Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: New Site Design  (Read 22828 times)

VentdeSable

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
    • http://
New Site Design
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2006, 04:21:59 PM »

Just one more question :

What'is "RSS feed" ?
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
New Site Design
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2006, 04:28:19 PM »

Have a look here.
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet
New Site Design
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2006, 04:39:53 PM »

Ad hominem really is the popular way to do it these days, I see.

Quote
I'm a big fan of Web 2.0, usability, standards, the whole lot.  But c'mon, you're suggesting LL should be able to be read on a wireless device?
No.
Logged
Jan

VentdeSable

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
    • http://
New Site Design
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2006, 04:43:54 PM »

Quote
Have a look here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Got it thank you. Looks nice, when i become able to get it (subscription button gets me to a strange languages for the moment).

Thanks again.
Jrme.
Logged

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
New Site Design
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2006, 04:46:07 PM »

Quote
Ad hominem really is the popular way to do it these days, I see.
No.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Lighten up Francis!  LOL

shed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
    • http://www.awphotography.org
New Site Design
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2006, 04:57:23 PM »

Nice one Michael,

The new desing looks great and makes navigation a fair bit easier. No probs with the viewing size here...
Logged
Regards,

Andrew

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1735
New Site Design
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2006, 04:59:23 PM »

Still too wide for 1024...

tgphoto

  • Guest
New Site Design
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2006, 05:15:20 PM »

Quote
Ad hominem really is the popular way to do it these days, I see.

You are obviously referring to your own original statement:

Quote
The gibes others make at 800x600 are tasteless and inconsiderate

If you light a match, expect a flame.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2006, 05:16:25 PM by tgphoto »
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
    • http://daystarvisions.com
New Site Design
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2006, 05:55:03 PM »

Pom is correct. Here is a screen shot from my PC set to 1600x1200:



The bottom scrollbar in the browser window indicates that IE is unable to proportionally reduce the width of the green and black columns to fit the current window width (a generous 1053 pixels). In order to view this page as intended the viewer is required to abandon browser side bars and/or maximize the browser window; that's not the case for any other professionally-done site I frequent.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2006, 05:59:28 PM by Dale Cotton »
Logged

Mike Louw

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
    • http://www.dreaminglight.com
New Site Design
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2006, 06:03:01 PM »

I love the new site! Perfect at 1920 X 1200 .....

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet
New Site Design
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2006, 06:07:07 PM »

Quote
You are obviously referring to your own original statement:
If you light a match, expect a flame.
You are obviously unaware of the meaning of the phrase "ad hominem". It means "directed at the man". I was attacking your argument, not you.

You were attacking me, not my argument.

And no, I don't usually expect flames here, and since it appears that what I wrote only provokes you into that, I'll leave now.
Logged
Jan

maxgruzen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • http://www.pbase.com/mordicai
New Site Design
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2006, 06:10:03 PM »

Quote
Hey -

I like the fonts and colors of the new CSS design on the homepage, but what is the intended viewing size? 1024x768 cuts off the site. It's fine on my main editing machine, but on the web browsing machine - which I run at a lower resolution, The site is too large...

Thanks,

Joe DeVico
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I certinly enjoyed the old site more then the new one.  Poor move Michael.
Logged

tgphoto

  • Guest
New Site Design
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2006, 06:18:24 PM »

I think your last statement is best summed up by the following phrase:

"English is a difficult language"

I understand the meaning of Ad Hominem quite well, and no, it does not mean to attack the argument as you suggest:

Ad Hominem

If you want to attack me, fine.  If you want to attack my argument, that's fine too.  But by calling the arguments/opinions of me and others on this discussion board "tasteless and inconsiderate" is clearly failure on your part to see a much larger picture.

I appreciate your comments as long as they are comments.  But an insulting is not the same as commenting, and will likely win you no fans here, sir.
Logged

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
New Site Design
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2006, 06:23:27 PM »

Quote
Pom is correct. Here is a screen shot from my PC set to 1600x1200:

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What version browser are you using?  Neither my FF1.x, 2.x nor IE 6.x or 7.x render that wide.  It all looks just fine (as of right now, maybe not when you took your snap).

tgphoto

  • Guest
New Site Design
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2006, 06:35:02 PM »

Looks like an IE window *squints*
Logged

dlashier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
    • http://www.lashier.com/
New Site Design
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2006, 06:40:58 PM »

Yup, scrollbars here to, in both FF and IE, but only on the home page. But the thing is that there's nothing on the home page that requires forcing this width (yet anyway). In fact it's just wasting a wide gutter to the right of the green nav bar. Perhaps the a redesign of the home page is coming which will better utilize the space in which case I can live with the nuisance, but if not, why force it?

- DL
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
    • http://daystarvisions.com
New Site Design
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2006, 06:52:37 PM »

Quote
but only on the home page
Hi, Don: that's what I thought for a while too; but then I went exploring - as for example here and here.

Nevertheless, so many pages do work correctly, that I suspect there is a single code conflict that only crops up under certain circumstances.
Logged

Chris Sanderson

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2217
New Site Design
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2006, 07:08:26 PM »

We think its the red line spacer causing the prob - it'll be fixed in due course . . .
Logged
Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape

dlashier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
    • http://www.lashier.com/
New Site Design
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2006, 07:17:37 PM »

Quote
We think its the red line spacer causing the prob - it'll be fixed in due course . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yup, those lines are not <hr> but long lines of underscores. Was ok til the left navbar was added.

- DL
Logged

Ricko

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
New Site Design
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2006, 09:35:02 PM »

Quote
Have a look here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I noticed that the Wikipedia page you reference does fit correctly and has no scroll bar at the bottom of my IE broswer window.

Your home page does have a small horizontal scroll bar.  Maybe the width of the navigation cell is a good place to cut some pixels on either side.

I like the new look so far.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up