Site Critique please

"gmcclary" <gmcclary (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote in message
news:VHHnb.169334$bo1.34945 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

"gmcclary" <gmcclary (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:vpucctqmrocbc (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com...
"Iain Mclachlan" <i99.mclachlan (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:bnmj3k$ji5$1 (AT) titan (DOT) btinternet.com...
Hi there.

www.geocities.com/bigfatpav2000/index.html


Next: To the best of my knowledge " #C0C0C" is not a 'browser safe"
shade
of
gray.

You mean "web safe" and this has become rather a topic here recently (or
was
it over at alt.html).

"Web safe" colours are obsolete, they became an historical curiosity
back
when 8 bit colour cards disappeared. 16 bit colour cards actually made
the
issue worse as they do not support "web safe" colours. With 24/32 bit
cards
it is a non-issue.

This century "web safe" colours have no relevance whatsoever.

Cheers
Richard.



Do you mean "except on Mac and Apple systems, or old systems running old
browsers"...?

No. I really do mean "no relevance whatsoever".

The percentage of pages that do *not* use web safe colours (including *any*
page that includes a jpeg) is so high (how many 9's can you write after 99.)
that anybody using an 8 bit colour card will be quite used to seeing skewed
colour.

The chance of one of these people a) finding a "web safe" coloured page, b)
recognising it for what it is and c) admiring the page and the
thoughtfullness of the author, is so remote as to be indistinguishable from
zero :-)

Oh, I suppose a standard dull/booring text only page might be considered
"web safe" but only by mistake. Googles front page looks like it might be
"web safe" but it is not. Look at that gif at the top. There are only 256 or
less colours in it but probably none of them are web safe.

"Web safe" colours are a cargo cult, just like:

Naming a page .htm instead of .html. This was forced upon DOS and Windows
3.x users (only) because of the 8.3 filenames in DOS (and so, of course
Windows 3.x and before). This issue was resolved in 1995 with the release of
Windows 95 (which itself is so old that it is no longer supported) and long
file names. A huge proportion of web pages are .htm. Even Microsofts
"flagship HTML editor" frontpage by default uses .htm.

and

Including HTML comments inside a <script> element, as in:

<script type=whatever>
<!--
some script
//-->
</script.

This one arose because a certain release of IIRC netscape 3.something, not
understanding the <script> element, mistakenly rendered the "some script"
part to the page instead of ignoring it. The relevant release only lasted
for a couple of months before a fix was released yet how many times do you
see code like the above, even code that has been written yesterday and
posted here for review?

Bizzare, isn't it :-)

Still, I stand corrected... isn't it amazing how, when you've got yr eye
on one thing, something else just passes you bye bye?

Too true :-)

Cheers
Richard.

"Iain Mclachlan" <i99.mclachlan (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote

Hi there.

I've just revamped my movie review website:

www.geocities.com/bigfatpav2000/index.html

and would appreciate an evaluation of it re image loading, navigation,
internal and external links.

Thanks for any assistance.

Cheers.

Iain

Your evaluation request re re image loading, navigation, internal and
external links:
....All seem fine!

Other than that the site is dark, dull, unimaginative, boring and does not
emit a movie-feel
....should look good for graphically challenged grumpies from Us2Oz

--
W

"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote

"gmcclary" <gmcclary (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:vpumdve8rbvme5 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com...
"rf" <making.it.up (AT) the (DOT) time> wrote in message
news:VHHnb.169334$bo1.34945 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

"gmcclary" <gmcclary (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:vpucctqmrocbc (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com...
"Iain Mclachlan" <i99.mclachlan (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:bnmj3k$ji5$1 (AT) titan (DOT) btinternet.com...
Hi there.

www.geocities.com/bigfatpav2000/index.html


Next: To the best of my knowledge " #C0C0C" is not a 'browser safe"
shade
of
gray.

You mean "web safe" and this has become rather a topic here recently
(or
was
it over at alt.html).

"Web safe" colours are obsolete, they became an historical curiosity
back
when 8 bit colour cards disappeared. 16 bit colour cards actually made
the
issue worse as they do not support "web safe" colours. With 24/32 bit
cards
it is a non-issue.

This century "web safe" colours have no relevance whatsoever.

Cheers
Richard.



Do you mean "except on Mac and Apple systems, or old systems running
old
browsers"...?

No. I really do mean "no relevance whatsoever".

The percentage of pages that do *not* use web safe colours (including
*any*
page that includes a jpeg) is so high (how many 9's can you write after
99.)
that anybody using an 8 bit colour card will be quite used to seeing
skewed
colour.

The chance of one of these people a) finding a "web safe" coloured page,
b)
recognising it for what it is and c) admiring the page and the
thoughtfullness of the author, is so remote as to be indistinguishable
from
zero :-)

Oh, I suppose a standard dull/booring text only page might be considered
"web safe" but only by mistake. Googles front page looks like it might be
"web safe" but it is not. Look at that gif at the top. There are only 256
or
less colours in it but probably none of them are web safe.

"Web safe" colours are a cargo cult, just like:

Naming a page .htm instead of .html. This was forced upon DOS and Windows
3.x users (only) because of the 8.3 filenames in DOS (and so, of course
Windows 3.x and before). This issue was resolved in 1995 with the release
of
Windows 95 (which itself is so old that it is no longer supported) and
long
file names. A huge proportion of web pages are .htm. Even Microsofts
"flagship HTML editor" frontpage by default uses .htm.

and

Including HTML comments inside a <script> element, as in:

script type=whatever
!--
some script
//--
/script.

This one arose because a certain release of IIRC netscape 3.something, not
understanding the <script> element, mistakenly rendered the "some script"
part to the page instead of ignoring it. The relevant release only lasted
for a couple of months before a fix was released yet how many times do you
see code like the above, even code that has been written yesterday and
posted here for review?

Bizzare, isn't it :-)


Still, I stand corrected... isn't it amazing how, when you've got yr
eye
on one thing, something else just passes you bye bye?

Too true :-)

Cheers
Richard.

<button>push here</button>

Bizzare, isn't it :-)

you said it!
See how much fun hanging out here can be? (and I might learn something.)

g

rf wrote:

Naming a page .htm instead of .html. This was forced upon DOS and Windows
3.x users (only) because of the 8.3 filenames in DOS (and so, of course
Windows 3.x and before).

I'd like to point out here that even in the days of DOS browsers, you
could happily have a URL like:

http://www.example.org/reallylongname.html

because the browsers were smart enough to rename the file when they stored
it in cache.

You would only get 8.3 naming limits if you were using a DOS web *server*.
(And yes, such monstrosities did exist!)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132

gmcclary wrote:

To the best of my knowledge " #C0C0C" is not a 'browser safe" shade of gray.

FYI, #C0C0C0 equates to the color keyword "silver".

Of the 16 standard keywords, all the others use RGB cominations of hex
ff and 00, or 80 and 00 (i.e. "yellow"=#ffff00, "purple"=#800080).
These are supported by pretty much every graphical browser out there,
though the actual rendering does depend on the graphics capabilities of
the hardware.

But, like rf said, web safe colors aren't what they used to be.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

"kchayka" <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote

gmcclary wrote:

To the best of my knowledge " #C0C0C" is not a 'browser safe" shade of
gray.

FYI, #C0C0C0 equates to the color keyword "silver".

Of the 16 standard keywords, all the others use RGB cominations of hex
ff and 00, or 80 and 00 (i.e. "yellow"=#ffff00, "purple"=#800080).

or 33, 66, 99, CC, FF, and/or combinations thereof....

These are supported by pretty much every graphical browser out there,
though the actual rendering does depend on the graphics capabilities of
the hardware.

But, like rf said, web safe colors aren't what they used to be.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

Ain't it amazing?
I've been looking for a background color which would show (display) both
black and white text to some advantage.... and after long hours of search
and experimentation reluctantly settled on #9999999 or ##666666... (I hate
both...)
OH! how poetic! that after a long search I should learn that the world had
passed me bye!

Regardless of the details, IMHO, black on "sliver" (with no relief) is
ugly...

Glenn

gmcclary wrote:

"kchayka" <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote:

Of the 16 standard keywords, all the others use RGB cominations of hex
ff and 00, or 80 and 00 (i.e. "yellow"=#ffff00, "purple"=#800080).

or 33, 66, 99, CC, FF, and/or combinations thereof....

No. The 16 standard colour keywords *suggested* by CSS 1 are:

Aqua #00ffff
Black #000000
Blue #0000ff
Fuchsia #ff00ff
Gray #808080
Green #008000
Lime #00ff00
Maroon #800000
Navy #000080
Olive #808000
Purple #800080
Red #ff0000
Silver #c0c0c0
Teal #008080
White #ffffff
Yellow #ffff00

Which, as kchayka said, are all 00/ff or 00/80 combinations, with the
exception of silver.

However, CSS 1 does not *mandate* this set of colours (CSS 2 and HTML 4
did). And CSS 2.1 adds in Orange (#ffa500) and CSS 3 will probably expand
this to the full X11 colour palette:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-color-20020219/#x11-color>

This is one of the few planned new additions in CSS 3 that is already
well-supported.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote

gmcclary wrote:

"kchayka" <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote:

Of the 16 standard keywords, all the others use RGB cominations of hex
ff and 00, or 80 and 00 (i.e. "yellow"=#ffff00, "purple"=#800080).

or 33, 66, 99, CC, FF, and/or combinations thereof....

No. The 16 standard colour keywords *suggested* by CSS 1 are:

Aqua #00ffff
Black #000000
Blue #0000ff
Fuchsia #ff00ff
Gray #808080
Green #008000
Lime #00ff00
Maroon #800000
Navy #000080
Olive #808000
Purple #800080
Red #ff0000
Silver #c0c0c0
Teal #008080
White #ffffff
Yellow #ffff00

Which, as kchayka said, are all 00/ff or 00/80 combinations, with the
exception of silver.

However, CSS 1 does not *mandate* this set of colours (CSS 2 and HTML 4
did). And CSS 2.1 adds in Orange (#ffa500) and CSS 3 will probably expand
this to the full X11 colour palette:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-co...219/#x11-color

This is one of the few planned new additions in CSS 3 that is already
well-supported.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132

Hi Toby,

See, I was under the (wrong) impression that the 16 colors 00/ff and 00/80
were older (HTML 3.2?)
and the 00/33/66/99/CC/FF etc was newer 4.0 and css2
and I saw a table on w3c showing those colors.
But, missed something somewhere....

Trying to keep up with all this is turning out to be a full time job,
for which I'm not getting paid....
Gotta get paid.

Glenn