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

richard wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
> <spamlovermailbox-> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >richard wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
> >> <spamlovermailbox-> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >richard wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
> >> >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
> >> >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.
> >> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
> >> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
> >> >transitioning from anything.
> >>
> >> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
> >> recycle bin.
> >To be honest, I really don't give a ****!
> >It is your crap website after all.
>
>
> I took a gander at your so called portfolio. The radio station site is
> just as childish as your home page. The other one is just as bad.
> Why do you highlight lines like that? You'd probably be better off
> making that area a division then coloring the division background.
What are you talking about?

> Along with some line seperation.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:23:56 -0700, richard <>
wrote:

>http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
>
>
>Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
>The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
>
>I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
>list so you can see how they ranked each week.


So WTF am I supposed to do people?
Draw viewers a frickin road map to the scroll bar?

Like sheesh, it's as if you people never saw a web site with a scroll
bar before.

Yes I have tested the site in varying fonts and font sizes just to see
how it would look. I am aware of the problem and am trying to fix it.

I don't expect viewers to have such extreme fonts.