Re: More browser stuff- URL correction

[Guest guest]

Re: More browser stuff- URL correction

I do not

even know the structure of the markup commands within a .RTF document (I

cannot

use Word as an example, since I have not used Word since v1.1)... they are

really quite irrelevant. HTML, to me, is almost so.

I really like using OpenOffice1.0. This product blows MS out of the water in

speed, not to mention price (it's, well, FREE!). It also has more functionality

than I will ever need. I still must use MS at work, though for documentation and

such.

Whatever you do with WYSIWYG HTML, avoid doing this in MS Word. You can really

get some " interesting " results. (I say this after having been my organization's

webmaster, and having to routinely fix problems on the site caused by

individuals using MS Office products to create their pages). It's html doesn't

mix well with other html.

[Guest guest]

tigger wrote:

> Yeah, the multimedia stuff is too much. Well, actually I don't mind

> multimedia. The trouble is there are too many geocities sites out there with

> overkill on the animations, sounds, and backgrounds that hurt. And then

> there are the photos. No one on the internet seems to know how to properly

> resize and compress them for the web. I don't have the patience to load

> them.

That is true. My mother once scanned some images and emailed them to me... two

images, 3mb total, 24 bit .bmp. I converted it into .jpg format with just a

little compression, and emailed it back to her at something like 38kb, with

little or no discernible loss of quality. Most of it was blank white; the

compression ratio was impressive.

> I think Lynx is a good concept for reference-only sites. However, I am an

> artistic type, and I must incorporate some graphical and css in everything.

> I am totally visual-oriented, despite the fact that I get easily

> overstimulated by visual input.

I am visual too, but my current web site is the least graphical of all the ones

I have had. I have intentionally not put any of that in... the only images on

the site are a couple of silly easter eggs that no one as yet has commented

upon, so I would guess that they remain hidden. Other than that, there is

nothing... not even background images. I have not even set the background

color! I change font sizes, use proportional or monospace fonts, and change

the font color a few times, and that is it. It is sort of my way of thumbing

my nose at all of the sites out there that put flash and presentation above

content. IMO, just because we _can_ package the information with all sorts of

graphical and multimedia stuff does not mean that we should.

I liken it to books... most books are plain black text on plain white paper.

The technology to write them in full color certainly exists; magazines are

often that way. But the ability to do it does not imply the desirability of

doing it, and I do not think that the relatively high cost of color printing is

all of it. Most books, after all, are about the information contained therein,

not the packaging. Thus, I want my web site to be the same way. Not to

mention that a larger than normal percentage of my site's viewers will have

visual integration difficulties. I personally cannot stand black text on a

white screen... others may have their own preferences. I met one person online

that claims that purple text gives her seizures. I have no idea if that is

true, or even possible, but if it is, I certainly do not want to cause problems

for anyone that is reading my stuff. If a user has set their basic browser

preferences to specify a bgcolor, that is what they shall see on my site.

Sites that override a user's settings (or the basic Windows settings) may or

may not describe a color combo that is tolerable to the specific user.

My Netscape before and Moz now, btw, are set to use the Windows colors always,

overriding the colors specified in the page. So I never see any of the

background images that are specified. My gray background (a tiny bit brighter

than the default scroll bar color in the WinXP " Classic " theme) with black text

is very readable, and makes it a lot easier for me to tolerate.

I once got a letter from a young autistic female with similar visual issues as

mine, and she suggested changing the bgcolor to something other than white.

She used an aol domain, using a Mac IIRC. I told her that AOL had specified

the color, not I.

[Guest guest]

>

> That I'd have to agree with. I was thinking more of basic-level HTML pages

> such as what has up, with just some specifically placed images &

> textual information. I've never tried arguing with image-maps before, as

> I'm a minimal-graphics sort of person (anyone with a 26.6kbps connection

> probably would be)...

I hate using anything other than a text editor to write HTML. This is

because in the system that hosts my web pages, I can log in, fix a line of

code, and then the page is fixed. Otherwise, I have to rewrite the code

and then upload the file and replace the old one.

This is just my preference, though.

Iris

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

Hope is the feeling you have that the

feeling you have isn't permanent.

--Kerr

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

I do not like black text on white either. Too much contrast (though not half as

bad as white on black-or yellow, blue, red on black). I wish books were not that

way. A light gray background with dark gray or charcoal text would be a treat to

the mind and the eyes.

I designed my professional (ghdesign.com) site, and my disney (disneysafari.com)

site with colors that appeal to me most--silver, gold, and gray. It has a very

soft feel to it. I wish all sites were like that!

Speaking of autistics on the web. I have noticed many, many sites by autistic

individuals that I cannot visually handle. Stuff moving all over the page and

dark, high-contrast, highly-patterned backgrounds. This kind of site will cause

a migraine within 30 seconds. It is rather interesting the differences between

each autistic individuals sensory preferences. They can vary in the extreme.

TTFN!

Tigger

" A successful man is one who can build a firm foundation with the bricks that

others throw at him. " ( Brinkley)

Re: More browser stuff- URL correction

My Netscape before and Moz now, btw, are set to use the Windows colors always,

overriding the colors specified in the page. So I never see any of the

background images that are specified. My gray background (a tiny bit brighter

than the default scroll bar color in the WinXP " Classic " theme) with black

text

is very readable, and makes it a lot easier for me to tolerate.

I once got a letter from a young autistic female with similar visual issues as

mine, and she suggested changing the bgcolor to something other than white.

She used an aol domain, using a Mac IIRC. I told her that AOL had specified

the color, not I.

[Guest guest]

> This only works if you write perfect code always. Otherwise, your site

> could be out of commission until you correct it. This is probably okay

> if you are using only basic html. I wouldn't recommend this policy for

> editing scripts or asp.

I write mainly text for the websites I do because I want them to be

readable in Lynx. I don't go in for frames or image-heavy pages if I can

avoid it. Sure there's a market for flashy stuff, and I'll probably never

be a professional web designer unless I learn it, but I don't like it

because it just bogs the computer down unless you're using a cable modem

(which I am not.)

Iris

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

Hope is the feeling you have that the

feeling you have isn't permanent.

--Kerr

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

Re: More browser stuff- URL correction

I hate using anything other than a text editor to write HTML. This is

because in the system that hosts my web pages, I can log in, fix a line of

code, and then the page is fixed. Otherwise, I have to rewrite the code

and then upload the file and replace the old one.

This is just my preference, though.

Iris

This only works if you write perfect code always. Otherwise, your site could be

out of commission until you correct it. This is probably okay if you are using

only basic html. I wouldn't recommend this policy for editing scripts or asp.

TTFN!

Tigger

" A successful man is one who can build a firm foundation with the bricks that

others throw at him. " ( Brinkley)

[Guest guest]

Wow,

It looks like we have quite a few budding aspie web designers out there,

something I just learned. Dreamweaver is an industry standard tool, but

rather than being the anti-Microsoft. Macromedia are turning into a new MS.

At my previous workplace the Internet guru did not understand anything but

the basics of HTML and Javascript. She even tried to upload BMP images to

the Intranet site as we had a T1 connection with land-based head office,

oblious to the differences between GIFs, JPEGs, PNG file formats.

We can certainly thank Macromedia for nested tables and roll-over buttons.

Incidentally their standard rollover Javascript (using the ImageSwap method)

conflicts with other scripts, especially in Mozilla 1.0 / Netscape 6/7, it's

the onload bit added to the <BODY> tag. And don't they love white space,

which significantly boosts file sizes. I've heard MX replaces Ultradev and

is geared more to professional web developers and doesn't automatically

rewrite custom code or add unncessary white space, i.e. I can understand

starting new lines for major tags, but indenting lines by 30 or more spaces

seems a wee bit over the top.

Neil

PS: Anybody got a copy of DW-MX and/or Coldfusion MX?

Websites: http://www.multiwebvista.com / http://www.infotrad.clara.co.uk

Financial constraints prevent me from purchasing a copy of

Re: More browser stuff- URL correction

>

>

> At 11:47 PM 8/12/02 -0700, DeGraf wrote:

>

> >You know how to program well enough to rewrite the skin, yet you don't

use

> >a plain-text editor to do HTML? ;^)

>

> I used to write all my HTML in a text editor (I even coded image maps by

> hand, using graphics software to determine the pixel coordinates) but I

use

> a WYSIWYG editor now (dreamweaver) because it's so much quicker. I can

> still go in and tweak the text code if I need to, but I figured why

should

> I spend an hour to make an image map I could make in Dreamweaver in two

> minutes? Why should I spend any more time than necessary to get my code

out

> of my head and into a file?

>

[Guest guest]

From: Neil Gardner

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:20 AM

Subject: Re: More browser stuff- URL correction

" At my previous workplace the Internet guru did not understand anything but

the basics of HTML and Javascript. She even tried to upload BMP images to

the Intranet site as we had a T1 connection with land-based head office,

oblious to the differences between GIFs, JPEGs, PNG file formats. "

This reminds me of when I was the webmaster at my old job. Our intranet site had

15,000 internal hits/month. Several people in the organization posted to it.

There was one shared document that I created in ColdFusion (the company

standard) that several individuals used for reporting. One of them came to me

because he had updated his info, but the browser kept loading the old version.

Upon investigation, I discovered that he had edited the page (ColdFusion

generated) from within Netscape Communicator after viewing it in the browser.

This is like loading an asp page, and then editing the html generated by the

asp.

A few days after I transferred out of that group, I looked up the site to get a

phone number. I was greeted with the cover to a PowerPoint presentation. It was

there for a week before someone fixed it.

" We can certainly thank Macromedia for nested tables and roll-over buttons.

Incidentally their standard rollover Javascript (using the ImageSwap method)

conflicts with other scripts, especially in Mozilla 1.0 / Netscape 6/7, it's

the onload bit added to the <BODY> tag. And don't they love white space,

which significantly boosts file sizes. I've heard MX replaces Ultradev and

is geared more to professional web developers and doesn't automatically

rewrite custom code or add unncessary white space, i.e. I can understand

starting new lines for major tags, but indenting lines by 30 or more spaces

seems a wee bit over the top. "

Neil

I am having trouble interpreting the above. I believe that you are being

saracastic? Or are you saying you like these things? Sorry I'm a space here. The

DW imageswap script is like WAY longer than it needs to be. They have accounted

for every possibility. I prefer to keep it simple myself. You can also specify

indenting preferences in DW.

UltraDev 4 doesn't rewrite the code either, as long as you set it in the

preferences. Otherwise it will remove redundant tags and add missed closing

tags.

I am salivating over MX, as I love the tabbed interface (one of the primary

things I like about Opera, KeyNote, UltraEdit, and other apps I regularly use),

among other things. I have not bought it because I primarily use my work laptop

now at home, and my pc has become more or less a file server. I use UD 4 at

work, and I don't know if I can install both versions on the same computer. Have

you heard of anyone doing this?

TTFN!

Tigger

" A successful man is one who can build a firm foundation with the bricks that

others throw at him. " ( Brinkley)