J
Jonathan N. Little
aa said:
What is to explain? If the counter functions using JavaScript how you
expect it to would if the client has JavaScript disabled?
What is to explain? If the counter functions using JavaScript how you
expect it to would if the client has JavaScript disabled?
J
Jonathan N. Little
aa said:
Fair enough. Splash pages are obsolete and I have considered dropping
it, maybe next revision. It remains at present for the same reason as
many legacy things hang around. The site within works basically
resolution independent considering the graphic-oriented nature of my
business.
D
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little said:
Indeed... there would be many of us with lots of old stuff... be
nice to find the time to update everything...
A
aa
Jonathan N. Little said:
No need explaining why JavaScript hit counters do not count when JavaScript
is not enabled.
They equally do not count when the traffic lights are not enabled. You can
experiment and see it for yourself.
I asked you to explain how they count when JavaScript is enabled please
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
aa said:
Your counter was not incremented by my visits. I can assure you of that.
This is your counter:
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
... http://dc.ca.b1.a1.top.list.ru/counter?id=1158257
Heh. Does that mean you could make my sites _look_like_yours_? You
could only do that if you snipped everything between my <HTML> and the
</HTML>, and inserted something of your own.
A
aa
Jonathan N. Little said:
Appreciate your healthy reaction. Perhaps this will help to ease of
excessive enthusiam poorinmg shit on others who might, like yourself have
legacies and specially oriented nature of business
Have a good weekend
A
aa
This only indicates how little you understand of what you are preaching. Or
you just looking for a face-saving way out hoping that the others understand
even less
you just looking for a face-saving way out hoping that the others understand
even less
D
dorayme
"aa said:This only indicates how little you understand of what you are preaching. Or
you just looking for a face-saving way out hoping that the others understand
even less
news9dsh.424326$Fi1.35511
Please be nice to old B, consider that he may know some
background things that you are not aware of. You can trust me
because you are my temporary favourite. Why do you suddenly top
post after a few the other way? Is this some freedom thing you
are exercising? No need to be quite so showy about it old chap!
What is it? You live in one of the former Soviet states and not
quite used to Western freedoms? Have you been attending Luigi's
course on Freedom of Choice and are doing this to score a high
mark in field exams?
J
Jonathan N. Little
aa said:
A
aa
your old B may know something, but he is human but humans can't know
everything
In this here instance he talks through his hat. And I am surprised that you
do not notice it - it is so obvious.
It became popular here to shit me and old B just could not resist temptation
to please the crowd.
Regarding top-posting - as I said, I am on 800x600 and got tired scrolling
down through all this shit. But if you like it, you can keep scolling
PS. I have - how to put it mildly - a conservative sextual orientation.
Therefore do not waste your approaches on me and keep them for that Luigi of
yours, whoever he is.
everything
In this here instance he talks through his hat. And I am surprised that you
do not notice it - it is so obvious.
It became popular here to shit me and old B just could not resist temptation
to please the crowd.
Regarding top-posting - as I said, I am on 800x600 and got tired scrolling
down through all this shit. But if you like it, you can keep scolling
PS. I have - how to put it mildly - a conservative sextual orientation.
Therefore do not waste your approaches on me and keep them for that Luigi of
yours, whoever he is.
J
Jonathan N. Little
Let's try this again with the message! ;-)aa said:
Oh, I am very critical of my work. dorayme expressed it well, wish I
that time to redo everything!
Although some could have couched criticism a bit, their points were very
valid. Aside of the aesthetics, your site if fundamentally broken.
Images and text overlap, Tiny red text on black is very hard to read.
What little CSS styling is used is poor:
"font-weight:bold; font-size:12px; font-family:tahoma;}"
12px is both too small and inflexible, Tahoma does not exist on my
Mandrake and Fedora systems and no general font family was specified
which means a serif font will be used. Tiny red on black serif text is
impossible to read. Your goal of designing for two resolutions is
misguided, a point that has been belabored in this and the other thread.
The reliance on client-side script to build your page is a big error...
When you've been informed of this you have lash out and other have
reciprocated. Hey, this is not kindergarten and Barney-land (that damn
insiped purple dinosaur) where everything is sugar-coated, this is
Usenet. Ask a question and your going to get a direct response most
time, ask for critique and you'll get that too. Be a bit receptive and
you might find your markup may benefit.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
aa said:
<sigh>
D
dorayme
"aa said:
You can relax about any approaches to you, I fall in love at the
drop of a hat with all sorts of things, even a cup of tea. I am
now starting to worry about the matadors and the crowd here and
am trying to fend you off, like one of those bull-ring helpers
that jumps in to distract a wild raging bull from attacking the
matadors or crowd in less than big-city set-ups.
And to think, I thought it was you I had to look out for and help!
I don't know if I can succeed in drawing your fire enough for
them to be able to quietly slip out of the ring. No, I am not
worried for myself, I sort of fancy being gored half to death.
Here is some reading for you, my little sweetie pie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
(this has the distinct advantage that you can edit it if you
don't like it)
J
Jonathan N. Little
aa wrote:
hint: "<snip>"
hint: "<snip>"
A
aa
time to redo everything!Jonathan N. Little said:
You do not have to make excuses. Yet time is not an excuse in your case. If
instead of harassing me here you work on your site, it will be up to the
scratch
You opted spend your time differently
valid.
I do not recall a single concrete piece of crittism. Will you fish them out?
Actually I remeber one. Someone was annoyed with bg shot and hit sounds. The
page is supposed to communicate an impression of shooting. Yet I was
expected to rush to remove the sounds only to please some pain in the neck
who fail to understand purpose of the site
This is a technical html NG. I did not come here to discuss aesthetics. If
nevertheless I want, I'll ask
Again unactionable generalities
Which particular and at which resolution?
this is easy to correct. Yet when did you watch it last time? Perhaps you
sow 800x600 version in 1024x768? It has been changed.
The reason for black background is that the system in question is used in
darkness. Black bg helps to communicate that feeling
Red is because the system shoots red laser beams. Becides any color on black
bg is not too readable. But the color scheme is not discussed here. Font
size could be increased
"font-weight:bold; font-size:12px; font-family:tahoma;}"
Where exacly you got this line from? I do not recall it
see the prevuious remark
Actually I did exactly this - I asked a question. But instead of technical
info I got moralizing.
If you consider yourself an expers and hang out here to help non-experts,
why not just to supply facts and stay away from moralizing?
It is up you an individual to take a decision basing on what he reads here.
Why you consider your duty to save his soul and keep turning him onto your
faith? Is this because you do not charge for advice, you take moral reward
this way?
See previous remark. Please do not start this again. Do something on your
site instead. Or explain me about the JS hit counters as you were going in
the next door thread but stalled.
A
aa
<fart>Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
A
aa
On top of that you are a little liar. You played with the setting of your
browser the make my page to look more ugly then it is.
But you failed to understand the page design which is very simply, btw. Now
you trapped yourself. If Javascript was disabled on your browser, then one
of the elements on the page would not show up. But is does show up in the
screenshot you published. Which means you lied about disabled JS. This trick
is just dirty
Besides your talk about that JavaScript hit counter you think you found,
reveals such a virgin ignorance which can be matched only with that
beautiful arrogance of yours.
browser the make my page to look more ugly then it is.
But you failed to understand the page design which is very simply, btw. Now
you trapped yourself. If Javascript was disabled on your browser, then one
of the elements on the page would not show up. But is does show up in the
screenshot you published. Which means you lied about disabled JS. This trick
is just dirty
Besides your talk about that JavaScript hit counter you think you found,
reveals such a virgin ignorance which can be matched only with that
beautiful arrogance of yours.
C
Chaddy2222
No, I think you'll find it's your moronic design choice of onlyaa said:
designing for IE.
My sites work perfectly in every web browser you view them in.
Well, for the most part anyway.
Face it, your design is floored.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JS YOU **** WITT.
I agree with BTS 100%!
View one of his sites, http://www.countryrode.com
NO leggicy code and it works in any UA, even your mobile phone.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
aa said:
Why don't you quit while you're behind?
C
Chaddy2222
Chaddy2222 said:
Just adding to that, I reduced the Zoom in Opera V 9 to 100% (the
default), and your site still looked very ugly.
I mean, G, i've only got 5% vision, and I have been able to produce
better looking more functional sites in the past.