Lighting forums?
k@.not
Can anyone suggest some forums that are specifically about stage
lighting?
Thanks!
k
Hot Jock
Adam Aglionby
Richard Crowley
> k@.not wrote:
>> Can anyone suggest some forums that are specifically about stage
>> lighting?
>
This IS news:rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft (and the other cross-posted
Usenet newsgroups)
These are NOT "Google Groups". Perhaps you are confused because
you are reading it through Google. Usenet groups have nothing to
do with Google. Several of them were around before many of the
Google staffers were even born.
Alas, like most traditional Usenet newsgroups, r.a.t.s (and perhaps a.l
and r.a.t.m as well) appear to be atrophying from disuse. For better for
for worse (worse IMHO) online discussion appears to be moving to
web (http) based discussion forums. All web-based forums that I have
seen (and must use) are universally terrible compared to simple text-
based Usenet newsreaders. But, alas, this is what passes for "progress"
to those who don't know any better. :-((
Adam Aglionby
I know Richard
actually posted reply to alt.lasers
if your using a news reader the news: would link you straight to the
group
Google groups is OK but they have made the archive, including
dejanews, unsearchable which is for a search company pretty ferking
poor.
Cheers
Adam
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> For better for for worse (worse IMHO) online discussion appears to be
> moving to web (http) based discussion forums. All web-based forums that
> I have seen (and must use) are universally terrible compared to simple
> text- based Usenet newsreaders.
*** I hear that. Using a browser to post news just does not cut it.
> But, alas, this is what passes for "progress" to those who don't know
> any better. :-((
*** It's not just the users, it is the forums themselves. Too often
their authors do not code the form part of the site well enough. In
particular, a point that annoys me to no end is that they often do not
allow a wide-enough text area, so text at the start of a line scrolls of
the left-hand side of the screen after one reaches the right margin. That
makes it a nuisance to try to proof read afterward. )-:.
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Figment
youe website is really poor .. may i suggest you go to digital point
and employ a freelancer to do a new website , you will likely be ]
able to have it done for $30-$50
--
----------------
No links here , nup
"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote
in message news:hfj5fp$88j$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca...
David Lawver
> As an aside
> "--
> Richard Bonner
> http://AIEL.chebucto.biz "
>
> youe website is really poor .. may i suggest you go to digital point
> and employ a freelancer to do a new website , you will likely be ]
> able to have it done for $30-$50
>
I find the Web site entirely acceptable, and your comment inappropriate.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lawver la...@charter.net
"Without danger, Mr. Bardolph, there is no theatre." -Peter Shaffer
Helpful person
The comments may be inappropriate but the web site is very annoying.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> http://AIEL.chebucto.biz "
> youe website is really poor .. may i suggest you go to digital point
> and employ a freelancer to do a new website , you will likely be ]
> able to have it done for $30-$50
*** $30 to $50 will buy very, very little today. Professional website
work is in the hundreds of dollars range. Our site would cost megabucks
due to the depth of the site and volume of content.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On 3/2/2010 10:11 AM, Figment wrote:
> > http://AIEL.chebucto.biz "
> >
> > youe website is really poor .. may i suggest you go to digital point
> > and employ a freelancer to do a new website , you will likely be ]
> > able to have it done for $30-$50
> I find the Web site entirely acceptable, and your comment inappropriate.
> --
> David Lawver
*** Thanks for the defense, David.
I didn't find the comment inappropriate, but it would have been better
if Figment had offered some constructive criticism.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:38:55 -0800, Helpful person wrote:
> >> > http://AIEL.chebucto.biz"
> Not wanting to be disrespectful, because as a person who mostly lurks in
> this NG I value your contribution here,
*** Thanks. No disrespect taken. (-:
> but I would suggest that if you
> revamped the website in order to make it look like a modern, rather than
> a late-90s, site you may find that you'll get more business generated
> from your website.
*** If you mean more modern by making it another white webpage with a
bunch of boxes on it, no I wanted something much more different.
As for the business aspect, my philosophy is to present a simple,
fast-loading website that concentrates on content. Recently, I had a
university professor praise the AIEL website as one of which she promotes
to her students. Her comment was given when she placed a gel order as "I
love your website! I recommend it to my students." I didn't delve deeper
but suspect that the teaching aspects of the site are likely the reason
for her comments.
> From a usability perspective dark backgrounds with light text is not
> helpful for the visually impaired due to inadequate contrast ratio.
*** It's the exact same contrast ratio if the back/fore grounds are
reversed or not. However, I understand what you mean. In my case, it is
the opposite, I have trouble with a bright background making the
foreground dark letters hard to discern. I have the same issue with
those whiteboards that everyone seems to be using now. )-:
However, the main reason for the dark backgrounds on the website is to
make it more theatrical in nature and to differentiate it from all those
white webpages out there.
> Also, putting text into graphics rather than using ordinary text is not
> helpful for the hearing impaired as they use screen readers to hear the
> site. Embedded text inside graphics is not accessible by screen reader
> software.
*** You mean accessible to the *blind* - they use readers that
"speak" a website to them. A few years ago, I attended a lecture given by
the CNIB (Canadian National Institute for the Blind) on this very subject
of accessibility to such readers.
That aside, could you be more specific as to where text is embedded in
graphics? There is very little of that on the site and "ALT" tags are
provided for *all* images. In fact, when the CNIB lecturer went on to my
personal website, which is done in a similar style, he remarked at how
text & handicapped friendly it was.
I use the w3c and Bobby websites, among others, plus a text browser to
ensure accessibility to a Commodore 64 up to a Pentium IV running the
latest flavour of Linux. I am a member of the "Best Viewed with an
Browser" campaign, as well.
> Also speaking generally, while we all like flashing lights, bright
> flashes and flashing text on a website impairs the overall readability
> of the website. If you want flashing, then it is best to do it in a way
> that suggests bright flashes rather than actually is high-contrast
>bright flashes.
*** Ahh, where is any flashing seen except for the opening banner? Are
you sure you are looking at the AIEL website? There is *no* flashing text
anywhere on the site, to my knowledge. I don't like flashing text,
either.
> What I'm respectfully trying to encourage you to consider is the concept
> of "design for access, usability and readability"
*** Yes, I understand that, but I pride on having accessible websites
and view all on as many operating systems as possible with as many different
monitors and browsers as possible (including text browsers) to be sure all
content is accessible.
To then end, I use no CSS, no javascript, no flash animation, no
Active-X, and provide "ALT" tags for *everything*. One may view the site
with a text browser to see that all content is indeed accessible.
Can you be more specific as to the pages where you see problems?
Duncan Wood
Lighting <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
snipped
>
>> Also speaking generally, while we all like flashing lights, bright
>> flashes and flashing text on a website impairs the overall readability
>> of the website. If you want flashing, then it is best to do it in a way
>> that suggests bright flashes rather than actually is high-contrast
>> bright flashes.
>
> *** Ahh, where is any flashing seen except for the opening banner? Are
> you sure you are looking at the AIEL website? There is *no* flashing text
> anywhere on the site, to my knowledge. I don't like flashing text,
> either.
>
To be honest, the opening banner is where I stopped looking, it might be
my screen but it's really really unpleasant.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:34:05 -0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> (snipped)
> >> Also speaking generally, while we all like flashing lights, bright
> >> flashes and flashing text on a website impairs the overall readability
> >> of the website. If you want flashing, then it is best to do it in a way
> >> that suggests bright flashes rather than actually is high-contrast
> >> bright flashes.
> >
> > *** ...where is any flashing except for the opening banner? Are
> > you sure you are looking at the AIEL website? There is *no* flashing text
> > anywhere on the site, to my knowledge. I don't like flashing text,
> > either.
> To be honest, the opening banner is where I stopped looking, it might
> be my screen but it's really really unpleasant.
*** Well, I do view the site on a wide variety of screens and then tweak
accordingly. What type of screen are you using?
Is the unpleasantness you experience to do with the animation speed? I
find that various browsers/systems often run it way too fast. Try setting
animation speed to a lower number.
Duncan Wood
Lighting <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
Well I don't know what it's supposed to do but on this screen (1366 x
768)and Opera then there's two white stars flashing at about 3Hz.
Tim Hill
<Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:34:05 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> > Can you be more specific as to the pages where you see problems?
> It's just that primarily it looks so very '90s instead of being
> contemporary.
Please give a URL of a website which you consider to be contemporary.
Just saying 'contemporary' means nothing to me as it is subjective.
For example, I agree that if you find your choice is black text on white,
shaped as an A4 portrait page you are thinking about print, not the www.
If also such a page contains Java, Javascript, Flash or other plugin
'toy' on which it relies then that has to be discounted too unless there
is a 'simple' alternate option. There are many (particularly mobile)
devices whose support for such technologies is patchy at best.
Saying "it's what people are used to" reinforces the wrong thinking. If
you follow that reasoning, there are no buttons in a printed magazine you
can click on so we shouldn't have buttons on web pages either. <a
href...> is outlawed!
Unfortunately the Atlantic Illumination site suffers a problem inasmuch
as the text within its graphic images has not had any anti-aliasing
applied so looks jagged and a bit ugly. The shaded gradations in the
background and images such as http://aiel.chebucto.biz/Images/AI-Open.jpg
should have more steps too (to look smoother) and be in a loss-less
format such as PNG. (A free tool such as GIMP should be used in
preference to Windows Paint, if indeed that was used.)
Consideration should also be given to learning CSS (www.w3schools.com) to
control everything and keep things consistent (it is easier, really!).
Without CSS the pages will (should) degrade gracefully into their basic
structures and be understandable even in a textual browser.
I agree with the 'best viewed with any browser' sentiment, if not the
Opera branding or its position at the top of the page. Concerns about
access for the blind (elsewhere in this thread) are laudable sentiments
but as it is a lighting site, access for the unsighted may be about as
much use as spoken announcements and braille on the buttons in a lift at
a multi-storey car-park.
Just 2p.
T
--
Have an ethical share in cheaper telecoms: http://tinyurl.com/phone-coop
Genuine spam-proof addresses for Usenet: http://www.invalid.org.uk/
Email address for replies: substitute postmaster@ for tim@
... "Be just and fear not" Henry VIII, Act iii, Sc.2
Michael Kallweitt
> You could get a good site up and running relatively cheaply - if you use good open source solutions
> that use a database back end that don't require much customization and if you yourself enter the data
> into the site. You would also be able to keep the site up to date yourself.
I found WordPress (from wordpress.org) relatively easy to set up, and quite a
few business use it as their CMS. You have a separation of content and design,
and there are a number of decent themes available that don't resemble much of a
blog.
--
www.wasfuereintheater.com - Neue Theaterprojekte im Ruhrpott
"As an artist, I'm reporting the big things and the small things. And
sometimes you don't know which is which." Maira Kalman,
http://bit.ly/a53n2K
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:37:17 -0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> > Duncan Wood wrote:
(Re: Website Opening Animations)
> >> To be honest, the opening banner is where I stopped looking, it might
> >> be my screen but it's really really unpleasant.
> >
> > *** Well, I do view the site on a wide variety of screens and then
> > tweak accordingly. What type of screen are you using?
> >
> > Is the unpleasantness you experience to do with the animation speed? I
> > find that various browsers/systems often run it way too fast. Try setting
> > animation speed to a lower number.
> Well I don't know what it's supposed to do but on this screen (1366 x
> 768)and Opera then there's two white stars flashing at about 3Hz.
*** They are dance club effects. I can't remember the name for them, but
it's sort of a "Mushroom" effect. 3Hz seems way too slow.
Christopher Jahn
news:pan.2010.03...@Sweetpea.com:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:31:07 +0000, Tim Hill wrote:
>
>> Please give a URL of a website which you consider to be
>> contemporary. Just saying 'contemporary' means nothing to me
>> as it is subjective.
>
> http://www.grouse.co.nz/
>
> http://www.oceania-audio.co.nz/
>
> http://www.theatrelight.co.nz/ (altho' its being updated)
>
>
> Helpful links:
>
> http://www.wowwebdesigns.com/power_guides/ever_heard_of_contras
> t/
>
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-mistakes-in-web-design-
> 1995-2015.html
>
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ugliest-worst-web-pages-of-the-
> decade.html
>
>
> Truly appalling pages:
>
> http://www.dokimos.org/ajff/
>
> http://www.myjellybean.com/
>
>
Got to admit, these look way more professional; the uniformity of
layout between the various pages makes it seem more polished.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I am Zorkon, this is my brother Zenon, and this is my other
brother Zenon.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> You could get a good site up and running relatively cheaply - if you use
good open source solutions > that use a database back end that don't
require much customization and if you yourself enter the data > into the
site. You would also be able to keep the site up to date yourself.
*** I have used page makers before and still one has to go in to tweak
the code and to make a page text & handicapped friendly. However, it has
been some time...
> If you want an ecommerce site you may want to check out OScommerce. If
you want a site more for > putting information out there, then you may
want to consider a solution called SilverStripe.
*** I will check the latter. Our market is only Maritime Canada and we
are mainly a production company, so E-Commerce is not to my interest.
> They're both very good highly customizable Open Source website solutions.
*** Thanks. I have no problems with either open source or
commercial software.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:34:05 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> > To then end, I use no CSS, no javascript, no flash animation, no
> > Active-X, and provide "ALT" tags for *everything*. One may view the site
> > with a text browser to see that all content is indeed accessible.
> >
> > Can you be more specific as to the pages where you see problems?
> You *should* be using CSS as much as possible because it is the industry
> standard for separating style from content
*** I know CSS to some extent and realise it has some advantages;
however, it is not supported by all browsers - especially older ones.
> and makes it easier for disabled people to access the content of
> your site.
*** I see it as the opposite. Handicapped software is very expensive and
as such, not all disabled persons can afford the upgrades. As an
example, just two weeks ago I was at a disabled friend's home to help him
with a hardware problem. He is running Win 98.
As for access, as long as a website can be displayed on a text browser,
even rudimentary software for the disabled can access it. One need only
to be sure to have text for everything and to stay away from plugin
requirements.
> I wasn't referring to flashing text, but rather, flashing images.
*** OK, You said "text" in the original post.
That aside, I will use some animations but keep them to a minimum
because it makes a site too busy and distracting.
I use those particular ones because we used to do a lot of club/DJ
work, but given that the bottom of that market had dropped out in recent
years here, I would not be adverse to removing them altogether.
> when I was referring to the low contrast ratio I was referring to medium
> coloured text on medium-dark backgrounds.
*** Yes, that is what I thought you meant. On that main page, I have
used Cyan on blue, but it is readable on the myriads of systems that I
have used to view my sites. However, perhaps with the shift to flat-panel
monitors, that has become a problem, although that issue has not turned up
in any of my tests with them. Regardless, I am against changing that text
to a lighter colour.
> The reason why light backgrounds with dark/black text is preferred is
> because it is the nearest to what people are used to with books and
> newspapers.
*** Sure, but that does not mean that every website should copy all
the others. White text on dark is seen on chalk boards, book covers,
end-credits in video and motion pictures, and of course at the computer
command line. So it is not foreign to the public.
> That said, I personally prefer white text on a dark background when I
> open up a terminal console window on my Linux desktop computer,
*** I have tried colours at the command line, but in the end, I too,
prefer white on black for that purpose.
> and have designed sites with white text on black backgrounds in the
> past.
*** I tend to like light on dark websites, especially given my
theatrical lighting background.
> One problem is that if people choose to use their own font settings
> then more likely their fonts will be black as that is the norm.
*** I don't specify fonts on any of my sites so that user may specify
his or her favourite one. I do specify colour, though.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:34:05 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> > Can you be more specific as to the pages where you see problems?
> It's just that primarily it looks so very '90s instead of being contemporary.
*** WelI I do like retro! (-:
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:37:17 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> >> To be honest, the opening banner is where I stopped looking, it might
> >> be my screen but it's really really unpleasant.
> >
> > *** Well, I do view the site on a wide variety of screens and then
> > tweak accordingly. What type of screen are you using?
> >
> > Is the unpleasantness you experience to do with the animation speed?
> > I find that various browsers/systems often run it way too fast. Try
> > setting animation speed to a lower number.
> Dude, people looking at your website shouldn't have to make those sort
> of alterations to the content of your pages
*** I agree, but given the huge number of different settings I have seen
on different systems, it sometime happens that people have to do things
to their settings. As an example, I am forever changing screen sizes
because page authors don't use "floating" settings and I hate to have to
scroll sideways. )-:
> - if such alterations were possible.
*** The Arachne browser has a "Logo Animation" speed setting, although I
have always left it in its default position. That aside, I have noticed
animations running at a wide variety of speeds on different systems even
with the same hardware/software, so there must be some adjustments on at
least some of these systems.
> That banner is what I was referring to re the flashing. It looks
> unprofessional and out of date. :(
*** Fair enough. Again, they were put there originally because of our
club and DJ customers. We sold a lot of those effects over the years. (-:
As I said, I would not be adverse to removing them now that our
club/DJ market has dwindled.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> In article <pan.2010.03...@Sweetpea.com>, Sweetpea
> <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:34:05 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> > Lighting wrote:
> > > Can you be more specific as to the pages where you see problems?
> > It's just that primarily it looks so very '90s instead of being
> > contemporary.
> Please give a URL of a website which you consider to be contemporary.
> Just saying 'contemporary' means nothing to me as it is subjective.
*** Most contemporary sites I see have a banner at the top and a bunch
of boxes on every page - usually with white or light backgrounds. It was
nice at first, but it's so common now that I see it as boring.
> For example, I agree that if you find your choice is black text on white,
> shaped as an A4 portrait page you are thinking about print, not the www.
> If also such a page contains Java, Javascript, Flash or other plugin
> 'toy' on which it relies then that has to be discounted too unless there
> is a 'simple' alternate option. There are many (particularly mobile)
> devices whose support for such technologies is patchy at best.
*** As long as the page authors have inserted alternate text for
everything, toys support should not be required to see content.
> Saying "it's what people are used to" reinforces the wrong thinking. If
> you follow that reasoning, there are no buttons in a printed magazine you
> can click on so we shouldn't have buttons on web pages either. <a
> href...> is outlawed!
*** I think that is exaggerating Sweetpea's thoughts, but I tend to
agree about "wrong thinking". In an artistic world, there is no right or
wrong. However, content must be accessible to all regarding a webpage.
Also, what we are used to differs from non first-world countries where
many are on dial-up and/or have older systems. Thanks to a respected
friend of mine who drilled into me the importance of text/handicapped
friendly for the disabled and the poor, my base criteria is: "Can the
content be accessed via a text browser?"
> Unfortunately the Atlantic Illumination site suffers a problem inasmuch
> as the text within its graphic images has not had any anti-aliasing
> applied so looks jagged and a bit ugly. The shaded gradations in the
> background and images such as http://aiel.chebucto.biz/Images/AI-Open.jpg
> should have more steps too (to look smoother) and be in a loss-less
> format such as PNG. (A free tool such as GIMP should be used in
> preference to Windows Paint, if indeed that was used.)
*** I used NeoPaint, but the reason for the background graduations on
that graphic is that it came from a page-maker software's library and was,
I believe, a 256-colour background. Enlarging it caused the problems above
and it has remained that way for a while without being fixed.
Interestingly, I had a while ago started to design a different
background and was going to replace that image in the future. All this
talk has inspired me to want to finish that work. As well, I will now
widen it to fill in where those "club effect" animations currently are.
Perhaps I can do that later this week. It would have to be then, because
I am starting my busy season and will have little time available for
webpsge work soon.
> Consideration should also be given to learning CSS (www.w3schools.com) to
> control everything and keep things consistent (it is easier, really!).
*** I have studied CSS and yes, it is quite easy. It eliminates
duplicate coding for one thing. However, given what CSS does to software
for the handicapped, especially those with older systems/software, I won't
be employing it. CSS is really unnecessary because content can be rendered
without it.
> Without CSS the pages will (should) degrade gracefully into their basic
> structures and be understandable even in a textual browser.
*** Not from what I have seen using Lynx. Some things don't even show
up at all. Others have the page formatting screwed up. Now, this might be
overcome with extra coding, but given that my pages already display for
the handicapped, I am not keen on taking the time to ferret out that
coding.
> I agree with the 'best viewed with any browser' sentiment, if not the
> Opera branding or its position at the top of the page.
*** I have already resigned to move it to the bottom. I think that
anyone with an alternate or older browser will know quickly that my sites
are accessible to all without that logo. As for "Opera branding", it just
happened to be the logo that got downloaded. I suppose it should be
generic, given the sentiment. (-:
> Concerns about
> access for the blind (elsewhere in this thread) are laudable sentiments
> but as it is a lighting site, access for the unsighted may be about as
> much use as spoken announcements and braille on the buttons in a lift at
> a multi-storey car-park.
*** I can't agree. That is a common viewpoint that is pooh-poohed by the
blind community. Realise that not all "blind" persons are unsighted. Most
are sight impaired. In fact, a good friend of mine who is severely sight
impaired actually works at a branch of a large national lighting
company.
> Just 2p.
> T
*** 2p is fine; I am open to all criticism. Thanks for taking the time
to spell it out.
Duncan Wood
Lighting <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
Ah, they just flash on & off at that rate at 100% intensity, unsuprisingly
I've not looked any closer.
Duncan Wood
After the 1st page the only one I found difficult was the work area setup,
the background renders as white dots with a black halo on a grey
background here, I can't begin to guess what it's supposed to look like.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> Sweetpea <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2010.03...@Sweetpea.com:
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:31:07 +0000, Tim Hill wrote:
> >
> >> Please give a URL of a website which you consider to be
> >> contemporary. Just saying 'contemporary' means nothing to me
> >> as it is subjective.
> >
> > http://www.grouse.co.nz/
> >
> > http://www.oceania-audio.co.nz/
> >
> > http://www.theatrelight.co.nz/ (altho' its being updated)
(Snip)
> Got to admit, these look way more professional; the uniformity of
> layout between the various pages makes it seem more polished.
> --
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
*** Layout uniformity works well for smaller websites, but once one gets
into sub links of sublinks, that uniformity works against a site. I prefer
that each subsection have its own look, but that each section within keep
that same look.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
*** Hmm, the effect is actually one of radiating beams that oscillate.
However, if logo animation speed is high on a given system, that might
become harder to discern.
No matter, I spent all last evening working on the graphic that I had
started last fall and getting it on to the page, along with the code
changes and some other related changes. Originally, I had only intended to
replace the center "name plate", but since these discussions, I have
expanded it to fill the areas to the left and right because the "club
effect" animations have now been removed.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:34:05 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> >> Lighting wrote:
> >> > Can you be more specific as to the pages where you see problems?
> After the 1st page the only one I found difficult was the work area setup,
> the background renders as white dots with a black halo on a grey
> background here, I can't begin to guess what it's supposed to look like.
*** It is light brown, masonite pegboard. I have never seen a system
render the brown as grey. I must look further into that, but it may be
some time. I am now into my busy season and will have little opportunity
to spend on the site, now.
Thanks for the heads up, Duncan.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:18:25 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> > *** I know CSS to some extent and realise it has some advantages;
> > however, it is not supported by all browsers - especially older ones.
> It is supported by all current versions of all modern browsers, and
> several prior versions of them all too.
*** Correct, but not all handicapped software can deal with it.
> The only browser that you need to be a little careful re the use of
> style sheets is MSIE6, but so few people now use that browser -
> especially savvy technical people - and it is now so very old that there
> is little point in supporting it unless your primary market is the
> elderly.
*** As a champion of accessibility, my target is everyone. If the site
were only one of sales to the industry, I would be more inclined to use
CSS, but the teaching aspects of the website gets high hits, so CSS (and
other items mentioned in an earlier post) are out. Without CSS, all
content can confidently be rendered on all systems.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:18:25 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> >> The reason why light backgrounds with dark/black text is preferred is
> >> because it is the nearest to what people are used to with books and
> >> newspapers.
> >
> > *** Sure, but that does not mean that every website should copy all
> > the others.
> [sigh]
> It is not about what *you* want, but rather is about what is NECESSARY in order to make those who
> stumble upon your home page to want to read further.
> Everything about your website should be about making it easy for readers to find out what you offer
> and to ascertain whether or not what you offer will meet their needs.
> If it is even slightly difficult for them then you will lose business.
*** True. Thus fast loading and easy navigation become prime aspects,
as well as intuitive titles for subpages. I am not dissing eye candy, but
the above, along with accessibility, are my main concerns.
Regarding the latter, once I was taught about accessibility guidelines
and applied them, hits rose dramatically - more so than for any other
changes to any of my websites.
When the AIEL site became very large, I provided maps and a layout
guide plus a search engine - things that not enough sites supply. I
carried this over from other sites when they became too large to easily
locate things.
I also placed a direct e-mail link right on the main page. This is a
major sticking point to any website for the viewer - especially for a
business. How many times, on how many websites, have we all clicked &
clicked trying to contact the site owners?
Sweetpea, I am not dismissing your points and suggestions, just want
you to understand from where I am coming.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:27:47 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> >> Dude, people looking at your website shouldn't have to make those sort
> >> of alterations to the content of your pages
> >
> > *** I agree, but given the huge number of different settings I have
> > seen on different systems, it sometime happens that people have to do
> > things to their settings. As an example, I am forever changing screen
> > sizes because page authors don't use "floating" settings and I hate to
> > have to scroll sideways. )-:
> So use style sheets instead and specify display settings correctly!!
*** Style sheets are unnecessary to have a website shrink or expand
so as to fill a browser window.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:54:20 +0000, Atlantic Illumination Entertainment
> Lighting wrote:
> > ...given what CSS does to software for the handicapped, especially
> > those with older systems/software, I won't be employing it. CSS is
> > really unnecessary because content can be rendered without it.
> Respectfully, you are quite incorrect on that point.
*** No disrespect taken. (-:
> CSS is essential for making pages accessible for the handicapped by separating style from content. All
> common graphical browsers since Firefox 1 and MSIE 7 (and probably Opera 6 too but I don't know for
> sure about Opera) support enough of the CSS 1,2 & 3 specifications to make it practical to code all
> pages using style sheets.
*** You are assuming that the handicapped are using browsers that are
recent. My experience shows that the handicapped are often cash-poor
and as such, may use older systems - or at the least older translation
software because of the latter's high cost. Then there is the issue of
text browsers...
Christopher Jahn
Lighting) wrote in news:ho7g4o$ad9$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca:
I'm sure you do, but the result does look like a kid put it
together. Sorry, that's just what it looks like. Check out what
the major companies are doing; it's not an accident that they
choose their templates to be 'just so.'
From what I've seen, your site ignores all the hallmarks of good
design; loud backgrounds, flashy icons that distract from
content, poor contrast between text and the backgrounds, and
several low-res images blown up too large. If I were looking to
pay someone money for lighting, this site would give me doubts.
I say this having built several similar sites, with similar
results. Designing websites is hard.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
A little madness now and then is relished by the wisest men.
Roger Traviss
> results. Designing websites is hard.
>
> --
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
> {:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
After blocking three or four cookies, that's an interesting site.
--
Roger T.
See the G.E.R. at: -
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/index.htm
Tim Hill
<Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
> >> It's just that primarily it looks so very '90s instead of being
> >> contemporary.
> >
> > Please give a URL of a website which you consider to be contemporary.
> > Just saying 'contemporary' means nothing to me as it is subjective.
> Here's another helpful link:
> http://www.ratz.com/featuresbad.html
... to yet another site which looks like it has paper print in mind.
I can also think of good reasons to use some of the features decried here:
* Default grey colour: it isn't white and doesn't look like a paper
design.
* Paragraphs in bold/italic have their uses when you want one to stand
out amongst others.
* Default blue links: new users know what to expect.
* Blue borders around images (not 'graphics'): new users know what to
expect.
To cap it all it says: "Don't make me wander around
..with my mouse checking to see if randomly colored text is a link!" and
yet the headings are RED and the body text black. Go figure. I did
exactly this to see if they are links!!
* Borders turned on in tables CAN be useful if the tables have been used
to layout data which benefits from borders.
* A little Blinking is useful if you want to draw the eye to something
specific (e.g. NEW or 'Please read this first')
* Animations which never stop CAN be useful if used extremely sparingly.
* Framed sites with multiple scrolls CAN work if used with care.
Tim Hill
<Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:31:07 +0000, Tim Hill wrote:
> > Please give a URL of a website which you consider to be contemporary.
> > Just saying 'contemporary' means nothing to me as it is subjective.
A few more 2ps with my gfx design hat on...
Too many colours, text very small.
> http://www.oceania-audio.co.nz/
Too wide, big white space at the top without javascript. Text too big.
> http://www.theatrelight.co.nz/ (altho' its being updated)
Designed with paper print in mind by the look of it.
> Helpful links:
> http://www.wowwebdesigns.com/power_guides/ever_heard_of_contrast/
Yes I have heard of contrast and I know not to make a web page into one
huge toilet-roll of a mess like this one.
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-mistakes-in-web-design-1995-2015.html
...and this one...
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ugliest-worst-web-pages-of-the-decade.html
...and this one with a HUGE empty left-hand column. Always dangerous to
have a site criticising others which can't be perfect itself.
> Truly appalling pages:
> http://www.dokimos.org/ajff/
OMG
OMGG
There again, some of my old sites look absolutely terrible today. :-)
Christopher Jahn
news:pan.2010.03...@Sweetpea.com:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:44:14 +0000, Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
>> Designing websites is hard.
>
> I agree.
>
> The best rule is still pretty much keep it simple, keep it
> consistent, and view it from the user's perspective.
Knowing the rules, and actually being able to implement them are
two different things. "Simple" is a long way from "easy." The
show with no set is the hardest to light.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I believe that everyone is entitled to my opinion.