What do readers want to know?
Nicky Browne
problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
what the hell do I say on it? I've had a look at a few writer's sites
and have decided to write a bit about the books I've published - how
they came to be written etc. Spouse thinks people aren't v interested
in that ( at least not the way I've written it currently) What do
people think?
( NB favourite question when I meet the younger end of my audience is
not 'where do you get your ideas?' but 'Have you met JK Rowling?' v
impressed when answer is yes, but prob not worth mentioning on my
site!)
Nicky
Patricia J. Hawkins
NB> I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
NB> problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
NB> what the hell do I say on it? I've had a look at a few writer's sites
NB> and have decided to write a bit about the books I've published - how
NB> they came to be written etc. Spouse thinks people aren't v interested
NB> in that ( at least not the way I've written it currently) What do
NB> people think?
I'm always fascinated by everything and anything a writer has to say
about a book, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone who visits that
sort of site, because very often they're imagining doing it too --
writing the book, that is.
I can't comment on what you've currently written though.
NB> ( NB favourite question when I meet the younger end of my audience is
NB> not 'where do you get your ideas?' but 'Have you met JK Rowling?' v
NB> impressed when answer is yes, but prob not worth mentioning on my
NB> site!)
I'd put it in -- just like the above -- it's funny!
--
Patricia J. Hawkins
Hawkins Internet Applications, LLC
Brian D. Fernald
>>>>>>"NB" == Nicky Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>
> NB> I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
> NB> problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
> NB> what the hell do I say on it? I've had a look at a few writer's sites
> NB> and have decided to write a bit about the books I've published - how
> NB> they came to be written etc. Spouse thinks people aren't v interested
> NB> in that ( at least not the way I've written it currently) What do
> NB> people think?
>
> I'm always fascinated by everything and anything a writer has to say
> about a book, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone who visits that
> sort of site, because very often they're imagining doing it too --
> writing the book, that is.
I second this.
I'm always interested in the meta-information about a book that I've
enjoyed. Why you wrote it. What influenced you in writing it. What
sources you might have drawn on to write it.
Also, questions and answers to questions that might commonly get asked
are always a good thing.
>
> I can't comment on what you've currently written though.
>
> NB> ( NB favourite question when I meet the younger end of my audience is
> NB> not 'where do you get your ideas?' but 'Have you met JK Rowling?' v
> NB> impressed when answer is yes, but prob not worth mentioning on my
> NB> site!)
>
> I'd put it in -- just like the above -- it's funny!
>
I can say that I am fascinated by this kind of thing. Call it the
aspects of being a writer. Who you get to met. How you met them. etc.
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
David Friedman
nicky.m...@btinternet.com (Nicky Browne) wrote:
Since my book isn't yet published I don't have a website for it yet,
although I do have a website with lots of my other stuff on it.
When and if I do a website for my book, one thing I would use it for is
maps. Color maps are expensive in a printed book, but cost nothing to
web. There are at least two battles and two or three sections of
campaigns that would be clearer with a map.
The other obvious thing is to answer queries from readers.
Mark Atwood
>
> When and if I do a website for my book, one thing I would use it for is
> maps. Color maps are expensive in a printed book, but cost nothing to
> web. There are at least two battles and two or three sections of
> campaigns that would be clearer with a map.
>
> The other obvious thing is to answer queries from readers.
You can also blog your research and writing, a la Neil Gaiman.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Brent P. Newhall
> I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
> problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
> what the hell do I say on it?
Write anything that interests you, and that you think other people
want to know. Here are a few possibilities:
* What inspired you to write the work? (spousal approbation
notwithstanding)
* Do you like it?
* How'd you get it published?
* If every copy of the book were mysteriously destroyed and you had to
rewrite it, how would it be different?
* How long did it take you to write it?
* What were the circumstances of writing it?
* How does it fit into your growth as a writer? As a person?
Also, it's nice to have samples of the work on the website.
--
Brent P. Newhall
http://brent.other-space.com/
steve miller
wrote:
>Write anything that interests you, and that you think other people
>want to know. Here are a few possibilities:
>* What inspired you to write the work? (spousal approbation
>notwithstanding)
>* Do you like it?
>* How'd you get it published?
>* If every copy of the book were mysteriously destroyed and you had to
>rewrite it, how would it be different?
>* How long did it take you to write it?
>* What were the circumstances of writing it?
>* How does it fit into your growth as a writer? As a person?
>
>Also, it's nice to have samples of the work on the website.
We've included the following --
-- photos - -especially photos from conventions
-- links to the publisher/ publishers of our work
-- links to places where people can buy right now (we make an extra
few hundred$$ per quarter through these links to amazon.com)
-- where people will be able to meet us in the near future --
signings/conventions and etc, links to places where we'll be online
for interviews, or where articles about us have or will appear...
-- what's available now, what's due out
-- links to reviews
-- links to a biography, a bibliography, pronounciation guide....
-- link to a *working email address*
I think it essentail that a writer's webpage go on a domain owned and
controlled by the writer and that the email address be connected to
that domain. Domains are cheap enough these days...
Steve
The Tomorrow Log: order now at fine stores everywhere
Scout's Progress, a Prism Award Winner, from Ace
Elsewhere and Otherwhen -- from http://www.embiid.net
Michael R N Dolbear
Nicky Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote in article
<659bfd21.03021...@posting.google.com>...
OK, so that's one for the FAQ.
Also, fine opportunity for a sample chapter of everything you have
published or to be published.
--
Mike D
Fae Bard
news:659bfd21.03021...@posting.google.com...
> I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
> problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
> what the hell do I say on it?
Forget the self-consciousness for a moment... what would you like to see on
your favorite author's website? What would convince you to buy someone's
book?
Some quick hints if you haven't done web design before:
-don't use music -- it gets annoying and slows down the connection
-keep it easy to navigate
-one page/subject is a good ratio (ie don't put "about the author" and
"preview" on the same page)... people hate scrolling, in general
-try to keep animations to a minimum... again, they slow down the
connection -- plus they're distracting.
-make sure the links are readable against the background once they've been
clicked
(all I can think of at the moment -- by no means complete or The Holy Word
on webpages.)
My website is http://www.faire-folk.com, if you're looking for one take on
layout 'n' stuff.
Good luck!
Meghan
--
***
author of _From the Ashes_
an urban fantasy novel set at Pendragon Renaissance Faire.
For more info, visit http://www.faire-folk.com
Lucinda Welenc
>
> "Nicky Browne" <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:659bfd21.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
> > problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
> > what the hell do I say on it?
>
> Forget the self-consciousness for a moment... what would you like to see on
> your favorite author's website? What would convince you to buy someone's
> book?
>
> Some quick hints if you haven't done web design before:
> -don't use music -- it gets annoying and slows down the connection
> -keep it easy to navigate
> -one page/subject is a good ratio (ie don't put "about the author" and
> "preview" on the same page)... people hate scrolling, in general
?? I guess I'm the exception, then -- I'd rather scroll down a long
page than have to jump to several other pages to follow the same
subject.
But I guess either other people don't have that tolerance or web
designers *think* they don't have it, or one would not see so many
little tags at the bottom of pages 'back to top'.
> -try to keep animations to a minimum... again, they slow down the
> connection -- plus they're distracting.
Strongly worded agreement on the animations -- one webpage that I would
otherwise have been interested in became too annoying for words, because
the designer not only had several cute little animated gifs on each
page, but had a trail of twinkling stars following the cursor.
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
Towse
Fae Bard wrote:
>
> "Nicky Browne" <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:659bfd21.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
> > problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
> > what the hell do I say on it?
>
> Forget the self-consciousness for a moment... what would you like to see on
> your favorite author's website? What would convince you to buy someone's
> book?
I'm a fan of first chapters and author appearance calendars,
links to interviews, and writing here's-what-I-did information.
Neil Gaiman, Mary Anne Mohanraj, Neile Graham, Erin Cashier
Denton, Mary Soon Lee, William Gibson, Vera Nazarian, Bruce
Sterling, others have blogs. I find them entertaining, especially
those more related to the actual writing process and author's
thoughts.
> Some quick hints if you haven't done web design before:
> -don't use music -- it gets annoying and slows down the connection
> -keep it easy to navigate
> -one page/subject is a good ratio (ie don't put "about the author" and
> "preview" on the same page)... people hate scrolling, in general
> -try to keep animations to a minimum... again, they slow down the
> connection -- plus they're distracting.
I have a "no dancing raisins" rule.
> -make sure the links are readable against the background once they've been
> clicked
> (all I can think of at the moment -- by no means complete or The Holy Word
> on webpages.)
Don't forget that there are color blind people in the world.
Don't use red lettering on a black background. No matter how
bright and clear the text seems to you, it'll be unreadable to
something like 8% of NAm males and 0.5% of NAm females.
Blind users appreciate you calling out what your pictures with
the alt tag so their "reading" software can tell them what
they're missing.
Not everyone has cable. You don't have design for the Luddites
and lowest common denominator but some folks _can't get more than
28K and if your pages are too load intensive, they'll walk by.
Remember folks like me who cling to Netscape 4.7x because we like
the seamless interaction of Web, mail and Usenet. I get so tired
of swapping to IE to read a site because it freezes, crashes or
just plain doesn't work with my older browser.
For my dancing raisins rant and more
<http://www.computerbits.com/archive/2002/0900/towse0209.html> In
the same issue, my article on building simple Web sites gives
erroneous information about thumbnails based on some data the
NetMechanic gave me when I was testing stuff. If you're going to
use anything but mini-pictures, use thumbnails (smaller images of
your picture) linked to the full-sized picture (if the user cares
to click) to reduce load time. Just re-sizing the picture smaller
doesn't decrease the load any.
I have some links (surprise!) to other Web building advice here
<http://www.internet-resources.com/writers/wrlinks-business.htm#your>,
including "Building a Writer's Website: Why Should a Writer Have
a Website?" by Victoria Strauss.
> My website is http://www.faire-folk.com, if you're looking for one take on
> layout 'n' stuff.
Good luck with it,
Sal
--
3K+ useful links for writers, researchers and the terminally
curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers/>
Jitender Saan
> My website is http://www.faire-folk.com, if you're looking for one take on
> layout 'n' stuff.
The opening page (which controls the darn frames) is missing the <title>
tag. If you notice, at the top it says [Untitled Document].
Sorry. Being a webmaster doesn't allow you to ignore these itsy-bitsy
things :]
--
Jitender Saan
http://g10.web1000.com
"The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond
or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be
trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit." - Mayar, Third
Keeper
silvasurfa
"Nicky Browne" > wrote in message
> ( NB favourite question when I meet the younger end of my audience is
> not 'where do you get your ideas?' but 'Have you met JK Rowling?' v
> impressed when answer is yes, but prob not worth mentioning on my
> site!)
> Nicky
Why not? Is there an amusing writing/book related anecdote attached? Don't
put it up as a topic in itself, but certainly, if people are interested then
tell them. It isn't shameless name-dropping if you know that people want to
know about it.
Fae Bard
news:3E48A221...@mail.com...
> Fae Bard wrote:
>
> > My website is http://www.faire-folk.com, if you're looking for one take
on
> > layout 'n' stuff.
>
> The opening page (which controls the darn frames) is missing the <title>
> tag. If you notice, at the top it says [Untitled Document].
>
> Sorry. Being a webmaster doesn't allow you to ignore these itsy-bitsy
> things :]
Yeah -- I've been having a huge problem with that... if you happen to have
advice, I'd love to hear it.
I'm (for reference) using Dreamweaver UltraDev 4, and when I open up the
pages in that program, the titles are all there. When I upload them -- I get
that title error. Been beating my head against that one for about six months
now -- and finally just gave up. Perhaps not professional, but I -really-
couldn't figure it out.
Joann Zimmerman
> Don't forget that there are color blind people in the world.
> Don't use red lettering on a black background. No matter how
> bright and clear the text seems to you, it'll be unreadable to
> something like 8% of NAm males and 0.5% of NAm females.
In fact, don't use *anything* on a black background. The number of kids
who think (incorrectly) that I can read dark blue on black is way too
high. And other colors on black look garish and tend to blur, at least
for me.
--
"I never understood people that don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
Fae Bard
news:3E485F82...@cablespeed.com...
> Fae Bard wrote:
>
> > -one page/subject is a good ratio (ie don't put "about the author" and
> > "preview" on the same page)... people hate scrolling, in general
>
> ?? I guess I'm the exception, then -- I'd rather scroll down a long
> page than have to jump to several other pages to follow the same
> subject.
>
> But I guess either other people don't have that tolerance or web
> designers *think* they don't have it, or one would not see so many
> little tags at the bottom of pages 'back to top'.
I guess my big problem (and I've run into this on several sites) where you
have to scroll... and scroll.... and scroll... to find what you're looking
for. Everything's on one page -- and often not well marked. If I want to see
ordering information, I don't want to wade through information about the
author's childhood, favorite kind of cookie, and book previews. I just want
the Amazon link. This is one reason I really like frames -- constant access
available to all areas of the site.
Perhaps I worded my statement wrong? I didn't mean one page as a size
measurement so much as one page = one address (ie
www.yourdomain.com/FAQ.html)
Lucinda Welenc
>
> "Lucinda Welenc" <lwelen...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:3E485F82...@cablespeed.com...
> > Fae Bard wrote:
> >
> > > -one page/subject is a good ratio (ie don't put "about the author" and
> > > "preview" on the same page)... people hate scrolling, in general
> >
> > ?? I guess I'm the exception, then -- I'd rather scroll down a long
> > page than have to jump to several other pages to follow the same
> > subject.
> >
> > But I guess either other people don't have that tolerance or web
> > designers *think* they don't have it, or one would not see so many
> > little tags at the bottom of pages 'back to top'.
>
> I guess my big problem (and I've run into this on several sites) where you
> have to scroll... and scroll.... and scroll... to find what you're looking
> for. Everything's on one page -- and often not well marked. If I want to see
> ordering information, I don't want to wade through information about the
> author's childhood, favorite kind of cookie, and book previews. I just want
> the Amazon link. This is one reason I really like frames -- constant access
> available to all areas of the site.
>
> Perhaps I worded my statement wrong? I didn't mean one page as a size
> measurement so much as one page = one address (ie
> www.yourdomain.com/FAQ.html)
Ah, that makes sense now. What annoys me is, say, the author's favorite
cookies spread out over 8 pages, one recipe per screen.
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra than
Alzheimer's research.
This means that by 2020, there should be a large elderly population with
perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection what to do
with them.
S. Palmer
>
> Fae Bard wrote:
> > This is one reason I really like frames -- constant access
> > available to all areas of the site.
As a user, I *loathe* frames. I will not use frames under any
circumstances, and I tend to avoid sites that are too heavy on frames.
> > Perhaps I worded my statement wrong? I didn't mean one page as a size
> > measurement so much as one page = one address (ie
> > www.yourdomain.com/FAQ.html)
>
> Ah, that makes sense now. What annoys me is, say, the author's favorite
> cookies spread out over 8 pages, one recipe per screen.
That's all common sense, and design sense, mixed together.
I usually have "back to top"
links on any page that exceeds a reasonable screenful, but then, on
those same pages, either it's all about one thing, or it's all related
items and I have links down to each sub-subject. All nicely laid out
with tables, thank you, and perfectly navigable. (OTOH, I do have
certain things grouped into subdirectories -- was that the original
complaint? Like www.mydomain.net/writing/news.html, etc.)
No cookie recipes, though. Am I remiss?
-Suzanne
Jitender Saan
> I'm (for reference) using Dreamweaver UltraDev 4, and when I open up the
> pages in that program, the titles are all there. When I upload them -- I get
> that title error. Been beating my head against that one for about six months
> now -- and finally just gave up. Perhaps not professional, but I -really-
> couldn't figure it out.
The first file that loads (since you are using frames) has, instead of
what I suspected (no <title> tag), a title tag that says <title>Untitled
Document</title>.
Ahem. :)
Don't know much about Dreamweaver as I am a hand-coder but check the
project (or site) properties.
Julian Flood
"Fae Bard" < >
> I guess my big problem (and I've run into this on several sites) where you
> have to scroll... and scroll.... and scroll... to find what you're looking
> for. Everything's on one page -- and often not well marked.
Ah, the bog-roll system. Mine used to run a menu system, life, the universe
and climbing plants, with lots of return to skiffle page etc, which made it
easy to leap around. No cookies, though. I don't know if it still lives.
JF
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jz...@bellereti.com (Joann Zimmerman) wrote:
> In article <3E486C53...@towse.com>, se...@towse.com says...
>
> > Don't forget that there are color blind people in the world.
> > Don't use red lettering on a black background. No matter how
> > bright and clear the text seems to you, it'll be unreadable to
> > something like 8% of NAm males and 0.5% of NAm females.
>
> In fact, don't use *anything* on a black background. The number of kids
> who think (incorrectly) that I can read dark blue on black is way too
> high. And other colors on black look garish and tend to blur, at least
> for me.
Not even white on a black background?
Mary
Boudewijn Rempt
Only if the font is a fairly fat & bold monospaced design
that imitates the old vga card console fonts... And then
the foreground color can also be green, or, for real
class, orange.
--
Boudewijn | http://www.valdyas.org
Suzanne Palmer
> Since my book isn't yet published I don't have a website for it yet,
> although I do have a website with lots of my other stuff on it.
I actually have a website, which has a portion of it about my efforts
at writing. I put it there because a) I have a lot of friends who are
always wanting to know what the current scoop on things is, b) I have
beta-readers for my various shorts/bits of novel, and it gives me a
handy (password-protected) distribution point, and also a place to put
various tinkery worldbuilding stuff that I'm doing (sketches of my
aliens, etc), and c) I have a number of other friends and acquantances
who are just getting into writing, and I find I tend to point people
towards certain URLs repeatedly (critters, Patricia Wrede's
worldbuilding questionairre, SFWA stuff, etc), and this way I can just
put up a big page of useful links.
Of course, I also have bits of stuff about my art, and my kid, and
what I'm reading and all sorts of non-writing-related stuff. So the
site is not focused on my writing, or on marketing my stuff, and I
don't expect it'll ever go that direction. When and if I do get
something published, it'll just get added in with the rest of the
(probably) useless info (-:
-Suzanne
Suzanne Palmer
> Some quick hints if you haven't done web design before:
And, to add to the very good list I've snipped above, very
importantly, the "blink" tag is always, ALWAYS, a bad idea. Except
when it's not, but it's never not.
The O'Reilly HTML book is very good, if you're looking for basic
how-to.
-Suzanne
Zeborah
> I'm (for reference) using Dreamweaver UltraDev 4, and when I open up the
> pages in that program, the titles are all there. When I upload them -- I get
> that title error. Been beating my head against that one for about six months
> now -- and finally just gave up. Perhaps not professional, but I -really-
> couldn't figure it out.
Can you open it just as a text document? If you can it's easy: you'll
see
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
Just change "Untitled Document" to whatever it should be and save it
(make sure it saves as plain text if you're using anything more fancy),
and Bob's your uncle.
I don't know anything about web design programs, I just code it by hand.
Zeborah
--
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz2000
Kangaroo story wordcount: 32609 words
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
boud...@tryllian.com (Boudewijn Rempt) wrote:
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > Not even white on a black background?
> >
>
> Only if the font is a fairly fat & bold monospaced design
> that imitates the old vga card console fonts... And then
> the foreground color can also be green, or, for real
> class, orange.
You're taking me back to my beloved Amstrad PCW. :) I _like_ green...
Mary
Brian M. Scott
news:3E4A6B0D...@umassp.edu in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> The O'Reilly HTML book is very good, if you're looking for
> basic how-to.
In my experience O'Reilly books are always worth a try,
especially if you're a beginner with some background knowledge
and no patience for five pages of hand-holding for every page of
content.
Brian
Joann Zimmerman
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
Even the old fat fonts look furry to me. I hated old CRTs; always felt
like I was looking into a tunnel with a badly-focused movie screen at
some indeterminate distance. Death to VT100s.
David Friedman
Boudewijn Rempt <boud...@tryllian.com> wrote:
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > Not even white on a black background?
> >
>
> Only if the font is a fairly fat & bold monospaced design
> that imitates the old vga card console fonts... And then
> the foreground color can also be green, or, for real
> class, orange.
As in plasma display? What was the name of that machine--looked vaguely
like a Compaq, cost a lot more?
Boudewijn Rempt
> In article <b2ds0j$2he$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>,
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
>> You're taking me back to my beloved Amstrad PCW. :) I _like_ green...
>
> Even the old fat fonts look furry to me. I hated old CRTs; always felt
> like I was looking into a tunnel with a badly-focused movie screen at
> some indeterminate distance. Death to VT100s.
>
I used to have such a lovely amber monitor. Coupled with a hercules
graphics card, it was combination that no CRT could beat until I
got my second LCD screen. The first came with a Compaq laptop.
was 16-degrees-of-gray and had about as much contrast as a
pencil on a slab of lead...
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Irina Rempt
> As in plasma display? What was the name of that machine--looked
> vaguely like a Compaq, cost a lot more?
The old IBM Thinkpad (the first "thin" portable I ever saw, all other
portables looked like sewing machines compared to it) had a plasma
display. Beautiful.
But I think what Boudewijn is talking about is the Hercules display on
his first PC, a 8088 clone. I used it as well for a few years, filling
5 1/4" floppies with the beginnings of Valdyas.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/~irina/foundobjects/ Latest: 08-Feb-2003
Boudewijn Rempt
>>
>> Only if the font is a fairly fat & bold monospaced design
>> that imitates the old vga card console fonts... And then
>> the foreground color can also be green, or, for real
>> class, orange.
>
> As in plasma display? What was the name of that machine--looked vaguely
> like a Compaq, cost a lot more?
>
Mine was an ordinary amber phosphor CRT, but around that time
Toshiba had a lovely plasma portable. More red than amber, though.
MamaG
"Towse" wrote ...
|
|
| Fae Bard wrote:
| >
| > "Nicky Browne" wrote ...
| > > I'm finally getting round to building a website but am dogged by the
| > > problems which have prevented me doing it before 1) idleness and 2)
| > > what the hell do I say on it?
| >
|
| Don't forget that there are color blind people in the world.
| Don't use red lettering on a black background. No matter how
| bright and clear the text seems to you, it'll be unreadable to
| something like 8% of NAm males and 0.5% of NAm females.
|
| Blind users appreciate you calling out what your pictures with
| the alt tag so their "reading" software can tell them what
| they're missing.
|
| Not everyone has cable. You don't have design for the Luddites
| and lowest common denominator but some folks _can't get more than
| 28K and if your pages are too load intensive, they'll walk by.
See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
--
Mama G
BrainsAkimbo
> ( NB favourite question when I meet the younger end of my audience is
> not 'where do you get your ideas?' but 'Have you met JK Rowling?' v
> impressed when answer is yes, but prob not worth mentioning on my
> site!)
You may want to visit www.useit.com for some info
on usability. Bottom line seems to be: use graphic
elements sparingly. Personally, I agree: when reading a website,
if there's a "printable version", I always read that
instead of the version with menus, animations, sidebars and
non-enlargeable fonts.
And by all means, have a separate page for your meeting with
JKR. I would if I had a website and had met her. Include a scan
of the autographed photo if possible. Just kidding!
Just my $0.02
-- BA
Nicky Browne
Thanks for this and the rest of the advice.
Cheers,
Nicky
Steve Taylor
> You may want to visit www.useit.com for some info
> on usability. Bottom line seems to be: use graphic
> elements sparingly.
And one of my hobbyhorses - *never* put text over a patterned or
textured background. No, not even if you've found a lovely scan of some
beautiful parchment or some handmade Japanese paper. Not even if it's
such a subtle pattern that people will hardly notice. Not even if it
perfectly fits the theme of your web site. Not even if the voices in
your head tell you to.
> -- BA
Steve
Brian D. Fernald
What if your body has been taken over brain eating space parasites,
demonic possession, or your mother tells you to?
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
Irina Rempt
> Steve Taylor wrote:
>> And one of my hobbyhorses - *never* put text over a patterned or
>> textured background. No, not even if you've found a lovely scan of
>> some beautiful parchment or some handmade Japanese paper. Not even if
>> it's such a subtle pattern that people will hardly notice.
*Especially* not then. Subliminal annoyance is much more annoying
because you can't tune it out deliberately.
>> Not even
>> if it perfectly fits the theme of your web site. Not even if the
>> voices in your head tell you to.
> What if your body has been taken over brain eating space parasites,
> demonic possession,
In that case you're not to blame.
> or your mother tells you to?
For me, that would be a good reason *not* to do it.
Brooks Moses
> And one of my hobbyhorses - *never* put text over a patterned or
> textured background. No, not even if you've found a lovely scan of some
> beautiful parchment or some handmade Japanese paper. Not even if it's
> such a subtle pattern that people will hardly notice. Not even if it
> perfectly fits the theme of your web site. Not even if the voices in
> your head tell you to.
I note that, if you're really tempted to do so anyway, that you can get
a similar effect by putting it as the page background and then making a
large single-cell table to hold all the text, and having the cell's
background be plain.
On the other hand, I haven't seen any sites like that in a while, now
that I think of it. Maybe it's as passe as rainbow-colored separator
bars....
- Brooks
Supermouse The Rodent
<ry...@acmemail.net> writes
>-one page/subject is a good ratio (ie don't put "about the author" and
>"preview" on the same page)... people hate scrolling, in general
Just a differing opinion here: I prefer to have to click on as few links
as possible, within reason. If information about one subject covers two
screens, leave it on one page rather than making me click the damned
mouse for the second half. I do like seeing hypertext links that let one
'jump' down a long page, but to have the option to scroll as well is
nice. Choice is useful, as the two styles of navigating - short page or
few clicks- are both pretty common.
As for how much whitespace to put in; read the page last thing at night
before going to be when you haven't seen it for a week - if your eyes
glaze over, so will your readers'.
Resist graphics unless needed, very small or placed somewhere that is
easy to find but doesn't have to be downloaded if not wanted. Scorn cute
animation, patterned backgrounds, coloured text, pretty fonts. Over-
designed pages look amateurish, cluttered, busy and hard to read. That
last one is the killer.
If you want a pretty title, in an obscure font, show it as a gif, but
for goodness' sake label it with an alt tag, and something more useful
than '00810.gif'. This goes doubly, triply so for links. Blind people
read books, and web sites, as do people with text-only or obsolete
browsers and/or patchy or slow net connections.
Not everyone in the world is in a rich country with a broadband
connection, the latest version of Internet Explorer and a fast machine.
On the other hand, even the oldest browsers will read text. Mutter this
to yourself every time you see a 'cute' feature on another site.
Pop-ups are so bad this is all I will say on the matter.
Try your page on every browser going; Netscape, Konqueror, IE, Opera...
If you don't know whether your funky new design will display on all of
these, then leave it out, or put it somewhere optional. For example,
David Freidman's map is a great idea, but I'd feel badly towards him if
it were right there on the front page and I had to download it just to
see how he was doing that day. Bandwidth does cost money - yours as well
as the reader's.
Have a menu on the first page. I'm ambiguous as to frames, but note that
navigating within frames leaves me unable to bookmark a particularly
interesting page and in a complex site this has been a problem for me.
Some people find them very useful as a place to put menus. I don't know.
Never, ever, ever, *ever* display your useful text as a scanned graphic.
Leave it as text. If it was originally scanned, put it through an OCR
until you can make a text file out of it. If this seems like work, well,
it is, but so is reading the thing and the readers outnumber you
hundreds to one even for a relatively unknown site.
Let KISS be your watchword and your guide.
Opinionatedly,
--
Supermouse
Trip the Space Parasite From:
I would *never* make someone use a patterned background for text! In
fact, I very rarely deviate from black text on white background.
Trip
--
I write of things which I have neither seen nor learned from another,
things which are not and never could have been, and therefore my readers
should by no means believe them. --Lucian of Samosata
Brian D. Fernald
> "Brian D. Fernald" <bfer...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
>>Steve Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>BrainsAkimbo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may want to visit www.useit.com for some info
>>>>on usability. Bottom line seems to be: use graphic
>>>>elements sparingly.
>>>
>>>
>>>And one of my hobbyhorses - *never* put text over a patterned or
>>>textured background. No, not even if you've found a lovely scan of some
>>>beautiful parchment or some handmade Japanese paper. Not even if it's
>>>such a subtle pattern that people will hardly notice. Not even if it
>>>perfectly fits the theme of your web site. Not even if the voices in
>>>your head tell you to.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>What if your body has been taken over brain eating space parasites,
>>demonic possession, or your mother tells you to?
>
>
> I would *never* make someone use a patterned background for text! In
> fact, I very rarely deviate from black text on white background.
>
Ah HA! (and no that's not just an 80's band with cool videos)
There is goodness in you, I can sense it.
You are not full of evil. Your vileness knows boundaries.
Ah HA!
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
Jonathan L Cunningham
wrote:
>Lucinda Welenc wrote:
>>
>> Fae Bard wrote:
>> > This is one reason I really like frames -- constant access
>> > available to all areas of the site.
>
>As a user, I *loathe* frames. I will not use frames under any
>circumstances, and I tend to avoid sites that are too heavy on frames.
Frames are "deprecated", i.e. they are a Bad Thing. This I agree with.
The acceptable alternative to Frames is Tables.
Apart from which, frames are Morally Bad, because they discriminate
against the visually disabled. (I think.) They also use more internet
bandwidth, but that is a lesser argument.
As it happens, Fae Bard's site also commits the crime of using white
text on a black background.
This is a crime? I hear you ask.
Yes. It is. Surprising, isn't it? But lots of people *really hate
it*.[1][2]
I'm not saying this as one of them. But AFAIK it's true.
Jonathan.
[1] (I also no somoene who *prefers* white text on a black background.
He would hate the site too, because he gets his white-on-black by
inverting the normal colours. He would see the site as
black-on-white.)
[2] I think some Goths like white on black. They will like the site.
Or the colour scheme at least.
--
(Replace netspam by jlc when appropriate)
Jonathan L Cunningham
>[1] (I also no somoene who *prefers* white text on a black background.
I also know someone who ...
(I can't believe I typed that, the letter eaters must have got to it.)
Fae Bard
news:3e518d0e...@usenet.plus.net...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:05:03 -0500, "S. Palmer" <cic...@theworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lucinda Welenc wrote:
> >>
> >> Fae Bard wrote:
> >> > This is one reason I really like frames -- constant access
> >> > available to all areas of the site.
> >
> >As a user, I *loathe* frames. I will not use frames under any
> >circumstances, and I tend to avoid sites that are too heavy on frames.
As a user, I kind of like frames. I get annoyed with sites that don't have
them because I can never seem to find what I'm looking for.
> Frames are "deprecated", i.e. they are a Bad Thing. This I agree with.
>
> The acceptable alternative to Frames is Tables.
Tables? Okay... color me clueless on this one. If there's a way to do the
constant accessability thing without frames, I'm all for it.
> Apart from which, frames are Morally Bad, because they discriminate
> against the visually disabled. (I think.)
Okay, that I also did not know. How do they do this? I was of the opinion
that the internet in general discriminated against the visually disabled...
but, as a person who only needs glasses and does not have any
friends/relatives who fall into the above category, I will admit to
ignorance on this one.
> As it happens, Fae Bard's site also commits the crime of using white
> text on a black background.
>
> This is a crime? I hear you ask.
>
> Yes. It is. Surprising, isn't it? But lots of people *really hate
> it*.[1][2]
Huh. I designed it mostly around what I find comfortable and aesthetic. I
think (and this is, of course, only my opinon) that black text on white
background looks trashy and unpolished.
I also dislike white background because, after staring at Word all day, the
last thing I want is more bright white glaring at me and adding to my
headache. (And yes, I have the gamma turned down) When I find a
white-background site, I tend to just give it a miss... unless there's
something I -really, really- need to know on it. The only thing that'll make
me close it faster is a lime-green background, a MIDI file, or one of those
infernally busy wallpaper backgrounds.
But hey, to each their own, I suppose. That's what's so interesting about a
newsgroup like this -- you can get a million different opinions at the drop
of a post.
Meghan
--
***
author of _From the Ashes_
an urban fantasy novel set at Pendragon Renaissance Faire.
For more info, visit http://www.faire-folk.com
Brian D. Fernald
Basically you create a master table that has its width set to 100%, you
then create the same number of columns that you would have frames. (or
rows if you are using vertically stacked frames)
frex.
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>Menu</td>
<td>Main Content</td>
</tr>
</table>
As for the easy navigation thing, there are server side tricks you can
use to make the server automatically include content within the menu cell.
You create a page with just the html to make the menu, and then on each
page you add an instruction for the server to include that first page.
How to actually do the include is dependent on the underlying server
software, and some hosting services won't let you do it.
If so, there are some public domain or freely available javascript menus
that you could use.
>>As it happens, Fae Bard's site also commits the crime of using white
>>text on a black background.
>>
>>This is a crime? I hear you ask.
>>
>>Yes. It is. Surprising, isn't it? But lots of people *really hate
>>it*.[1][2]
>
>
> Huh. I designed it mostly around what I find comfortable and aesthetic. I
> think (and this is, of course, only my opinon) that black text on white
> background looks trashy and unpolished.
>
> I also dislike white background because, after staring at Word all day, the
> last thing I want is more bright white glaring at me and adding to my
> headache. (And yes, I have the gamma turned down) When I find a
> white-background site, I tend to just give it a miss... unless there's
> something I -really, really- need to know on it. The only thing that'll make
> me close it faster is a lime-green background, a MIDI file, or one of those
> infernally busy wallpaper backgrounds.
>
I prefer a slightly offwhite or subdued pastel background color. Plain
white can get really tedious to look at after awhile.
> But hey, to each their own, I suppose. That's what's so interesting about a
> newsgroup like this -- you can get a million different opinions at the drop
> of a post.
>
As my daddy used to say... opinions are like ........ but only mine is
right. ;)
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
Fae Bard
news:b2sa52$4q9$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Fae Bard wrote:
> >
> > Tables? Okay... color me clueless on this one. If there's a way to do
the
> > constant accessability thing without frames, I'm all for it.
> >
>
> then create the same number of columns that you would have frames. (or
> rows if you are using vertically stacked frames)
>
> frex.
>
> <table width=100%>
> <tr>
> <td>Menu</td>
> <td>Main Content</td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> As for the easy navigation thing, there are server side tricks you can
> use to make the server automatically include content within the menu cell.
>
> You create a page with just the html to make the menu, and then on each
> page you add an instruction for the server to include that first page.
>
> How to actually do the include is dependent on the underlying server
> software, and some hosting services won't let you do it.
>
> If so, there are some public domain or freely available javascript menus
> that you could use.
Cool... thanks. I think I'll make that my project for this weekend.... to
exterminate the frames and replace them with tables. :)
Steve Taylor
>> And one of my hobbyhorses - *never* put text over a patterned or
>> textured background.[...snip...] Not even if the voices in
>> your head tell you to.
> What if your body has been taken over brain eating space parasites,
> demonic possession,
Well, people say demonic posession is nine tenths of the law, but I
still don't think it's a good excuse.
> or your mother tells you to?
That could never happen. My parents know less about the internet than
any sentient beings in the entire universe. Oh the long distance support
phonecalls I get...
> Brian F.
Steve
Steve Taylor
>>What if your body has been taken over brain eating space parasites,
>>demonic possession, or your mother tells you to?
> I would *never* make someone use a patterned background for text! In
> fact, I very rarely deviate from black text on white background.
Of course. A well adapted parasite doesn't do things which will get the
host killed.
> Trip
Steve
Trip the Space Parasite From:
>Ah HA!
<puzzled> Well, sure, I... Oh! You're one of those endoskeletal types
that thinks eating brains is evil! Well, I suppose that's
a matter of local morality, but really, there are some things that are
beneath any decent sophont, regardless of its dietary requirements, and
text on a patterned background is one them. The <BLINK> tag is another.
Lucinda Welenc
>
> I also dislike white background because, after staring at Word all day, the
> last thing I want is more bright white glaring at me and adding to my
> headache.
Can't you change Word's background color? I also intensely dislike
bright white (migraine trigger), and have the background a pale beige.
If Word works like Wordperfect, it defaults to the Windows system
colors; I loathe the garish standard colors, so mine have been set to
shades of rose-beige.
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
We should learn from snowflakes: no two are alike and yet observe how
well they cooperate on major projects, like tying up traffic.
Lucinda Welenc
I must disagree. My parents-in-law know less about the internet than
ASBitEU -- and about computers in general. They live very happily in
the 1950s, see no use for computers, intensly dislike computers, and
refuse to acknowledge that the bank and the grocery store and anywhere
that accepts credit cards uses computers in their business workings.
Fae Bard
news:3E52C469...@cablespeed.com...
> Fae Bard wrote:
> >
> > I also dislike white background because, after staring at Word all day,
the
> > last thing I want is more bright white glaring at me and adding to my
> > headache.
>
> Can't you change Word's background color? I also intensely dislike
> bright white (migraine trigger), and have the background a pale beige.
> If Word works like Wordperfect, it defaults to the Windows system
> colors; I loathe the garish standard colors, so mine have been set to
> shades of rose-beige.
Can you? Really?? Okay, I need to go play around with my settings now. I
thought I'd looked through them all, but....
Hmm. This may be a job for my friendly live-in computer geek. :)
Thanks for the tip. :)
David Friedman
Lucinda Welenc <lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > That could never happen. My parents know less about the internet than
> > any sentient beings in the entire universe. Oh the long distance support
> > phonecalls I get...
>
> I must disagree. My parents-in-law know less about the internet than
> ASBitEU -- and about computers in general.
We, on the other hand, run a multigenerational support hierarchy. When
my father got his first home computer, twenty some years back, I simply
duplicated my system for it and provided support as needed. When I
wanted to create a web page, seven years or so back, my son showed me
how.
Marilee J. Layman
<lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>Fae Bard wrote:
>>
>> I also dislike white background because, after staring at Word all day, the
>> last thing I want is more bright white glaring at me and adding to my
>> headache.
>
>Can't you change Word's background color? I also intensely dislike
>bright white (migraine trigger), and have the background a pale beige.
>If Word works like Wordperfect, it defaults to the Windows system
>colors; I loathe the garish standard colors, so mine have been set to
>shades of rose-beige.
Speaking of migraine, today's WashPost reports an interesting study
linking it with fibro, depression, cataplexy, and many other seemingly
unrelated orders, by genes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22984-2003Feb17.html
I don't like the title, the article clearly links both mental and
physical problems to the same gene/gene family.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Jonathan L Cunningham
wrote:
>"Brian D. Fernald" <bfer...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:b2sa52$4q9$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > Fae Bard wrote:
>> >
>> > Tables? Okay... color me clueless on this one. If there's a way to do
>the
>> > constant accessability thing without frames, I'm all for it.
>> >
>>
>> Basically you create a master table that has its width set to 100%, you
>> then create the same number of columns that you would have frames. (or
>> As for the easy navigation thing, there are server side tricks you can
(snip)
>> software, and some hosting services won't let you do it.
>>
>> If so, there are some public domain or freely available javascript menus
>> that you could use.
>
>Cool... thanks. I think I'll make that my project for this weekend.... to
>exterminate the frames and replace them with tables. :)
I should, perhaps, have used a few more smileys than I actually did
(i.e. more than zero).
That was the intent of all the spurious capitals (as in Spurious
Capitals).
So the points I was making, whilst true (I believe) were not as heavy
as if you read the thing taking just the literal meanings.
As Brian is aware, the disadvantage of tables is in keeping the
repeated bits, and he's pointed you at some solutions. For myself,
as a programmer, I wrote a little program which generates the html
(and inserts menus and things) automatically. So I haven't
investigated much web-design software beyond noting that none of
the freeware or shareware does what I, personally, want.
But, IMO, it would be better to stick with frames than do something
clunky, if you don't find a way to conveniently do what you want with
tables. They may be deprecated, but it will be a loooong time before
they are not supported. And catering for blind people (who use
speech synthesiser software to read pages for them) requires more
thought than I have either the expertise or time for here, so worry
about it another time. [Things like, always use the ALT tag in
images, with descriptive text etc. etc.]
As for text colours and backgrounds, years (literally) of experience
working with software development and human factors people has
convinced me that no one -- er, no software developers -- should
trust their intuitions about what people will like. You need to
spend billions of dollars doing experiments in media labs and
stuff.
If your web-site design budget doesn't run to billions of dollars,
you have a choice between bland (e.g. mostly black on off-white,
or some pastel colour, or some very-light gray textured background)
or you can choose to do something that you, personally, like.
Again, my advice would be to go for what you, personally, like
(even white text on a black background, if you like it), as long as
you are aware that *some* people will hate it.
(As I already said, I'm not one of the people that hates white text
on black backrounds.)
What you *must* avoid (IMHO) is red text on a brown background, or
red text on a green background (some people are colour blind) or
light grey on a dark grey background. Also, be aware that a colour
contrast that is quite readable on *your* monitor may be almost
non-existent on someone else's monitor. This problem is worse now
that LCD displays are becoming more common. Different makes display
colours very differently.
Yellow or white text on a deep blue background is one of the most
readable, but will annoy even more people than white text on a black
background ;-).
Jonathan
Michael R N Dolbear
Steve Taylor <sm...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
[...]
the
> host killed.
Wrong.
If the next stage of the parasite's life cycle is in a bird and the
well adapted parasite is currently in a snail, the well adapted
parasite eats what passes for the smail's mind and so arranges to the
snail to become a victim.
--
Mike D
Steve Taylor
>> Of course. A well adapted parasite doesn't do things which will get the
>> host killed.
> Wrong.
Well, sloppy. I should have said that a well adapted parasite doesn't
frivolously and accidentally kill it's host to no good effect. But since
I was making a joke about Trip being a space parasite and people
actually being killed for writing bad html, I didn't feel the need to be
precise.
That was my mistake. This is after all, usenet, where even the most
desperate pleas cannot prevent the mention of the word "Dvorak" being
followed by unwanted facts about the history of typewriters.
> Mike D
Steve
Trip the Space Parasite From:
>Wrong.
If you don't mind, I'll remain quiet on just what I have planned for
Mary. :)
Brooks Moses
> "Lucinda Welenc" <lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:3E52C469...@cablespeed.com...
> > bright white (migraine trigger), and have the background a pale beige.
> > If Word works like Wordperfect, it defaults to the Windows system
> > colors; I loathe the garish standard colors, so mine have been set to
> > shades of rose-beige.
>
> Can you? Really?? Okay, I need to go play around with my settings now. I
> thought I'd looked through them all, but....
The trick is that it's not a Word setting, but a global Windows setting
-- Go to the "Display" thingy off the Windows Control Panel (or just
right-click on open desktop and select "Properties", is an easier way to
get to it), and then at least on my version of Windows, select the
"Appearance" tab, and change the basic "Window" color. The names may be
slightly different on your version, but the gist should be the same.
Note, of course, that this changes the basic window color for most
applications, not just Word. Occasionally there will be some that
assume it to be white and look oddly clunky otherwise by having white
backgrounds in some bits but not others.
- Brooks
Elizabeth Shack
<bfer...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>As for the easy navigation thing, there are server side tricks you can
>use to make the server automatically include content within the menu cell.
>
>You create a page with just the html to make the menu, and then on each
>page you add an instruction for the server to include that first page.
Thank you! I need to redo my web page, and that will be convenient
(if it works on my server).
--
Elizabeth Shack eas...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~eashack/life.html
Busy. Got coffee?
Elizabeth Shack
<bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
<changing Windows background colors>
>Note, of course, that this changes the basic window color for most
>applications, not just Word. Occasionally there will be some that
>assume it to be white and look oddly clunky otherwise by having white
>backgrounds in some bits but not others.
It takes some getting used to, seeing everything on a not-white
background. You all look nice in pale green.
Brian D. Fernald
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:45:53 -0800, Brooks Moses
> <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> <changing Windows background colors>
>
>>Note, of course, that this changes the basic window color for most
>>applications, not just Word. Occasionally there will be some that
>>assume it to be white and look oddly clunky otherwise by having white
>>backgrounds in some bits but not others.
>
>
> It takes some getting used to, seeing everything on a not-white
> background. You all look nice in pale green.
>
But I'm wearing a red shirt.
Ack... must go change now.
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
Geoff Wedig
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:45:53 -0800, Brooks Moses
> <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
> <changing Windows background colors>
>>Note, of course, that this changes the basic window color for most
>>applications, not just Word. Occasionally there will be some that
>>assume it to be white and look oddly clunky otherwise by having white
>>backgrounds in some bits but not others.
> It takes some getting used to, seeing everything on a not-white
> background. You all look nice in pale green.
My ANSI coloring assumes a *black* background, so that's what I use. But
the colors are *not* standard beyond that.
Geoff
Lucinda Welenc
DAMN, DAMN, DAMN!! More ammunition for the people who say that fibro and
migraines are "all in your head."!!!
Is there a hunting season on these "researchers"?
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
I am the mother of all things, and all things should wear a sweater.
Lori Selke
Lucinda Welenc <lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>DAMN, DAMN, DAMN!! More ammunition for the people who say that fibro and
>migraines are "all in your head."!!!
My migraines are all in my head. And my head hurts very much when I have
a migraine, thank you.
;)
Lori
--
se...@io.com, se...@mindspring.com, http://www.io.com/~selk
"This is no time of remorse. This is a time for cookies!" --Love and Rockets
Brian D. Fernald
> In article <3E551682...@cablespeed.com>,
> Lucinda Welenc <lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>
>>DAMN, DAMN, DAMN!! More ammunition for the people who say that fibro and
>>migraines are "all in your head."!!!
>
>
> My migraines are all in my head.
This is good to know, I might get a bit concerned if you were having
migraines in your spleen.
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
Trip the Space Parasite From:
>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:46:51 -0000, Trip the Space Parasite From:
><tr...@idiom.com> wrote:
>>a matter of local morality, but really, there are some things that are
>>beneath any decent sophont, regardless of its dietary requirements, and
>>text on a patterned background is one them. The <BLINK> tag is another.
>Sometimes the people paying you money insist.
Hey, how much you get paid for your decency is between you and your
pimp!
Lori Selke
Blanche Nonken
> In article <b33hfo$fl9$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Brian D. Fernald <bfer...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Lori Selke wrote:
> >> In article <3E551682...@cablespeed.com>,
> >> Lucinda Welenc <lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>DAMN, DAMN, DAMN!! More ammunition for the people who say that fibro and
> >>>migraines are "all in your head."!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> My migraines are all in my head.
> >
> >This is good to know, I might get a bit concerned if you were having
> >migraines in your spleen.
>
> Believe me, I would be too.
Since "migraine" comes from "hemicrania" and the only part of my body
(other than my brain) that's so clearly divided into left and right
hemispheres is my butt, now I've got the horror of wondering what a butt
migraine aura would feel like.
Fae Bard
news:3E53ED01...@cits1.stanford.edu...
Bless you all a million times over. Everything is now a lovely shade of
dove-gray, and my eyes and various synapses are eternally grateful.
Supermouse The Rodent
<ry...@acmemail.net> writes
Changing the default background to WinWord.
>
>Can you? Really??
Yup - it's the same default background as any other app window, which is
changed in appearances and it pretty easy to do. Right click on the main
screen, choose properties and go on from there to Appearances and then
to Advanced if you want all your windows to be, say, puce on magenta
with green text rather than the premade screens.
Speaking of which, for web page backgrounds/text, I favour default on
default, because then I get the appearance I chose to be easy on my
eyes, as does any other reader.
Cordially,
--
Supermouse