pet project done!

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    http://oldies.1littleworld.com/


    Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.

    I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    list so you can see how they ranked each week.
     
    richard, Aug 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    richard wrote:

    > http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >
    >
    > Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    > The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >
    > I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    > list so you can see how they ranked each week.

    It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    transitioning from anything.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Aug 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >richard wrote:
    >
    >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >>
    >>
    >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >>
    >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.

    >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    >transitioning from anything.


    Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    recycle bin.
     
    richard, Aug 21, 2008
    #3
  4. On Aug 21, 2:00 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    > >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    > >transitioning from anything.

    >
    > Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    > recycle bin.


    I believe this response was uncalled for. Chaddy is no doubt in tears
    right now, weeping (yes weeping) from the complete humiliation you
    have brought on himself and his family name. You do realize the
    ancient rules of honor from the Chaddy clan now requires him to either
    give you a good verbal thrashing, kill your first born, or screw your
    goat. Though I think the screwing your goat part was recent entry
    into the rules.

    --
    Travis
    Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com
     
    Travis Newbury, Aug 21, 2008
    #4
  5. On 2008-08-21, richard wrote:
    > http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >
    >
    > Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    > The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.


    The titles do not line up with the years in a narrow window:
    <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/oldies.jpg>

    And why transitional instead of strict?

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Aug 21, 2008
    #5
  6. richard

    Mark A. Boyd Guest

    richard posted in alt.html:

    > http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >
    > Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    > The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >
    > I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    > list so you can see how they ranked each week.


    Cool project!

    Couple of questions, though, just for my curiosity.

    Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
    images?

    (Firefox 2)
    When I clicked on one of the years, I saw that something was loading, but
    didn't see anything change. I eventually scrolled down to see the scrolling
    list, but it wasn't intuitive to me. It is "below the fold" if you know what
    that means.

    Perhaps that would be better served as a separate page rather than in a
    frame? Or, if possible, with a named anchor?

    If you've already discussed these questions, just scold me properly for not
    searching past posts ;)


    --
    Mark A. Boyd
    Keep-On-Learnin' :)
     
    Mark A. Boyd, Aug 21, 2008
    #6
  7. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:56:44 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
    <> wrote:

    >On 2008-08-21, richard wrote:
    >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >>
    >>
    >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.

    >
    > The titles do not line up with the years in a narrow window:
    > <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/oldies.jpg>



    I kind of figured some browsers might do that.
    Since you failed to mention which one you're using and the OS.



    >
    > And why transitional instead of strict?


    Preference. One of these days I'll graduate.
     
    richard, Aug 22, 2008
    #7
  8. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
    <> wrote:

    >richard posted in alt.html:
    >
    >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >>
    >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >>
    >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.

    >
    >Cool project!
    >
    >Couple of questions, though, just for my curiosity.
    >
    >Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
    >images?


    Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
    down a huge pic. I don't see the point.
    Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
    something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
    your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
    nothing with it.
    >
    >(Firefox 2)
    >When I clicked on one of the years, I saw that something was loading, but
    >didn't see anything change. I eventually scrolled down to see the scrolling
    >list, but it wasn't intuitive to me. It is "below the fold" if you know what
    >that means.


    Show me a screen shot. What ever you click on should open in the
    iframe.

    >
    >Perhaps that would be better served as a separate page rather than in a
    >frame? Or, if possible, with a named anchor?


    I prefer the iframe as then you don't have to hit the back button or
    close out another window. Things may change in the near future as I
    have changed this thing a dozen times at least.


    >
    >If you've already discussed these questions, just scold me properly for not
    >searching past posts ;)
     
    richard, Aug 22, 2008
    #8
  9. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT), Travis Newbury
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 21, 2:00 pm, richard <> wrote:
    >> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    >> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    >> >transitioning from anything.

    >>
    >> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    >> recycle bin.

    >
    >I believe this response was uncalled for. Chaddy is no doubt in tears
    >right now, weeping (yes weeping) from the complete humiliation you
    >have brought on himself and his family name. You do realize the
    >ancient rules of honor from the Chaddy clan now requires him to either
    >give you a good verbal thrashing, kill your first born, or screw your
    >goat. Though I think the screwing your goat part was recent entry
    >into the rules.



    He's pissed off because a few of us around here called his site,
    childish and amateurish.
    While mine isn't about to win any awards, I have no intention to be
    looking for awards. People want information with the least amount of
    intrusion on their intelligence. That's the intention of my site.

    Besides, this whole thing could, and probably will, change in the next
    few weeks. I just wanted to get something up for those who are truly
    interested in such information will have it. I've seen other sites
    that post the same thing and most are just totally outrageous in some
    way.
     
    richard, Aug 22, 2008
    #9
  10. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    richard wrote:

    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >richard wrote:
    > >
    > >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    > >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    > >>
    > >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    > >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.

    > >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    > >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    > >transitioning from anything.

    >
    > Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    > recycle bin.

    To be honest, I really don't give a shit!
    It is your crap website after all.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Aug 22, 2008
    #10
  11. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    richard wrote:

    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT), Travis Newbury
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Aug 21, 2:00�pm, richard <> wrote:
    > >> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    > >> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    > >> >transitioning from anything.
    > >>
    > >> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    > >> recycle bin.

    > >
    > >I believe this response was uncalled for. Chaddy is no doubt in tears
    > >right now, weeping (yes weeping) from the complete humiliation you
    > >have brought on himself and his family name. You do realize the
    > >ancient rules of honor from the Chaddy clan now requires him to either
    > >give you a good verbal thrashing, kill your first born, or screw your
    > >goat. Though I think the screwing your goat part was recent entry
    > >into the rules.

    >
    >
    > He's pissed off because a few of us around here called his site,
    > childish and amateurish.

    Based on what you write in your post in this NG, you have not a clue
    of what you are talking about.
    I got a new client 4 days after the new site wnet live.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Aug 22, 2008
    #11
  12. richard

    John Hosking Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> richard posted in alt.html:
    >>
    >>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >>>
    >>> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >>> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >>>
    >>> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    >>> list so you can see how they ranked each week.


    >>
    >> Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
    >> images?

    >
    > Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
    > down a huge pic. I don't see the point.


    A few bytes of size info in the code may seem a waste, but weigh that
    against the seconds of time that may get wasted for large or complicated
    pages whose final layouts depend on determining the eventual size of the
    images. Doesn't seem to apply much (either the size or time) for your
    dinky pages.

    But: if I want to chop down a huge pic, I resize it in some graphics
    software and serve only the size at which I want it displayed.

    > Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
    > something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
    > your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
    > nothing with it.


    So use the title attribute for reasonable browsers like FF (and guess
    what, IE6 uses title text as tooltip-like info, too). You answer
    suggests you don't care about images "that might not show up for some
    reason." FF *does* do something with alt text, in the appropriate
    cicumstances.

    >> (Firefox 2)
    >> When I clicked on one of the years, I saw that something was loading, but
    >> didn't see anything change. I eventually scrolled down to see the scrolling
    >> list, but it wasn't intuitive to me. It is "below the fold" if you know what
    >> that means.

    >
    > Show me a screen shot. What ever you click on should open in the
    > iframe.


    You don't need a screen shot. Do you? "Below the fold" refers to content
    south of what the (typical or particular) user sees when viewing the
    page in hir browser.

    (The term comes from the newspaper biz, referring to front-page content
    on the lower half of the page, not readily visible to prospective buyers
    looking at a stack of folded papers.)

    Since it's below the fold, the iframe content *won't appear* in any
    screenshot. Which is part of the point.

    >
    >> Perhaps that would be better served as a separate page rather than in a
    >> frame? Or, if possible, with a named anchor?

    >
    > I prefer the iframe as then you don't have to hit the back button or
    > close out another window. Things may change in the near future as I
    > have changed this thing a dozen times at least.
    >


    So the project isn't really done, then, is it? ;-)


    --
    John
    Quote selectively for context. Trim the rest. Comment in line.
    Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.
     
    John Hosking, Aug 22, 2008
    #12
  13. richard

    John Hosking Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:56:44 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-08-21, richard wrote:
    >>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >>> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.

    >> The titles do not line up with the years in a narrow window:
    >> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/oldies.jpg>

    >
    >
    > I kind of figured some browsers might do that.
    > Since you failed to mention which one you're using and the OS.


    Do you want his list sorted alphabetically or by color?

    The condition Chris mentions occurs on all graphical browsers,
    independent of OS. Lynx can't render your info usefully anyway, so it's
    no surprise you didn't test with it, but if you try with any other
    browser, using a narrow window (or larger text, or both), then you
    should see the problem Chris reports.


    --
    John
    Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
    Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.
     
    John Hosking, Aug 22, 2008
    #13
  14. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    richard wrote:

    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >richard posted in alt.html:
    > >
    > >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    > >>
    > >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    > >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    > >>
    > >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    > >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.

    > >
    > >Cool project!
    > >
    > >Couple of questions, though, just for my curiosity.
    > >
    > >Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
    > >images?

    >
    > Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
    > down a huge pic. I don't see the point.

    That is cause your very much cluless!

    > Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
    > something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
    > your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
    > nothing with it.

    DICK READ UP ON YOUR HTML!

    WHY DO WE BOTHER!
    You obviously don't give a **** about what any of us think your HTML
    is invalid and you expect to get good feedback on your sites, your
    having a laugh!
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Aug 22, 2008
    #14
  15. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >richard wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >richard wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >> >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >> >>
    >> >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    >> >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.
    >> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    >> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    >> >transitioning from anything.

    >>
    >> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    >> recycle bin.

    >To be honest, I really don't give a shit!
    >It is your crap website after all.



    I took a gander at your so called portfolio. The radio station site is
    just as childish as your home page. The other one is just as bad.
    Why do you highlight lines like that? You'd probably be better off
    making that area a division then coloring the division background.
    Along with some line seperation.
     
    richard, Aug 22, 2008
    #15
  16. richard

    Mark A. Boyd Guest

    richard posted in alt.html:

    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>richard posted in alt.html:
    >>
    >>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >>>
    >>> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >>> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >>>
    >>> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    >>> list so you can see how they ranked each week.

    >>
    >>Cool project!
    >>
    >>Couple of questions, though, just for my curiosity.
    >>
    >>Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for
    >>the images?

    >
    > Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
    > down a huge pic. I don't see the point.


    Well, no, that's never the correct way to resize an image. The size
    attributes in HTML allow the browser to begin drawing the page as designed
    before the images have actually downloaded. The browser doesn't have to wait
    for the image to know how much space it needs on the page.

    > Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
    > something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
    > your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
    > nothing with it.


    Actually, AFAIK, only MSIE ever used the alt attribute for a tooltip. That is
    not at all what it's intended for. I'm sure you already know where to look up
    that information, though.

    >>(Firefox 2)
    >>When I clicked on one of the years, I saw that something was loading,
    >>but didn't see anything change. I eventually scrolled down to see the
    >>scrolling list, but it wasn't intuitive to me. It is "below the fold" if
    >>you know what that means.

    >
    > Show me a screen shot. What ever you click on should open in the
    > iframe.


    It did. I just didn't realize it until I scrolled the page down far enough to
    see it. My browser window's viewport is currently 1016x851. Even when
    maximized on my 1680x1050 monitor, the hdr div, nav links and first table
    very nearly take up all the vertical space in my browser's viewport.



    --
    Mark A. Boyd
    Keep-On-Learnin' :)
     
    Mark A. Boyd, Aug 22, 2008
    #16
  17. richard <> writes:

    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:51:56 +0200 (CEST), "Mark A. Boyd"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Is there a particular reason for not using alt or size attributes for the
    >>images?

    >
    > Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
    > down a huge pic. I don't see the point.


    Huh? No, that's not what height and width attributes are for at all -
    in fact, it's probably the *worst* reason to use them. Sizing an image
    that way still makes the user download the large version, and browsers
    don't do nearly as good a job at resizing as an image-editing app like
    Photoshop or Gimp will do.

    Size attributes are normally used to tell the browser how big the
    image really will be, without resizing it. The browser can use that
    info to lay out the page before it's even started downloading the
    image data. Of course, the images will be empty frames until the image
    data is downloaded, but at least they'll be in the correct places, and
    of course the text will be readable immediately.

    > Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
    > something that might not show up for some reason.


    Like, for example, if you're a blind user. Or a search engine - those
    can't read images, but they can (and do) index the alt text.

    > Or when you move
    > your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing.


    The value of the "title" attribute is commonly shown as a tooltip -
    although the HTML spec doesn't guarantee that behavior.

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 22, 2008
    #17
  18. John Hosking <> writes:

    > So the project isn't really done, then, is it? ;-)


    Is *any* web site ever really done? Being able to endlessly update is,
    after all, one of the many advantages the web has over paper. Of
    course, being able to say "it's done" and never have to look at it
    again is one of the advantages that paper has over the web. It's a
    two-sided coin. :)

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 22, 2008
    #18
  19. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    richard wrote:

    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >richard wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Chaddy2222
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >richard wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    > >> >> The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    > >> >> list so you can see how they ranked each week.
    > >> >It looks like something strate out of 1997.
    > >> >Also new website should be coded in strict HTML! As you are not
    > >> >transitioning from anything.
    > >>
    > >> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and archived in the
    > >> recycle bin.

    > >To be honest, I really don't give a shit!
    > >It is your crap website after all.

    >
    >
    > I took a gander at your so called portfolio. The radio station site is
    > just as childish as your home page. The other one is just as bad.
    > Why do you highlight lines like that? You'd probably be better off
    > making that area a division then coloring the division background.

    What are you talking about?

    > Along with some line seperation.

    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Aug 22, 2008
    #19
  20. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:23:56 -0700, richard <>
    wrote:

    >http://oldies.1littleworld.com/
    >
    >
    >Well I finally got the last section of it done this morning.
    >The top 100 charts show cashbox and billboard side by side.
    >
    >I'll now be working on a way to show a calendar within the song names
    >list so you can see how they ranked each week.



    So WTF am I supposed to do people?
    Draw viewers a frickin road map to the scroll bar?

    Like sheesh, it's as if you people never saw a web site with a scroll
    bar before.

    Yes I have tested the site in varying fonts and font sizes just to see
    how it would look. I am aware of the problem and am trying to fix it.

    I don't expect viewers to have such extreme fonts.
     
    richard, Aug 22, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Dalberg
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,220
    John Dalberg
    Feb 28, 2006
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    662
  3. Rob

    personal pet hate

    Rob, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    960
  4. George Maggessy

    Pet Store

    George Maggessy, Jan 8, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    417
    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
    Jan 9, 2008
  5. richard
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    671
    Jonathan N. Little
    Aug 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page