Does this page work in your Firefox?

M

Mika

Bergamot said:
So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK
if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.

Perhaps with 5 more seconds thought you might have 'got it'. Brand names
are universal. Our UK visitors however like the idea of shopping in other
famous streets outside the UK.

So, they could go to Fifth Avenue, click on Tiffany & Co., and be taken
inside the Tiffany *UK* website. Tiffany will then deliver their goods to
them in the UK. They can literally have breakfast at the world famous 5th
Avenue Tiffany's, in their dressing gown. Breakfast at Tiffany's.

We haven't finished the 5th Ave. streetscape yet, but it is coming.
Now your disregard for how the site performs outside the UK makes even
less sense. Good luck with that international thing.

Sorry that makes no sense. We are testing the site to a UK audience. Thus
how it works in Pakistan is not important. When we launch our portal in
Pakistan, then it will. That is quite logical and how every single web
company in the world started. You wanted us to launch globally from day
one? Fine, if you give us the money to enable it! Think things through
before posting.
Not interesting at all. I do have another life away from Usenet, and
I'll be returning to it now.

Yet you replied to others just not our message where you were proven wrong.
Oops. :p
 
M

Mika

Blinky the Shark said:
Mostly what he wants is pats on the back.

Says Blinky conveniently forgetting that we have received many criticisms
here and acted on every single one that we possibly could, thus changing
many things. How does that mean we just want praise? Again people here
talking nonsense and making up fairy tales. Good luck with that. What a
waste of time!

Mika
 
D

dorayme

"Mika said:
yes the
site makes money in the UK, and we get 5-figure hits per month, many from
repeat visitors.

If you are making significant money, why are you bothering with
the criticisms here that are way off all proper understanding in
your estimation? Frankly, I would not mind seeing an objective
analysis of what your UK visitors actually do and think? What
really constitutes repeat visitors (I am a repeat visitor). The U
tube demo is publicity, it does not show the average UK visitor
experience, I could make that here.

Please now publish a full account of your costs and takings, in
detail (*we* can do the dividing by 3). And prepare for a
representative committee from alt.html visiting to look into your
books and commission focus groups and surveys among the UK
residents.

You will be expected to put the committee up in comfortable
circumstances. By the way, in case I am lucky enough to get on to
it, I don't like Earl Grey (too scenty for me), but I do like
Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.
 
B

Bone Ur

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:11:45
GMT Mika scribed:
It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is
true, are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have.
We have done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.

The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that
give doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who
doesn't know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that
the Great British shopping public would first run a test to see if the
site has any inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.

Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go
shopping.

The major differences of opinion here are through some here's
inability to understand that:

A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence
commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops
is about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong
language for Americans.

B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge
majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as
it displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100%
everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to
as invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a
validation site reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The
elements that are in 'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know
that a validation site thinks it is not right, who on earth does that
affect the browsing experience of? I have never understood that.
These errors all function 100% perfectly! What harp on about them
then? Is that important to you, that they work well, but some website
says they are wrong? Who cares? I shouldn't be cause they cause no
issue whatsoever at all zilch nada.

Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it
against every possibly condition under which it should work as it
supposedly does?

Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I
will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain
invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that
doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page,
and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical
conditions.
As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is
the UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA
portal, rest assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in
5 seconds for you too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so
tiresome and is what I have said from the start. This is a *UK*
website.

Long live the Queen!

Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your
majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie
could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that
still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.
 
M

Mika

Bone Ur said:
Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it
against every possibly condition under which it should work as it
supposedly does?
Yes.

Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I
will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain

No, they all function perfectly in all supported browsers now.
invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that
doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page,
and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical
conditions.

Why? That is just unnecessary work and expense to fix something that isn't
broken. If it works, don't mend it.
Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
King.

I don't think you've actually agreed with a single point I've ever raised
here. If I said black was white, you'd probably try to explain that it is
grey.

Shall we leave it alone now lol?!
 
N

Norman Peelman

Mika said:
That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does Portobello
Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work correctly in
Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. In any other
browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.

Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px
for the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does
not exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.

Norm
 
B

Bone Ur

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:47:50
GMT Mika scribed:
No, they all function perfectly in all supported browsers now.


Why? That is just unnecessary work and expense to fix something that
isn't broken. If it works, don't mend it.


I don't think you've actually agreed with a single point I've ever
raised here.

So? I usually don't agree with these other jamokes here, either.
If I said black was white, you'd probably try to explain
that it is grey.

Phhfft! Salt-and-pepper, obviously...
Shall we leave it alone now lol?!

Yeah. Since your sense of humor has been so radically diminished by
guilt over your website, that's probably the best course of action for a
culpable prudish prune of a Brit to follow, anyway.
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Bone said:
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:35:21 GMT
Blinky the Shark scribed:


Ooey gooey - boogars and white gloves! Now I know what they mean by
decadence.

And surely not as good at chiseling out the stubborn ones with The Royal
Fingernail.
 
M

Mika

Norman Peelman said:
Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px for
the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does not
exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.

Thanks for confirming what we said. We have notified the developers of
Opera so hope they will remove this unnecessary limit. After all, as you
say they don't have it on height.

Mika
 
A

Andy Dingley

That is perhaps the most unhelpful info anyone has given to date, and from a
fellow Brit no less.

Thankyou. Your mistake is to assume that I _intended_ it to be
helpful. The insult was no less deliberate for that.

You're very clearly beyond help. You've receieved a vast amount of it
already, ignored all and ridiculed most of it. Your self-fixated ways
have convinced you that you're already perfectly correct, even in the
face of vast evidence to the contrary. No matter that anyone quite
reasonably tells you is wrong with your horrible behemoth of a site,
you refuse to listen to a word of it. You even ridicule the far more
skilled members of this ng. who've bothered to try and help you.

You're clearly either an idiot, or at least so impervious to advice,
that it's a waste of time to comment further. There will be a gradual
silence descending around you as more and more people drop you quietly
into their killfiles. Why should anyone waste time arguing with a
dullard? We do this a lot, but usually only when there's some
interesting side debate - an idiot failing to understand trivia can
still be informative, if it also causes Jukka to post a little aside
illustrating some obscure point of DTD interpretation.

As posters cease to pay attention to you, you'll no doubt interpret
this as validation of the perfection of your site, when in fact it's
anything but. My posting is merely intended as a codicil to this:
don't assume that an end to debate means that we now agree your site
is wonderful, because it surely isn't. Your site is, and is likely to
remain, shit. I'd hate you to mistakenly think otherwise.
 
M

Mika

Andy Dingley said:
Thankyou. Your mistake is to assume that I _intended_ it to be
helpful. The insult was no less deliberate for that.

You're very clearly beyond help. You've receieved a vast amount of it
already, ignored all and ridiculed most of it. Your self-fixated ways
have convinced you that you're already perfectly correct, even in the
face of vast evidence to the contrary. No matter that anyone quite
reasonably tells you is wrong with your horrible behemoth of a site,
you refuse to listen to a word of it. You even ridicule the far more
skilled members of this ng. who've bothered to try and help you.

You're clearly either an idiot, or at least so impervious to advice,
that it's a waste of time to comment further. There will be a gradual
silence descending around you as more and more people drop you quietly
into their killfiles. Why should anyone waste time arguing with a
dullard? We do this a lot, but usually only when there's some
interesting side debate - an idiot failing to understand trivia can
still be informative, if it also causes Jukka to post a little aside
illustrating some obscure point of DTD interpretation.

As posters cease to pay attention to you, you'll no doubt interpret
this as validation of the perfection of your site, when in fact it's
anything but. My posting is merely intended as a codicil to this:
don't assume that an end to debate means that we now agree your site
is wonderful, because it surely isn't. Your site is, and is likely to
remain, shit. I'd hate you to mistakenly think otherwise.

How mature.

We accept that the site may not be perceived as good when accessed from
abroad, but if you try it when you are in the UK, you will see why it has
been voted website of the day in a number of places including by the BBC.
Here many people love the experience it brings, which is why we have 100s of
repeat daily visitors.

So yes, use it in the USA, and you may perceive it as "s**t", if that is the
extent of your vocabulary.

Use it in the UK as intended, and it is a far better experience - one you
have not been able to recreate.

So what really are you commenting on? Like I said, if that is your opinion
of logic, go and complain to Google China that you can't understand the font
they use.

We will launch a USA portal, on USA servers, when we get there, but this is
for now a UK startup. Surely that is not so very hard to comprehend.

The huge mistake we made when posting here was forgetting that you are
mostly from the USA.

And as for your continued projection onto us that we have ignored and
ridiculed the comments made here, you are completely ignorant to the fact we
have changed *several* things based purely on the feedback here, and have
said so over and over, and users here have reported since doing so that the
site is "a lot faster", and we have now done as much as time and cost will
allow. You will of course continue to believe that cannot be true, because
that is the limit of your understanding. Because you know you cannot
change, you project it onto someone you have no knowledge of and have never
met, that in fact it is they who cannot change. This flies in the face of
the hours of work we have done to change the very things fed back to us
here.

Please, continue to enjoy USA websites that do not try to do something
interesting, innovative, or original. We are doing our best as a very small
operation, and being bullied and berated by narrow-minded people who have
not even had the intended experience the website gives to its target
audience, is frankly a waste of both our time.

It is I who will be drifting away from this group, I assure you, as it
serves no purpose to ask for feedback from people who are incapable of
giving it for a number of reasons, geographical and otherwise.

Mika
 
M

Mika

Norman Peelman said:
Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px for
the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does not
exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.

Norm

PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved it
for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction
(around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off it
altogether.

Mika
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,009
Latest member
GidgetGamb

Latest Threads

Top