 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> YIIPPPIIIEEEE, twyst is coming back.
> Uarghhh, probably not for me :-((((
> I just tried to view something on macromedias site, no go for Solaris.
>
> I would recommend going for customizing one of the many solutions based
> on php3. I think both freshmeat and slashdot use it. There are a lot of
> solutions there already, some of them with connection to mysql. I saw
> your apache logo often enough lately, so those solutions should go for
> you.
> Check out freshmeat, I see anouncements of a lot of things with
> php/mysql every now and then.
Heh. I'm a longtime php/mysql user. =D
>
> Advertise for O'Reilly. They rule. (damn, I get not a penny for that
> one.)
Ok, I'll look into it.
>
> Axel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve <ste### [at] puzzlecraft com> wrote in message
news:37A312E0.F4662062@puzzlecraft.com...
> The main, and only reason I visited your site so many times was
INFORMATION.
>
> The tutorials, examples, source code, includes, objects, textures.....all
> wonderful!
>
> I thought the tiny fonts you used stunk. I could not read them on either
of my
> browsers. Give up on the typography and stick with what you do so very,
very
> well.
Hrm. what platform? (Solaris?)
I set the fonts by point size (10 point), as opposed to relative size. I
know of problems with the Mac for that one - point sizes aren't the same
across platforms. I know it's somewhat bad for some people, but I have this
love of CSS.
Also, the new twysted.net site is quite possibly NOT going to be 640x480x256
friendly. Sorry, but that's no longer a net standard. 800x600x256
(preferably more bpp, imho) is almost a minimum, and that's what I'll design
for now.
Twyst
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, as the overwhelming response is 'No Flash', I won't be using it.
Here's a new question: What browsers are people running? I do try to keep my
site text-friendly, but I need to know how high a level I should be using.
should I restrict myself to IE 3.0 and netscape 2? (god, I hope not!) )
Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.
Re: the content.
You guys are right. Content is where it's at. That was part of the reason I
took the old twysted.net down. I had no new content. Should I try
user-submitted news items, akin to slashdot? I don't want to turn it into a
'look, here's my first pov-ray picture', but I would like to get more user
input than I had before.
The other side I'd like to hear from is the developers. If there are people
working on applications for whatever platform, if it's something useful for
pov-ray, I'd like to hear about it. Heck, if it's any use, I'd be willing to
set up a developer's forum for trading of code and ideas. (yes, I'm rather
big on open source....)
*(heh, I'd love to get a weekly update on pov-progress for 3.5 and up. Just
to see what's happening... )
Also, re: the povray page update - well, that's in the hands of Chris Cason.
You'll have to look to him for info on that, as it's not my place to say
anything.
Twyst
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Netscape 4.6 here, I'm usually using the latest or next to the latest
version of either Netscape or Internet Explorer since I like to try and
keep up to date on them. Guess that's still the main focus these days,
the "big two" browsers; and there's functional differences between the
earlier versions and the later ones so I for one don't want to encounter
troubles at the mainstream web pages. Although not everyone spends there
time doing yet another upgrade of their browsers on a constant basis I'm
sure. Even so I'd think the 4.* versions might be a good target
audience.
Too bad about the Flash, hope you can get some kind of nice compromise
in there.
User input hmmm? Well, if you like tending to a lot of potential chaos,
sure sounds good anyway. Half joking here.
Bob
Twyst wrote:
>
> Well, as the overwhelming response is 'No Flash', I won't be using it.
>
> Here's a new question: What browsers are people running? I do try to keep my
> site text-friendly, but I need to know how high a level I should be using.
> should I restrict myself to IE 3.0 and netscape 2? (god, I hope not!) )
>
> Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.
>
> Re: the content.
> You guys are right. Content is where it's at. That was part of the reason I
> took the old twysted.net down. I had no new content. Should I try
> user-submitted news items, akin to slashdot? I don't want to turn it into a
> 'look, here's my first pov-ray picture', but I would like to get more user
> input than I had before.
>
> The other side I'd like to hear from is the developers. If there are people
> working on applications for whatever platform, if it's something useful for
> pov-ray, I'd like to hear about it. Heck, if it's any use, I'd be willing to
> set up a developer's forum for trading of code and ideas. (yes, I'm rather
> big on open source....)
>
> *(heh, I'd love to get a weekly update on pov-progress for 3.5 and up. Just
> to see what's happening... )
>
> Also, re: the povray page update - well, that's in the hands of Chris Cason.
> You'll have to look to him for info on that, as it's not my place to say
> anything.
>
> Twyst
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Netscape Communicator 4.5 here, but I will upgrade to 4.6 soon.
That developers forum sounds like a great idea. The idea of weekly
progress reports is wonderful, I haven't heard anything at all lately.
Maybe a rumors section about upcoming releases.
As for writing the page...try for 4.0 compliance, avoid Javascript, and
use Java, but sparingly, and not in something necessary to use the page.
That is the only advice I could give there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Twyst wrote:
>
> Here's a new question: What browsers are people running?
IE 4.0 mainly, ever since Communicator 4.6 suddenly refused to download pages
under my desktop (I really should look into this...)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Netscape 4.61
Explorer 4.5
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Twyst wrote:
> Well, as the overwhelming response is 'No Flash', I won't be using it.
>
> Here's a new question: What browsers are people running? I do try to keep my
> site text-friendly, but I need to know how high a level I should be using.
> should I restrict myself to IE 3.0 and netscape 2? (god, I hope not!) )
>
> Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.
Well, HTML 4.0 might be a good target. Biggest thing I'd recommend is try to
keep things designed so as to degrade gracefully. Use nice markup to enhance
things, but if the extras aren't support, the information should still be
functional. One big thing is that there are still a lot of people out there on
MSIE 3.02. Good thing is that 3.02 had support for most of CSS.
When designing, I'd suggest to use MSIE 4.0 (gag! agh! ack!) and NN 4.5/6 as
base browsers, but check things on older stuff too. Unfortunately, you can't
easily have MSIE 3 and MSIE 4 on the same machine. I try to keep a system
around with MSIE 3.x (only have MSIE 4.0 at home because the new 98 computer
came loaded with it). Also try other browsers to see how the site holds up. I
usually run things through the current version of Lynx and also the WebTV
emulator. Sometimes nice design holds up well under these, sometimes things
only need minor tweaks. Also, a good thing about using Lynx to check your pages
is that it lets you see how web-indexing bots see your site.
Hmmmm. And using point sizes for fonts.... Hmmmm. Well if I have problems with
my hi-res linux setup here, I guess it's probably just that I don't have my
system configured to report the correct DPI (at least I hope that's all).
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> As for writing the page...try for 4.0 compliance, avoid Javascript, and
> use Java, but sparingly, and not in something necessary to use the page.
Javascript is OK (to handle things like mouseover and popup windows). But
I agree not to use java with anything necessary. I almost always have java
disabled. Java VMs (in my experience) are too unstable. Why should I
risk crashing Netscape or IE just so I can see some animated banner (which
I have to wait forever to load over my slow phone connection anyway)?
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Twyst wrote:
>
> Steve <ste### [at] puzzlecraftcom> wrote in message
> news:37A312E0.F4662062@puzzlecraft.com...
> > The main, and only reason I visited your site so many times was
> INFORMATION.
> >
> > The tutorials, examples, source code, includes, objects, textures.....all
> > wonderful!
> >
> > I thought the tiny fonts you used stunk. I could not read them on either
> of my
> > browsers. Give up on the typography and stick with what you do so very,
> very
> > well.
>
> Hrm. what platform? (Solaris?)
Yip, solaris, for example. Windows browser just like to add a 10% to the
font size. So this is general to every non-windows box. That way you can
adjust for that. Though in general I am very comfortable with 12 to
14pt. It's just easier to read.
I personally was very glad, that I knew most of the site by heart. So I
could browse without being able to read.
> I set the fonts by point size (10 point), as opposed to relative size. I
> know of problems with the Mac for that one - point sizes aren't the same
> across platforms. I know it's somewhat bad for some people, but I have this
> love of CSS.
Oh, I do as well, hardly any page without it in the last time. But I
generally let the fonts alone. That way it's also better to read for
people with eye-problems.
(Hey, I am mean, putting policial correctness on my side. That's rude)
>
> Also, the new twysted.net site is quite possibly NOT going to be 640x480x256
> friendly. Sorry, but that's no longer a net standard. 800x600x256
> (preferably more bpp, imho) is almost a minimum, and that's what I'll design
> for now.
>
> Twyst
Relying on a given resolution always brings you down to 'pixel-correct'
design. I read some articles, and decided to stay away from that. Your
milage may vary. And probably does.
Axel
(It feels good just to chat about the site, how good must browsing be)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
