Definitely an improvment if you ask me.

-- 
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d6e62de@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Any opinions?

Nice layout, terrible text color.  Remember: Black text on white ground is
best to read.  Especially long text on a screen is much easier to read this
way.  Even more so on TFT displays....

    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

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I decided (at last!) to completely renovate the layout of the povQ&T pages
> so that they would be more serious and professional-looking (but being still
> nice to look).
> 
>   I believe that the pages are now much nicer to read.
>   Any opinions?
> 

Much better than before IMO, but:

- links should IMO have the same color throughout the site if possible.
- a navigation bar on the individual pages would be nice.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d6e6a05$1@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich" 
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

> terrible text color

Caused by missing named anchor </a> tags, btw....


____________________________________________________
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:
>> terrible text color

> Caused by missing named anchor </a> tags, btw....

  I was wondering what the h*** are you talking about, as I have defined
the text as black and it looks black with Mozilla, but your reply explains
it. I'll add the </a>s.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> - links should IMO have the same color throughout the site if possible.

  What? One of the nice features of CSS is that you can, for example,
make different types of links with different colors, and now you want
to take this joy from me? ;)

> - a navigation bar on the individual pages would be nice.

  I'll think about that.
  Any suggestion what could it contain?

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I'll add the </a>s.

  Done.
  By the way. Which browser did what you described? I suppose that strictly
speaking it did a better job than Mozilla.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d6e83a9@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   By the way. Which browser did what you described? I suppose that strictly
> speaking it did a better job than Mozilla.

For that test Internet Explorer 5.1 for Mac OS.  It strictly sticks to what
document type you tell it you have.  Not always a good feature as many sites
detect Internet Explorer and assume the Windows versions' broken layout.....
:-(

    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

wow .. nice ...

looks more clean now ... but wouldn't it be an idea to incorporate
it in the new official POV-homepage? ... maybe in the community-section?

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d6e62de@news.povray.org...
>   I decided (at last!) to completely renovate the layout of the povQ&T
pages
> so that they would be more serious and professional-looking (but being
still
> nice to look).
>
>   I believe that the pages are now much nicer to read.
>   Any opinions?
>


    The text size is a bit big, imo.

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> looks more clean now ... but wouldn't it be an idea to incorporate
> it in the new official POV-homepage? ... maybe in the community-section?

  Actually we have talked about putting the pages at povray.org, mainly
because my current account at tut.fi will not last forever.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Pandora <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:
>     The text size is a bit big, imo.

  I wish all browser would implement CSS in the same way... but they don't.
  In Mozilla text-size medium is the default text size (when nothing has
been specified). Apparently in IE text-size medium is a rather big size,
much bigger than the default.
  *sigh*

  I'll try to convert everything to relative sizes if I can figure out how
it is done.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   In Mozilla text-size medium is the default text size (when nothing has
> been specified). Apparently in IE text-size medium is a rather big size,
> much bigger than the default.

  Actually it seems that specifying font-family: sans-serif makes the font
rather big. serif is a lot smaller... Odd thing.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Actually IE seems to have a pretty peculiar way of interpreting CSS.

  For example, I have defined the pre-blocks to have a font-size: small.
IE (at least my IE 6) interprets this in such a way that the font is
actually larger than in other parts, where the font-size is 'medium' (which
should be larger than 'small'). Mozilla makes the <pre> text smaller than
the medium text, as it should.
  If I define <h3> to have normal text (ie. not bolded) with medium
font-size, Mozilla makes it normal text with medium font-size, as
anywhere else, but IE makes the text bolded and larger than other medium-sized
text. Ugh? If I make the text italic, IE does not bold it anymore (???) but
it still has a larger font than other medium-sized text.

  From what I can see, Mozilla works in a much more logical and consistent
way when interpreting CSS, so I'll stick with that and let IE do whatever
it pleases. It's not my headache.

  (On the other hand, both browsers make the sans-serif font-family larger
than the serif font-family, for some reason. *shrug*)

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I decided (at last!) to completely renovate the layout of the povQ&T pages
> so that they would be more serious and professional-looking (but being still
> nice to look).
> 
>   I believe that the pages are now much nicer to read.
>   Any opinions?
> 
>   (http://iki.fi/warp/povQandT/)

Looks fine to me in both Netscape and IE.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Odd effect seems to be happening here for me, using IE 6 (or 6.00.2600.000).
A whole group of links change to the visited link color just by going to
one. Several the blue ones on the left changed too only by going to one of
those red links. I didn't jot down which did what, if that would have helped
to know.

Are you going to rely on the browser navigation buttons instead of having
jumps within the pages?

I actually liked the color scheme. Blue and orange is my favorite color
combination. Not especially thrilled about red but for links it makes sense
anyway. The rest of the layout looked right, in this short time to see it.

Post a reply to this message

hughes b wrote:
>Odd effect seems to be happening here for me, using IE 6 (or 6.00.2600.000).
>A whole group of links change to the visited link color just by going to
>one. Several the blue ones on the left changed too only by going to one of
>those red links. I didn't jot down which did what, if that would have helped
>to know.

I think this is an IE issue, I've noticed it on many occasions, in all
(windows) versions. IE appears to just remember which pages you've been to,
and since many of the links just jump to named anchors on the a single
page, they are all marked as visited.

It works as expected in Mozilla.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:08:09 +0200, "Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> looks more clean now ... but wouldn't it be an idea to incorporate
> it in the new official POV-homepage? ... maybe in the community-section?

meybe not the latest one but http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/305/

BTW: to website admins, when you click on "current version" on that page it
returns "Sorry, we cannot find a match for your request" for the page
http://www.povray.org/cgi-bin/redirect?vfaq

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   What? One of the nice features of CSS is that you can, for example,
> make different types of links with different colors, and now you want
> to take this joy from me? ;)

Just because we CAN use CSS does not mean that we MUST use CSS. ;)

In all honesty, though, badly-used gimmick CSS is the new annoying 
feature for "rilly kewl web sights!!!!11", joining the ranks of things 
like BLINK and MARQUEE, embedded MIDIs, Javascripts that demand that you 
tell them your name, and so on. You would do well to consider using CSS 
to do the same work with less effort.

(This is general advice, BTW, not specific to your site.. which I 
haven't actually seen as I type this!)

I agree with the need for link appearance consistency, too. Remember, 
your web page is also a user interface. ;)

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
 >
>   Actually IE seems to have a pretty peculiar way of interpreting CSS.

IE has a pretty peculiar way of interpreting everything. ;)  Mozilla is 
probably your best bet as far as rendering a given page correctly.. 
assuming that the HTML, CSS, and so forth are correct and valid (which 
they should be anyway).

On setting an appropriate text size:

Using absolute size keywords will have different effects in different 
browsers, as there is no standard text size for a given keyword. 
Likewise, using points will foul up modern browsers, as they tend to try 
to compensate for the viewer's physical screen resolution so as to draw 
the text at a real-world correct size.. obviously not only is this not a 
predictable effect, but since the rest of the page won't scale to match, 
it becomes impossible to "fit" text to a certain layout or to graphics.

I personally prefer using pixels, as *in theory* every browser should 
interpret a pixel value identically. Unfortunately, the CSS people 
decided it would be a clever idea to redefine a "pixel" as a tiny 
fraction of the viewing arc, or some such nonsense.. this provides 
forward compatibility with printers, super hi-res monitors, and so 
forth.. but I don't see that it does so any better than points or ems, 
and meanwhile it completely breaks the one advantage that pixels had, 
which was to be able to draw text at a certain size relative to every 
other graphic, piece of text, widget, or anything else on the screen. 
Anyway, Opera follows the notion that these fake CSS pixels are better 
than real ones, and I have seen Mozilla's people argue over it, so even 
pixel-based layouts may break someday.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: you're screwed. The best you can do 
is pick something that you like that will hopefully work for everybody 
and wish for the best. People will bitch; endeavor to ignore them.

On the apparent size difference between serif and sans-serif fonts: my 
first guess would be that this is due to differing x-heights (the 
x-height being more or less how high the "middle" part of the font is 
relative to how tall the letters are; for instance, a lowercase letter 
with no ascender, such as "c" or "m", will usually be as tall as the 
x-height). Serif fonts tend to have an x-height somewhere near the 
middle, while many sans-serif fonts have larger x-heights (Verdana, for 
instance, has a really big one). Using a large x-height can enhance 
readability by allowing more resolution for lowercase letters (which, 
after all, make up the majority of text) but it will also cause the font 
to appear larger.. and, conversely, using a smaller one will make the 
text look smaller. In other words, it's mostly just an optical illusion 
and you shouldn't worry about it more than you have to.

Of course, there are other possibilities; the two fonts may have a real 
size difference (for instance, if one of them has some extra space added 
to the top and/or bottom of the glyphs, thereby requiring that the 
characters be small to make room) which would cause them to appear as 
different sizes at the same point size, or your browser may be 
displaying them at different sizes for some reason, or whatever. But I 
would suspect the x-height first.

That was probably more than you wanted to know ;)

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

>     The text size is a bit big, imo.

Let me guess:  You are using IE on Windows?  Probably with the big system
font setting as well?  IE comes with too big default font sizes.  You just
have to adjust them and keep a reasonable adjustment as default.  If your
default font sizes are too big it is not a flaw of the site but of the
defaults of your browser.

    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d6ea21b@news.povray.org...
>   Actually IE seems to have a pretty peculiar way of interpreting CSS.

As mentioned in aprevious post, IE on Windows handling of CSS is badly
broken.  Don't even try to fix it, you will just break every other browser
on the way.  Your site does not depend on font sizes for layout, so it is no
big deal that they appear bigger.  Perhaps in five years of so M$ will fix
their Windows version as well (the Mac version works properly using what is
supposed to be the same layout engine!)...

    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> (the Mac version works properly using what
> is supposed to be the same layout engine!)...

  I noticed this recently, on the iMac of a client, even with other M$ 
applications... isn't strange? I mean, why the hell would anyone want their 
apps. to work better on a competitor OS? ...hmmmm... really strange.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
 >
> Perhaps in five years of so M$ will fix
> their Windows version as well (the Mac version works properly using what is
> supposed to be the same layout engine!)...

No, it isn't. Mac IE has a separate codebase from Windows IE and uses a 
different rendering engine.. it's more like a rewrite than a port.

Even so, the Mac version still misinterprets CSS in places (some of 
which are very annoying). Mozilla is probably still your best bet for 
correct rendering.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Well, I changed a couple of "small" to "smaller" and it seems that IE
interprets that one correctly (that is, really make the font smaller than
the default for this block). I haven't had the chance to see it with Mozilla,
but I suppose there shouldn't be any difference there.
  Thinking about it, using "smaller" instead of "small" is better, as the
former is a relative font size while the latter is an absolute one. The
former does not depend on which size is the default in the browser.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

hughes b <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> Are you going to rely on the browser navigation buttons instead of having
> jumps within the pages?

  I will probably add a navigation bar at the top of the page.
  I wonder if there's any way in CSS to make the position of an item
fixed. This way the navigation bar would be fixed at the top of the
viewing area independently of where you are in the page itself (this is
imho a much better option than using frames). I faintly remember seeing
some pages do this.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d6f24bd$1@news.povray.org...
> >     The text size is a bit big, imo.
>
> Let me guess:  You are using IE on Windows?  Probably with the big system
> font setting as well?  IE comes with too big default font sizes.  You just
> have to adjust them and keep a reasonable adjustment as default.  If your
> default font sizes are too big it is not a flaw of the site but of the
> defaults of your browser.
>


    Yes, IE 6.0, Win2K. However, the text on every other site I visit is
just fine. If it were the browser, surely I'd've noticed it on other sites
by now (I do a fair a bit of web-surfing).

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

"Bruce" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.3d6f0923f81cfb0fd2b18b190@news.povray.org...
> hughes b wrote:
> >A whole group of links change to the visited link color just by going to
> >one.
>
> IE appears to just remember which pages you've been to,
> and since many of the links just jump to named anchors on the a single
> page, they are all marked as visited.
>
> It works as expected in Mozilla.

Makes sense now, thanks. I thought it could have been some CSS issue.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>
>   I wonder if there's any way in CSS to make the position of an item
> fixed.

Yes. Try "position:fixed".

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d6fb9e0@news.povray.org...
> hughes b <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> > Are you going to rely on the browser navigation buttons instead of
having
> > jumps within the pages?
>
>   I will probably add a navigation bar at the top of the page.

Oh, I see. Great.

>   I wonder if there's any way in CSS to make the position of an item
> fixed. This way the navigation bar would be fixed at the top of the
> viewing area independently of where you are in the page itself (this is
> imho a much better option than using frames). I faintly remember seeing
> some pages do this.

I was curious so I looked for something that might be worthwhile and found
this:
http://www.i3dthemes.com/custom/online_tools/dhtml_menu_generator.htm
Maybe you could get a similar thing worked into your CSS?

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:
> Yes. Try "position:fixed".

  That seems to be part of the CSS2 standard. I wonder how well the different
browsets support it.
  (On the other hand, if a browser would not support it, it would probably
just mean that the navigation bar is left at the top of the whole page,
with no other negative drawbacks.)

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d70a56b@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   (On the other hand, if a browser would not support it, it would probably
> just mean that the navigation bar is left at the top of the whole page,
> with no other negative drawbacks.)

Quit dreaming!!! ;-)

It will appear at random locations as the browser programmers see fit.  If
you are lucky you can still read the page in the end, or not :-(

    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

I added a navigation bar. Doesn't seem to work very well in IE, though.
In Mozilla it works like a marvel.
  Any opinions/suggestions?

  (For those using browsers where it works ok, like in Mozilla: Yes, it's
made solely with CSS. No dirty javascript or any other tricks. :) )

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d70bbf2@news.povray.org...
>   I added a navigation bar. Doesn't seem to work very well in IE, though.

If I had used IE maximized as I usually do I wouldn't have noticed anything
about it. Just happened to be a smaller window at the time, the navbar must
linewrap, which overlaps itself halfway. Can still read it and use it, just
crowded-looking.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:
> 
>>Yes. Try "position:fixed".
> 
> 
>   That seems to be part of the CSS2 standard. I wonder how well the different
> browsets support it.

Mozilla (and its derivatives) will support it just fine, as *should* IE5 
or better. Other browsers probably won't support it (sorry I can't be 
more specific, but it's been a while since I've kept up with which 
browsers do or don't support various features and standards, because I'm 
sick of the whole legacy browser support thing - upgrade already!) but 
if your navigation bar appears at the top of your page code, it should 
appear at the top of the page in a browser without CSS2 support.

Of course, if you use one of those DHTML menubar scripts as someone 
suggested, all bets are off :P

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I added a navigation bar. Doesn't seem to work very well in IE, though.
> In Mozilla it works like a marvel.
>   Any opinions/suggestions?

You might be more specific about what's wrong.

I find it doesn't work in Mac IE 5.1, but at present I have no idea why. 
I'll take another look when I get bored and see if I can't figure it out.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I added a navigation bar. Doesn't seem to work very well in IE, though.
> In Mozilla it works like a marvel.
>   Any opinions/suggestions?

It looks like sh_t in Netscape 4.7. It was much better the other way.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d70bbf2@news.povray.org...
>   I added a navigation bar. Doesn't seem to work very well in IE, though.
> In Mozilla it works like a marvel.
>   Any opinions/suggestions?

Works okay in Opera v6.01.
Perhaps those buttons might be stacked vertically at the left instead?

--
Robert Chaffe
http://www.donovansweb.com/~chaffe/

Post a reply to this message

hughes b <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> If I had used IE maximized as I usually do I wouldn't have noticed anything
> about it. Just happened to be a smaller window at the time, the navbar must
> linewrap, which overlaps itself halfway. Can still read it and use it, just
> crowded-looking.

  Yes, I noticed that too. Does anyone have a suggestion how to avoid that
(without compromising the its current look and functionality)?

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:
> You might be more specific about what's wrong.

  IE seems to ignore the 'position: fixed' and it either ignores or
interprets in a different way the top, right, bottom and left definitions
in the CSS file.
  This means that the navigation bar does not stay stationary with respect
to the viewport and it's not located at the very top of the viewport.
  For some reason it also lacks the top and bottom borders of the "buttons".

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> It looks like sh_t in Netscape 4.7. It was much better the other way.

  I don't really want to degrade the pages because of an old and obsolete
browser. If you have any suggestion on how could I modify the page so that
it will look better in N4, but without compromising its current look&feel
in newer browers, I'm ready to make those changes (as long as they make
sense, of course; things like "detect the browser version with javascript"
are out of question).

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> > It looks like sh_t in Netscape 4.7. It was much better the other way.
> 
>   I don't really want to degrade the pages because of an old and obsolete
> browser. If you have any suggestion on how could I modify the page so that
> it will look better in N4, but without compromising its current look&feel
> in newer browers, I'm ready to make those changes (as long as they make
> sense, of course; things like "detect the browser version with javascript"
> are out of question).

I just checked and whatever feature you are using for the navbar is broken
in both IE6 and in N4.7 so I don't really understand why you insist on using
something that is known to cause problems in both browsers. There are literally
millions of web pages on the internet that do not display these problems,
are perfectly functional using somewhat older computer technology, and do not
compromise site functionality or style. Style sheets may sound like a good
idea on the surface but everyone who attempts to use them run into problems
with the people they are trying to please the most and those are the visitors
to that site. If you want to cop some sort of elitist attitude that is
fine with me but I refuse to upgrade my browser just so it is compatible
with your broken site.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Style sheets may sound like a good
> idea on the surface...

Style sheets *are* a good idea.

> I refuse to upgrade my browser just so it is compatible
> with your broken site.

If the site is written correctly, then it is your browser that is 
broken, not the site. If you refuse to upgrade to a non-broken browser, 
then you must accept the consequences of using faulty software, 
including the inability to render web pages as they should appear.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Style sheets may sound like a good
> > idea on the surface...
> 
> Style sheets *are* a good idea.

I could go into business making wheel rims for cars but if I don't put
the bolt holes in the right place they won't fit any car on the market.
The problem with style sheets is that the bolt holes are in the wrong
place and too many browsers don't support them. It's just bad business
to use them on a web page if you want to cater to the broadest range
of users that visit that site. And that's all I have to say about that.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> I just checked and whatever feature you are using for the navbar is broken
> in both IE6 and in N4.7 so I don't really understand why you insist on using
> something that is known to cause problems in both browsers.

  The navigation bar is not "broken" in IE6. It works as a navigation bar,
but its location just doesn't stay fixed with respect to the viewport, but
scrolls with the rest of the page. I even succeeded in fixing the problem
which happened when the browser window was too narrow (now the "buttons"
should not overlap, but they stack nicely; they even should have whole
borders now).
  IMHO it performs its job in IE now, even though its position doesn't stay
fixed.
  Also take into account, that previously there was no navigation bar at
all, so a navigation bar at each page, even though at the very beginning,
is better than none.

  The pages pass the html validator at www.w3.org without error nor warnings,
as well as the CSS. This means that they are valid HTML 4.

  So in IE it works acceptably. In Netscape 6 / Mozilla it works superb.
The only browser which is reported to do a bad job is an outdated and obsolete
version of Netscape.

  If you want to stick to an old browser (which is getting even older as
time passes), then I don't think that's my headache. You can't expect me
to degrade the features of my pages just because some people out there are
using obsolete browsers and refuse to upgrade for some reason.
  If you want to think that I'm an elitist, then go ahead. However, it's
not elitistic, it's practical.
  Besides, complaining that someone uses features which a 5 years old browser
does not support is the same thing as complaining that someone is using
photons in his POV-Ray scene even though POV-Ray 3.1 does not support them.
The answer has always been simple: Upgrade POV-Ray.
  I don't see why I shouldn't use the current HTML standard (and I'm not
even using the most exotic features...).

  Using CSS makes my life easier. For example, if I want to change the
background color of all the <pre>...</pre> blocks (ie. the ones containing
povray code), I can change it in one single place, and it gets automatically
spawned everywhere where such block is used.

> Style sheets may sound like a good
> idea on the surface but everyone who attempts to use them run into problems
> with the people they are trying to please the most and those are the visitors
> to that site.

  Then why don't you go an complain to the pov-team that they are using
style-sheets in the html documentation? And what's worse, they even want
you to upgrade your IE to at least version 4 if you want to see the help
files ok! What an outrage! This should be fixed immediately. There are
millions of people out there using old versions of IE and refusing to
upgrade...

  No. I don't agree with you.

> I refuse to upgrade my browser just so it is compatible
> with your broken site.

  Firstly, if you don't want to upgrade your browser to a newer version,
that's your problem, not mine. If you want to use an old browser, then
fine, use it, but don't complain to me because it's not my problem. If
you want to upgrade to the third millenium, then upgrade your software.
  Secondly, how my site is "broken"? It's 100% valid standard HTML 4 and
it works ok with a modern browser.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Besides, complaining that someone uses features which a 5 years old browser

The version of Netscape I am using is only 2 years old. My operating system is
2.5 years older than that.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> The version of Netscape I am using is only 2 years old. My operating system is
> 2.5 years older than that.

  The fact that some minor update has been made to the browser 2 years ago
does not mean that it represents the top-of-the-line technology of HTML
rendering of 2 years ago. The HTML engine used by Netscape 4 is a lot older
than that and it hasn't been updated in any relevant way. Besides, 2 years
is a whole lot of time when speaking about computers.
  From what I can interpret from www.netscape.com, they don't even support
Netscape 4 anymore. At least I couldn't easily find any link to download it.
They have obviously stopped developing and supporting that version long time
ago (in favor of Netscape 6/7). This means that the longer you use that
version, the older it will get, and there will most probably be no updates
to it in order to add support for new technologies.

  So Netscape 4 is not supported nor developed anymore, it's old, it does
not support current standards and probably less than 1% of people use it
nowadays, and there's a newer and more modern version of the browser
supporting most of the current standards, freely downloadable.
  Why should I support Netscape 4? I see no good reason for that.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   So Netscape 4 is not supported nor developed anymore,

And Windows 98 is no longer in development yet 10's of millions of people
worldwide are still using it as are millions of people still using Netscape
4.x browsers. I consider it a poor design choice on your part to exclude those
people who use it and it certainly speaks poorly of your customer service
attitude. If you want your site completely usable by only 5-10% of all the
worlds computer users fine but don't expect me to keep upgrading to keep up
with it. Since there are reasonable alternatives that would satisfy everyone
your arguments are worthless.

P.S. I was running POV-Ray v2.2 in DOS today and it worked great. So much
for cutting edge technology.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

http://www.alistapart.com/stories/tohell/

Only in jest, of course. A little something I found tonight while trying to
figure out why IE6 isn't up to par like Netscape 6 (and 7?) on the CSS
stuff. Unrelated I guess.

I do see your side to this, commonality still holds a place out there on the
Internet. It's also obviously getting more and more upstaged by the changes
taking place in web browsing with every new "standard" devised.

Something I learned during that search, for which I never got a answer
exactly (yet), was that NS4.7 is said to have trouble with tables if a
graphic is right-aligned, or some such thing. Text can end up under it. Just
pointing out the fact older browser versions do have their faults and
sometimes it can help to upgrade if not for modernizing but just to be bug
free. Ultimately the user decides that themselves. And actually I saw a
similar thing occur while making a table for a web page recently, IE6 though
and not NS.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> The version of Netscape I am using...

...is ancient. And BROKEN.

For gods' sakes, Ken, stop acting like a fucking baby and upgrade 
already. Or don't. Personally I don't care; if you want everything to 
render wrong in your browser - and as time goes by, it will - so be it. 
Your arguments are so ridiculous, and your opinion so obviously set, 
that I can't justify the waste of time it would be to try to counter 
them with rational, calm debate. In time, harsh reality will make all 
such arguments in my stead.

And that's all *I* have to say about that.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message