designing to fit into screen resolution

[Jonathan N. Little]

time to redo everything!
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

Harassing, eh? Just because I am telling you things that you do not want
to hear that's harassment? Can't help you there.

My site is not the only thing I do, while a finishing up and compiling a
project, I have attempted to help you. You have successfully convinced
me that your not worth the effort

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

Have given specifics you even comment on them below, maybe you do not
recognize what "broken" means

Which particular and at which resolution?

Any!

Here is latest SeaMonkey:

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/alt.html.20070119SM.jpg
alt.html.20070119SM.jpg (JPEG Image, 1014x817 pixels)

And even in security-riddled IE that I don't use:

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/alt.html.20070119IE.jpg
alt.html.20070119IE.jpg (JPEG Image, 941x808 pixels)


And doing a little validation can get quite specific, I thought someone
else brought this to your attention,

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.pifpaf.front.ru/index_en.htm
Result for http://www.pifpaf.front.ru/index_en.htm - W3C Markup Validator

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

Sorry, JavaScript is disabled and you insert it via JavaScript so I am
not getting your stylesheet but form one of your IFRAMEs. Looking at
your stylesheets though suffer from similar pixel-fixed problems...

BTW in stylesheets units are always required except for 0 lengths and
the line-height property so

"width:290;"

is invalid.

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?

Designing for a fixed screen site is a "technical" error with web
design, period. And no amount of "wishing" will make it otherwise, because:

A) You have no control over the visitor's screen size
B) You have no control over the visitor's screen resolution
C) You definitely have no control over the visitor's browser size
D) You have no control over the visitor's browsing device
E) You have no control over the visitor's fonts, font sizes that can
affect your layout

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.

In many ways, depends on the code, I don't waste my time with them, but
the important point is they collect the visit data and browser statics
and function via client-side which is dependent on the *client* which
you have no control. Therefore JS hit counters are inaccurate and
unreliable. What more do you need to know?

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

I doubt if you're more conservative in that area than a Martian with a
capital letter phobia...

 

[aa]

Sorry, JavaScript is disabled and you insert it via JavaScript so I am
not getting your stylesheet but form one of your IFRAMEs. Looking at
your stylesheets though suffer from similar pixel-fixed problems...

BTW in stylesheets units are always required except for 0 lengths and
the line-height property so

"width:290;"

is invalid.

With all that great experience of yours you failed to understand that this
code you are teaching me to write, is not mine. These are all those banners
inserted be a fucking free host. Sorry your otherwise beautiful shots hitted
the wrong target

In many ways, depends on the code, I don't waste my time with them, but
the important point is they collect the visit data and browser statics
and function via client-side which is dependent on the *client* which
you have no control. Therefore JS hit counters are inaccurate and
unreliable. What more do you need to know?

Is it necessary to play a slow-thinker, or you really are?
What more do I need to know is how do you do hit counters using client-side
scripts?

 

[aa]

Well done, Chaddy!
You even failed to realise that the think you took for my page counter, is
actially a link-hit couinter on the banner, automatically inserted by the
free-hoster which I used to host sites under development

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

With all that great experience of yours you failed to understand that this
code you are teaching me to write, is not mine. These are all those banners
inserted be a fucking free host. Sorry your otherwise beautiful shots hitted
the wrong target

Hmmm so you say you did not author:

http://www.pifpaf.front.ru/index_800.css

"table.t1
{
width:290;
top:70px;
left:0px;
font-size:12px;
color:ff0000;
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
}
"

Maybe you should be more familiar with what you author before your
insult those who really tried to assist you and who actually understand
what they author. PLONK!

 

[aa]

My reply was referring to the beginning of your post dealing with
"font-weight:bold; font-size:12px; font-family:tahoma;}"

As to "width:290;" - I've just am not interested in discussing slips of pen
you are so keen searching in my code. Why not to spend thios time, which you
are so short of, on your homepage which as you had to admit it far from
ideal?

PS. How about that bit which you keep "not noticing":
"What more do I need to know is how do you do hit counters using
client-sidescripts?"

 

[dorayme]

PS. How about that bit which you keep "not noticing":
"What more do I need to know is how do you do hit counters using
client-sidescripts?"

news:[email protected]...

He is unlikely to be listening to you now, who can blame him? You
were a bit naughty. I sent you some references about bottom
posting and you continue to irritate. Please confine all your
remarks, from now on, to me - the matadors' bull distractor (see
previous references). I am also part time an offsider to one of
the greatest experts in HTML and CSS that ever existed, I do the
lower echelon stuff; on a good day, I get it right. If you bottom
post, I try harder.

Sad, but I just maybe the only one left for you. I like torture
and mean remarks. A bit like the recently discovered life forms
that can thrive in near boiling temperatures against all common
expectations.

Over to you.

 

[aa]

feel free to enjoy yourself

He is unlikely to be listening to you now, who can blame him? You
were a bit naughty. I sent you some references about bottom
posting and you continue to irritate. Please confine all your
remarks, from now on, to me - the matadors' bull distractor (see
previous references). I am also part time an offsider to one of
the greatest experts in HTML and CSS that ever existed, I do the
lower echelon stuff; on a good day, I get it right. If you bottom
post, I try harder.

Sad, but I just maybe the only one left for you. I like torture
and mean remarks. A bit like the recently discovered life forms
that can thrive in near boiling temperatures against all common
expectations.

Over to you.