Does this page work in your Firefox?

[Andy Dingley]

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,

I'm in the UK and I have 8M broadband.

It's _still_ shit.

 

[rf]

I'm in the UK and I have 8M broadband.

Har har har. How about *that* Mika?

It's _still_ shit.

Agreed.

 

[Mika]

Har har har. How about *that* Mika?


Agreed.

Nice gang bully mentality there. What's that on your nose Andy?

(We notice you didn't comment or go 'har har' about my proving you wrong
saying we had ignored the feedback here, when in fact we have acted on
dozens of things mentioned here. Funny how you omit that isn't it. Har har
har, what about *that*. Har har har zzzzzzz.)

If what you say is true rf, and you find the page does not load in ~5
seconds, then there is something seriously wrong. You are the _only_ one in
the UK.

However we both know that is not the case, and your comment of it being
"****" relates to your personal opinion of the site and concept, rather than
the speed, which has been the complaint from the Americans, to which I
refered to above.

We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no
unrealistic expectations to do so. Your thuggish comment is therefore
completely irrelevant, especially to the subject of this thread. All you
are saying by your comment rf, is "some people like some things, other
people like other things". No kidding Shelock. Although we suspect you
hate most things the amount of spite you seem to come on line to vent.

Would be interested to see what innovative websites you have been working
on, and we can let you know whether we think they are "neat" (as others have
said in this group about ours), or "****", although we will choose more
intelligent wording.

Good luck with that attitude,

Mika

 

[rf]

Nice gang bully mentality there. What's that on your nose Andy?

(We notice you didn't comment or go 'har har' about my proving you wrong
saying we had ignored the feedback here, when in fact we have acted on
dozens of things mentioned here. Funny how you omit that isn't it. Har
har har, what about *that*. Har har har zzzzzzz.)

Are you talking to Andy or me here. It's hard to tell.

If what you say is true rf, and you find the page does not load in ~5
seconds, then there is something seriously wrong. You are the _only_ one
in the UK.

You have seriously lost the plot here Mika. It is Andy that is in the UK.
You know, and I know that you know, that I am in Australia. It's also right
up there, at the top of your post. The bit that says:
news-server.bigpond.net.au. You do know what the .au bit means?

However we both know that is not the case, and your comment of it being
"****" relates to your personal opinion of the site and concept,

Yes, correct. Now that I am asked specifically, I think the site is actually
shit. This is, as well as being a term that Andy uses, a term in common
usage here in Australia. It can mean many things, as in, "Wow, that is some
good shit", "O shit, I've dropped my beer", "This web site is shit". Take
your pick.

rather than the speed, which has been the complaint from the Americans, to
which I refered to above.

And the Australians.

We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no
unrealistic expectations to do so.

You don't seem to have pleased many of the people here in these newsgroups
at all.

Your thuggish comment is therefore

Thuggish? Hmmm. Welcome to usenet. If I think a site is shit I will say it
is shit. That is not thuggish. That is my opinion. And I am entitled to it.

What gets right up my arse is heros like you who simply cannot understand
that somebody else may think your pride and joy is just shit.

completely irrelevant, especially to the subject of this thread.

Bullshit. The subject of this thread is "Does this page work in your
Firefox?".

I am here to tell you again that no, this page does *NOT* work in my
Firefox. It also does not work in my IE5.5, IE6, IE7. It does not work in my
Opera nor my Safari. It does not work, for me, in any browser you care to
specify.

I don't like the site.

Good luck with that attitude,

And good luck with yours, Mika

 

[Norman Peelman]

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

It appears to impact other elements as well, I tried a TABLE too.
Funny thing is the height works up to 134217728px.The limit in FireFox
appears to be 9999990px (for height or width). Any higher and FF still
reports the value at that number, 10000000px causes the value to enter
scientific notation (1e+7px).

Norm

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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

See, this is where the "regulars" have been trying to explain the
"wrongheadedness" of your design. The Web is not a media of vast
horizontal content. It is a "web", the interconnection, the network, of
smaller discreet bits of information that creates the synergy that is
the Internet. What you are trying to make is a platform scroller game
more suited for Nintendo.

 

[Mika]

You have seriously lost the plot here Mika. It is Andy that is in the UK.

I am sorry you are right, I mixed you up because you were so far up each
others... Hehe. No wonder you say 'sh*t' a lot I would like to
apologise for any distress caused to you or your loved ones for type the
wrong letters on my keyboard. It's terrible, isn't it?

You know, and I know that you know, that I am in Australia. It's also
right up there, at the top of your post. The bit that says:
news-server.bigpond.net.au. You do know what the .au bit means?

You obviously think I have far more time on my hands to read every
character, unlike you.

You don't seem to have pleased many of the people here in these newsgroups
at all.

Welcome to usenet! No change there then.

Thuggish? Hmmm. Welcome to usenet. If I think a site is shit I will say it
is shit. That is not thuggish. That is my opinion. And I am entitled to
it.

It is a thuggish opinion. A refined character would say, "it's not to my
taste but good luck to you". A thug would say, "It's sh*t!", as that is the
limit of their verbal expression.

What gets right up my arse is heros like you who simply cannot understand
that somebody else may think your pride and joy is just shit.

It's spelt "heroes"'. Hmm with all your free time you missed the bit where
I typed, "We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no
unrealistic expectations to do so." How is that 'not understanding that
somebody else may think your pride and joy is sh*t'? :-S I think you'll
find it is not I who has lost the plot.

You're clearly having a conversation with yourself at some projected target
who is not me, as you don't digest or comprehend what I type before replying
a complete contradiciton. Have you thought of therapy? Maybe there is
someone in your life you need to address this anger to? Mean that
constructively BTW not sarcastically.

Bullshit. The subject of this thread is "Does this page work in your
Firefox?".

Ooh a bull now too! What a long word!

I am here to tell you again that no, this page does *NOT* work in my
Firefox. It also does not work in my IE5.5, IE6, IE7. It does not work in
my Opera nor my Safari. It does not work, for me, in any browser you care
to specify.

You are either lying or have JS disabled, either of which will result in
that answer.

I don't like the site.

We compeltely and wholeheartedly respect your opinion and do not expect
everybody on the planet to agree with the BBC Website of the Day, Personal
Computer World magazine, Capital Radio Website of the Day, PC Magazine,
About.com London Blog, Google Maps Mania, Pocket-lint Website of the Day, or
the hundreds of repeat visitors we get. You are entitled to like or dislike
anything you choose and I have and will never argue with that point. This
thread was about Firefox.

And good luck with yours, Mika

No luck needed here as I won't be hanging around. I have been shocked to
the very core of what human beings come out with in this group, hiding
behind the excuse of 'welcome to Usenet'. It did cross my mind to report
the racial abuse in writing from certain members to Google for removal, but
frankly it is just too sad and laughable to even bother. Still, a shame.
Imagine if their parents read the way they spoke to others. Whatever makes
those people feel big I guess!

Thanks for the stimulating dialogue :|

Mika, Great Britain

 

[Mika]

See, this is where the "regulars" have been trying to explain the
"wrongheadedness" of your design. The Web is not a media of vast
horizontal content. It is a "web", the interconnection, the network, of
smaller discreet bits of information that creates the synergy that is the
Internet. What you are trying to make is a platform scroller game more
suited for Nintendo.

Jonathan, if a website works perfectly with IE, FF, Safari, Netscape... yet
Opera has a limitation that they have admitted and are in the beta phase of
fixing, let me get this straight, you are saying it is Superhighstreet that
is 'wrong', not Opera? ...Who have admitted their bug.

I'm pleased at least to see that you've changed your previous opinion where
you stated Opera has no such limitation (search back in this thread), along
with some insulting words thrown in to illustrate your 'point'. 'Short
bloke' syndrome Mr Little?

Have just had a look at your website. Hahahha! Very innovative. At least
it loads fast I guess Might want to get your own house up to an
impressive level before pointing fingers at other people's.

Mika

 

[Mika]

It appears to impact other elements as well, I tried a TABLE too. Funny
thing is the height works up to 134217728px.The limit in FireFox appears
to be 9999990px (for height or width). Any higher and FF still reports the
value at that number, 10000000px causes the value to enter scientific
notation (1e+7px).

Can't think why they did it but thanks, will feed that info back to them.

I'm pleased to see there are some people here interested in actually holding
a constructive discussion of specifics without feeling the need to resort to
foul language and personal attacks.

Mika

 

[Sherman Pendley]

I am sorry you are right, I mixed you up because you were so far up each
others... Hehe. No wonder you say 'sh*t' a lot I would like to
apologise for any distress caused to you or your loved ones for type the
wrong letters on my keyboard. It's terrible, isn't it?

I could sort of understand your earlier stubbornness. You put a lot of work
into your site, and you had a natural reluctance to believe in the flaws
the rest of us see in it. I don't agree with that attitude, but I've seen
it in action many times. It's a natural reaction to defend one's work.

But now you're just behaving like a child, and I'm done with you.

*plonk*

sherm--

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan, if a website works perfectly with IE, FF, Safari, Netscape... yet
Opera has a limitation that they have admitted and are in the beta phase of
fixing, let me get this straight, you are saying it is Superhighstreet that
is 'wrong', not Opera? ...Who have admitted their bug.

No I am saying but your are not hearing that your design concept does
not really fit the strengths of the media!

I'm pleased at least to see that you've changed your previous opinion where
you stated Opera has no such limitation (search back in this thread), along
with some insulting words thrown in to illustrate your 'point'. 'Short
bloke' syndrome Mr Little?

I never said any such thing with respect to the Opera browser. Maybe you
better search back in this thread.

Have just had a look at your website. Hahahha! Very innovative.

Er, thanks.

At least
it loads fast I guess

That it does.

Might want to get your own house up to an
impressive level before pointing fingers at other people's.

I'll take that for what it is...

 

[Mika]

I could sort of understand your earlier stubbornness. You put a lot of
work
into your site, and you had a natural reluctance to believe in the flaws
the rest of us see in it. I don't agree with that attitude, but I've seen
it in action many times. It's a natural reaction to defend one's work.

But now you're just behaving like a child, and I'm done with you.

*plonk*

Dear plonk

That message was not to you. Your replies have always been constructive
Sherman. It was to the people who can only manage to string a sentence like
'it's sh*t' together. Have to talk to them on their level, y' know. You
needn't have replied.

Mika

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Mika wrote:

I'll take that for what it is...

Hmm, now that I think about it and that you have brought my site into
the discussion, let's see about the issues. Firstly, I was not asking
for help on my site so where could the problems be?

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.littleworksstudio.com/studio.php
[Valid] Markup Validation of http://www.littleworksstudio.com/studio.php
- W3C Markup Validator

Hmm, valid markup could be the issue....

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.littleworksstudio.com/studio.php
[Valid] Markup Validation of http://www.littleworksstudio.com/studio.php
- W3C Markup Validator

Or valid CSS...

Or that it is optimized to loads quickly on dialup as well as broadband
might be a problem...

Or that the design is not fixed to a specific viewport, that has to be bad.

Or does not rely on JavaScript to function, but instead only uses
JavaScript to augment the user experience, but the site will still work
with it disabled.

Or that it works with or without cookies enabled. It does require a
cookie for the session variable if you wish to shop. I did once allow
session ids in the URL but stopped because the "messy" URLs have
indexing issues with search engines and possible security issues...

Or even though this design has a 7-year legacy still employs modern
practices and works in modern browser, falls back gracefully on legacy
browsers...

And still as some styling, without looking like the cookie-cutter
templates about...

Is it perfect? Hell no! Could it be better? Yep. I am currently working
on a new version...but I don't kid myself when I evaluate my designs.
One of my earlier versions *required* JavaScript to create and manage
the site menu. I got lambasted here for it. And rightly so.

 

[dorayme]

We ... do not expect
everybody on the planet to agree with the BBC Website of the Day, Personal
Computer World magazine, Capital Radio Website of the Day, PC Magazine,
About.com London Blog, Google Maps Mania, Pocket-lint Website of the Day, or
the hundreds of repeat visitors we get. You are entitled to like or dislike
anything you choose and I have and will never argue with that point. This
thread was about Firefox.

Laura Porter (on her "London Travel Blog") says on About.com:

"I've recently heard about this new web site that allows you to
look at a streetscape of Oxford Street..."

and not much else beyond that she "has heard about a new website"
and that readers "can check it out". Their is a facility for
people to "comment" and the comment count is zero.

I have not been able to locate quickly any of your other
references.

It may well be that you are enjoying various kinds of success.
Being one of those refined types you mentioned in one of your
posts (you know, someone from Enga and other cultured lands stuck
in a hot unforgiving country with white barbarian footy sexist
sporty rednecks and drunks), I do wish you luck.

You will need it because, as I have said before, there is much
about your site that just does not work. It is simply not a
shopping experience in any real sense of the word and I have gone
into *some* of the details on this before. Others have criticised
the bandwidth aspects and the slowness (even in UK). But my
objection is simply that you are stuck in delivering a product
that is neither one thing, (an efficient fast uncluttered way of
finding info on what shops are in a street and what you can buy
online from some of them) or the other (a virtual reality
experience of high quality).

Frankly, I think you should bite the bullet one way or the other.
Either go representative (low bandwidth, not photo-realistic) or
very photo/auralistic for which you would need orders of
magnitude more bandwidth. There is nothing wrong at all with
either of these options. If I really could get a more realistic
experience, see in shop windows etc etc and hear better sounds,
and wanted it, it would be nothing to wait minutes to download
the materials needed (I do it with trailers and movies and have
done it with dialup too. No I don't sit around watching it load.
I work on other things while it happens, I go make a cup of tea).

Are you getting any of this? Stand tall and do one or other of
these things and not something that is neither here nor there. If
you say again how great the UK user experience is, I will know
you are simply not cottoning on to what I am trying to get across
to you.

My point is about value for bandwidth. I am not saying you need
to reduce the load time. Either reduce it or increase the goddamn
thing. But don't leave it where it is for what it is. (Yes, I
know, you have made many changes, but if you think the changes
you have made are any answer to this criticism, you are simply
not understanding it)

 

[dorayme]

Their is a facility

There is a facility

 

[Mika]

Laura Porter (on her "London Travel Blog") says on About.com:

"I've recently heard about this new web site that allows you to
look at a streetscape of Oxford Street..."

and not much else beyond that she "has heard about a new website"
and that readers "can check it out". Their is a facility for
people to "comment" and the comment count is zero.

I have not been able to locate quickly any of your other
references.

It may well be that you are enjoying various kinds of success.
Being one of those refined types you mentioned in one of your
posts (you know, someone from Enga and other cultured lands stuck
in a hot unforgiving country with white barbarian footy sexist
sporty rednecks and drunks), I do wish you luck.

You will need it because, as I have said before, there is much
about your site that just does not work. It is simply not a
shopping experience in any real sense of the word and I have gone
into *some* of the details on this before. Others have criticised
the bandwidth aspects and the slowness (even in UK). But my
objection is simply that you are stuck in delivering a product
that is neither one thing, (an efficient fast uncluttered way of
finding info on what shops are in a street and what you can buy
online from some of them) or the other (a virtual reality
experience of high quality).

Frankly, I think you should bite the bullet one way or the other.
Either go representative (low bandwidth, not photo-realistic) or
very photo/auralistic for which you would need orders of
magnitude more bandwidth. There is nothing wrong at all with
either of these options. If I really could get a more realistic
experience, see in shop windows etc etc and hear better sounds,
and wanted it, it would be nothing to wait minutes to download
the materials needed (I do it with trailers and movies and have
done it with dialup too. No I don't sit around watching it load.
I work on other things while it happens, I go make a cup of tea).

Are you getting any of this? Stand tall and do one or other of
these things and not something that is neither here nor there. If
you say again how great the UK user experience is, I will know
you are simply not cottoning on to what I am trying to get across
to you.

My point is about value for bandwidth. I am not saying you need
to reduce the load time. Either reduce it or increase the goddamn
thing. But don't leave it where it is for what it is. (Yes, I
know, you have made many changes, but if you think the changes
you have made are any answer to this criticism, you are simply
not understanding it)

Thanks, that has been a topic of discussion for many a month (we are quite
good at thinking of obvious steps by ourselves amazingly enough), but until
time and money allow, we have what we have. It's not that we don't want to
change it - so you understand fully. But for what it is, used as designed,
it is intriguing people.

Here are just some of the other reviews you were looking for:

"this cool online shopping experience"
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2006/10/shop-oxford-street-in-london-england.html

"Why not take a virtual stroll down famous shopping spots"
http://www.pcw.co.uk/computeractive/news/2164471/beat-shopping-crowds

"Heavenly… This site is the answer."
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/n...uper-highstreet-virtual-shopping-online.phtml
"In future, there’s sure to be a wider geographical spread, but to be honest
it doesn’t really matter. It really is a great idea"

I should add 2 of those 3 were experiencing it with UK hop times as
designed.

It's all just a matter of opinion, and we respect either.

Anyway, thanks for the input, and for remaining so civil where others have
failed.

Mika