New A&M Pages
edu
j...@tamu.edu wrote:
>The new www.tamu.edu pages are a /huge/ improvement! I think that the
>organization of information is 100x better with the prospective/current/
>former student choices.
If you're talking about http://www.tamu.edu/new/ then I have
to agree. Much!!! better Mr. Brown. A couple of things I really like:
1) The drop down box -- now I don't have to wait for the
navigation .GIF on the left.
2) The search box -- probably the thing I use most at www.tamu.edu.
Now I don't have to wait for the button bar .GIF to load as well.
>PS frames still suck :)
Ah, indeed, but, fortunately, there's a "no frames" tag now.
Frixion, I thank you for listening. Despite your propensity for
leveling personal attacks against those who offer their criticisms
when asked by you to provide them, you seemed to have come up with
a much better front-end for a great many people.
My guess (all it can be since I don't have access to the logs) is
that once the new page takes its place, info.tamu.edu's load
will be much less (given the statistics provided).
jack
jkp...@cs.tamu.edu
--
6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6
S Silicon Slick's Software, Supply and Support Services S
6 Jack Perdue, Proprietor E-mail: si_s...@cy-net.net 6
S WWW: http://www2.cy-net.net/~si_slick S
6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6S6
j...@tamu.edu
The new www.tamu.edu pages are a /huge/ improvement! I think that the
organization of information is 100x better with the prospective/current/
former student choices.
Cool
Jeffrey
PS frames still suck :)
--
Jeffrey W. Baker * j...@tamu.edu
"There are three principal ways to lose money: wine, women, and
engineers. While the first two are more pleasant, the third is by far
the more certain." -- Baron Rothschild, ca. 1800
Dave Martin
In article <350eee3c...@news.tamu.edu>, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu
(Jack Perdue) wrote:
} If you're talking about http://www.tamu.edu/new/ then I have
} to agree. Much!!! better Mr. Brown. A couple of things I really like:
}
} 1) The drop down box -- now I don't have to wait for the
} navigation .GIF on the left.
}
} 2) The search box -- probably the thing I use most at www.tamu.edu.
} Now I don't have to wait for the button bar .GIF to load as well.
}
}
}
} Frixion, I thank you for listening. Despite your propensity for
} leveling personal attacks against those who offer their criticisms
} when asked by you to provide them, you seemed to have come up with
} a much better front-end for a great many people.
}
} My guess (all it can be since I don't have access to the logs) is
} that once the new page takes its place, info.tamu.edu's load
} will be much less (given the statistics provided).
It *looks* better, in general. The design is simple, the lack of animated
GIFs is very good (mainly, getting rid of the excessive football-and-corps
themed images is a big improvement), the addition of the search box is very
nice (though, has the search system been improved any?)
BUT--and you KNEW there had to be one--I think I'm going to write Bowen and
demand that the web page designers be given 15" non-multisync displays. Why
do people insist on designing a web page for more than 640 pixels
(actually, 600 even) wide!?!?
Yes, I have a display that can handle 800x600, but not everyone does. A
page that is too wide looks very ugly on a 640x480 screen. You have plenty
of vertical space to work with--people are *used* to scrolling down. Don't
make them scroll across as well.
And, damn it!, every item in the stupid JavaScript-based pop-up menu should
be available as a standard link on the page. Period. Either rework the menu
as a server-side CGI and dump the browser-restricting JavaScript, or
provide BOTH forms of navigation. This is definitely one thing I will be
writing Bowen about; access to information about the university should not
be limited to those with the latest toys.
To quote from the comments from the new page: "A major concern was getting
the information to the users of the A&M site in the most efficient way
possible." JavaScript is NOT the most efficient way to do that, nor does it
get the information to those that don't have JavaScript (either no support
in their browser, or have it turned off).
Keep in mind that technogeeks with 20" displays and the latest browsers are
not the sole audience for these pages. Make every bit of information at the
A&M site accessible--easily--for ALL potential (not just "majority")
viewers.
--
* Dave Martin * macdave(a)tamu.edu or dbm(a)aol.com * Texas A&M *
frixion
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:58:48 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
Perdue) wrote:
>Frixion, I thank you for listening. Despite your propensity for
>leveling personal attacks against those who offer their criticisms
>when asked by you to provide them, you seemed to have come up with
>a much better front-end for a great many people.
I know I can be a little harsh but I have no problems listening and
taking in some different perspectives - I just can't do it quietly!
Your comments and suggestions (as well as many others) were a big help
in tackling the ordeal. Granted, the basic 12 category heirachy
hasn't changed much but I think the 5 demographic links and the quick
index search are a big improvement.
>My guess (all it can be since I don't have access to the logs) is
>that once the new page takes its place, info.tamu.edu's load
>will be much less (given the statistics provided).
I sure hope so - we'll have some initial data probably next week after
the role-over.
Thanks again - no hard feelings...
JB
John BigDog Cunningham
Screen Capture of http://www.tamu.edu/new/ at 640 x 480.
Horizxontally, a perfect fit, and Vertically a little short, but it
still looks complete.
__________________________
John "BigDog" Cunningham
big...@slamdesigns.com
http://www.slamdesigns.com
John BigDog Cunningham
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:03:33 -0600, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
wrote:
>It *looks* better, in general. The design is simple, the lack of animated
>GIFs is very good (mainly, getting rid of the excessive football-and-corps
>themed images is a big improvement), the addition of the search box is very
>nice (though, has the search system been improved any?)
The new search engine is 10 times better. Use it to look something
up, then use the old one (there is a link to it on the search results
page)
>
>BUT--and you KNEW there had to be one--I think I'm going to write Bowen and
>demand that the web page designers be given 15" non-multisync displays. Why
>do people insist on designing a web page for more than 640 pixels
>(actually, 600 even) wide!?!?
>
>Yes, I have a display that can handle 800x600, but not everyone does. A
>page that is too wide looks very ugly on a 640x480 screen. You have plenty
>of vertical space to work with--people are *used* to scrolling down. Don't
>make them scroll across as well.
See me screen capure (next message) made at 640x480. The page looks
great.
>
>And, damn it!, every item in the stupid JavaScript-based pop-up menu should
>be available as a standard link on the page. Period. Either rework the menu
>as a server-side CGI and dump the browser-restricting JavaScript, or
>provide BOTH forms of navigation. This is definitely one thing I will be
>writing Bowen about; access to information about the university should not
>be limited to those with the latest toys.
The new page uses the same JavaScript menu I used on the Financial Aid
page (I actually stole it from John Brown). It works perfectly in
Netscape and IE 2x and up.
-John
frixion
>It *looks* better, in general. The design is simple, the lack of animated
>GIFs is very good (mainly, getting rid of the excessive football-and-corps
>themed images is a big improvement), the addition of the search box is very
>nice (though, has the search system been improved any?)
The "quick search" just parses an index of all links (urls & titles)
on the site. The "main search" is the old CIS search engine that does
an exhaustive (and very specific) site search. They are going to be
fixing it as well - so that will be great for end users.
>BUT--and you KNEW there had to be one--I think I'm going to write Bowen and
>demand that the web page designers be given 15" non-multisync displays. Why
>do people insist on designing a web page for more than 640 pixels
>(actually, 600 even) wide!?!?
>Yes, I have a display that can handle 800x600, but not everyone does. A
>page that is too wide looks very ugly on a 640x480 screen. You have plenty
>of vertical space to work with--people are *used* to scrolling down. Don't
>make them scroll across as well.
It was EXPLICITLY designed at 800x600 and IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL at
640x480. We have been through this argument before... Before posting
PLEASE go to a 15" set it at 640x480 256 color and keep in mind that
is NOT going to be the best view but definately useable (or should I
say "more" usable). Everything fits in the window and there is NO
HORIZONTAL SCROLLING. Yes, the fonts are big but there is nothing
within reason I can do about that. Try it if you don't believe me.
>And, damn it!, every item in the stupid JavaScript-based pop-up menu should
>be available as a standard link on the page. Period. Either rework the menu
>as a server-side CGI and dump the browser-restricting JavaScript, or
>provide BOTH forms of navigation. This is definitely one thing I will be
>writing Bowen about; access to information about the university should not
>be limited to those with the latest toys.
I'm sorry the JS is too much for you - that is expressly why there is
a text version. Many people have found it much more useful than
having 12 static links taking up so much space. A cgi app would be
way to much processing (or so I'm told by CIS) so that is not even an
option. Think about the amount of traffic and I think you'll
understand the problem.
I HARDLY THINK Netscape 3 and a 15 inch 800x600 monitor are "the
latest toys". You can mail Bowen and I'm sure he would love to spend
his valuable time reading your mail then sending it to the recycle
bin. Instead, why dont you:
1. review the arguments
2. make better ones
3. mail w...@tamu.edu so the right people get the mail
>Keep in mind that technogeeks with 20" displays and the latest browsers are
>not the sole audience for these pages. Make every bit of information at the
>A&M site accessible--easily--for ALL potential (not just "majority")
>viewers.
I disagree - I think the majority should be aimed for and the minority
accomidated. I am interested to see what others have to say about
this.
I hope you can agree that the new design is faster, more navigable,
and an improvement over the old versions.
Thanks for arguments - make more - I'm here all night.
going out looking for a 12" monochrome and a 5 1/4 floppy
John Brown
Univrel web development
Jerky
In article <3513af78...@news.tamu.edu>, fri...@tamu.edu (frixion) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:03:33 -0600, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
>wrote:
>
>>It *looks* better, in general. The design is simple, the lack of animated
>>GIFs is very good (mainly, getting rid of the excessive football-and-corps
>>themed images is a big improvement), the addition of the search box is very
>>nice (though, has the search system been improved any?)
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla - Bunch of text removed. Bla bla
>
>>Keep in mind that technogeeks with 20" displays and the latest browsers are
>>not the sole audience for these pages. Make every bit of information at the
>>A&M site accessible--easily--for ALL potential (not just "majority")
>>viewers.
>
>I disagree - I think the majority should be aimed for and the minority
>accomidated. I am interested to see what others have to say about
>this.
Very true. I strongly believe in minority rights, . . . the right to shut the
hell up. Now, seriously, Frixion has made a very good point here boys and
girls. OVER AND OVER again he has made this argument about the so called
"technogeeks" vs. poor folk debate. Everything that I would have to say would
simply be repeats of previous posts and I'm sure that nobody wants to hear
that crap anymore. Bigdog's screen capture is ample evidence of the ability
of a sub-par, sub-standard computer to view the new page, and use it quite
successfully. I have a friend that even tried running 640x480 in Pumpkin
Large and could STILL use the page perfectly. Frixion, to make everybody
happy, you should have a very small link on the top of the page saying "Shitty
computers, Click HERE." This would then immediatly take them to TEXT PARADISE
with all the links organized nicely (alphabetically) one after another all
seperated by commas. It would be great, one long page of link after link.
I hope that my sarcasm has proved the point. For the sake of all that
is good and right in this world, please stop the crappy complaints of "well my
crappy 'puter can't . . ." or "my P.O.S. monitor ain't big enough for . . .."
We cannot always lower the standards to the lowest common denominator.
They have tried in the public school system, and look what they've got now.
You know, I bet deep down inside, your a communist at heart. I think that
thats what this whole argument is all about. Well, Frixion, don't listen to
them. They may appear quite attractive, but they're evil, the devil if you
will, just waiting for the moment to take over this country and shove it way
into the stone age. The stone age, thats an interesting propisition. Maybe
then we could have the argument of, "But what if my rock isn't big enough . .
" or "Not all of us can have a pretty rock." These arguments have, and
always will be, part of our society. The have's and the have-not's. Well,
I've had enough. Frixion (who I'm sure can't wait to get a job for a real
company who is actually interested in competion), keep up the good work. The
MAJORITY of us really appreciate it. All the others are going to hell
anyways, so they don't matter.
Homer "Jerky" Adams '98
A wise man said "What time is it?"
And a Wiser man replied "It's 10 . . . 2. Tend to your own damn business."
Dave Martin
In article
<DECF9FF20ADBF907.4CE85C61...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, ho...@tamu.edu (Jerky) wrote:
} I strongly believe in minority rights,...the right to shut the hell up.
How kind of you; very A&M (that's NOT a compliment).
} Bigdog's screen capture is ample evidence of the ability
} of a sub-par, sub-standard computer to view the new page, and use it quite
} successfully.
I set my display to 640x480 BEFORE I posted about the new TAMU page not
fitting the smaller screen, and it did NOT fit. Even stretching the window
all the way out did not make it fit--close, but not enough. The problem
with aiming the design at 640x480 even is that there are things about each
platform and browser that are going to cause different spacing problems
(windowed OSes aren't all going to provide the same amount of horizontal
space in a maximized window); aim for 600-620 wide (height really doesn't
matter as much) and you have a more professional looking product.
I don't understand why some people seem to get so defensive (or obnoxious)
about making minor tweaks that will improve the look of their pages for a
wider range of viewers. I'm not saying to force the entire page to fit in
640 wide ALWAYS. Make the page "growable", with ~600-620 width as the
minimized design. Anchor images left and right so they pull outwards as the
window width increases, growing the overall design. "Frixion" already has
that; all I'm recommending is to aim for a little narrower than 640 to
account for spacing differences and the page *will* fit a smaller screen.
No need to get so testy.
} I hope that my sarcasm has proved the point. For the sake of all that
} is good and right in this world, please stop the crappy complaints of
"well my
} crappy 'puter can't . . ." or "my P.O.S. monitor ain't big enough for . .
.."
I never said that my computer was unable to handle it. Unlike the spoiled
brats that the university seems to have hired to represent the rest of us
(full time staff), I like to consider ALL potential viewers when designing
pages. Yes, even I place a lower limit on feature support--the browser
needs to support tables and JPEG images--but from there on I aim for
accessibility by *any* browser, with 640x480 display (designed around 600
max width). I believe JPEG support is in most every GUI-based browser since
Netscape 1.1 (and versions of Mosaic before further browser development at
NCSA was dropped), and tables were introduced in Netscape 1.1 as well, if I
recall correctly.
And believe it or not, there ARE faculty and staff around this campus that
are still using those ancient browsers, on computers that were built at the
time you kids were barely starting puberty.
My computer is quite capable of handling the stuff. But I'm not going to
build web pages that require my computer's specs to view. If I *know* that
*every* viewer will have a certain minimum (such as when building an
intranet that has limited access to begin with), I can design for that, but
for public access pages, I try to keep the requirements down (while
allowing "enhancements").
As for JavaScript, I can use that as well, but prefer to keep it disabled
since it can be--and is--a security hole, as can Java. Sorry, but I'm not
going to turn JS on and off just to view a site. If I can't get around
without it--and there is NO reason to require JS--then I don't go to that
page.
The computer labs in the English department, which I am responsible for,
have JS turned off by default. I do not intend to change this, even after
the new TAMU page is put into use. When I set up computers for our faculty
& staff, I set J/JS off as well. If someone wants to access things with the
JS menu, they can turn JS on for their session. It will be off again for
the next user (in the labs; faculty/staff can choose to leave these on).
When people ask, I will place the blame on "Frixion", where it belongs, for
not providing a more proper means of access.
If you want to ADD support for JS, that's fine, but don't REQUIRE it for
navigation. That's the point I've been trying to make. Use JS as a site
enhancement, not as the means of accessing the information.
} We cannot always lower the standards to the lowest common denominator.
} They have tried in the public school system, and look what they've got now.
This isn't about LCD, but ensuring that the information is accessible by
those that need it. The internet isn't very useful when children such as
yourselves go for creating flashy, overdone pages that hide information.
Your very own argument about the public school system is at the center of
my argument: many public schools have old, outdated, extremely limited
computers. Students in those schools that might be interested in coming to
A&M can't access the information they need because "Frixion" (how
professional; interesting that those that support him seem to prefer
handles instead of names, too) decides that requiring JavaScript
support--with NO other means of accessing the pages in the JS menu--is good
enough.
When I went out to Bryan High last fall to see what they had, there were a
few IBM PS/1 systems in each classroom (granted, these were English
classes) that could barely handle running Netscape. Maybe they've been
upgraded by this point. Or maybe other parts of the HS have better
equipment. But if there's a chance that students at Bryan High can't get to
info on the A&M site due to the rather restrictive design, then "Frixion"
isn't doing his job correctly. Period.
} You know, I bet deep down inside, your [try "you're"] a communist at heart.
Grow up. Besides, having a communist design a web site would be much better
than having immature anarchists doing so. :-)
Yes, perhaps I am being a bit extreme, but I'm trying to get you to
understand that 1) you need to design for ALL members of your target
audience, not just the rich ones, or those from rich schools; 2) it is not
necessary to "dumb down" the page and remove all the fancy stuff, if you
design FIRST for the low end, and then add the other features as
enhancements for those that can support it.
BTW, "Frixion"--does CIS know that you are having people submit their
loginID/password information for CIS systems on an insecure web form, all
to help BANA students "cheat" rather than do their own HTML assignments?
John BigDog Cunningham
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:35:14 -0600, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
wrote:
>} Bigdog's screen capture is ample evidence of the ability
>} of a sub-par, sub-standard computer to view the new page, and use it quite
>} successfully.
>
>I set my display to 640x480 BEFORE I posted about the new TAMU page not
>fitting the smaller screen, and it did NOT fit. Even stretching the window
>all the way out did not make it fit--close, but not enough. The problem
>with aiming the design at 640x480 even is that there are things about each
>platform and browser that are going to cause different spacing problems
>(windowed OSes aren't all going to provide the same amount of horizontal
>space in a maximized window); aim for 600-620 wide (height really doesn't
>matter as much) and you have a more professional looking product.
I did not cheat in making that screen shot. That is NT set at 640x480
resolution, running Netscape with all the hortzontal and vertical
restrictions I use on a regular basis (I'm sure some people have seen
the link toolbar at the top with my "playboy" link, etc.). People
with 640x480 monitors do not view web pages in non-maximized windows.
If they do, they're idiots.
>I never said that my computer was unable to handle it. Unlike the spoiled
>brats that the university seems to have hired to represent the rest of us
>(full time staff), I like to consider ALL potential viewers when designing
>pages. Yes, even I place a lower limit on feature support--the browser
>needs to support tables and JPEG images--but from there on I aim for
>accessibility by *any* browser, with 640x480 display (designed around 600
>max width). I believe JPEG support is in most every GUI-based browser since
>Netscape 1.1 (and versions of Mosaic before further browser development at
>NCSA was dropped), and tables were introduced in Netscape 1.1 as well, if I
>recall correctly.
You should write the people at Netscape and Microsoft, as well as the
W3C to let them know that they are wasting their time upgrading HTML.
Once tables and JPEG support came out, people stopped using the new
stuff. Write all the computer manufacturing companies as well, and
Intel to tell them to stop making better, faster, and cheaper
computers. Technology scares us.
>
>As for JavaScript, I can use that as well, but prefer to keep it disabled
>since it can be--and is--a security hole, as can Java. Sorry, but I'm not
>going to turn JS on and off just to view a site. If I can't get around
>without it--and there is NO reason to require JS--then I don't go to that
>page.
DO YOUR GODDAMN RESEARCH. JavaScript is not, and CANNOT BE a security
hole, it was designed specifically so that it couldn't be. I have
read 2 large books on JavaScript, and both said the same thing. JS
can write cookies (which are too short, by definition, to be viruses),
open windows, change images, make calculations, and display the time
and date on the client computer. It CANNOT interact with the server
(with the exception of running CGI Scripts), it CANNOT pull
information off of the Client's computer, and it CANNOT do anything
which would compromise security.
>
>The computer labs in the English department, which I am responsible for,
>have JS turned off by default. I do not intend to change this, even after
>the new TAMU page is put into use. When I set up computers for our faculty
>& staff, I set J/JS off as well. If someone wants to access things with the
>JS menu, they can turn JS on for their session. It will be off again for
>the next user (in the labs; faculty/staff can choose to leave these on).
>When people ask, I will place the blame on "Frixion", where it belongs, for
>not providing a more proper means of access.
I feel sorry for the people in the English department. Tell them to
go to the Graphics Lab if they want to experience the 90's
>(how professional; interesting that those that support him seem
>to prefer handles instead of names, too)
John Brown (aka Frixion) is the best web designer I have ever met.
His abilities have inspired me to better myself in my Web Design
abilities, and because of this I have decided on a career in Web
Design. Considering the people he has to deal with in the Web
Commitee setup, I think he has done an incredible job with the page.
Handles and Nicknames are a big part of dorm life, as well as the
internet. I use "BigDog" here, becuase that's the name of my
computer, and everything on it is named after Large Canines that I
have had in the past. This is because I love Big Dogs, and I hate not
having them living in the dorm. All I have now is some Big Turtles,
but that would sound silly as a Handle. Just about every person named
John in this dorm (Me, John Brown, John Peterson, etc) has a nickname.
Mine is Bobo (a spanish word meaning stupid, you can say whatever you
want about that nickname, I've heard it all). This is because we
"John"s have the most common name in the English language. Nicknames
is a nice way to avoid using last names constantly.
>} You know, I bet deep down inside, your [try "you're"] a communist at heart.
>
>Grow up. Besides, having a communist design a web site would be much better
>than having immature anarchists doing so. :-)
You Grow up. Grammer arguments have no place in this newsgroup.
--This is John "BigTurtle" Cunningham Signing off
--Hoping that the good people at Netscape and Dell keep upgrading the
--world.
john brown
> have JS turned off by default. I do not intend to change this, even after
> the new TAMU page is put into use. When I set up computers for our faculty
> & staff, I set J/JS off as well. If someone wants to access things with the
> JS menu, they can turn JS on for their session. It will be off again for
> the next user (in the labs; faculty/staff can choose to leave these on).
> When people ask, I will place the blame on "Frixion", where it belongs, for
> not providing a more proper means of access.
Great. I'm sure they will really appreciate that. It is your choice
which browser to use and at what resolution and with JS on or off. I
could really care less. I have the support of an overwhelming
majority of emails about the improvements in the new page - as well as
the design team that we have made a pretty good website into a great
website. I understand we cant make everyone happy. I'll listen to
the arguments but I wont ask stuff to be redesigned for a small small
group of people unless it is justified. Is that not reasonable?
> Yes, perhaps I am being a bit extreme, but I'm trying to get you to
> understand that 1) you need to design for ALL members of your target
> audience, not just the rich ones, or those from rich schools; 2) it is not
> necessary to "dumb down" the page and remove all the fancy stuff, if you
> design FIRST for the low end, and then add the other features as
> enhancements for those that can support it.
There is a text version and a frameless version with others coming
soon. Your extremety compliments ours and in the middle is our target
audience and -potentially- the best concept. at least that's how i
see it and why i enjoy reading and posting this stuff. We are
continually trying to improve the new design and will be providing
updated -better- versions soon (tonight probably).
> BTW, "Frixion"--does CIS know that you are having people submit their
> loginID/password information for CIS systems on an insecure web form, all
> to help BANA students "cheat" rather than do their own HTML assignments?
well, it's good to know your watching my shit for me! I hope they
know- i was pretty proud. I see it as like front page but easier to
use! I know there are pages like it on the web but I think a better
one could be made for my fellow classmates - and I think I achieved
that.
Have a nice day - don't be so bitter - and your PH stuff is pretty
funny!
JOHN BROWN
oh - a friend of mine said something I'll never forget:
"people who can, do - people who cant, work in academia" :)
Jerky
In article <macdave-ya0240800...@news.tamu.edu>, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin) wrote:
>In article
><DECF9FF20ADBF907.4CE85C61...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>, ho...@tamu.edu (Jerky) wrote:
>} I strongly believe in minority rights,...the right to shut the hell up.
>
>How kind of you; very A&M (that's NOT a compliment).
>
Sounds like you hate this place. You know, If I hated it, I probably wouldn't
work here, but you are. Why? So you can BITCH and moan about everything
here? Or is it that you are so unqualified to do anything (and setting up
English computer labs does not take to much brain power) that you have no
place else to go. Well, actually, there probably is a job in the government
someplace suited perfectly for you. Someplace where you can sit in a corner
and complain at the expense of tax payers. OH . . . Wait a minute . . . YOU
DO THAT NOW!
>} Bigdog's screen capture is ample evidence of the ability
>} of a sub-par, sub-standard computer to view the new page, and use it quite
>} successfully.
>
>I set my display to 640x480 BEFORE I posted about the new TAMU page not
>fitting the smaller screen, and it did NOT fit. Even stretching the window
>all the way out did not make it fit--close, but not enough. The problem
>with aiming the design at 640x480 even is that there are things about each
>platform and browser that are going to cause different spacing problems
>(windowed OSes aren't all going to provide the same amount of horizontal
>space in a maximized window); aim for 600-620 wide (height really doesn't
>matter as much) and you have a more professional looking product.
>
>I don't understand why some people seem to get so defensive (or obnoxious)
>about making minor tweaks that will improve the look of their pages for a
>wider range of viewers. I'm not saying to force the entire page to fit in
>640 wide ALWAYS. Make the page "growable", with ~600-620 width as the
>minimized design. Anchor images left and right so they pull outwards as the
>window width increases, growing the overall design. "Frixion" already has
>that; all I'm recommending is to aim for a little narrower than 640 to
>account for spacing differences and the page *will* fit a smaller screen.
>No need to get so testy.
I don't understand why some people seem to get so defensive (or obnoxious)
about making minor tweaks in their system. I don't know why, if you didn't
have to, did you change your resolution to 640 x 480. It doesn't take much
effort to change your font sizes in windows so that you could view your page
like Bobo's screen capture showed. That is by definition a "minor tweak" that
would allow you to be "happy" in 640 x 480.
>
>} I hope that my sarcasm has proved the point. For the sake of all that
>} is good and right in this world, please stop the crappy complaints of
>"well my
>} crappy 'puter can't . . ." or "my P.O.S. monitor ain't big enough for . .
>..."
>
>I never said that my computer was unable to handle it. Unlike the spoiled
>brats that the university seems to have hired to represent the rest of us
>(full time staff), I like to consider ALL potential viewers when designing
>pages. Yes, even I place a lower limit on feature support--the browser
>needs to support tables and JPEG images--but from there on I aim for
>accessibility by *any* browser, with 640x480 display (designed around 600
>max width). I believe JPEG support is in most every GUI-based browser since
>Netscape 1.1 (and versions of Mosaic before further browser development at
>NCSA was dropped), and tables were introduced in Netscape 1.1 as well, if I
>recall correctly.
>
Which is better, a spoiled brat (ouch that hurt), or a bitter old fart like
yourself. Well, if we consider ALL potential viewers, then shouldn't we also
consider those people who are running in 1600 x 1200? They would have a very
hard time seeing a page designed for 640 x 480. The page would only take up
about 3 inches on their 31 inch monitors. Those people are alienated too.
Have you ever thought of them? They're (is that the proper usage of "they
are"?) a minority too.
>And believe it or not, there ARE faculty and staff around this campus that
>are still using those ancient browsers, on computers that were built at the
>time you kids were barely starting puberty.
Who's fault is that? I blame the student workers (spoiled brats).
They are keeping all these people from buying a $50 piece of equipment. It's
THEM! You're (again with the proper word usage?) blaming them for everything
else, why not this?
>
>My computer is quite capable of handling the stuff. But I'm not going to
>build web pages that require my computer's specs to view. If I *know* that
>*every* viewer will have a certain minimum (such as when building an
>intranet that has limited access to begin with), I can design for that, but
>for public access pages, I try to keep the requirements down (while
>allowing "enhancements")
Okay.
>
>As for JavaScript, I can use that as well, but prefer to keep it disabled
>since it can be--and is--a security hole, as can Java. Sorry, but I'm not
>going to turn JS on and off just to view a site. If I can't get around
>without it--and there is NO reason to require JS--then I don't go to that
>page.
>
>The computer labs in the English department, which I am responsible for,
OHH! The Humanity!
>have JS turned off by default. I do not intend to change this, even after
>the new TAMU page is put into use. When I set up computers for our faculty
>& staff, I set J/JS off as well. If someone wants to access things with the
>JS menu, they can turn JS on for their session. It will be off again for
>the next user (in the labs; faculty/staff can choose to leave these on).
>When people ask, I will place the blame on "Frixion", where it belongs, for
>not providing a more proper means of access.
Better watch ouf "Frixion" he's on a rampage.
>
>If you want to ADD support for JS, that's fine, but don't REQUIRE it for
>navigation. That's the point I've been trying to make. Use JS as a site
>enhancement, not as the means of accessing the information.
Probably a pretty good point.
>
>} We cannot always lower the standards to the lowest common denominator.
>} They have tried in the public school system, and look what they've got now.
>
>This isn't about LCD, but ensuring that the information is accessible by
>those that need it. The internet isn't very useful when children such as
>yourselves go for creating flashy, overdone pages that hide information.
Neat.
>
>Your very own argument about the public school system is at the center of
>my argument: many public schools have old, outdated, extremely limited
>computers. Students in those schools that might be interested in coming to
>A&M can't access the information they need because "Frixion" (how
>professional; interesting that those that support him seem to prefer
>handles instead of names, too) decides that requiring JavaScript
>support--with NO other means of accessing the pages in the JS menu--is good
>enough.
>
>When I went out to Bryan High last fall to see what they had, there were a
>few IBM PS/1 systems in each classroom (granted, these were English
>classes) that could barely handle running Netscape. Maybe they've been
>upgraded by this point. Or maybe other parts of the HS have better
>equipment. But if there's a chance that students at Bryan High can't get to
>info on the A&M site due to the rather restrictive design, then "Frixion"
>isn't doing his job correctly. Period.
Or they could just go down the hall to the "good computer lab."
>
>} You know, I bet deep down inside, your [try "you're"] a communist at heart.
>
>Grow up. Besides, having a communist design a web site would be much better
>than having immature anarchists doing so. :-)
>
>Yes, perhaps I am being a bit extreme, but I'm trying to get you to
>understand that 1) you need to design for ALL members of your target
>audience, not just the rich ones, or those from rich schools; 2) it is not
>necessary to "dumb down" the page and remove all the fancy stuff, if you
>design FIRST for the low end, and then add the other features as
>enhancements for those that can support it.
Well, macdave, even the poor can afford razor blades, and if they're lucky, a
weekly bath too. See http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/staff/dave/ .
>
>BTW, "Frixion"--does CIS know that you are having people submit their
>loginID/password information for CIS systems on an insecure web form, all
>to help BANA students "cheat" rather than do their own HTML assignments?
>
How can you live with yourself macdave? If I was that inadequate, I'd have to
go work in an english lab.
Jonathan E Jones
John "BigDog" Cunningham wrote:
-> The new page uses the same JavaScript menu I used on the Financial Aid
-> page (I actually stole it from John Brown). It works perfectly in
-> Netscape and IE 2x and up.
Why even have the "Go!" button if it'll never be used? The "Go!" button
usually gets included in <NOSCRIPT> tags to be used by browsers without
JavaScript, and is supported by a CGI redirector script.
Thanks,
-Jon J.
John BigDog Cunningham
On 6 Apr 1998 02:42:53 GMT, Jonathan E Jones
<jjo...@dilbert.cs.tamu.edu> wrote:
>Why even have the "Go!" button if it'll never be used? The "Go!" button
>usually gets included in <NOSCRIPT> tags to be used by browsers without
>JavaScript, and is supported by a CGI redirector script.
The "Go" button is useful for getting back to a page you were already
on. Say you use the pull-down to get to one of the main pages in
Financial Aid, like Student Emplyoment. Then you follow one of the
information links to a different page. That leads to another link,
and so on, until you're a couple of levels deep in the page. Then you
want to go back to the main student employment page. Instead of using
the back button 10 times, you can just click "Go", and it re-executes
the JavaScript in the top frame, redirecting the bottom frame to the
Student Emploment main page.
That's why I left the "Go" button there.
-John
-Webmaster, Financial Aid