Re: Photo gallery is online.....need ideas
Chris Bessert
> www.somestuff.batcave.net
>
> Not much at the moment. Thought I'd ask y'all if you'd like to see included
> any road related items or not.
> I may include a section on various types of bridges.
> Any ideas welcomed.
Get rid of the advertisements -- they're annoying and look very
amateurish.
The huge photo of the wolf -- why is that there and why does it need
to take up so much of the page? Plus, when you click on Home > Outer
Space > Galaxies, the photos are all confined to a very small framed-
in area (recall: "Frames suck" -- Richard on m.t.r) while that darn
wolf is still taking up most of the space.
The orange color is annoying, but the blue-grey isn't bad.
There is no intuitive way to get to the photos. When you first enter
the site, all you have (besides that huge photo of the wolf staring
at you for no reason) is a button on the left labeled "Home." Well, if
you've just come to the site, you ARE "home," so why should a visitor
just know to click on the Home button to actually LEAVE Home?
When you're in a gallery and click on a blue-bordered image, you don't
actually get a full-sized image, which is what a visitor would expect.
Instead, you get the same small thumbnail and a textual description.
While I'd suggest removing the blue border, you might want to actually
link the thumbnails to full-size images -- otherwise, why have a
gallery if you can't see the images?
Are you planning on hosting your own images here or simply copying
ones from other sites? If you're just going to replicate, you might
not want to waste your time, as they're already hosted elsewhere and
the image owners might not be too appreciative of you pirating their
images without permission.
In all, hard to navigate, not intuitive, poorly designed and the
implementation of the unnecessary frames is clunky, at best.
Looks like you've got a ways to go to even match some of the other
sites you like to bash so much...
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org
Richard
> Richard wrote:
>> Not much at the moment. Thought I'd ask y'all if you'd like to see
>> included
>> any road related items or not.
>> I may include a section on various types of bridges.
>> Any ideas welcomed.
> Get rid of the advertisements -- they're annoying and look very
> amateurish.
Sorry, the ads are put there by the host as conditions of use.
Beats the hell out of shitty geocities.
> The huge photo of the wolf -- why is that there and why does it need
> to take up so much of the page? Plus, when you click on Home > Outer
> Space > Galaxies, the photos are all confined to a very small framed-
> in area (recall: "Frames suck" -- Richard on m.t.r) while that darn
> wolf is still taking up most of the space.
Frames? What frames? You show me where I have one damn frame on that site.
I use divisions and css.
What you see is called a scrolling division and is very applicable to what I
am presenting.
And the wolf size? I don't see where a 600 pixel width image is all that
annoying or obtrusive.
BTW, go back in an hour or so and you'll see an entirely different image.
> The orange color is annoying, but the blue-grey isn't bad.
The orange may get changed later.
> There is no intuitive way to get to the photos. When you first enter
> the site, all you have (besides that huge photo of the wolf staring
> at you for no reason) is a button on the left labeled "Home." Well, if
> you've just come to the site, you ARE "home," so why should a visitor
> just know to click on the Home button to actually LEAVE Home?
For now, the "home" thing is just a way to show something.
What would you suggest as an appropriate replacement? "Click here"? "Start
here"?
You tell me.
> When you're in a gallery and click on a blue-bordered image, you don't
> actually get a full-sized image, which is what a visitor would expect.
> Instead, you get the same small thumbnail and a textual description.
> While I'd suggest removing the blue border, you might want to actually
> link the thumbnails to full-size images -- otherwise, why have a
> gallery if you can't see the images?
What browser are you using that does this?
I have large size images appropriately linked.
http://somestuff.batcave.net/screen.jpg
I don't believe the image below the scrolling division is a thumbnail now is
it?
> Are you planning on hosting your own images here or simply copying
> ones from other sites? If you're just going to replicate, you might
> not want to waste your time, as they're already hosted elsewhere and
> the image owners might not be too appreciative of you pirating their
> images without permission.
I'm well aware of copyright issues thank you.
Which is why I will only use photos that are "Public domain" types.
That is, no one person can lay claim to the image.
NASA has stated that all of their images are "Public domain" and freely
useable for non-commercial use.
It is the selling of said images that gets people into trouble.
> In all, hard to navigate, not intuitive, poorly designed and the
> implementation of the unnecessary frames is clunky, at best.
What frickin frames?
The reason I chose that menu is because it is easy to navigate.
> Looks like you've got a ways to go to even match some of the other
> sites you like to bash so much...
Which is precisely what you are doing here.
Because I picked on some of your stuff, you choose to return the favor.
Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and filed.
joe the fool
richard, you're site sucks for all the reasons mentioned...you also suck
(again for all the reasons mentioned)!
"Chris Bessert" <bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ctr3kt$14jf$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Sherman Cahal
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:45:19 -0500 Chris Bessert wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> > The huge photo of the wolf -- why is that there and why does it
need
> > to take up so much of the page? Plus, when you click on Home >
Outer
> > Space > Galaxies, the photos are all confined to a very small
framed-
> > in area (recall: "Frames suck" -- Richard on m.t.r) while that darn
> > wolf is still taking up most of the space.
>
> Frames? What frames? You show me where I have one damn frame on that
site.
> I use divisions and css.
> What you see is called a scrolling division and is very applicable to
what I
> am presenting.
I believe Richard does use an annoying high percentage of <div> tags
combined with lots of javascript code, that really isn't needed,
instead of frames.
> And the wolf size? I don't see where a 600 pixel width image is all
that
> annoying or obtrusive.
> BTW, go back in an hour or so and you'll see an entirely different
image.
600 pixels is my standard, for a standard 4x6 print. (1 inch = 100 px)
Too bad the thumbnails are buried in a menu that has a scroll bar
(another annoying thing since the page functions as frames).
> > Are you planning on hosting your own images here or simply copying
> > ones from other sites? If you're just going to replicate, you might
> > not want to waste your time, as they're already hosted elsewhere
and
> > the image owners might not be too appreciative of you pirating
their
> > images without permission.
>
> I'm well aware of copyright issues thank you.
No you are not Richard. We have pounded copyright information after
copyright information yet you refuse it.
> Which is why I will only use photos that are "Public domain" types.
> That is, no one person can lay claim to the image.
> NASA has stated that all of their images are "Public domain" and
freely
> useable for non-commercial use.
> It is the selling of said images that gets people into trouble.
As for road photos, do not take any from any personal sites, as they
have a copyright stamped on them from the point they were taken. In
such that if one does not register their photos for full copyright
protection, they are still copyrighted by the photographer, but ONLY
for that image and not from the vantage point they were taken at. For
example, if you go down and take a photo of one that I took a few years
back, then it is YOURS to keep as YOU took the photo. But if YOU took
one of MY photos and used it on your site, despite my copyright
warnings, then YOU would be in violation.
> > In all, hard to navigate, not intuitive, poorly designed and the
> > implementation of the unnecessary frames is clunky, at best.
>
> What frickin frames?
> The reason I chose that menu is because it is easy to navigate.
The javascript acts as a framing tool.
> > Looks like you've got a ways to go to even match some of the other
> > sites you like to bash so much...
>
> Which is precisely what you are doing here.
> Because I picked on some of your stuff, you choose to return the
favor.
> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and filed.
You asked for our opinions Richard, and now we give them to you, as you
have given them to us in the past (poorly stated, however).
Chris Bessert
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:45:19 -0500 Chris Bessert wrote:
>>Richard wrote:
>
>>>www.somestuff.batcave.net
>
>>>Not much at the moment. Thought I'd ask y'all if you'd like to see
>>>included
>>>any road related items or not.
>>>I may include a section on various types of bridges.
>>>Any ideas welcomed.
>
>>Get rid of the advertisements -- they're annoying and look very
>>amateurish.
>
> Sorry, the ads are put there by the host as conditions of use.
No one is forcing you to use that provider. See my sites for an example
of what having no annoying and unprofessional advertisements can do
for you.
> Beats the hell out of shitty geocities.
Yeah, an ad-filled unprofessional-looking site beats an ad-filled
unprofessional-looking site. Ads are ads, I don't care what word is
in the URL -- geocities.com vs battguano.com -- there are still dis-
tracting and annoying ads up there.
>>The huge photo of the wolf -- why is that there and why does it need
>>to take up so much of the page? Plus, when you click on Home > Outer
>>Space > Galaxies, the photos are all confined to a very small framed-
>>in area (recall: "Frames suck" -- Richard on m.t.r) while that darn
>>wolf is still taking up most of the space.
>
> Frames? What frames? You show me where I have one damn frame on that site.
> I use divisions and css.
> What you see is called a scrolling division and is very applicable to what I
> am presenting.
Actually, I don't care what you call it -- frames vs scrolling divis-
ions -- they act the same and are very cumbersome to use. The size of
your very much frames-like "scrolling division" is extremely small in
relation to the entire website -- maybe ten percent or less of the en-
tire page! I took a screenshot to illustrate how you can't even see
the entirety of the thumbnails because your "scrolling division" is
so small:
http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/richard.batshit.com.gif
And now there's this HUGE picture of an astronaut sitting there taking
up all that valuable real estate that could otherwise be used to show
thumbnails -- instead of having to scroll for two years through that
tiny "scrolling division" window -- or for viewing any full-size
images.
> And the wolf size? I don't see where a 600 pixel width image is all that
> annoying or obtrusive.
But, other than maybe as an opening page graphic, what is its purpose
on the page? What does it do for the site visitor? It's on ALL of the
pages and, as I noted above, it takes up a shitload of valuable screen
real estate that could otherwise be used for viewing thumbnails -- in-
stead of having to scroll a tiny window up and down.
> BTW, go back in an hour or so and you'll see an entirely different image.
It's not the wolf itself I found annoying -- he looked kind of neat
-- but the massive image taking up all that real estate. Replace the
massive, useless image with any other massive, useless image and it'll
still be a massive, useless image, Richard.
>>There is no intuitive way to get to the photos. When you first enter
>>the site, all you have (besides that huge photo of the wolf staring
>>at you for no reason) is a button on the left labeled "Home." Well, if
>>you've just come to the site, you ARE "home," so why should a visitor
>>just know to click on the Home button to actually LEAVE Home?
>
> For now, the "home" thing is just a way to show something.
Generally "Home" gets you to the homepage. To most visitors, "Home"
doesn't equate to "Click Here For The Navigation Menu".
> What would you suggest as an appropriate replacement? "Click here"? "Start
> here"? You tell me.
Why? It's YOUR site. You do what you want to. I'm just telling you
where I see problems -- which is what you requested. No need to get
testy with me because your site needs a lot of work.
But, since I'm a nice guy at heart, here's a suggestion or two. Why
not just expand the menu -- if not completely then to the major sub-
ject headings -- instead of keeping it "rolled up" by default? Why use
scripting at all to accomplish something that you can do with simple
HTML that's guaranteed to work with ALL browsers on ALL platforms re-
gardless of the personal browser settings? Why introduce so much over-
complexity for an otherwise simple site?
>>When you're in a gallery and click on a blue-bordered image, you don't
>>actually get a full-sized image, which is what a visitor would expect.
>>Instead, you get the same small thumbnail and a textual description.
>>While I'd suggest removing the blue border, you might want to actually
>>link the thumbnails to full-size images -- otherwise, why have a
>>gallery if you can't see the images?
>
> What browser are you using that does this?
It shouldn't matter. Websites should be designed to work with ANY
standards-compliant browser, not just one. With Internet Exploiter
on life-support these days and much faster, more efficient and more
secure browsers coming on strong and the good ol' Netscape mainstay
also gaining more use again, coding for one browser is rather idiotic.
And, as a webmaster, isn't it your responsibility to proof your own
site in a variety of browsers first? They're all free to download, so
you can't claim excessive costs. At home I have Netscape 7, Firefox,
IE, Opera, Safari and a few others to test with. Sure, 99 percent of
the time I only use one of them, but I break them all out for testing.
> I have large size images appropriately linked.
> http://somestuff.batcave.net/screen.jpg
> I don't believe the image below the scrolling division is a thumbnail now is
> it?
No, it was a wolf and is now an astonaut. All that happens when I
click on a thumbnail is a name/description appears. The large static
image (wolf, astronaut, what have you) doesn't change. Is it supposed
to? If so, your site is majorly broken. Nothing I do will change the
astronaut (formerly wolf) from being an astronaut.
>>Are you planning on hosting your own images here or simply copying
>>ones from other sites? If you're just going to replicate, you might
>>not want to waste your time, as they're already hosted elsewhere and
>>the image owners might not be too appreciative of you pirating their
>>images without permission.
>
> I'm well aware of copyright issues thank you.
Actually, you were soundly trounced on that issue. If I were you,
I wouldn't bring it up again to save yourself from severe embarrass-
ment.
> Which is why I will only use photos that are "Public domain" types.
> That is, no one person can lay claim to the image.
> NASA has stated that all of their images are "Public domain" and freely
> useable for non-commercial use.
And I have no problem with that. My issue is why re-host images that
are freely available elsewhere? Where would the average web surfer go
for images of, say, astronauts? Your site (www.richard.batshit.com) or
NASA? Your site would be much better suited to host photos that are
of interest to you and ones you've either taken or agreed to host
for someone else. Otherwise, you're just copying stuff that's readily
available from more authoritative sources. I could just as easily
copy the entire Wisconsin Department of Transportation website and
put it up on my own, but why? Why replicate something for no reason?
> It is the selling of said images that gets people into trouble.
I know. I wasn't talking about selling them.
>>In all, hard to navigate, not intuitive, poorly designed and the
>>implementation of the unnecessary frames is clunky, at best.
>
> What frickin frames?
Your frame-esque "scrolling divisions." People hate frames and/or
"scrolling divisions" because they're a pain-in-the-ass and can make
navigation frustrating, not because they're called "frames."
I know you've come out in the past lambasting frames, so why use a
CSS device that replicates the operation of frames? That's like saying
"Blinking text sucks, but hey, by using CSS and Javascript I've been
able to make this text blink!" Most site visitors could care less HOW
you made the text blink or HOW you made the content scroll in its own
tiny window, it's still annoying.
> The reason I chose that menu is because it is easy to navigate.
Easy how? You have to know how to use it before you can navigate. To
make something truly easy to use, it needs to be intuitive. Your
"Home" means "Leave Home and Go Somewhere Else Except If You're Already
Somewhere Else, Then Hit This To Go Home" is very counterintuitive
and you have absolutely nothing in the space below your menu, so why
not fill it with a navigation menu?
>>Looks like you've got a ways to go to even match some of the other
>>sites you like to bash so much...
>
> Which is precisely what you are doing here.
Which is precisly what you invited all of us to do, Richard! Why is
it alright if you bash other people's sites simply because the material
presented on them is "boring" to you, yet I cannot offer a whole slew
of constructive criticisms that you asked me to provice? Kind of
hypocritical, if you ask me.
You asked, "What do you think" and I answered your question. And I
think hosting NASA images is VERY boring, myself, and I find no reason
to try to figure out how to use your counterintuitive website just to
view images I can more easily see elsewhere. And THAT is the truth!
> Because I picked on some of your stuff, you choose to return the favor.
I don't recall you picking on my stuff.
If you have any criticisms of my site, let me know!
> Your puny little opinion has been duly noted and filed.
Your puny little retort has been duly laughed at and ridiculed.
Oh, and your site still has more flaws than we can comment on. Get to
work and stop chit-chatting here...
Sherman Cahal
> Richard-for-Brains wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:45:19 -0500 Chris Bessert wrote:
> >>Richard wrote:
> >
> >>>www.somestuff.batcave.net
> >
> >>>Not much at the moment. Thought I'd ask y'all if you'd like to see
> >>>included
> >>>any road related items or not.
> >>>I may include a section on various types of bridges.
> >>>Any ideas welcomed.
> >
> >>Get rid of the advertisements -- they're annoying and look very
> >>amateurish.
> >
> > Sorry, the ads are put there by the host as conditions of use.
>
> No one is forcing you to use that provider. See my sites for an
example
> of what having no annoying and unprofessional advertisements can do
> for you.
>
> > Beats the hell out of shitty geocities.
>
> Yeah, an ad-filled unprofessional-looking site beats an ad-filled
> unprofessional-looking site. Ads are ads, I don't care what word is
> in the URL -- geocities.com vs battguano.com -- there are still dis-
> tracting and annoying ads up there.
Unfortunately, there are few free providers anymore. I remember when
Geocities was good (a LONG time ago). Xoom, then NBCi were all very
good until the end.
> http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/richard.batshit.com.gif
I get that in Internet Explorer 6 (rarely use it) and Mozilla Firefox
1.0.
> And now there's this HUGE picture of an astronaut sitting there
taking
> up all that valuable real estate that could otherwise be used to show
> thumbnails -- instead of having to scroll for two years through that
> tiny "scrolling division" window -- or for viewing any full-size
> images.
I invested in reading and learned PHP and MYSQL -- created my own photo
gallery system that has evolved into a content management software for
servers. In two months.
http://www.abandonedonline.com/index.php3?catid=16&photos=1
Now that may be a little bit elaborate for most needs, but I hosted
over 1,500 photos on Abandoned, and over 2,000 photos on Ohio Valley
Transit at one time. I plan on converting my sites to the same system
once I get everything ironed out. See 'updates' for more information on
that.
In Richard's case, he should get a good HTML design book and read
through it. It doesn't have to be fancy or have PHP scripts, although
in my case, its to keep everything centralized in a database, so if I
want to redesign my site, I just update two files and I am done, not
1,000 files...
> It shouldn't matter. Websites should be designed to work with ANY
> standards-compliant browser, not just one. With Internet Exploiter
> on life-support these days and much faster, more efficient and more
> secure browsers coming on strong and the good ol' Netscape mainstay
> also gaining more use again, coding for one browser is rather
idiotic.
Internet Explorer also does not follow proper HTML standards, either.
Microsoft 'juiced' up the browser in the late 1990's and still do to
this date with its own features and rendering capabilities. That is why
people who design ONLY for Internet Explorer have sites that look
absolutely shitty in Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape, Opera,
Safari... which all those browsers render pages as they SHOULD be.
At least Richard is not using Active-X (which was a BIG mistake to put
in an internet browser).
Richard
Where the sam hell do you see frickin frames used?
A scrolling division is not a frickin frame.
The only thing the javascript does is either hide or show the proper
division.
I could do the same thing with css and position:absolute with z-index, but
then that would load any and all images, which would take forever.
As for the copyright on the images, you would have to be able to prove
beyond any reasonable doubt that the image is yours and yours alone.
If I can show another source for that image, that blows your infringement
case right out the window.
Yeah you have the right to use your own image, as I do with mine.
I wouldn't use your crappy photos anyway.
Chris Bessert
> Chris Bessert wrote:
>>Richard-for-Brains wrote:
>>
>>>Beats the hell out of shitty geocities.
>>
>>Yeah, an ad-filled unprofessional-looking site beats an ad-filled
>>unprofessional-looking site. Ads are ads, I don't care what word is
>>in the URL -- geocities.com vs battguano.com -- there are still dis-
>>tracting and annoying ads up there.
>
> Unfortunately, there are few free providers anymore. I remember when
> Geocities was good (a LONG time ago). Xoom, then NBCi were all very
> good until the end.
Yep, but he wanted to know what I thought. He always bashes other
sites with useless comments along the lines of "That's boring," which
is about as unconstructive as they come. Personally, I find advertise-
ments highly annoying and I let him know. Mind you, I can put up with
them if the site I'm visiting is otherwise interesting. In the case of
Richard's site, it's very uninteresting, so the ads stand out that
much more.
>> http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/richard.batshit.com.gif
>
> I get that in Internet Explorer 6 (rarely use it) and Mozilla Firefox
> 1.0.
So, you get it in IE and Mozilla... that's like 99 percent of web
browsers. As long as the site visitor is not browsing with a web
browser, Richard will be okay.
>>And now there's this HUGE picture of an astronaut sitting there
>>taking
>>up all that valuable real estate that could otherwise be used to show
>>thumbnails -- instead of having to scroll for two years through that
>>tiny "scrolling division" window -- or for viewing any full-size
>>images.
>
> I invested in reading and learned PHP and MYSQL -- created my own photo
> gallery system that has evolved into a content management software for
> servers. In two months. [...]
> Now that may be a little bit elaborate for most needs, but I hosted
> over 1,500 photos on Abandoned, and over 2,000 photos on Ohio Valley
> Transit at one time. I plan on converting my sites to the same system
> once I get everything ironed out. See 'updates' for more information on
> that.
But you have a massive amount of photographs you're hosting and a
good reason (site management) to implement such high-end tactics.
> In Richard's case, he should get a good HTML design book and read
> through it. It doesn't have to be fancy or have PHP scripts, [...]
Exactly. I once used frames and other Javascript trickery in an
attempt to not only make my sites more "navigable," but also for
the "cool" factor... until I found it was so much more of a pain
in the ass to maintain and get complaints from visitors who couldn't
use the "cool trickery". In the end, K.I.S.S. works best. I'd like
to think the latest incarnations of the Michigan Highways and Wiscon-
sin Highways website are very navigable, with zero Javascript and
zero frames or "scrolling divisions." Sure, I could do a little more,
but the basic navigability of my website is there only using HTML.
(Of couse, managing the site via templates in Dreamweaver makes my
life so much easier, but that's a site management tool, not a coding
language...)
>>It shouldn't matter. Websites should be designed to work with ANY
>>standards-compliant browser, not just one. With Internet Exploiter
>>on life-support these days and much faster, more efficient and more
>>secure browsers coming on strong and the good ol' Netscape mainstay
>>also gaining more use again, coding for one browser is rather
>>idiotic.
>
> Internet Explorer also does not follow proper HTML standards, either.
> Microsoft 'juiced' up the browser in the late 1990's and still do to
> this date with its own features and rendering capabilities. That is why
> people who design ONLY for Internet Explorer have sites that look
> absolutely shitty in Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape, Opera,
> Safari... which all those browsers render pages as they SHOULD be.
I'll admit, IE doesn't murder my sites too bad, but they still look
so much better in the standards-compliant browsers...
> At least Richard is not using Active-X (which was a BIG mistake to put
> in an internet browser).
Sssshhhh! He might do it!
Chris Bessert
> Where the sam hell do you see frickin frames used?
Your "scrolling division" that replicates the function of frames.
> A scrolling division is not a frickin frame.
Yeah, it just looks and acts exactly like them.
> The only thing the javascript does is either hide or show the proper
> division.
> I could do the same thing with css and position:absolute with z-index, but
> then that would load any and all images, which would take forever.
Or you could do it in any of sixteen other ways...
> As for the copyright on the images, you would have to be able to prove
> beyond any reasonable doubt that the image is yours and yours alone.
> If I can show another source for that image, that blows your infringement
> case right out the window.
> Yeah you have the right to use your own image, as I do with mine.
> I wouldn't use your crappy photos anyway.
You're funny.
Sherman Cahal
> Where the sam hell do you see frickin frames used?
> A scrolling division is not a frickin frame.
"Too bad the thumbnails are buried in a menu that has a scroll bar
(another annoying thing since the page functions as frames)."
I did not state that it WAS a frame but the javascript code you are
using FUNCTIONS as frames. As in, replicates them.
> The only thing the javascript does is either hide or show the proper
> division.
> I could do the same thing with css and position:absolute with
z-index, but
> then that would load any and all images, which would take forever.
I looked through your source code. Just keep it simple Richard.
> As for the copyright on the images, you would have to be able to
prove
> beyond any reasonable doubt that the image is yours and yours alone.
> If I can show another source for that image, that blows your
infringement
> case right out the window.
I'm not getting into your mindless dribble about copyright again.
> Yeah you have the right to use your own image, as I do with mine.
> I wouldn't use your crappy photos anyway.
Really? I guess you failed to see the magazines and publications that I
have been published in, both for Abandoned and for Ohio Valley Transit.
I take far superior photos compared to your 'lifted' images from NASA
and other sites.
Sherman Cahal
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > Chris Bessert wrote:
> >>Richard-for-Brains wrote:
> >> http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/richard.batshit.com.gif
> >
> > I get that in Internet Explorer 6 (rarely use it) and Mozilla
Firefox
> > 1.0.
>
> So, you get it in IE and Mozilla... that's like 99 percent of web
> browsers. As long as the site visitor is not browsing with a web
> browser, Richard will be okay.
I think Richard uses an all-text browser, like in the olden days :)
> >>And now there's this HUGE picture of an astronaut sitting there
> >>taking
> >>up all that valuable real estate that could otherwise be used to
show
> >>thumbnails -- instead of having to scroll for two years through
that
> >>tiny "scrolling division" window -- or for viewing any full-size
> >>images.
> >
> > I invested in reading and learned PHP and MYSQL -- created my own
photo
> > gallery system that has evolved into a content management software
for
> > servers. In two months. [...]
> > Now that may be a little bit elaborate for most needs, but I hosted
> > over 1,500 photos on Abandoned, and over 2,000 photos on Ohio
Valley
> > Transit at one time. I plan on converting my sites to the same
system
> > once I get everything ironed out. See 'updates' for more
information on
> > that.
>
> But you have a massive amount of photographs you're hosting and a
> good reason (site management) to implement such high-end tactics.
And is something I'm still working on. It's been a work in progress for
the past two months, and you know how much I like redesigning sites
because I do it like every month :) (I like to be a site designer,
hence my major in art studio with a discipline in digital media and
photography). But I like my designs to this date and will probably not
be changing it.
> > In Richard's case, he should get a good HTML design book and read
> > through it. It doesn't have to be fancy or have PHP scripts, [...]
>
> Exactly. I once used frames and other Javascript trickery in an
> attempt to not only make my sites more "navigable," but also for
> the "cool" factor... until I found it was so much more of a pain
> in the ass to maintain and get complaints from visitors who couldn't
> use the "cool trickery". In the end, K.I.S.S. works best. I'd like
> to think the latest incarnations of the Michigan Highways and Wiscon-
> sin Highways website are very navigable, with zero Javascript and
> zero frames or "scrolling divisions." Sure, I could do a little more,
> but the basic navigability of my website is there only using HTML.
> (Of couse, managing the site via templates in Dreamweaver makes my
> life so much easier, but that's a site management tool, not a coding
> language...)
I never did grasp the concept of templetes in Dreamweaver. I started to
use them for one of the UK sites, but the webmaster told me that I
could not use them (wtf? It's not as if the template files themselves
will be publically viewable). I had to stick to all HTML files...
Chris Bessert
> Chris Bessert wrote:
>>
>>>In Richard's case, he should get a good HTML design book and read
>>>through it. It doesn't have to be fancy or have PHP scripts, [...]
>>
>>Exactly. I once used frames and other Javascript trickery in an
>>attempt to not only make my sites more "navigable," but also for
>>the "cool" factor... until I found it was so much more of a pain
>>in the ass to maintain and get complaints from visitors who couldn't
>>use the "cool trickery". In the end, K.I.S.S. works best. I'd like
>>to think the latest incarnations of the Michigan Highways and Wiscon-
>>sin Highways website are very navigable, with zero Javascript and
>>zero frames or "scrolling divisions." Sure, I could do a little more,
>>but the basic navigability of my website is there only using HTML.
>>(Of couse, managing the site via templates in Dreamweaver makes my
>>life so much easier, but that's a site management tool, not a coding
>>language...)
>
> I never did grasp the concept of templetes in Dreamweaver. I started to
> use them for one of the UK sites, but the webmaster told me that I
> could not use them (wtf? It's not as if the template files themselves
> will be publically viewable). I had to stick to all HTML files...
???
I don't think your professor understood Dreamweaver's templates. As
far as I can see, once you save your template changes and upload the
files, it's all 100% Grade A, farm-raised, grain-fed, USDA Choice
HTML. All the template system does is place a comment in your HTML
that tells Dreamweaver this particular page uses Such-and-Such template
document and that if any changes are saved to the template, the same
changes shall be applied to each page using the template.
For example from the "Route Markers" page at Wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/route_markers.html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html><!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/Wisconsin Highways
Template.dwt" codeOutsideHTMLIsLocked="false" -->
<head>
[...]
So, you can see via the source code (taken directly from the live page
on my website) that Dreamweaver puts that comment in after the <html>
tag and uses the template "Wisconsin Highways Template.dwt". And since
the template itself is an HTML document with some extra "Dreamweaver-
specific comments" and each page is an HTML document, again with some
extra comments thrown in, I fail to see the issue.
Of course, the prof could just want to show you how to do things
"the olde fashioned way," just like we all had to experience using
Leroy lettering and other manual drafting methods just once in our
Cartography & GIS classes before they unleased us on those new-fangled
computers (which, back then, were spankin' new 90 mHz Pentiums with,
like, a whole 16 or 32 MB of RAM or something!).
So, what your prof may be showing you is how to repeatedly do long
division by hand before he'll let you use the calculator. I can code
HTML by hand, too, but I find site management tools like templates and
CSS so much more useful. If I want to change one link on my leftside
navigation menu, instead of having to implement the change on a ba-
zillion individual pages, I update one template, apply the changes to
all pages using that template, then synchronize my website (compares
all files locally and remotely and uploads the changed files to the
web server) and I'm done.
Later,
Chris
OG Loc
> Chris Bessert wrote:
>> Sherman Cahal wrote:
>>> Chris Bessert wrote:
>>>> Richard-for-Brains wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/richard.batshit.com.gif
>>>
>>> I get that in Internet Explorer 6 (rarely use it) and Mozilla Firefox
>>> 1.0.
>>
>> So, you get it in IE and Mozilla... that's like 99 percent of web
>> browsers. As long as the site visitor is not browsing with a web
>> browser, Richard will be okay.
>
> I think Richard uses an all-text browser, like in the olden days :)
The first time I ever used the internet was at a library in Savannah in 96.
The computers were running DOS and the web browser was Lynx. No pictures,
no colors, just green text, all in the same font.
--
"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The Constitution was written on reefer by dudes with wooden teeth" - OG Loc
me
news:36d2bmF...@individual.net...
> The first time I ever used the internet was at a library in Savannah in
96.
> The computers were running DOS and the web browser was Lynx. No pictures,
> no colors, just green text, all in the same font.
I still use lynx occasionally from my linux shell account.
Ben Prusia
yours.
Ben Prusia
kcroads.com
midwestbridges.com
"Richard" <Anon...@127.001> wrote in message
news:ctr0c...@news1.newsguy.com...
Oscar Voss
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:45:19 -0500 Chris Bessert wrote:
> > Are you planning on hosting your own images here or simply copying
> > ones from other sites? If you're just going to replicate, you might
> > not want to waste your time, as they're already hosted elsewhere and
> > the image owners might not be too appreciative of you pirating their
> > images without permission.
>
> I'm well aware of copyright issues thank you.
> Which is why I will only use photos that are "Public domain" types.
> That is, no one person can lay claim to the image.
> NASA has stated that all of their images are "Public domain" and freely
> useable for non-commercial use.
> It is the selling of said images that gets people into trouble.
Yeah, just don't overgeneralize. NASA, like the rest of the Federal
Government, is not allowed to copyright its own work product at all. That's
not true for other governments, such as the states or Canada, let alone
private websites.
While lifting images off Federal websites is perfectly legal (I do it
selectively, with detailed photo credits to the relevant agencies), it
doesn't normally score a lot of points on originality.
--
Oscar Voss - ov...@erols.com - Arlington, Virginia
my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://users.erols.com/ovoss/
Sherman Cahal
Sorry, I worded my reply very badly. What I meant was, that I had a
general concept of templates. I was not very good at them (they
provided me with no books, and since it is just a temporary job I am
not going to shell $50 out of my own pocket for a book). The webmaster
at the Univ. of Kentucky (actually is a collective group) has very
strict rules.
For instance, you must have the UK banner at the top of every page.
Another dumb rule was I violated was changing the banner at
http://www.rs.uky.edu/sherman/ (tempoary URL, will be moved to the main
site once I get done with all the work). I had fashioned a MUCH better
image, but they balked and wanted it done that way.
Another item was the templetes; my original plan was to continue to use
them, but they were afraid that once I would leave the job, noone else
would know how to use them. I clearly explained how easy it was but its
like talking to a bunch of idiots.
Then I had an idea of using a templating system and using 5 lines of
code which I had used on my site before. Very easy and only one page
needed to be modified. Didn't fly either.
So I was stuck doing it all using HTML files but kept the PHP extension
in case I needed to add anything later, like password validation, etc.
> So, you can see via the source code (taken directly from the live
page
> on my website) that Dreamweaver puts that comment in after the <html>
> tag and uses the template "Wisconsin Highways Template.dwt". And
since
> the template itself is an HTML document with some extra "Dreamweaver-
> specific comments" and each page is an HTML document, again with some
> extra comments thrown in, I fail to see the issue.
I did too.
> So, what your prof may be showing you is how to repeatedly do long
> division by hand before he'll let you use the calculator. I can code
> HTML by hand, too, but I find site management tools like templates
and
> CSS so much more useful. If I want to change one link on my leftside
> navigation menu, instead of having to implement the change on a ba-
> zillion individual pages, I update one template, apply the changes to
> all pages using that template, then synchronize my website (compares
> all files locally and remotely and uploads the changed files to the
> web server) and I'm done.
I use Dreamweaver to keep everything organized and as an editior at
home for my sites. I love the program :)
Sherman Cahal
Sorry, I worded my reply very badly. What I meant was, that I had a
general concept of templates. I was not very good at them (they
provided me with no books, and since it is just a temporary job I am
not going to shell $50 out of my own pocket for a book). The webmaster
at the Univ. of Kentucky (actually is a collective group) has very
strict rules.
For instance, you must have the UK banner at the top of every page.
Another dumb rule was I violated was changing the banner at
http://www.rs.uky.edu/sherman/ (tempoary URL, will be moved to the main
site once I get done with all the work). I had fashioned a MUCH better
image, but they balked and wanted it done that way.
Another item was the templetes; my original plan was to continue to use
them, but they were afraid that once I would leave the job, noone else
would know how to use them. I clearly explained how easy it was but its
like talking to a bunch of idiots.
Then I had an idea of using a templating system and using 5 lines of
code which I had used on my site before. Very easy and only one page
needed to be modified. Didn't fly either.
So I was stuck doing it all using HTML files but kept the PHP extension
in case I needed to add anything later, like password validation, etc.
> So, you can see via the source code (taken directly from the live
page
> on my website) that Dreamweaver puts that comment in after the <html>
> tag and uses the template "Wisconsin Highways Template.dwt". And
since
> the template itself is an HTML document with some extra "Dreamweaver-
> specific comments" and each page is an HTML document, again with some
> extra comments thrown in, I fail to see the issue.
I did too.
> So, what your prof may be showing you is how to repeatedly do long
> division by hand before he'll let you use the calculator. I can code
> HTML by hand, too, but I find site management tools like templates
and
> CSS so much more useful. If I want to change one link on my leftside
> navigation menu, instead of having to implement the change on a ba-
> zillion individual pages, I update one template, apply the changes to
> all pages using that template, then synchronize my website (compares
> all files locally and remotely and uploads the changed files to the
> web server) and I'm done.
I use Dreamweaver to keep everything organized and as an editior at
home for my sites. I love the program :)
> Later,
Richie Kennedy
--
Richie Kennedy
rou...@route56.com · www.route56.com
"There's always a stage and a beautiful babe to squeeze my lime..."
Chris Bessert
> Richie Kennedy <rou...@route56.com> had written:
> | auk invasion in 5... 4... 3...
>
Time to crack open another cold one and forget allllll about it, Mark...
Later,
Chris