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

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:47:34 -0600, "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>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!) )

  Hi, Twyst. I use Netscape Communicator v4.6 here. Please consider making
pages that look decent (doesn't have to be award-winning), are logically
arranged, and load fast on a typical modem connection. Thanks for listening.

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

I'm currently using N3.0 under Win 3.1, but hope to have SuSE Linux 6.1
up soon on a plug in drive. At work I'm using N2.0, which locks up on
Java scripts. We have Red Hat 6.0 loaded on a $00 mhz K6, but are having
problems getting the modem to work.

Ken Matassa

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote in message <37a3d388@news.povray.org>...
>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!) )

CyberDog 2.0 (at home, Netscrape 4.5 if needs be)
IE 4 at work

>Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.

CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
nested tables
javascript (simply ignores it)
some plug-ins

Have Fun
Martin
--
<Spa### [at] tesseractcomau> is a valid address
If you prefer mnemonic addresses you can use:
<Martin 'at' tesseract.com.au> or <Martin.Crisp 'at' Tourism.tas.gov.au>

My opinions should not be taken as indicative of Tourism Tasmania's
opinions

Post a reply to this message

> 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)?

I agree. I personally HATE java with a passion. In my opinion, it's a total
waste of time. After all, it's touted as 'write once, work everywhere', but
in my experience, it's 'write once, test everywhere'. If you're worried
about portability, try ANSI compliant C.

Javascript, imho, is ok, since often a browser will simply ignore it if it
doesn't understand it.

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

>
> >Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.
>
> CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
> nested tables
> javascript (simply ignores it)
> some plug-ins


Well, since I do a LOT of my layout with nested tables, there's not much I
can do.
Plugins: well, I've already decided that I don't want to use any (flash was
an idea... but that's been vetoed.) I've never heard of this browser... Is
it anything like Opera?

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

In article <37a5632b@news.povray.org> , "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>> CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
>> nested tables
>> javascript (simply ignores it)
>> some plug-ins
>
>
> Well, since I do a LOT of my layout with nested tables, there's not much I
> can do.
> Plugins: well, I've already decided that I don't want to use any (flash was
> an idea... but that's been vetoed.) I've never heard of this browser... Is
> it anything like Opera?

It is a browser developed by Apple years ago and officially discontinued for
at least two years.  It won't run on future Macs anyway.


     Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:37a59b4b@news.povray.org...
> In article <37a5632b@news.povray.org> , "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:
>
> >> CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
> >> nested tables
> >> javascript (simply ignores it)
> >> some plug-ins
> >
> >
> > Well, since I do a LOT of my layout with nested tables, there's not much
I
> > can do.
> > Plugins: well, I've already decided that I don't want to use any (flash
was
> > an idea... but that's been vetoed.) I've never heard of this browser...
Is
> > it anything like Opera?
>
> It is a browser developed by Apple years ago and officially discontinued
for
> at least two years.  It won't run on future Macs anyway.
>

ah. ok. that means I don't have to worry about it. =D

Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
http://24.108.7.134/work.htm

Give me some feedback on it, please.

>
>      Thorsten
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
> e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:47:34 -0600, 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? 

Netscape 4.5, IE 4 or 5 depending on which machine I'm using, and
whatever version of Lynx came with OpenLinux 2.2.   In short, 
nothing 100% HTML 4.0 compatible.  (But then again, what browser 
is?)

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
> 
> Give me some feedback on it, please.

It loads quickly on my modem connection, looks professional but not glitzy,
and the navigation bar looks efficient and not over done. I would say you
are definitely on the right track with your current implementation.

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> 
> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
> 
> Give me some feedback on it, please.
> 

Loads quickly (even though I have a 14.4 connection right now). Looks neat and
tasteful. Structure seems clear, logical. I like it.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> .........................
>
> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
> Give me some feedback on it, please.
>
> >................

Looks quite promising already; I'm impatiently waiting.

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> .........................
>
> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
> Give me some feedback on it, please.
>
> >................

Looks quite promising already; I'm impatiently waiting.

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> .........................
>
> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
> Give me some feedback on it, please.
>
> >................

Looks quite promising already; I'm impatiently waiting.

Post a reply to this message

Twyst <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote
>
> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
> Give me some feedback on it, please.
>

    Looks good on IE 5.0!

Post a reply to this message

Hi,
Watched it with netscape 4.08 on Solaris 7.
Did not test on XTerminal yet, I got used too much to the workstation.

Everything is clearly readable. It displays as fast as possible, 
(I had a bit of a hang, though we are 10MBit connected, to much joy for
your server??)
... due to the absolut sizes in the table. (THANX).Even reading the
source is ok, but that's probably not your main intention :-)

Didn't look too good in Lynx Version 2.7, though. 2.8.2 on Linux did it
alright.

RIGHT WAY TO GO.

Axel

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
> Give me some feedback on it, please.

Well, it looks almost nice on my system. Good text, legible, except...

It scrolls off the screen to the right. My screen is 1280x1024, 32bit, but I
don't use my browser full-screen. I keep it to windows that are portrait, not
landscape, and who's size and dimensions approximate an 8 1/2 x 11" sheet of
paper.

It scales wider well. If you could get it to have a smaller minimum width, then
it would be much more functional. I like the way that http://www.linux.com/
functions.

Oh no. I just did a screen-grab to check, and guess what size I have my window
set to? 648x942. Guess that 640 width might not be such a bad idea after all,
as it makes longer text far more readable, etc. (Take a peek at any magazine or
newspaper to see that tall and narrow is much more readable)

--
"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

Strange. Really. I just did some testing, and it looks fine in a window of
536x196 (640x480, default browser size)
It's all tables, set to 100% of width. I can't imagine why it gives you a
hassle.


Twyst

Post a reply to this message

OK. The page you should all be pointing at is http://24.108.7.134/index.htm

I've gotten the macros up so far, and I'm working on the search and submit
forms.

I'll get the domain name pointed at this address soon.

Post a reply to this message

Loads quick and looks super. I just found it a bit wide (maybe 2 times my screen
size). I'm at 1024x768. Also, I use Netscape 4.6 exclusively. I hate having
Explorer crash, and take Windows 98 with it, while if Netscape crashes, it's
just that one program.

--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB

Non nova, sed nove.

Post a reply to this message

It disappears off to the right on Netscape v4.5 (1024*768), its just one
long line of text with no line breaks.
Looking good other than that.

	Graham.

Twyst wrote:
> 
> Strange. Really. I just did some testing, and it looks fine in a window of
> 536x196 (640x480, default browser size)
> It's all tables, set to 100% of width. I can't imagine why it gives you a
> hassle.
> 
> Twyst

Post a reply to this message

> Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
> Give me some feedback on it, please.

Jumping in here late in the game (sucks not checking the newsgroup for half a
week). The page looks fine for me at 1280*1024 no matter how I resize it. That's
on IE 5. I think it's a good idea sticking to simple color combo's and not a lot
of flash (no pun intended). People come to your site for information and it's
content, so I think your emphasis should be on easy navigation. Not too many
choices at initial entry, and breaking it down into sub-sections from there. I
think one of your most important pages will end up being a site map page.

I look forward to the completed site.

David

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 07:54:34 -0600, "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
>http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
>Give me some feedback on it, please.

Loaded in less than 5 seconds on a 33.6 modem. I love the color
palette! One thing, though. The (twysted.net) logo hurts the eye a
little during a night surf in a dark room. Now I'm being picky :)

Keep up the good work so that twysted.net is back and better!

"Under a pale gray sky
We shall arise!"
Sepultura, "Arise", (Arise, 91)

Just thought the quote fits :)


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:28:00 -0600, Twyst wrote:
>OK. The page you should all be pointing at is http://24.108.7.134/index.htm
>
>I've gotten the macros up so far, and I'm working on the search and submit
>forms.

I can confirm what everyone else is saying, that the text doesn't wrap on
Netscape.  This may be due to the nowrap on the enclosing <td> - Netscape
seems to propagate that property to the descendants, while IE doesn't.
It appears that IE's is the correct behavior.

Post a reply to this message

On 2 Aug 1999 16:18:25 -0400, Ron Parker wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:28:00 -0600, Twyst wrote:
>>OK. The page you should all be pointing at is http://24.108.7.134/index.htm
>>
>>I've gotten the macros up so far, and I'm working on the search and submit
>>forms.
>
>I can confirm what everyone else is saying, that the text doesn't wrap on
>Netscape.  This may be due to the nowrap on the enclosing <td> - Netscape
>seems to propagate that property to the descendants, while IE doesn't.
>It appears that IE's is the correct behavior.

Also, the macros don't show up right.  I believe Netscape requires TEXTAREA 
fields to be inside a FORM.  That's also not strictly HTML-4.0 compliant, of
course.

Post a reply to this message

Twyst heeft geschreven in bericht <37a5a3c7@news.povray.org>...
>Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
>http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
>
IE4 OK, Amaya makes a bit a mess of it. Extra blank lines between the
menu-items.
the
" new
look
for
site"
is shown like above, and 08/02/1999-Twyst is not shown at all.

ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:28:00 -0600, "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>OK. The page you should all be pointing at is http://24.108.7.134/index.htm
>
>I've gotten the macros up so far, and I'm working on the search and submit
>forms.
>
>I'll get the domain name pointed at this address soon.
>
Good to see you getting back online.
All is not well with with your pages using Netscape 4.06, 
Comparing it with the smart look it has under IE4, the layout is coming out very
badly.
All the text is too small and the main heading is tiny, also, as Ron Parker says, the
text
is not wrapping.
Hope you can sort it as I prefer to use Netscape.
David


------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------

Post a reply to this message

> > Anyways.. I have a quick preview of the site look up at
> > http://24.108.7.134/work.htm
> >
> > Give me some feedback on it, please.

I don't know if this will help, but I've posted a side-by-side screen shot of how
the site looks in IE 5 and Netscape 4.05 (each browser is opened to a width of about
640 pixels:

http://www.sinbad.net/~autumn/images/screen.jpg

David

Post a reply to this message

I've completed the macros section of twysted.net, with all functions now
working. you can search, submit and view macros now.

The next section I'll work on is the links.. Ken, care to take this position
once I get the system in place? =D

Also, ideas on how to do the texture library and include library?
(organization, etc, etc.)
For the textures, should I do pages of thumbnails with links to the
individual code? Also, should I collect textures into larger, topical
include files as well as have individual code, and possibly Moray .MTX
files?

Include files - do a rendering of what they do? (for user-submissions, I
think this will entail doing image uploads on your part.)

Just some ideas. And since I'm still coding this thing, if you find any
errors while checking it out, PLEASE let me know, either here, or thru
e-mail. Also, please send details. Browser, OS, etc. etc. so I can debug it.

thanx,
Twyst

Post a reply to this message

Odd.  I'm viewing it with Netscape 4.5 and I have no problem with width.
It looks a lot like the IE version in your screen shot.

-Nathan

David Heys wrote:
> 
> I don't know if this will help, but I've posted a side-by-side screen shot of how
> the site looks in IE 5 and Netscape 4.05 (each browser is opened to a width of about
> 640 pixels:
> 
> http://www.sinbad.net/~autumn/images/screen.jpg
> 
> David

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:

> Odd.  I'm viewing it with Netscape 4.5 and I have no problem with width.
> It looks a lot like the IE version in your screen shot.
>
> -Nathan

That's because Twyst is very receptive to criticism and already corrected that.
Man, he's quick.


--
"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

I'm not seeing anything wrong here using Netscape 4.61, the latest(?)
version. Even resizing the window does fine.
The layout looks good to me, text is ok too using a 800x600 screen res
anyway.
I noticed the antialiased fonts in the blue backgrounds kind of cause a
small clashing with the italics or the main header (twysted.net). That's
just aesthetics maybe but I had to come up with a negative statement you
know.

Bob


Twyst wrote:
> 
> I've completed the macros section of twysted.net, with all functions now
> working. you can search, submit and view macros now.
> 
> The next section I'll work on is the links.. Ken, care to take this position
> once I get the system in place? =D
> 
> Also, ideas on how to do the texture library and include library?
> (organization, etc, etc.)
> For the textures, should I do pages of thumbnails with links to the
> individual code? Also, should I collect textures into larger, topical
> include files as well as have individual code, and possibly Moray .MTX
> files?
> 
> Include files - do a rendering of what they do? (for user-submissions, I
> think this will entail doing image uploads on your part.)
> 
> Just some ideas. And since I'm still coding this thing, if you find any
> errors while checking it out, PLEASE let me know, either here, or thru
> e-mail. Also, please send details. Browser, OS, etc. etc. so I can debug it.
> 
> thanx,
> 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

Twyst wrote:
> 
> I've completed the macros section of twysted.net, with all functions now
> working. you can search, submit and view macros now.

Arrggghhhh, still some comments: 
I had some problems with the width of the page again. (well, first time
to me).
I have only one idea why, that's relative size adding up to 100% in
child tables. Though I did not cross check it. (It's the 15%-85% table
on the complete list page).
All on netscape 4.08 on solaris (do you know all surfing habits by heart
by now?)
Another tip for the textareas in display:
add a readonly flag, netscape wont check it, but IE does. According to
my german reference selfhtml. (for german lawyers: don't go there!!)

<...>
> thanx,
> Twyst

welcome
Axel

Post a reply to this message

argh^2, forgot two things:

Missing is a mail link to you. Or such thing like a contact and
contributors page. At least a comments-button.

How about adding the author to the searchables in the macro area? Same
to includes and textures as well.

Axel

Post a reply to this message

Twyst <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote in message news:37a651bd@news.povray.org...
> I've completed the macros section of twysted.net, with all functions now
> working. you can search, submit and view macros now.
>

    Although I am sure you don't need any more work, could I suggest an
"Comments" section of your macro library? A place where a Happy User could
thank the author and tell folks how they used the Fine Macro that just
solved all their problems...<personal story snipped>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:16:42 -0600, "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>I've completed the macros section of twysted.net, with all functions now
>working. you can search, submit and view macros now.
>
Well done, your pages are now OK using Netscape 4.06.
Like the layout, will be submitting macros soon.
David

------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------

Post a reply to this message

Good points.

There is a reason for the textarea not being readonly. It's FAR easier to
select the text if the readonly isn't set. I could always forego the
textareas, and use <pre> and <code>.


Yea, I know I forgot a mail link. That's gonna go in later. =D
Adding the author is a good idea. I'll do that.


Twyst

Post a reply to this message

Well, I was tossing some ideas around, and I thought of putting a link to
ftp.povray.org as the file library link. But, it's outdated. Heavily. For
example, the most recent version of Moray on there is 2.5. That's quite a
bit out of date. In fact, most of the files deal with Pov-Ray 2.2 or
earlier.

I also thought of doing something that I see the larger sites, like
PlanetQuake , etc. have done, and that's have their files hosted by Walnut
Creek CDrom. (www.cdrom.com). Unfortunately, much as I'd love to think I
have a popular site, it's not that big. I doubt that they would consider it.
I'm gonna write them an email right away, but I'm not hoping for much.
(also, Chris, if you read this, please let me know if this would be out of
line.)

Now, I need to save bandwidth. If I could find someone willing to give me
LOTS of space (twysted.net, before I took it down the first time, was up to
85 megs in size.) on a fast connection just for file storage, I'd be
eternally grateful. Tripod, GeoCities, Xoom, etc. are not options, as they
specifically say they don't want file archives.

In the file library, I plan on putting everything downloadable into it.
Patches, include files, textures, programs, everything.

If anyone can help, please let me know. Also, money _is_ an object. I have
no spare cash, so if it's gonna cost me a lot of money, then I can't do it.


twyst

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:27 -0600, Twyst wrote:
>Well, I was tossing some ideas around, and I thought of putting a link to
>ftp.povray.org as the file library link. But, it's outdated. Heavily. For
>example, the most recent version of Moray on there is 2.5. That's quite a
>bit out of date. In fact, most of the files deal with Pov-Ray 2.2 or
>earlier.
>
>I also thought of doing something that I see the larger sites, like
>PlanetQuake , etc. have done, and that's have their files hosted by Walnut
>Creek CDrom. (www.cdrom.com). 

[...]

Wasn't Walnut Creek the company that was going to come out with a new
POV CD that wasn't going to have anything to do with the POV-Team?
If you haven't already seen it, they have a povray directory, which
contains an amalgam of the current ftp.povray.org and what ftp.povray.org 
used to look like, before the great purge.

Post a reply to this message

Hi Twyst,
be there, looked at the links section:
I found most of the things quite easy, so the design is good that way.
Perhaps you could give more links at a time, just 10 was a bit few.
Something noteworthy, could you add supported platforms to the programs?
Like a small icon (flying windows, pinguins, demons...) for each and
checkboxes at the submit page? I just regret every time I see something,
that is of no use to me. (Or even limited)

Another question about the submits? I was almost submitting terraform,
just to check it out. But then I wondered wether I should give mine or
the authors adress for contact. I haven't used it once, so I am not that
well suited for contact.

Axel

Post a reply to this message

Axel Hecht <ah### [at] numerikuni-kielde> wrote in message
news:37A84F24.2AF8547C@numerik.uni-kiel.de...
> Hi Twyst,
> be there, looked at the links section:
> I found most of the things quite easy, so the design is good that way.
> Perhaps you could give more links at a time, just 10 was a bit few.

Ok. 25 good?

> Something noteworthy, could you add supported platforms to the programs?
> Like a small icon (flying windows, pinguins, demons...) for each and
> checkboxes at the submit page? I just regret every time I see something,
> that is of no use to me. (Or even limited)

I'll give that a shot.

>
> Another question about the submits? I was almost submitting terraform,
> just to check it out. But then I wondered wether I should give mine or
> the authors adress for contact. I haven't used it once, so I am not that
> well suited for contact.

Use your address. That way I can contact you if there are any problems,
instead of an author who'd have no idea what's going on . =D

>
> Axel

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> The next section I'll work on is the links.. Ken, care to take this position
> once I get the system in place? =D
> thanx,
> Twyst

I don't mind contributing links to your site but it is not my idea of a good
time plugging 750 links into your system one at a time. There has got to be
an easier way :) Might I suggest that I send you a copy of my html version of
the links and you can simply use them as a seperate attraction to your links ?
Or if you prefer I can send the aforementioned collection to you and you can
then incorporate them in some other format that suits your needs.

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:37A89D61.DAEA40E1@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Twyst wrote:
>
> > The next section I'll work on is the links.. Ken, care to take this
position
> > once I get the system in place? =D
> > thanx,
> > Twyst
>
> I don't mind contributing links to your site but it is not my idea of a
good
> time plugging 750 links into your system one at a time. There has got to
be
> an easier way :) Might I suggest that I send you a copy of my html version
of
> the links and you can simply use them as a seperate attraction to your
links ?
> Or if you prefer I can send the aforementioned collection to you and you
can
> then incorporate them in some other format that suits your needs.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm


Heh. It's not MY idea of a good time, either. But I do have a CGI app that
will bulk-add a large list of links (or I can use Excel, too. :D ) - I've
done it before. If you want to send them, great! I'll do the grunt work. =D.
I know I need to re-organize the links I do have, anyways. The categories
aren't the best.

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:21:44 +0200, Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:

>Twyst wrote:
[snip]

Hi Twyst, good to see you back.

I have to concur with some of the other voices here with a distinct
preferance for a lean, clean interface (text aint so bad you know).

>
>> 5) Advertising
>Banners can be survived, popupwindows CANNOT.
>
This can't be emphasised enough. Banners don't aggravate half as much
as annoying pop-up windows!

If I can think of any way to help, I'll offer up as and when.


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:47:34 -0600, "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> 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!) )
>
IE5 - actually the version which ships with Win98SE (which I *think*
is the latest version of IE5).


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> Heh. It's not MY idea of a good time, either. But I do have a CGI app that
> will bulk-add a large list of links (or I can use Excel, too. :D ) - I've
> done it before. If you want to send them, great! I'll do the grunt work. =D.
> I know I need to re-organize the links I do have, anyways. The categories
> aren't the best.
> 
> Twyst

  They have been sent. Have they been recieved ? If not you can get an exact
duplicate of what I sent from the announcement group on this server.

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

Yep, got them...


Thanx. =D


Twyst.

Post a reply to this message