ticketdirect web site SUCKS

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by whoisthis, Feb 4, 2006.

  1. whoisthis

    whoisthis Guest

    Tried 3 different web browsers including firefox on the Mac and the
    ticket direct site just kept loading their fucking flash crap.

    Hey he'e a hint people, make your web page usable and kill of all the
    wanky high data bullshit, it does NOT make you web page more useable, it
    does NOT attract people to come to your web page.

    If you can not make your web site
    a) USEABLE
    b) USEABLE
    c) USEABLE
    d) look good
    e) USEABLE

    then find another job like painting a toilet seat black, calling it art
    and getting the arts council to pay you for you private wankfest.
    whoisthis, Feb 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. whoisthis

    Stu Fleming Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > Tried 3 different web browsers including firefox on the Mac and the
    > ticket direct site just kept loading their fucking flash crap.
    >
    > Hey he'e a hint people, make your web page usable and kill of all the
    > wanky high data bullshit, it does NOT make you web page more useable, it
    > does NOT attract people to come to your web page.
    >
    > If you can not make your web site
    > a) USEABLE
    > b) USEABLE
    > c) USEABLE
    > d) look good
    > e) USEABLE
    >
    > then find another job like painting a toilet seat black, calling it art
    > and getting the arts council to pay you for you private wankfest.


    Same in 1996 as it is in 2006. This is progress.
    Stu Fleming, Feb 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. whoisthis

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:36:24 +1300, Stu Fleming <>
    exclaimed:

    >whoisthis wrote:
    >> Tried 3 different web browsers including firefox on the Mac and the
    >> ticket direct site just kept loading their fucking flash crap.
    >>
    >> Hey he'e a hint people, make your web page usable and kill of all the
    >> wanky high data bullshit, it does NOT make you web page more useable, it
    >> does NOT attract people to come to your web page.
    >>
    >> If you can not make your web site
    >> a) USEABLE
    >> b) USEABLE
    >> c) USEABLE
    >> d) look good
    >> e) USEABLE
    >>
    >> then find another job like painting a toilet seat black, calling it art
    >> and getting the arts council to pay you for you private wankfest.

    >
    >Same in 1996 as it is in 2006. This is progress.


    It IS a **** of a lot more usable than Ticketeks.

    At least you can choose your own seats. I tried to book some tickets
    to the rugby via Ticketek, and gave up in disgust. I booked some last
    year through TicketDirect, and it was a much more pleasant experience.

    Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
    use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
    too, my friend.
    Fred Dagg, Feb 4, 2006
    #3
  4. whoisthis

    Peter Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    >
    > Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
    > use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
    > too, my friend.


    A lot of sys admins will not allow it on their employers' systems for
    security reasons. Similarly cautious computer users are just not going to
    download something willy-nilly. There a a lot of people out there still
    with ye olde dial-up - they do not their surfing experience to be clogged
    up with smart and cute features that take lots of bandwidth.

    I have come across sites that have abandoned or at least rolled back the use
    of flash to make their sites more accessible eg Anglican Diocese of
    Wellington and Siemens.

    Scenario:

    Manager - I am getting complaints that people cannot access our site
    because it uses 'flash'.

    Web writer - 'Flash' is a de-facto standard - they should download it.

    M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
    some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.

    W - I can't help this - they should get with it.

    M - Do you actually need to use 'flash'?

    W - It gives the user a deeper surfing experience.

    M - And some of those complaining have dial-up - they want internet that
    works, not a surfing experience that is inaccessible.

    W - Telecom should be lobbied to provide more wideband.

    M - Do you really need to use 'flash' for our site to fulfil its purpose?

    W - ur, well ... , not really.

    M - then re-write it not using 'flash'.
    Peter, Feb 4, 2006
    #4
  5. whoisthis

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:51:13 +1300, Peter <>
    exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
    >> use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
    >> too, my friend.

    >
    >A lot of sys admins will not allow it on their employers' systems for
    >security reasons. Similarly cautious computer users are just not going to
    >download something willy-nilly. There a a lot of people out there still
    >with ye olde dial-up - they do not their surfing experience to be clogged
    >up with smart and cute features that take lots of bandwidth.
    >
    >I have come across sites that have abandoned or at least rolled back the use
    >of flash to make their sites more accessible eg Anglican Diocese of
    >Wellington and Siemens.
    >
    >Scenario:
    >
    >Manager - I am getting complaints that people cannot access our site
    >because it uses 'flash'.
    >
    >Web writer - 'Flash' is a de-facto standard - they should download it.
    >
    >M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
    >some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.
    >
    >W - I can't help this - they should get with it.
    >
    >M - Do you actually need to use 'flash'?
    >
    >W - It gives the user a deeper surfing experience.
    >
    >M - And some of those complaining have dial-up - they want internet that
    >works, not a surfing experience that is inaccessible.
    >
    >W - Telecom should be lobbied to provide more wideband.
    >
    >M - Do you really need to use 'flash' for our site to fulfil its purpose?
    >
    >W - ur, well ... , not really.
    >
    >M - then re-write it not using 'flash'.


    or:

    Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
    website.

    Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
    people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
    people a lot more likely to buy our product.

    M - Sounds good. But why do most of the people complain about it?

    W - Usually they are akin to Linux geeks. They are stuck in the
    command-line equivalent of boring old static HTML, rather than the
    interactivity our site now offers. They basically believe in a lowest
    common denominator approach, and, even though most are perfectly able
    to download and install it for free (and automatically!), they
    generally don't like progress. Some still think that the web should
    still be plain text, rather than HTML.

    M - Sounds interesting, and I know the type!! But some corporates
    apparently don't allow Flash for security reasons. Is this true?

    W - That is their choice. Flash is only as secure as the systems they
    are on, and there are only a few scattered people that don't have it.
    The myth that admins don't allow it is really from the old days too,
    and almost all don't restrict it now. Some are still stuck in the dark
    ages, though.

    M - Fair enough. The increased appeal of our site for 98% of people is
    probably worth it, versus the 2% who don't use it.

    W - Oh, also, a small number of people are still on dialup, and hence
    will have a slight delay before the page is loaded.

    M - That's fine. Even in NZ, 89% of people who use the internet each
    day have faster-than-dialup connections, and that includes the vast
    majority of our visitors. Good work on taking the initiative, rather
    than taking a lowest common denomonator approach. It's great that the
    vast majority of our visitors, and our target market, are enjoying a
    far superior experience. The last guy who had your job was stuck in
    the 90s, and thought that boring, static pages were the only option.
    Well done, and here, have a pay rise!
    Fred Dagg, Feb 4, 2006
    #5
  6. whoisthis

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:18:58 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:


    >
    > or:
    >
    > Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
    > website.
    >
    > Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
    > people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
    > people a lot more likely to buy our product.
    >
    > M - Sounds good. But why do most of the people complain about it?
    >
    > W - Usually they are akin to Linux geeks. They are stuck in the
    > command-line equivalent of boring old static HTML, rather than the
    > interactivity our site now offers. They basically believe in a lowest
    > common denominator approach, and, even though most are perfectly able
    > to download and install it for free (and automatically!), they
    > generally don't like progress. Some still think that the web should
    > still be plain text, rather than HTML.

    WTF does HTML have to do with being static? Maybe I don't want my computer
    to require the use of a program written by a profit making company, rather
    than using published standards? ( OK, plus those standards as b*stard*sed
    by Mickeysoft ).
    >
    > M - Sounds interesting, and I know the type!! But some corporates
    > apparently don't allow Flash for security reasons. Is this true?
    >
    > W - That is their choice. Flash is only as secure as the systems they
    > are on, and there are only a few scattered people that don't have it.
    > The myth that admins don't allow it is really from the old days too, and
    > almost all don't restrict it now. Some are still stuck in the dark ages,
    > though.

    Ah, another 18 year old security consultant who knows it all!
    >
    > M - Fair enough. The increased appeal of our site for 98% of people is
    > probably worth it, versus the 2% who don't use it.
    >
    > W - Oh, also, a small number of people are still on dialup, and hence
    > will have a slight delay before the page is loaded.

    SLIGHT! Let's just waste bandwidth for nothing?
    >
    > M - That's fine. Even in NZ, 89% of people who use the internet each day
    > have faster-than-dialup connections, and that includes the vast majority
    > of our visitors. Good work on taking the initiative, rather than taking
    > a lowest common denomonator approach. It's great that the vast majority
    > of our visitors, and our target market, are enjoying a far superior
    > experience. The last guy who had your job was stuck in the 90s, and
    > thought that boring, static pages were the only option. Well done, and
    > here, have a pay rise!


    And get sacked when everything goes t*ts-up. You've skipped over trivial
    advances from static HTML that have happened since the 90's, like DHTML,
    CSS, XML, SOAP, AJAX,... all of which provide the ability for most
    companies to do everything you want.

    Flash is proprietary, and puts you completely in the hands of Macromedia.
    Web browsers are designed to display html and variants. Open up flash,
    publish it as a standard, start getting browsers to support it natively,
    and then lets have this conversation again.
    Steve, Feb 4, 2006
    #6
  7. T'was the Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:51:13 +1300 when I remembered Peter
    <> saying something like this:

    >M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
    >some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.


    Here's a question? Why not allow flash?

    Having said that, we access our computer systems at work through
    terminal services. Nothing kills the connection like animation, like
    flash.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 4, 2006
    #7
  8. T'was the Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:47:16 +1300 when I remembered Steve
    <> saying something like this:

    >And get sacked when everything goes t*ts-up. You've skipped over trivial
    >advances from static HTML that have happened since the 90's, like DHTML,
    >CSS, XML, SOAP, AJAX,... all of which provide the ability for most
    >companies to do everything you want.
    >
    >Flash is proprietary, and puts you completely in the hands of Macromedia.
    >Web browsers are designed to display html and variants. Open up flash,
    >publish it as a standard, start getting browsers to support it natively,
    >and then lets have this conversation again.


    Ugh, is it just me or is someone forgetting about SVG? How successful
    was that?
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 4, 2006
    #8
  9. whoisthis

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    Fred Dagg <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:51:13 +1300, Peter <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    > >Fred Dagg wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
    > >> use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
    > >> too, my friend.

    > >
    > >A lot of sys admins will not allow it on their employers' systems for
    > >security reasons. Similarly cautious computer users are just not going to
    > >download something willy-nilly. There a a lot of people out there still
    > >with ye olde dial-up - they do not their surfing experience to be clogged
    > >up with smart and cute features that take lots of bandwidth.
    > >
    > >I have come across sites that have abandoned or at least rolled back the use
    > >of flash to make their sites more accessible eg Anglican Diocese of
    > >Wellington and Siemens.
    > >
    > >Scenario:
    > >
    > >Manager - I am getting complaints that people cannot access our site
    > >because it uses 'flash'.
    > >
    > >Web writer - 'Flash' is a de-facto standard - they should download it.
    > >
    > >M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
    > >some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.
    > >
    > >W - I can't help this - they should get with it.
    > >
    > >M - Do you actually need to use 'flash'?
    > >
    > >W - It gives the user a deeper surfing experience.
    > >
    > >M - And some of those complaining have dial-up - they want internet that
    > >works, not a surfing experience that is inaccessible.
    > >
    > >W - Telecom should be lobbied to provide more wideband.
    > >
    > >M - Do you really need to use 'flash' for our site to fulfil its purpose?
    > >
    > >W - ur, well ... , not really.
    > >
    > >M - then re-write it not using 'flash'.

    >
    > or:
    >
    > Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
    > website.
    >
    > Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
    > people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
    > people a lot more likely to buy our product.


    Unfortunately the people who went to that site were PREVENTED from
    buying anything because of the gross overload of noddy features.

    This means they could NOT buy the product, so the web site was a 100%
    failure for that customer.
    whoisthis, Feb 4, 2006
    #9
  10. whoisthis

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:48:22 +1300, whoisthis <>
    exclaimed:
    >>
    >> Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
    >> website.
    >>
    >> Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
    >> people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
    >> people a lot more likely to buy our product.

    >
    >Unfortunately the people who went to that site were PREVENTED from
    >buying anything because of the gross overload of noddy features.
    >
    >This means they could NOT buy the product, so the web site was a 100%
    >failure for that customer.


    Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
    cater for them, too?
    Fred Dagg, Feb 4, 2006
    #10
  11. whoisthis

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    Fred Dagg <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:48:22 +1300, whoisthis <>
    > exclaimed:
    > >>
    > >> Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
    > >> website.
    > >>
    > >> Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
    > >> people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
    > >> people a lot more likely to buy our product.

    > >
    > >Unfortunately the people who went to that site were PREVENTED from
    > >buying anything because of the gross overload of noddy features.
    > >
    > >This means they could NOT buy the product, so the web site was a 100%
    > >failure for that customer.

    >
    > Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
    > cater for them, too?


    No, but then again I was using firefox and safari, ones uses the mozilla
    engine and the other KHTML, bot latest versions, neither however are
    microsoft and too many coders only code for microsofts non-standard
    proprietry extensions because it is easier and lazier.
    whoisthis, Feb 4, 2006
    #11
  12. whoisthis

    Peter Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    >
    > Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
    > cater for them, too?


    Any public minded web writer should design the system so people with serious
    disabilities can access sites. They may well be limited to text based
    browsers with special person machine interfaces (eg synthetic speech).
    Given this, there should be no difficulty with coping with legacy browsers.
    Peter, Feb 4, 2006
    #12
  13. whoisthis

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:41:53 +1300, Peter <>
    exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
    >> cater for them, too?

    >
    >Any public minded web writer should design the system so people with serious
    >disabilities can access sites. They may well be limited to text based
    >browsers with special person machine interfaces (eg synthetic speech).
    >Given this, there should be no difficulty with coping with legacy browsers.


    No offence, but I take it you do not design websites in the real
    world?

    For a site to look OK at 640x480, it will look like crap at 1024x768.
    Simple fact. Good designers design sites to look best at 1024x768, and
    good at 800x600 or 1280x1024 (and not too bad at higher resolutions).

    Heck, I don't think Windows even *supports* 640x480 anymore.

    Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
    possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
    everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
    inexperienced, or both.

    And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
    that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
    to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
    hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
    generally have Flash installed.

    Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
    Fred Dagg, Feb 5, 2006
    #13
  14. whoisthis

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:51:45 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:41:53 +1300, Peter <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
    >>> cater for them, too?

    >>
    >>Any public minded web writer should design the system so people with serious
    >>disabilities can access sites. They may well be limited to text based
    >>browsers with special person machine interfaces (eg synthetic speech).
    >>Given this, there should be no difficulty with coping with legacy browsers.

    >
    > No offence, but I take it you do not design websites in the real
    > world?
    >
    > For a site to look OK at 640x480, it will look like crap at 1024x768.
    > Simple fact. Good designers design sites to look best at 1024x768, and
    > good at 800x600 or 1280x1024 (and not too bad at higher resolutions).
    >
    > Heck, I don't think Windows even *supports* 640x480 anymore.
    >
    > Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
    > possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
    > everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
    > inexperienced, or both.
    >

    Considering it's pretty simple to a) find out the screen resolution, and
    b) to scale things as %ages, why are you just being bone idle in your
    design?

    If you are experienced, and take pride in your work, you will have
    developed libraries of functions to implement just such things.

    Or is this a problem specifically with flash that you're talking about? By
    the way... how does flash cope for blind users?

    Steve.
    Steve, Feb 5, 2006
    #14
  15. whoisthis

    Enkidu Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    > Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
    > possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
    > everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
    > inexperienced, or both.
    >
    > And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
    > that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
    > to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
    > hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
    > generally have Flash installed.
    >
    > Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
    >

    Fact is flash is a) 'cool' b) easy and those are the main reasons people
    use it. Fact is flash actually adds little to most sites and is
    generally used for fancy animated home pages. Fact is flash adds very
    little functionality to most web sites.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Feb 5, 2006
    #15
  16. whoisthis

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:37:18 +1300, Enkidu <>
    exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >> Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
    >> possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
    >> everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
    >> inexperienced, or both.
    >>
    >> And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
    >> that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
    >> to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
    >> hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
    >> generally have Flash installed.
    >>
    >> Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
    > >

    >Fact is flash is a) 'cool' b) easy and those are the main reasons people
    >use it. Fact is flash actually adds little to most sites and is
    >generally used for fancy animated home pages. Fact is flash adds very
    >little functionality to most web sites.
    >

    You're quite right. Flash doesn't add much functionality to most web
    sites. It's not it's job to add functionality. It's its job to add to
    the visual attraction of the site.

    And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
    debate. I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
    purely application driven. However, I get sick of those that complain
    about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
    *is* progress.
    Fred Dagg, Feb 5, 2006
    #16
  17. whoisthis

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
    > debate. I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
    > purely application driven. However, I get sick of those that complain
    > about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
    > *is* progress.


    No, if Flash had become an *industry* standard, *THAT* would have been
    progress.
    Stu Fleming, Feb 5, 2006
    #17
  18. whoisthis

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    Fred Dagg <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:37:18 +1300, Enkidu <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    > >Fred Dagg wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
    > >> possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
    > >> everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
    > >> inexperienced, or both.
    > >>
    > >> And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
    > >> that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
    > >> to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
    > >> hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
    > >> generally have Flash installed.
    > >>
    > >> Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
    > > >

    > >Fact is flash is a) 'cool' b) easy and those are the main reasons people
    > >use it. Fact is flash actually adds little to most sites and is
    > >generally used for fancy animated home pages. Fact is flash adds very
    > >little functionality to most web sites.
    > >

    > You're quite right. Flash doesn't add much functionality to most web
    > sites. It's not it's job to add functionality. It's its job to add to
    > the visual attraction of the site.
    >
    > And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
    > debate. I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
    > purely application driven. However, I get sick of those that complain
    > about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
    > *is* progress.


    Unfortunately too many web programers have forgotten that it must be
    functionality over form. They are too busy trying to show how clever
    they are to consider the user.

    There are many times where I have simply stopped loading a web site
    because it was too full of crap, this resulted in me buying elsewhere.

    Web sites MUST be useable, easy to navigate, easy to find what the user
    is after, fulfill its purpose. Looking good actually comes into this by
    default as something badly designed almost always looks crap.

    However, looking flashy with all the bells and whistles does not
    nescessitate good design or usability.
    whoisthis, Feb 5, 2006
    #18
  19. whoisthis

    Peter Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    >
    > And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
    > debate.


    You have chosen to prolong this debate. Just look at the posting history.

    > I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
    > purely application driven.


    Well, why are you sticking up for 'flash' then.

    > However, I get sick of those that complain
    > about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
    > *is* progress.


    So is Microsoft's mutilation of standards driven by its marketing droids.

    You do not seem to have noticed that there is some resistance to 'flash' out
    there by various people with good reason *not* to see it as a de facto
    standard. It might possibly have its place on hard sell marketing sites
    where prospective customers are likely to have installed the plug-in, but
    it definitely has no place on general information, community, educational
    and government sites. For these sites, reaching as many people as possible
    is the priority, people with disabilities - even more so.
    Peter, Feb 5, 2006
    #19
  20. T'was the Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:51:45 +1300 when I remembered Fred Dagg
    <> saying something like this:

    >For a site to look OK at 640x480, it will look like crap at 1024x768.
    >Simple fact. Good designers design sites to look best at 1024x768, and
    >good at 800x600 or 1280x1024 (and not too bad at higher resolutions).


    If the site's all locked in with clever looking gifs and jpegs for the
    design. What about using CSS with % for top and left attributes of div
    tags, and using ems for font sizes? Sure you'll have a lot of blank
    space at the bigger resolutions, but your site will work at the
    smaller resolutions as well.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 5, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Diane D
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    428
    Blinky the Shark
    Jan 9, 2004
  2. Quiz Time

    web blocking me access to a web site i use

    Quiz Time, Jun 7, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    365
  3. SteveB
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,138
    SteveB
    Mar 26, 2009
  4. Sean Dockery
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,591
    Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
    Jun 23, 2009
  5. raviraj joshi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    613
    raviraj joshi
    Jul 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page