Website needs some critiquing :P

L

lessthanjakejohn

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Messages
396
http://smtexas.net/drums

What do you guys think?

This was a school project that I did with a few people, but I basically did the whole thing... all the CSS, image editing, designing, etc... :)

I think I'm going to change the font right now, the gallery subpages could use a good cleaning in the html deparment, a classmate insisted on using frontpage :mad:

I need to trim down the footer also, its too tacky righ tnow...
 
GIFs are crummy. Use PNG.

Copyright notices are pointless.

Pages should not have self-links.
 
[lessthanjakejohn]
> I want to keep the transparency in case I want to change the
> background.

This is a non sequitur.

Anyways, binary transparency is crummy.

> IE doesn't offer transparency does it?

GIF supports only 8-bit images with binary transparency. IE implements this correct. PNGs offer much more, but IE supports only 8-bit PNGs with binary transparency and 24-bit PNGs with no transparency.

There is a particular server-side hack (no user intervention required) which makes 24-bit PNGs with full transparency work on IE. I use it on my website. All other browsers work fine with all PNGs.
 
I was saying that I didn't want to change over to PNG because I would lose transparency in IE. But your saying that I could use PNG-8 and IE supports transparency for it and there is an advantage over gif? I don't have control over the server on this either as it is a school thing :/ so no PNG-24 for me
 
> But your saying that I could use PNG-8 and IE supports
> transparency for it

Yes. 8-bit PNGs with binary transparency are correctly supported by IE. And that happens to be exactly what GIF is capable of (minus animation, which sucks anyways).

> and there is an advantage over gif?

Smaller file sizes, better format.

> I don't have control over the server on this either

The hack requires CSS and a special file on the server named png.htc. You don't need to configure Apache specially or anything.
 
STL said:
The hack requires CSS and a special file on the server named png.htc. You don't need to configure Apache specially or anything.
Click to expand...

Does it requier Apache?

It's IIS, but either way I'd like it for my own server, can you post it please

thanks
 
It's not Apache-specific. But IIS sucks.

From my website, the CSS for it:

img.alpha { /* PNG ALPHA TRICK */
behavior: url("style/png.htc");
}

And the file png.htc:

Code: 
<public:component lightWeight="true">
<public:attach event="onpropertychange" onevent="propertyChanged()" />
<script>

var supported = /MSIE ((5\.5)|[6789])/.test(navigator.userAgent) && navigator.platform == "Win32";

var realSrc;
var blankSrc = "style/blank.png";

if (supported) {
    fixImage();
}

function propertyChanged() {
    if (supported && event.propertyName == "src" && !new RegExp(blankSrc).test(src)) {
        fixImage();
    }
};

function fixImage() {
    var src = element.src;

    if (src == realSrc && /\.png$/i.test(src)) {
        element.src = blankSrc;
        return;
    }

    if (!new RegExp(blankSrc).test(src)) {
        realSrc = src;
    }

    if (/\.png$/i.test(realSrc)) {
        element.src = blankSrc;
        element.runtimeStyle.filter = "progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='" + src + "',sizingMethod='scale')";
    } else {
        element.runtimeStyle.filter = "";
    }
}

</script>
</public:component>

I arrange it so that all of my HTML files are in the root web directory, and that my CSS file and png.htc live in the style subdirectory. I then apply the "alpha" class to PNG images I want to use full transparency with.

A warning: This interacts badly with more complicated directory arrangements. I think that the location of the htc is always interpreted relative to the HTML page. You may have to use an absolute URL for the htc.

You also need style/blank.png, a 1x1 transparent PNG. You can grab mine: http://nuwen.net/style/blank.png

I don't apply the trick to all PNGs (or all images) unconditionally, since it interferes with right-clicking images in IE. The trick does not affect any other browsers and causes a harmless CSS validation warning.
 
STL said:
Copyright notices are pointless.
Click to expand...

How in the world are copyright notices pointless?

I fail to see any logic in saying this. :rolleyes:
 
[lessthanjakejohn]
> does the 1.1 need to be on the page?

No, it's not a "web bug". It's used by the trick.

[NickTheNut]
> How in the world are copyright notices pointless?

Anything that anyone writes is automatically copyrighted, whether you say so or not.

It's especially pointless on web pages that are freely disseminated. You may as well include copyright notices on "Lost Cat" posters. Putting copyright notices on books that are sold and software which is licensed has a point.

What do you think that copyright notice is buying you? Is it going to stop someone from illegally copying your webpage? What does that even mean? Someone could serve an exact copy of your website. We have a word for that - mirror. Someone could rip chunks of text out of your website. We have a word for that - plagiarism. Do you think that someone's going to say, "Look, a copyright notice, I'd better not plagiarize. Ooooh, this one doesn't have a copyright notice!" Someone with such lax ethics isn't going to /care/.

The other purpose legal notices can serve, other than defense, is offense. But, as I said, the law already says that anything you write is copyrighted. The explicit copyright notice gives you no additional powers to sue or press charges against someone.

Explicit copyright notices add no value, but do add clutter. Therefore, they are evil.
 
I have to give you a thumbs up. The site looks really nice. The layout is really clean and uncluttered. Exactly what I like to read :)

Edit: I did just notice a little bit of a spacing issue on the menu bar. I'm not sure if that intentional or not, but things look off by a pixel or so here and there.
 
We should all have plain, ugly pages like the one in STLs sig. :rolleyes:

Alpha transparent PNG is not supported by IE in either windows or mac. Binary transparency is ugly, but it works.

The purpose of adding a copyright notice to your page is to perhaps ward off anyone who *might* steal your information. However, it also adds a professional touch to your page.
 
fat-tony said:
Edit: I did just notice a little bit of a spacing issue on the menu bar. I'm not sure if that intentional or not, but things look off by a pixel or so here and there.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and ya the spacing is off, but I have no idea how to fix it.
 
[xENo]
> Alpha transparent PNG is not supported by IE in either
> windows or mac.

This is a flat-out lie. Mac IE has absolutely wonderful PNG support. Only Win IE6 is broken, and even then the full alpha trick can be used, like I do.

(The only downside to the full alpha trick is that it causes IE to chug on loading a page with many such full alpha images.)

> The purpose of adding a copyright notice to your page is to
> perhaps ward off anyone who *might* steal your information.

It's a voodoo incantation. Admit it.

> However, it also adds a professional touch to your page.

No, it's useless noise and should be eliminated.

Truly professional websites present content, not clutter. It may be the case that corporations clutter their pages with legalese, but you shouldn't imitate them.
 
Hmmm....interesting logic STL - if "only" Win IE6 is broken, then that probably makes up 70-80% of the viewing audience. Why make their browsers chug if there's a perfectly acceptable alternative? Just saying that a particular image format is "better" doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. I go with compatibility every time, and move with the times as necessary. I don't see GIF disappearing any time soon, do you?

The purpose of copyright notices is not to prevent or discourage - in the real world, nobody ever reads them. In the event that someone blatantly plagiarises, though, the copyright notice can be used to shortcut the months of legal wrangling which precedes any case without such notices where each party tries to prove they wrote it first. However, even that is not the real point of a copyright notice. The real use is when somebody legally copies the work - if you want to get hold of the true owner of the intellectual property, then the copyright notice tells you where to go to find them (because, like the GPL, it dictates that you must acknowledge the copyright holder). Its effect is not punitive (although it can be used that way), but is still based on the basic tenet that everybody will at least attempt to behave legally.
 
[:LJ:]
> Why make their browsers chug if there's a perfectly
> acceptable alternative?

THERE IS NO ESCAPE.

8-bit PNGs with binary transparency work in IE and supersede GIFs. 24-bit PNGs with no transparency work in IE and are lossless, unlike JPEGs.

No format other than PNG provides 24-bit images with full alpha channels. You cannot use GIF.

> I go with compatibility every time

PNG supersedes GIF. Chant that until it makes sense.

> I don't see GIF disappearing any time soon, do you?

I don't see Al Qaeda disappearing any time soon, do you?

Just because something is persistent, doesn't make it not evil.

> In the event that someone blatantly plagiarises, though, the
> copyright notice can be used to shortcut the months of legal
> wrangling

Bullshit.

> the copyright notice tells you where to go to find them

Every page should have a small link (at the bottom usually) to either the author's E-mail address, or some kind of contact information. (Which one depends on the context.)
 
STL said:
[:LJ:]
> In the event that someone blatantly plagiarises, though, the
> copyright notice can be used to shortcut the months of legal
> wrangling

Bullshit.
Click to expand...

get off your high horse STL. I don't want to sound snobbish or "holier than thou" but i happen to be taking an Art and Law class right now, that is one issue we've already touched on. Sure it's common knowledge that anything you create is automatically copyrighted by you, the notice is just extra precautions however, and WILL give you an edge if you have to go to court. Simple as that, no if and's or but's. But please. tell me otherwise like I'm sure you will. :rolleyes:

Every page should have a small link (at the bottom usually) to either the author's E-mail address, or some kind of contact information. (Which one depends on the context.)
Click to expand...

and is this another one of your rules that MUST be done, or a site is evil? Sure it's good practice, but it's not mandatory.

Once again, get off your high horse.
 
STL, you've obviously misled us as regards your experience. Not only are you God's gift to programming while still in college (and blatantly better than all of us who have been exposed to the real world of software development for longer than you've been shaving), you're a legal expert too.

Of course, illuminatory comments like "bullshit" and your pathetic attempts at site design while criticising everyone else's might say otherwise, were we not all in the know about your general superiority.

It really is a shame to see someone with a talent like yours waste it through sheer obstinacy - your attitude will see you become one of the statistics, permanently stuck at the bottom of the pile because nobody can work with you. Do you honestly think that many of us weren't like you at one point - sticking to our ideals and convinced we were right in everything we did? Well, the only difference is that most of us have grown out of that and acquired a degree of pragmatism. Once you realise that most people who post here probably know more than you do, you'll get on a lot better.

Good luck, and I hope you find the real world sometime soon. Not for your sake necessarily, but because I'm sick of seeing you rag on everyone else with your tiresome, abusive prattle.
 
heh! what would W&P be without STL..that driving force for mediocrity-in-design? :p
 
[NickTheNut]
> the notice is just extra precautions however, and WILL give
> you an edge if you have to go to court

Show me a court case where that made a difference. Bonus points if it actually involved a website.

> and is this another one of your rules that MUST be done, or a
> site is evil?

It is annoying to have to hunt down contact information for the author of a given webpage. Such information should be retrievable with no additional context.

[:LJ:]
> blatantly better than all of us who have been exposed to the
> real world of software development for longer than you

Imagine waking up one morning and finding that you can run faster than Jesse Owens without breaking a sweat. In fact, you find that you can't even slow down. Everyone else around you is crawling in the mud, or not even trying.

Wouldn't you think something was wrong with the world, instead of right with yourself?

> Once you realise that most people who post here probably know
> more than you do, you'll get on a lot better.

In fact, it is quite the other way around.
 
STL said:
[NickTheNut]

[:LJ:]
> blatantly better than all of us who have been exposed to the
> real world of software development for longer than you

Imagine waking up one morning and finding that you can run faster than Jesse Owens without breaking a sweat. In fact, you find that you can't even slow down. Everyone else around you is crawling in the mud, or not even trying.

Wouldn't you think something was wrong with the world, instead of right with yourself?

> Once you realise that most people who post here probably know
> more than you do, you'll get on a lot better.

In fact, it is quite the other way around.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever read or heard anything more ridiculous in my entire life. And your analogy to running is horribly flawed as your comparing something subjective (your apparent skills) to something objective (the speed of the runner).

A better analogy would be waking up one morning believing you have a better fashion sense than everyone else in the world. No matter how many people tell you otherwise, or prove you wrong, you still believe yourself to be right.


Now to the OP and questions about his site:
Look at the w3 specs for the different doc types, pick one and run with it. You'll end up creating a more readable, better cross browser website. (I recommend HTML 4.01 strict) Also ditch Frontpage, and if you MUST use a WYSIWYG editor, read up on configuring Dream Weaver to create compliant output.
 
STL said:
[NickTheNut]
Show me a court case where that made a difference. Bonus points if it actually involved a website.
Click to expand...
Actually, STL, since you're the one arguing so vehemently against the copyright notice, maybe you should provide us with an example of one where it didn't. I know you can't prove a negative, so I'm not asking you to prove it. I just want an example. Humour me.
 
STL said:
Skill is not subjective.
Click to expand...

sure it is. Tell me all those people that have tried out for American Idol truely know they don't have any skill? I'm sure a good portion of them thought they were "idol" material. When in trueth hardly any of them could sing worth a damn.

And don't tell me singing isn't a skill, if it wasn't the music industry as we know it wouldn't be as it is now.
 
STL said:
Skill is not subjective.
Click to expand...

First definition of subjective in the dictionary :

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

I hate to say it, STL, but that kinda puts your skill in the subjective category :D Seriously, though, all skill is subjective, because it depends on the point of view of the beholder. For example, from what I've seen of your software skills, I'd say that you have little skill in actual development, although you are obviously a skilled programmer. I say this because you appear to have no appreciation of requirements, specification, or targets. You've also displayed a complete disregard for alternate views, which is critical in a team-based environment (as most are these days).

However, I dare say that your view of your own skill is rather different. That doesn't mean either of us is wrong (although no doubt you'll protest otherwise), just that we have different yardsticks for comparison.Therefore, skill is subjective.
 
Alright.. I got some asp includes added


<!--#include file="footer.asp"-->

and

<!--#include file="header.asp"-->

but now I need to change all the links :( to .asp <--- That was made incredibly easy with PSPad :)
 
lessthanjakejohn said:
Alright.. I got some asp includes added


<!--#include file="footer.asp"-->

and

<!--#include file="header.asp"-->

but now I need to change all the links :( to .asp <--- That was made incredibly easy with PSPad :)
Click to expand...

You can do includes of .html files; I know I have done it before. Why exactly do you want the .asp extension? Maybe I'm wrong, please correct me if so, but I know I have done .html SSI includes! I'm not crazy! NO nonono! ;)

EDIT: Oh, nevermind. I see what you mean now... But still, it's possible to keep the .html extension on dynamic pages that contain SSI with a little apache workaround.
 
I used .asp for the header and footer file in so that if I ever want to include any ASP in those files I won't have to reedit everything.

Also, I don't know if our IIS server supports SSI, so I just changed them all anyway... so that it would work with ASP
 
No PNGs for right now... I don't have the fully finished PSD and I dont have the fonts on my system. The gifs look fine also, so I'll probaly won't use PNGs on this page.
 
[:LJ:]
> I know you can't prove a negative, so I'm not asking you to
> prove it.

I don't have to. I am in the privileged position. You are the one claiming it matters, like claiming that rain dances bring rain.

> from what I've seen of your software skills, I'd say that you
> have little skill in actual development

They could never know the glory; they might never know the truth.

[lessthanjakejohn]
> I don't know if our IIS server supports SSI

IIS has crummy SSI support. Try to get the server switched to Apache, or find a new server.

(One problem is that nested SSIs and variables interact badly in IIS, and intuitively in Apache.)

[lessthanjakejohn]
> No PNGs for right now... I don't have the fully finished PSD
> and I dont have the fonts on my system.

You can convert GIF to PNG.
 
STL said:
IIS has crummy SSI support. Try to get the server switched to Apache, or find a new server.
(One problem is that nested SSIs and variables interact badly in IIS, and intuitively in Apache.)
Click to expand...
No go on that, our webmaster is hosting this offsite with some company and paying 17 bucks for no more than a gig of bandwidth and what not. But the it works, for what I want now, so no need to complain.

You can convert GIF to PNG.
Click to expand...

Of course... but why? there really is no reason.
 
I don't have to. I am in the privileged position. You are the one claiming it matters, like claiming that rain dances bring rain.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, you're asking him to change the way it already is. Therefore, you must give him a valid reason, hence the request for an example.

They could never know the glory; they might never know the truth.
Click to expand...
Lucky them.
 
[lessthanjakejohn]
> No go on that, our webmaster is hosting this offsite with
> some company and paying 17 bucks for no more than a gig of
> bandwidth and what not.

Mlar. Well, just keep it in mind.

> there really is no reason.

1. Smaller file size.
2. Ideology - You know how evil people think SCO is? GIFs are worse. Because everyone uses them.
 
instead of claiming I know something I will go straight to the source... us gov copyright office

here is a quote...

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant’s interposition of an innocent infringement defense—that is, that he or she did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent infringement defense may result in a reduction in damages that the copyright owner would otherwise receive.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much settles it. It is optional but there is no harm in putting it in , it only helps you.
 
binary digit said:
I think that pretty much settles it. It is optional but there is no harm in putting it in , it only helps you.
Click to expand...

Thank you Binary. The only reason why I hadn't done the same is because I was at work. Now that I'm home I had opened my text book that stat's almost the exact same thing, and meant to post it here.

To late.

:)
 
It clutters up the page for the user. By the Wrath Of Khan Principle, I win.
 
STL said:
It clutters up the page for the user. By the Wrath Of Khan Principle, I win.
Click to expand...

okay, now you're throwing things out just to piss people off.

if not... well... let's not think of that.

But still, i don't see how a simple copyright notice clutter's up a page. If anything it can even add a bit more structure to a site.

Wait... what's this? There's a copyright notice at the bottom of this forum... DAMN KYLE TO HELL. He's cluttering up my viewing experience here on the [H]. I can't handle the pure unorganized look of the site now! MY EYES PRECIOUS! MY EYES!

:rolleyes:
 
STL,

You need to STAY OUT of these threads if you do not have anything useful to say. Calling people facist, throwing threads off topic, and starting flame wars is NOT what this community is about. Please, either change your attitude or get lost. This community does not need an asshole.

--KK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top