TOT: Public Version of Family Archive

[Java Jive]

[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]

Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
(animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
it's here:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml

Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
--

Fake news kills!

========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 21:26:36, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):

>[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>
>Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
>enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
>way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
>(animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
>(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
>release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
>it's here:
>
>http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>
>Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the
law." - Winston Churchill.

[NY]

"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:8qsapg1mutu0veu0t...@4ax.com...

> [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>
> Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
> enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
> way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
> (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
> (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
> release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
> it's here:
>
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>
> Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.

That is a fantastic collection of photos and papers. The oldest things I've
got are a few photos on dog-eared thick card and a photo of my great x n
grandmother as a young woman, on glass or maybe on metal protected by glass
(could it be a Daguerrotype?). But no papers going further back than that.
When I was about 10, back in the mid 70s, my dad got my grandpa and his
mother (my great-grandma) together and recorded a conversation of their
reminiscences about "who was Henry Walmsley?", "who owned the sweet works
that burned down - several times?" and my grandpa's memories of witnessing a
tram crash right in front of him when it lost control on a steep hill, came
off the rails and ran uncontrolled across the market place into a bank. And
his memories of scare-stories from his dad who was a foreman in an iron
foundry, of people being injured or killed in accidents in the foundry. And
then memories of helping the limelight operator at the local theatre with
some of the very elaborate lighting effects: as with any new technology
(think of word processors and the initial gratuitous plethora of fonts in a
document!) there was a tendency in the 1910s/20s for directors to over-use
the technology and to demand lots of lighting changes to highlight specific
objects as they were mentioned in the dialogue ("there's my cigarette case
on the mantelpiece", so the limelight operator had to have a pencil beam
aimed at the case, ready to reveal it on cue).

Nothing as far back as you go, and nothing as grand and opulent as yours,
but still a wonderful record of their voices (their intonation, their
accents, their phraseology) and of their accounts of life in the early 20th
century. That 2-hour tape has been copied to numerous WAV files which are
backed up all over the place, along with my own transcription of it to Word
file.

[Java Jive]

Thanks, but I don't think you should be too impressed by 'grand and
opulent'! Everyone has their story of their times, and we are lucky
today that digitisation means that we can save so much of it and make
it freely accessible to all.

IMV, one of the most interesting recent series on TV has been David
Olusoga's "A House Through Time":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9

He is a good presenter, and I like the fact that he tries to tell the
story of poor people as well as wealthier people.

[NY]

On 17/11/2021 22:55, Java Jive wrote:

> IMV, one of the most interesting recent series on TV has been David
> Olusoga's "A House Through Time":
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9
>
> He is a good presenter, and I like the fact that he tries to tell the
> story of poor people as well as wealthier people.

Yes, it's an excellent series of programmes. I enjoyed the Leeds one
particularly because that's the city where I was born and lived until I
was about 10, and the house was only a couple of streets away from the
school that my mum went to. It's remarkable the amount of information
that the researchers have managed to unearth about each of the families
who lived in the houses.

With programmes like A House Through Time and Who Do You Think You Are,
I've always wondered how many houses/families *looked* promising
initially but turned out after closer research to have very little
information available... or else a wealth of information that was just
too prosaic. :-(

I wonder what history might be unearthed about our house, which has
parts dating back to at least 1890 (it's on an 1890 25" map but not on
an 1850 6" map, and the NLS doesn't have any maps dated in between).
When we bought the house a couple of years ago, I tried to work out a
time-line of owners from the huge bundle of papers we were given as the
deeds, but that probably lists owners rather than tenants - and I'm sure
many of the owners that I've identified never lived here themselves.
We're lucky that the woman who lives next door used to own our house,
until she and her husband sold it to the people who we bought it from
about 30 years ago, at which time they built a new house in what had
been the grounds of our house. So she's fascinated to see how the house
has changed and gradually been extended.

It's the stories of people's attitudes and how they cope with adversity
that really capture my imagination: my great-grandma recounts how her
tyrannical grandpa wouldn't let his wife wear a new dress that she'd
bought on hire-purchase... until the last instalment had been paid! My
grandpa told the story of his father having to leave the area where he'd
grown up to look for work in the (English) Midlands, and he'd been there
for a few months when he arrived at work one morning to be met by
someone he'd never seen before - "I'm t'new gaffer now. You worked for
my predecessor? Right, you can pack up and bugger off! I'm not having
anyone that he took on working here." And so he and his mate had to walk
the hundred-odd miles back home because they had no money for food or
for a train - it took them about a fortnight, literally singing for
their supper in pubs or sleeping in hedge-bottoms. Life was hard!

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <sn3vqu$9hs$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
> >
> > Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.

Thanks. Interesting. :-)

That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
link to my own

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html

which uses a simpler layout and colours that I find much easier. And may
also interest some here given the xposting. Apologies to anyone who
objects to xposting so many groups. Not something I'd usually do.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Java Jive]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf

>
> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
> to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
> link to my own
>
> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html

Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
the eyes.

[Indy Jess John]

On 18/11/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>>
>> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
>> to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
>> link to my own
>>
>> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
>
> Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
> the eyes.

I had a bit of screen design training some time ago as a preliminary to
recommending a website design guide for a project.

In a nutshell, different people would have different preferences (males
and females differ on what is "the best" colours, for instance) so the
main objective would be to find widely acceptable rather than ideal.

It boiled down to knowing how long the typical person would be looking
at it and what message the design would aim to convey, and there was no
"right" answer, though there were a few "wrong" ones. A typical "wrong"
one was failing to recognise that about 8% of the population had some
degree of colour blindness and they would have difficulty with schemes
of juxtaposed Green & Black, Green & Grey, Blue & Grey, Light Green &
Yellow, Green & Blue, Blue & Purple, Green & Brown, and Green & Red.

The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.

For my project, the use by data entry clerks, I was advised to use a
light pastel rather than stark white for the background, and my later
little "what do you think of this?" sample for workmates showed a
preference for pale cyan or pale buff as I tweaked the colour codes in
the CSS.

I can accept that you prefer your own screen presentation (you chose it
so that was a given), and I note that the sans serif font on a dark
background makes it easily readable. However my personal preference
between yours and Jim's in Jim's.

Jim

[Java Jive]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:59:44 +0000, Indy Jess John

>
> The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
> looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
> on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
> rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
> white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
> grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.

I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <sn5m8j$1n9$1...@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John

<bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> >>
> >> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite
> >> hard to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky
> >> and post a link to my own
> >>
> >> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
> >
> > Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
> > the eyes.

> I can accept that you prefer your own screen presentation (you chose it
> so that was a given), and I note that the sans serif font on a dark
> background makes it easily readable. However my personal preference
> between yours and Jim's in Jim's.

FWIW I 'road tested' my choices when I worked on my first website (Scots
Guide to Electronics). As this was/is a University website I built I got a
number of undergrads to read it and comment. I found that there was indeed
a variety of reactions wrt layout, colours, etc. But what I settled on
seemed most generally OK for people. Some of them - like myself - have
sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.

You can never get this perfect for all cases, but settled on the 'design'
(sic) I've used since. It won't win any graphic design or whizz-wheel
awards, but seems OK in general.

BTW The 'Scots Guide' is now essentially 'frozen'. When I fully retired I
lost my Uni email address and the pages remain as were. But I've built
other sites since using the same old-fashioned approach. Assume people want
content - or not.

Alas, my eyesight is such that light - particularly sans - text on a darker
background I find very hard to read. Hence my comment. But I assume this
isn't a problem for most people. FWIW I also find screens harder to read
than printed text. YMMV. :-)

[Indy Jess John]

On 18/11/2021 15:15, Java Jive wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:59:44 +0000, Indy Jess John
>>
>> The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
>> looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
>> on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
>> rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
>> white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
>> grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.
>
> I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
> the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did.

Me too. That is why for my own stuff I use a pastel buff.

Jim

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vup...@4ax.com>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
> eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --

I also find what becomes 'black on white' difficult *on screens* because
the active light background is very different to scatter reflection from a
printed page. Causes 'glare'. Simply having a light grey background can
help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.

But some tint in the background can give the eye a further distinction
without glare. Difficult to say more as it varies from person to person and
with rendering setup.

The big recent change, of course, is the use of 'mobile' devices with a
relatively tiny screen. Different environment to using a desktop machine.

[Java Jive]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vup...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
> > eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --

Perhaps I could have added there that this problem used to be much
more marked with CRT screens. I just couldn't look at pages with
white or light backgrounds for more than around half-an-hour at a
time. I don't find the problem nearly so bad with LCDs, but it's
still more tiring for me than light on dark.

As you say, each person tends to differ, and I think a lot of it comes
down with what you're used to. There's a hell of a lot of
pseudo-science out there about this sort of thing, some of which has
been debunked in this ng in the past.

I suppose one way to think about it is: "What, as far as our eyes are
concerned, is most natural? Clearly it's not black on white or any
other bright colour! The only time we have this situation in nature
is when we look too close to the sun, or perhaps even just up at the
sky on a hot bright day. The former is acknowledged to be bad for
ones eyes, while it can also be quite uncomfortable looking into a
bright blue sky, and if you see a bird of prey circling on such a day,
usually you can't make out any or much colouration on the underside of
its wings, because the dazzle of the sky turns it into just a
silhouette.

But from this viewpoint, light on dark is not exactly natural either,
while if you use midtones for both ink and paper, then potentially you
can run into the colour-blindness problems already mentioned. So I
stick with light on dark as being the least bad.

> Simply having a light grey background can
> help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.

Again, my experience is exactly the opposite, I find serif fonts bitty
and confusing to the eye.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 19:12:34, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote

(my responses usually follow points raised):

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
><no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vup...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
>> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
>> > eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --
>
>Perhaps I could have added there that this problem used to be much
>more marked with CRT screens. I just couldn't look at pages with
>white or light backgrounds for more than around half-an-hour at a
>time. I don't find the problem nearly so bad with LCDs, but it's
>still more tiring for me than light on dark.

A big difference is between frame rate and flicker rate, though it's
less so with static material such as text. It used to be thought that
refresh rate had to be at least not much less than 50, as otherwise the
flicker was indeed noticeable (and in many cases headache-inducing):
that's why (both) TV systems used interlace (OK, there were bandwidth
reasons too; it was quite a clever invention), and most film projectors
had a shutter that interrupted the light _twice_ a frame.

But once the light source was constant, i. e. flicker ceased to be a
real problem, frame rates could fall without headaches: even for moving
subjects (except fast-moving, such as games or sports and some action
films), they could (and still can) be a _lot_ lower than used to be
thought necessary.

>
>As you say, each person tends to differ, and I think a lot of it comes

(Indeed. In the pre-PC days, we had some computers that could do screen
at either 50 or 60 hertz; I couldn't see much difference, but had
several colleagues who definitely could [and preferred the 60].)
[]

>But from this viewpoint, light on dark is not exactly natural either,
>while if you use midtones for both ink and paper, then potentially you
>can run into the colour-blindness problems already mentioned. So I
>stick with light on dark as being the least bad.

It seems odd that, pre-windows (roughly), light on dark was the norm,
though not necessarily for technical reasons (one of the cheapest sets
of home computers - the Sinclair[UK]/Timex[US] ZX80, ZX81, and Spectrum
- used black on white).

>
>> Simply having a light grey background can
>> help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.
>
>Again, my experience is exactly the opposite, I find serif fonts bitty
>and confusing to the eye.

I reluctantly admit I find sans easier, though intellectually I dislike
them, because there are more characters that can be confused (I, l, and
sometimes 1, for example) in sans. I think they (sans) look "kiddy" -
but that's probably why they were originally used for kids, i. e. that
they're easier.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Douglas Adams is always right; any technology invented after you're 35 does
indeed feel against the natural order of things. - Simon Mayo, RT
2020/7/28-/8/3

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>

wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

[]

>sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
>allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
>had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
>reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.

[]
No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
them.

Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
even know how to.)

[Indy Jess John]

On 18/11/2021 19:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf<no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
>> allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
>> had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
>> reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.
> []
> No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
> and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
> designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
> them.
>
> Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
> intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
> initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
> default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
> even know how to.)

HTML reflows within the width it has either been given explicitly or it
has derived from the inheritance of earlier properties.

If the width is explicitly stated as being wider than the reader's
screen then it believes what it is told and the reader will have to
scroll to read it. If the width is expressed as a percentage (not
exceeding 100%), then the presentation uses that percentage of the width
of the viewing screen (or table column or predefined area), and
scrolling is never necessary.

I do write HTML code, though I agree that most don't.

Jim

[Andy Walker]

On 18/11/2021 19:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width
> only, and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than
> the designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right
> to read them.

In somewhere around 2000, my desktop computer was upgraded,
and there was around £100 going spare, so I had a high-resolution
monitor instead of the bog-standard ones that all my colleagues were
given. Result was that the University's top page came out tiny, with
something like 4-pt characters. So I complained. "Oh, no, you're
wrong, it was Professionally Designed and it looks Fantastic." "Not
on my screen, and not on the screens of any prospective students or
sponsors who also happen to have good [or for that matter bad]
monitors." "Well, we've just checked, and it's Right. There's
something wrong with your computer." I tried to explain what they'd
done, but inevitably got nowhere. Left them to it.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Boccherini

[Folderol]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:42:31 +0000
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
>wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
>>allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
>>had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
>>reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.
>[]
>No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
>and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
>designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
>them.
>
>Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
>intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
>initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
>default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
>even know how to.)

I do!
Oh, and in the Yoshimi user guide I flow text :)

--
Basic

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <ug8dpgdac843qmgqh...@4ax.com>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vup...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> > <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
> > > the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --

> I suppose one way to think about it is: "What, as far as our eyes are
> concerned, is most natural? Clearly it's not black on white or any
> other bright colour! The only time we have this situation in nature is
> when we look too close to the sun, or perhaps even just up at the sky on
> a hot bright day.

Agreed. However I'd make two points.

1) That for many years the bulk of 'reading' in many cultures has been dark
black/brown ink on 'whitish' paper/parchment/etc

2) That 'in the wild' much of what we see comes from a scene with blue-white
sky illumination. Not really 'white'.

The difference wrt a screen is that diffuse reflection is 'natural' but
screens tend to be the light source. So can be harder to set such as to not
'glare'.

FWIW Perhaps my longest-term best friend was for many years a superb
graphic designer and photographer so we had many conversations about these
topics. Quite, erm, illuminating for us both given my interest in the
physics related to it.

[Jim Lesurf]

> In somewhere around 2000, my desktop computer was upgraded, and there
> was around £100 going spare, so I had a high-resolution monitor instead
> of the bog-standard ones that all my colleagues were given. Result was
> that the University's top page came out tiny, with something like 4-pt
> characters. So I complained. "Oh, no, you're wrong, it was
> Professionally Designed and it looks Fantastic." "Not on my screen, and
> not on the screens of any prospective students or sponsors who also
> happen to have good [or for that matter bad] monitors." "Well, we've
> just checked, and it's Right. There's something wrong with your
> computer." I tried to explain what they'd done, but inevitably got
> nowhere. Left them to it.

The basic problem is, I think, due to the following factors coming to
dominate:

1) Many websites are created *to look impressive on the boss's or client's
desktop machine*. If they like it, you get paid even if the result looks
awful to mere customers/readers.

2) Generated by people who simply use a 'magical' program that created the
webpage without the writer/designer having the slightest clue or sight of
the actual HTML + css + (bugger)scripting +.... which gets crufted into it.

3) The latest 'whizz wheels' MUST be used to impress rather than inform
or make the content easier to use. If a browser can't cope with this
it can be ignored even if it then can't make sense of the content.

4) No one then checks what the result is like on a machine running other
OSs with other rendering programs on different machines with various screen
sizes, etc. Let alone any machine that more than a year old.

5) if they do, it becomes "blame the victim" as per above. "YOU need
to 'upgrade' " to suit the webpage.

If anyone *does* look at the resulting 'code' they find it is a mess of
cruft which tends to 'bind' layout and rendering in a way that interferes
with any user preferences or circumstances. It is also usually a much
bigger file which used to matter a lot - particularly when writing content
you wanted people in 'less developed' places to have a chance of accessing.

Alas, all too often...

Professional = "Does it for money" -> Follow the money to get paid. -> 1
above...

I've never been a 'professional' in the above sense. Just someone who
wanted to make information available that I thought some people might find
interesting/useful. If my poor taste in terms of graphic design comes
though, fair enough, provided most people can read the content OK.

Of course, you can't please everyone. But it is at least trivial to allow
things like text reflow and let their browser set the default fonts, text
sizes. etc. Not inflict a paralising css, etc, on their choice.

I'll stop ranting there. :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <MzAT7C54...@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> A big difference is between frame rate and flicker rate, though it's
> less so with static material such as text. It used to be thought that
> refresh rate had to be at least not much less than 50, as otherwise the
> flicker was indeed noticeable (and in many cases headache-inducing):
> that's why (both) TV systems used interlace (OK, there were bandwidth
> reasons too; it was quite a clever invention), and most film projectors
> had a shutter that interrupted the light _twice_ a frame.

With the old CRT monitors I tended not to see visible flicker, but the
image somehow got more 'solid' or 'real' when the frame rate was above 60Hz
even when nothing on-screen was being moved or changed.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <bD3WHj5n...@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
> and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
> designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
> them.

> Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
> intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
> initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
> default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
> even know how to.)

I started off with HTML 1.x and hand coded using a 'plain text' editor.
Since then I've moved on a bit and use !TechWriter (a RISC OS Technical
document processor) to initially create the text. It can export plain HTML
as well as rtf, word, pdf, postscript, etc. So serves as a common starting
point for multiple output routes.

I then tweak the HTML by hand, but using a quasi-plain-text editor
(!HTMLEdit) that shows me the code so I can either edit entirely by hand,
or use a set of shortcuts that edit markup.

This makes it easy to get simple code and avoid 'bloat', etc.

It's a shame more people don't know about !TechWriter, though. I was sent a
copy to review in 1992 because I routinely have to write documents with
maths. Fell in love with it as the easiest and best way to get results that
easily follow the standard rules for layout of equations, etc. This is an
aside, though. :-)

[Gordon]

On 2021-11-18, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <sn3vqu$9hs$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>> >
>> > Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
>
> Thanks. Interesting. :-)
>
> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
> to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
> link to my own
>
> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
>
> which uses a simpler layout and colours that I find much easier. And may
> also interest some here given the xposting. Apologies to anyone who
> objects to xposting so many groups. Not something I'd usually do.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
>

The street photo in the Welcome to My World section stuck me, it is just a
street in the Covid lockdowns.

[Java Jive]

On 17/11/2021 21:26, Java Jive wrote:
> [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>
> Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
> enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
> way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
> (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
> (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
> release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
> it's here:
>
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>
> Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.

Currently at my brother's, picking up the next batch of work on this
(about the same gargantuan amount again, I fear!), and one of the first
things I find is the following old-fashioned joke printed on a slip of
paper:

"If your wife wants to learn to drive, don't stand in her way."

[Lest anyone mistakenly think I subscribe to this view, my mother was a
WAAF driving instructor during WW2, and was the best driver in the
family. I have made for our private use a map of the places we have
photos of taken during Scottish holidays, the southernmost ones are
Edinburgh and Dalry, the northernmost Gruinard Bay, featuring almost
everywhere in between, though not the east coast, and of course we
usually drove up from southern England to get there. Only now does it
strike me how many hundreds of miles Ma, and later my stepfather, must
have driven on these family holidays.]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Davey]

I remember our Dad driving the family from Essex to The Lake District,
back in the 1950s, with a caravan behind, then a three hundred mile trip
that took all day. Later on, with a different tow vehicle and caravan,
we got as far as Zurich. What adventures they were then!
--
Davey.

[NY]

"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:t6qiki$s3j$1...@dont-email.me...

> [Lest anyone mistakenly think I subscribe to this view, my mother was a
> WAAF driving instructor during WW2, and was the best driver in the family.
> I have made for our private use a map of the places we have photos of
> taken during Scottish holidays, the southernmost ones are Edinburgh and
> Dalry, the northernmost Gruinard Bay, featuring almost everywhere in
> between, though not the east coast, and of course we usually drove up from
> southern England to get there. Only now does it strike me how many
> hundreds of miles Ma, and later my stepfather, must have driven on these
> family holidays.]

And she'll have been taught (and taught others) to drive vehicles with no
synchromesh, and therefore to perform double-declutching. Anyone who can
master that skill deserves much kudos. Nowadays it is impossible to learn
true DDC to non-synchromesh standards because (virtually) all cars on the
road today have synchromesh on all gears so you have no way of knowing
whether or not you have matched the engine and gearbox speeds sufficiently
accurately for the gear to engage. No matter what you do, you can always
*engage* any gear - you could engage first at 70, as long as you don't let
the clutch up!!!!! Good drivers try to match the speeds when bringing up the
clutch *after* the gear had successfully engaged, so both plates are going
at the same speed, but that's a very different thing. Clutchless gearchanges
can be mastered, but in that case you have instant feedback: until you reach
the matching speed, the gear will not engage; once you reach the right speed
it slips in. In DDC, you are doing it offline: you have to hope that the
engine speed is correct, then disengage the engine (so you've no way of
making minor tweaks), and if it doesn't work you have to let the clutch up,
tweak the engine speed, declutch and try again: effectively you've got a
system with a delay in its feedback loop.

I did once have the misfortune to be a passenger in a car driven by someone
who had been driving for probably 20 years (she was not a new driver) and
she had the habit of coming right off the power, engaging the new gear,
letting the clutch up on an idling engine (with one hell of a lurch!) and
then applying power. I'd only been driving a few years but I'd been taught
the rudiments of rev-matching by my instructor (ex police Class 1
instructor) who was keen to show newly-passed drivers how to do it
"properly". Should I say anything? After she apologised after a particularly
bad lurch, I very tactfully suggested that maybe there was another way (I
avoided the word "better"!) which might reduce the lurches. She thought it
was her car and asked me to drive to see. Allowing for a couple of minutes
to get used to a strange car's clutch bite point and graunchy
gear-selection, I drove it "differently" and she was mystified. Without
saying "this is how you should do it", I described what I did, and there was
a wonderful moment of realisation and frustration "Ah, I didn't know you
could do that". Without a rev-counter, it's a bit more difficult to judge
the correct engine speed (with my present car I know that each change of
gear is roughly an increase/decrease of 500 rpm) but you can still do it my
engine note - at the very least keep the engine revs constant, and ideally
increase when changing down or decrease when changing up... anything but let
the engine revs fall to idling and let the clutch up on a "dead" engine.

There was an age and seniority issue (she was my manager) which is why I was
bending over backwards to be tactful and to avoid her feeling silly. Next
time I rode with her, she was fine, and she joked that she'd been
practicing. So it wasn't "typical woman driver" - it was just that she had
been taught very badly and had never experimented with doing things
differently to what she'd been taught. She was a people manager rather than
an engineer - maybe my scientific/engineering background made me more likely
to experiment "what if".

[Folderol]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 16:55:45 +0100
"NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
<snip>

>There was an age and seniority issue (she was my manager) which is why I was
>bending over backwards to be tactful and to avoid her feeling silly. Next
>time I rode with her, she was fine, and she joked that she'd been
>practicing. So it wasn't "typical woman driver" - it was just that she had
>been taught very badly and had never experimented with doing things
>differently to what she'd been taught. She was a people manager rather than
>an engineer - maybe my scientific/engineering background made me more likely
>to experiment "what if".

During WW2 my Mum was cherry-picked from the land girls and trained as a
mechanic. By the end of that time she was able to drive and maintain any
non track-laying vehicle.

Afterwards, it wasn't until the mid 1950s that the family got a car and she
needed to get a license. In those days it was not unusual to just go for a test
without any driving lessons, and to the examiners amazement, she handled the car
near perfectly (in a rare moment of honesty, Dad admitted she drove better than
him). She was also the scourge of any motor mechanic who tried to con her :)

--
Basic

[MB]

On 27/05/2022 16:55, NY wrote:
> Anyone who can
> master that skill deserves much kudos.

It is surprising how quickly you get used to it, I think our first
couple of Land Rovers at work needed it.

[Java Jive]

Re double de-clutching ...

Yes, in the days I worked on farms, it was considered best practice to
DDC tractors. That is to say, they had a 'crash' gearbox, so could take
a bashing, but I was taught to DDC by the farm's foreman, and when you
got it just about right you could change gear without anything worse
than a satisfying 'clunk'!

[Ian Jackson]

In message <t6rh83$rqb$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes

>Re double de-clutching ...
>
>On 27/05/2022 18:43, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 27/05/2022 16:55, NY wrote:
>>> >> Anyone who can
>>> master that skill deserves much kudos.
>> It is surprising how quickly you get used to it, I think our first
>>couple of Land Rovers at work needed it.
>
>Yes, in the days I worked on farms, it was considered best practice to
>DDC tractors. That is to say, they had a 'crash' gearbox, so could
>take a bashing, but I was taught to DDC by the farm's foreman, and when
>you got it just about right you could change gear without anything
>worse than a satisfying 'clunk'!
>

60 years ago I learned to drive on a car with (deliberately) no
synchromesh on 1st, and needed to know how to double-declutch. I still
do it (although the actual accuracy my rev matching is rather
questionable!). With some cars I could drive without using the clutch
(very useful when, say, the hydraulics had failed - although starting
off and stopping was a bit scary) - but modern cars won't let you do
this.
--
Ian

[williamwright]

I learnt to drive on a 1948 Morris ambulance. I always double declutch.
Very useful for steep hills and that. I heel and toe as well. I've never
worn a clutch out. When I bought my (1990) tractor the young bloke said,
"Don't try to change gear while you're moving coz it can't be done.
Select a gear and ratio then set off." I found that I could change gear
whilst moving with no trouble.

Bill (smug)

[bad sector]

I learned on a '55 ford truck on the farm, it seldom needed double-clutching but I honed the skill to perfection only because it gave me a chance to rev the engine in a skill show-off while coasting in an otherwise idle turn into the ice-cream parlor parking where the 'action' was. In them days if you were tall enough for your head to be seen over the city-hall counter and held $2 high you got an unlimited driver's licence, just like that. If you didn't get one as soon as thus qualified you was called names...

[JNugent]

The cars I learned in (and tended to own for the first few years after
passing my test) invariably didn't have synchromesh on 1st gear and
often, it was badly-worn on 2nd, meaning that double-declutching was a
necessary skill if you needed to change down that low whilst on the move.

[bad sector]

On 5/27/22 09:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 21:26, Java Jive wrote:
>> [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>>
>> Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
>> enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
>> way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
>> (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne.  While not yet complete
>> (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
>> release of an archive to the general public.  For those interested,
>> it's here:
>>
>> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml

that's not bad, actually!

>> Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
>
> Currently at my brother's, picking up the next batch of work on this (about the same gargantuan amount again, I fear!), and one of the first things I find is the following old-fashioned joke printed on a slip of paper:
>
>   "If your wife wants to learn to drive, don't stand in her way."

I'm working on something similar but am going against the grain by using 'iconized' art instead of the historical encre-et-plume drawings. After all the original purpose was easy and positive identification from a distance on the battle-field, very much resembling the definition of a graphical icon as a symbol that provides unique identification in the smallest possible number of pixels (even if many pixels be used in production). I'm looking for a graphic artist to clean-up one of my own iconized elements, an open-helmet used in the day to convey something akin to 'a lack of unconditional hostility' :-))

[Davey]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 16:55:45 +0100
"NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I did once have the misfortune to be a passenger in a car driven by
> someone who had been driving for probably 20 years (she was not a new
> driver) and she had the habit of coming right off the power, engaging
> the new gear, letting the clutch up on an idling engine (with one
> hell of a lurch!) and then applying power. I'd only been driving a
> few years but I'd been taught the rudiments of rev-matching by my
> instructor (ex police Class 1 instructor) who was keen to show
> newly-passed drivers how to do it "properly". Should I say anything?
> After she apologised after a particularly bad lurch, I very tactfully
> suggested that maybe there was another way (I avoided the word
> "better"!) which might reduce the lurches. She thought it was her car
> and asked me to drive to see. Allowing for a couple of minutes to get
> used to a strange car's clutch bite point and graunchy
> gear-selection, I drove it "differently" and she was mystified.
>

I had a similar experience, as a passenger in a fellow student's Cortina
Estate. Every gearchange terminated in a 'Bang' as the clutch was just
drop released, with no attempt to match engine speed. Luckily it was
only one short journey, and I often wondered how long the clutch and
even the gearbox lasted after all that terrible treatment.
I sympathised with the car, even though I had no great love for Fords.

--
Davey.