Another discovery - css does preserve bandwith?

[Mark Parnell]

Actually nice CSS job but design was still done by BoxedArt.

Well, that's what Travis effectively asked for. And your main assertion
was that CSS couldn't be used to create a site like that, not that those
who were capable of it couldn't come up with the design in the first
place.

I've saved it all (css as well!) and... it's hard to edit

Only because you haven't learnt CSS yet. Plus, as Nick said, it was a
quick job, and the CSS is more verbose than it needs to be.

and display is not the same like on the web.

You probably saved it using IE. IE changes pages when it saves them.

Some trick here used.

It's called CSS. And it's not a trick, there are plenty of resources
freely available.

In other words, css is much harder to learn and use and while is

The hardest thing about learning CSS is unlearning the
table-based-layout mentality.

possible to do it if you can scratch your head a lot, the benefit is so
little and the question remains, it's worth it?

I think it has been explained to you more than enough what the benefits
are. If you think that is so little, then that's your loss.

Also, the end result is the same,

From a visual point of view, in graphical browsers, yes. From a
bandwidth point of view, blind users, users of PDAs etc, no.

just different methods are used, one relatively easy and one definitely not.

Only until you learn it. IME table-based layouts are more difficult than
CSS.

Still I can't see a single valid reason why tables are bad.

thinking about serious Flash work, because will take over sooner or later.

In your dreams. Not saying there isn't a market for it, but it's not
going to "take over". Certainly not in the next 10 years.

 

[Lemming]

Of course 1.5 x 10 = 150

I think you mean 15.

Lemming

 

[kchayka]

Today I'm loading an average Flash page in 15 seconds.

Yeah, so what? I can load Flash sites fast, too, but stoopid deezyners
invariably use text the size of fly droppings so I can't read it once it
loads. There isn't anything I can do to make a Flash site like this
usable, except lowering my screen resolution to an unacceptable level.

Flash or something similar will be the king of the net.

Not unless it overcomes its gross negligence where user controls are
concerned.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

You are contradicting yourself here.

Hardly...


"Comparing Web design to DTP is like comparing apples to oranges"

So they are very close to each other. Different medium and technology
but goals exactly the same. To attract viewers.

Re-read what you typed. Having the same goal in no way makes things
similar. Medium and technologies, along with methodologies, are the
keys, which you clearly agree are different.

Sorry, but having been a professional in DTP for over 15 years, and in
the Web for nearly 10 now, I can assure you that the two are quite
different in the aspects which count.

Just observe, like your hope will go down the tube! With ADSL and
some 10x faster (or even 100x faster) networks Flash is getting more
popular, nearly equally with popularity of broadband.

Let's say I have now 10x faster ADSL. 1.5 MB x 10 = 100 MB most likely
wireless

Today I'm loading an average Flash page in 15 seconds.

10x faster would 1.5 sec! It still can be 100 time faster in 15 years.


Than html, css and java for mere preserving bandwidth... gimmie a break
man.

Um, where exactly did I mention anything about bandwidth...?

In 10 years from now they will be all like an extinct dinosaur and no
one will be interested with them.

Unlikely.


Flash or something similar will be the king of the net.

Maybe some code will generate real in time web rendering, done by your
incredibly powerful graphics card, sitting on 1 Terabyte machine with
10 T RAM and no hdd at all.

It's all temporary technology which will be almost gone in 10 years.

And that technology is crap anyway.

Ever heard a sentence: "One picture is worth thousand ow words?"

That's how it works. TV works like that and Web will get closer and
closer to TV standards as soon as bandwidth will permit that.

Pictures, moving pictures and animations.

Ever seen than movie?

http://www.phi11ip.com/viewmovie.php?movie=pentagon.swf

You could write hundreds of pages about the subject and still you would
be not able to get the message across the way that this little movie does.

That's why is used and TV industry knows well what is working to get the
message across.

Forget bloody 3px bug in IE! No one will remember and care.

Forget IE hacks.

HTML and current coding are needed NOW because Internet is to slow at
this moment.

It's temporary thing which will be gone soon, very soon.

IMHO is not worth to go to deep because is just a waste of the time.

Think about near future, a little further than the next weekend.



You want to be a hero in web design?

Make something faster than Flash.

HTML and css are dying quickly, before their bugs are removed.

The industry trend appears to be disagreeing with you.

OPEN YOUR MIND

Open you EYES, and read. Nowhere did I mention bandwidth, which you just
spent ... how much time? ... addressing. I mentioned accessibility and
usability with regard to Flash, both of which you conveniently ignored
in your "rebuttal".

Try again.


--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Henry]

Kevin Scholl wrote:

Open you EYES, and read. Nowhere did I mention bandwidth, which you just
spent ... how much time? ... addressing. I mentioned accessibility and
usability with regard to Flash, both of which you conveniently ignored
in your "rebuttal".

Try again.

I didn't say that you did. However, all subject is about the bandwidth
and designing as small pages as possible.

Smaller pics, no pics at all, no tables because to slow, no Flash
because to bandwidth consuming.

And constant remaining that 56k modems are very popular.

Why I don't disagree with current trends in preserving bandwidth and
have decent speed in loading pages, I'm arguing about css being a
solution to these problems.

And despite your opinion, more and more web pages are using Flash.
Numbers are growing with growth of popularity of broadband.


Unfortunately, on thin ng, if you are not supporting few smarties and go
for tables, you are facing rather hostile environment.

That's how I fell and that's why basically I have left that ng as useless.

Most guys here are not flexible and polite enough to agree, that someone
may chose different way that they are recommending.

I would understand if 60% pages would be in css but unfortunately for
that is not true.

So I've joined different group where I can ask some questions about
tables, Photoshop format without being ridiculed, like I was several
times here.


The idiot is sure of everything.

Wise man is never sure and is alway prepared to learn more.

Nor more posting for me here....



Cheers....

 

[rf]

Henry barfed:

And constant remaining that 56k modems are very popular.

How is it that I can only get one third of the way through any one of your
posts before I come across something so simply ludicrous that I have to
chirp in yet again into a thread that should have died long ago?

Get your head out of your arse and listen to this:

56K modems are not popular. Everybody hates the bloody things. They are a
POX.

Everybody wants broadband, preferably the 10 megabit cable thing I have.

Now for the real life bit: Not everybody can get that. Understand? It is
simply not available.

In Australia broadband is just not available to over 80% of the population.
Oh yes, you can get a shiny new satelite dish like brucie has but that costs
*money*. Lots. $Thousands.

The average person (and do not think for a moment that brucie or I are
"average" when it comes to internet access) simply can not afford to be
connected broadband.

The same thing happens all over the world. Except perhaps in your country (I
presume the U S of A).

BTW if you do actually live in the U S of A then let me anticipate your
rubut and simply say "bloody arrogant yank".

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Kevin Scholl wrote:





I didn't say that you did. However, all subject is about the bandwidth
and designing as small pages as possible.

I brought new aspects to the arguement -- usability and accessibility --
in response to your contention that Flash is some manner of be-all,
end-all. You responded DIRECTLY to my post, but failed to address those
aspects. Instead, you bantered on about something about which I made no
mention. And still haven't.

Smaller pics, no pics at all, no tables because to slow, no Flash
because to bandwidth consuming.

Not part of my concern over Flash, with regard to this discussion.
You've yet to address my comments.

And constant remaining that 56k modems are very popular.

Not so much popular as necessary. They are still the majority.

Why I don't disagree with current trends in preserving bandwidth and
have decent speed in loading pages, I'm arguing about css being a
solution to these problems.

Arguing ... and failing thus far.

And despite your opinion, more and more web pages are using Flash.
Numbers are growing with growth of popularity of broadband.

Source, please.

Unfortunately, on thin ng, if you are not supporting few smarties and go
for tables, you are facing rather hostile environment.

Not necessarily. Several people have commented in the thread that tables
are a viable tool, if used properly.

That's how I fell and that's why basically I have left that ng as useless.

Most guys here are not flexible and polite enough to agree, that someone
may chose different way that they are recommending.

People here are plenty flexible and polite, if they receive th esame
respect.

I would understand if 60% pages would be in css but unfortunately for
that is not true.

But use of CSS IS growing. It's usage in large, prominent sites is
testament to that.

So I've joined different group where I can ask some questions about
tables, Photoshop format without being ridiculed, like I was several
times here.


The idiot is sure of everything.

Wise man is never sure and is alway prepared to learn more.

Nor more posting for me here....



Cheers....

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Henry]

Henry barfed:




How is it that I can only get one third of the way through any one of your
posts before I come across something so simply ludicrous that I have to
chirp in yet again into a thread that should have died long ago?

Get your head out of your arse and listen to this:

56K modems are not popular. Everybody hates the bloody things. They are a
POX.

That's a discovery! Believe or... not?

Everybody wants broadband, preferably the 10 megabit cable thing I have.

Not true...

Now for the real life bit: Not everybody can get that. Understand? It is
simply not available.

In Perth, where I live in 70%-80% of metropolitan area a broadband is
available. Cable would be about just 30% or more. I do install damn
thing every week and I have very good idea of general public perception.
Most of people have not slightest idea what broadband is and they don't
have any idea how much cheaper broadband is than 56 dial up.

Just yesterday a lady asked me how much broadband costs. I've told her
that $29.92 p.m. She said that she pays only $9.95 for dial up. After
short conversation I've asked her for her telephone bill. After brief
looking I've informed her, that her REAL Internet cost is over $120 +
$9.95 payment to ISP.

Her full phone bill was over $300 p.m. and she had no idea how that was
possible to make so many phone calls.

Broadband 256 is cheaper than dial up 56k, but most people are not aware
of it!

In Australia broadband is just not available to over 80% of the population.

Bullshit!!!

Regards territory, you are correct. In big cities is much, much better.


http://www.shiftreload.com.au/adsl_coverage_wa.asp

The same thing happens all over the world. Except perhaps in your country (I
presume the U S of A).

BTW if you do actually live in the U S of A then let me anticipate your
rubut and simply say "bloody arrogant yank".

You know shit and you are not very smart, arrogant

<insert insults> </insert insults>.

Just one click of fucken mouse and you would know where I'm.

Not so smart after all.

Have a nice day!

;-O

 

[rf]

Henry well sort of spewed;

You know shit and you are not very smart, arrogant

Warning. Strawman argument.

 

[Neal]

The idiot is sure of everything.

Tell me about it, half of us just re-elected him...

 

[Neal]

BTW if you do actually live in the U S of A then let me anticipate your
rubut and simply say "bloody arrogant yank".

Hey, I resemble that remark!

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Henry said:

Just yesterday a lady asked me how much broadband costs. I've told her
that $29.92 p.m. She said that she pays only $9.95 for dial up. After
short conversation I've asked her for her telephone bill. After brief
looking I've informed her, that her REAL Internet cost is over $120 +
$9.95 payment to ISP.

24 hours x 30 days == 720hrs.

if we assume a 3hr hard disconnect (its usually 4hrs) she has to make
240 calls to stay permanently connected to the net for the month.

a local call costs about 17.5 cents but we'll use nice round 18 cents

240 calls x 0.18 cents == $43.20

$9.95 internet subscription + $43.20 connection calls == $53.15

for your figure of $120 she would need to be making 667 calls a month
(667 x .18 == $120.06) to connect to the net.

there are only 720 hours in a month.

Her full phone bill was over $300 p.m. and she had no idea how that was
possible to make so many phone calls.

with all her calls to the internet how did she find time to use the
phone for anything else?

Broadband 256

is not broadband just because the marketing department says it is.

is cheaper than dial up 56k,

if they make 667 phone calls to connect each month?

Bullshit!!!

i agree, its closer to 98%.

my original assessment of "but you're an idiot" was incorrect. it should
have been "but you're a fucking idiot"

 

[Neal]

for your figure of $120 she would need to be making 667 calls a month
(667 x .18 == $120.06) to connect to the net.

Some people only connect when they need it - 22 times a day for a brief
on-and-off. They think it's better, but it may not be.

Also, consider that the dialup might have a toll.

Me, I dial up to a local number, and it's free. FREE baby.

Come to Bush Garden! Where the Internet is FREE!!!ELEVEN!!!1!

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Neal said:

Some people only connect when they need it - 22 times a day for a brief
on-and-off. They think it's better, but it may not be.

i've never met anyone that stupid although i did convince an internet
newbie once that emails cost $2 to send after she'd been sending
gazillions of emails to her family all week. should have seen the look
on her face. .

the $9.95 plan the woman was on i'm guessing was the same as mine and it
didn't have any specific hard disconnect (even though they said it did)
about 20-30 calls/month would keep you permanently connected.

Also, consider that the dialup might have a toll.

was an issue once. my first 28.8k dialup was around $1k/month for the
long distance calls and i think about $10hr for the service, maybe $5, i
cant remember but it was down to $1hr in '97. its rare these days for
there not to be national dialin numbers. (local call from anywhere).

Me, I dial up to a local number, and it's free. FREE baby.

i don't need to dial at all anymore.

Come to Bush Garden!

only if you rename it

 

[Neal]

i've never met anyone that stupid

Don't live in the US, I forgot.

i don't need to dial at all anymore.

You lucky bitch. I'll be on DSL soon...

 

[Lauri Raittila]

In alt.html Henry said:


24 hours x 30 days == 720hrs.

if we assume a 3hr hard disconnect (its usually 4hrs) she has to make
240 calls to stay permanently connected to the net for the month.

a local call costs about 17.5 cents but we'll use nice round 18 cents

240 calls x 0.18 cents == $43.20

$9.95 internet subscription + $43.20 connection calls == $53.15

for your figure of $120 she would need to be making 667 calls a month
(667 x .18 == $120.06) to connect to the net.

Hm different here: You need to pay monthly bill for phone line, which is
maybe 20euros (Ok, there still is maybe 60% of homes that have phone line
anyway), calling costs something like 40cents + 7c/min.

It comes really quick that 49e/month broadband is cheaper than dial up.

Someplaces you can only get 259e/month broadband though, which you must
use quite a lot untill it is cheper.

Anyway, in Finland you can't get phone lines to rural areas anymore
whitout huge costs, so wireless is only option, and GPRS limit bandwith
quite much. (New UMTS thiny is faster, but I don't know if it works well
in rural areas, and it is most likely much more expensive)

is not broadband just because the marketing department says it is.

Agreed. And if you load site with 70 images from other side of world, it
doesn't matter how much bandwith you have, it will be slow anyway,
especially if it is 140KB table thingy on slow server that takes ages to
parse it...

Anyway, P2P program users use all extra bandwith (It needs just 100
people downloading some latest movies will to slow down 1GB bandwith -
and when there is 1000 such people, they surely count.), and so it takes
some times to get some real download speeds.

There is lots of people everywhere, and highest speeds are nowhere near
that much faster than end user connections. If 1 million people have 3MB
broadband, it needs quite huge investments on backbone, if one wants
everybody to actually get 3MB/s 24/7. Not going to happen in years...

 

[dp]

Tell me about it, half of us just re-elected him...

lol - closer to 30% if you use eligible instead of active voters.

__
dp

 

[Alfred Z. Newmane]

*** Not another political thread in a technical news group? Why post it
here????

lol - closer to 30% if you use eligible instead of active voters.

Actually you would go by those who /actually/ voted, which for Bush is
well over 50%..... go find a break down voting map of the USA map by
county, red being republican and blue being democrat, and the whole
thing practially red, with little blue spots dotting here and there....

I really think that map says it all (as does the popular vote)...
everyone else can continue to live in there own little reality
conviently perpetuated by the media. The USA is /no where near/ as
divided as the likes of CNN and CBS want to ram down our collective
throats.

*DISCLAIMER* I'm not a Bush advocate, I don't agree with him on many
issues. Unlike some people, I have my own independent mind, rather than
being a sheep of the media. I just say it like it is.

That said, I will end my participation here, as this thread has no
business there. If you want to carry this one, please post it somewhere
else, and perhaps give a clue of which group here, but please DO NOT
post the article here, only a pointer.

 

[Neal]

*** Not another political thread in a technical news group? Why post it
here????


Actually you would go by those who /actually/ voted, which for Bush is
well over 50%.....

No, really?

go find a break down voting map of the USA map by
county, red being republican and blue being democrat, and the whole
thing practially red, with little blue spots dotting here and there....

Those blue spots hold approximately half the ppulation, nitwit.

I really think that map says it all (as does the popular vote)...
everyone else can continue to live in there own little reality
conviently perpetuated by the media. The USA is /no where near/ as
divided as the likes of CNN and CBS want to ram down our collective
throats.

Have you seen this map? [http://www.electoral-vote.com/carto/nov06c.html]
It's a cartogram, or a map which has been skewed so area matches
population. In other words, the size of the state corresponds to the
population.

The red and blue don't seem so different after all, once you see it from a
population standpoint.

 

[Lemming]

*** Not another political thread in a technical news group? Why post it
here????


Actually you would go by those who /actually/ voted, which for Bush is
well over 50%..... go find a break down voting map of the USA map by
county, red being republican and blue being democrat, and the whole
thing practially red, with little blue spots dotting here and there....

I really think that map says it all (as does the popular vote)...
everyone else can continue to live in there own little reality
conviently perpetuated by the media. The USA is /no where near/ as
divided as the likes of CNN and CBS want to ram down our collective
throats.

*DISCLAIMER* I'm not a Bush advocate, I don't agree with him on many
issues. Unlike some people, I have my own independent mind, rather than
being a sheep of the media. I just say it like it is.

That said, I will end my participation here, as this thread has no
business there. If you want to carry this one, please post it somewhere
else, and perhaps give a clue of which group here, but please DO NOT
post the article here, only a pointer.

Don't be silly. Other than in countries wherevoting is compulsary, no
politician ever got more than 35% of the electorate's vote.

I have no problem with your assertion that Bush got more than 50% of
the votes cast, but he only had a fraction of that support when it
comes to the vote compared to the electorate.

Anyway, what does it matter? He was going to get elected whatever the
electorate said. The problem with American politics, as far as I can
see, is that the US are keen to impose "demcracy" on others, as long
as they don't have to adopt democracy in their own country.

Lemming