Re modeling my website. Opinions please

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:46 pm

I'm making some changes to my website so it will be a little less dull looking. What is your opinion on the use of frames on a web page? I'm just now learning how to do some more advanced HTML stuff so I would like to try it but I've heard a lot of disparaging comments about frames from some folks. Also take a look at www.geocities.com/adoptalad/gbutuma/gb_intro and let me have your opinions on the looks of it. I'm going for a Celtic theme for the whole site.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:49 pm

I presume you have internet explorer?
I tried it on konqueror and mozilla and something isn't quite right. On konqueor the next/back buttons appear over the text and in mozilla they're not there at all and the geocities adverts are all mucked up.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:57 pm

JJ frames are the CURSE of the internet IMO.

Most of the time they are used, they are used inappropriately.

There are less than 5% of the sites that use frames where it actually works.

You are much better off without them in all but exceptional circumstances.

Spend a bit of time and learn about CSS, - Cascading Style Sheets - you will thank me the next time you update the website

http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:59 am

bat^freak wrote:

I presume you have internet explorer?
I tried it on konqueror and mozilla and something isn't quite right. On konqueor the next/back buttons appear over the text and in mozilla they're not there at all and the geocities adverts are all mucked up.

Yes, I'm using microsoft Internet Explorer. I tried looking at my pages at home with approx 800x640 screen resolution and at work with something slightly larger and all the buttons lined up OK. The ads are always hit or miss. Are konqueror and mozilla some type of browser in competion with IE? I've never heard of it.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:34 am

Jungle Jim wrote:

Are konqueror and mozilla some type of browser in competion with IE? I've never heard of it.

Thats probably where the problem lies. Konquerer is the built in context viewing in the KDE variant of X-Windows (Linux). It is the same or equivalent to Explorer for Win32 Platforms.

Mozilla is just another cheap and dirty browser that no one likes...

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:29 am

To avoid problems, I use Safari 1.2 as my Browser (It comes bundled with the MacOSX operating system) rather than IE. Your site works just fine with it.

It is much more visually exciting that the older pages and everything lines up very well.

Oh if only I could do something similar Crying or Very sad

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:04 am

One rule of thumb I use is that if a page display properly in Opera (get it free here) it should display properly everywhere - unless the browser you use is broken. The reason why this is a handy rule of thumb is that Opera makes an effort to support all the W3C standards, while IE seems to make up their own 'standards' as they go along.

And off course, I just happen to think that Opera is a better browser Wink

Edit by Sander: Fixed your clicky

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:57 am

Jam3s wrote:

Jungle Jim wrote:

Are konqueror and mozilla some type of browser in competion with IE? I've never heard of it.

Thats probably where the problem lies. Konquerer is the built in context viewing in the KDE variant of X-Windows (Linux). It is the same or equivalent to Explorer for Win32 Platforms.

Mozilla is just another cheap and dirty browser that no one likes...

Why does nobody like Mozilla? I would use Internet Explorer under Wine, but due to lack of tabbed browsing and the security flaws, it seems pointless.

I use konqueror most of the time because it's damn fast and never crashes. I guess I could use opera or Netscape or Firebird...

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:15 pm

Worked fine on my POS Internet Explorer browser. Was reading through the bait and loved: "It is rare the young man these days that does not crave the taste of a tart." Classic!!

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:28 am

JJ, did you write the JavaScript code yourself?

Code:

is awfully complicated. You'd get the same result with

Code:

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:35 pm

I got the code from an example on boogiejack.com.. I'll try changing it to what you wrote since I'm trying to save all the space I can.

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:39 am

I like Mozilla... er that is I like Firebird a HECK of a lot. It's a very lightweight version of Mozilla. Although, when I go to you site Jim, it's all crunched up.

A new version of Firebird, Firefox is released... maybe it will look better. Firebird/Firefox does a lot of the stuff Opera does.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/

Thanks,
tortio

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:45 am

After a short visit to boogiejack I'd say you should avoid it. Some of their examples are outdated, some are simply horrible. http://www.w3schools.com/ is a better alternative. I'll PM you later with a suggestion how you can save some bytes and increase compatibility with Mozilla and Opera.

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:00 am

tortio wrote:

I like Mozilla... er that is I like Firebird a HECK of a lot. It's a very lightweight version of Mozilla. Although, when I go to you site Jim, it's all crunched up.

A new version of Firebird, Firefox is released... maybe it will look better. Firebird/Firefox does a lot of the stuff Opera does.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/

Thanks,
tortio

Contrary to my previous post Smile

I do only use FireFox, previously FireBird and previously Mozilla to browse the web. The fact that they all run on both Windows and X Windows makes a heck of an improvement.

Mozilla / gecko based browsers in general do not handle <layer> tags very well at all. In fact that is what is causing the problems with the buttons on your site JJ. You need to lay off using absolute or relative tags for your <div>'s as they are considered layers due to geocities layering ads.

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:50 pm

here's my list of "helper" sites!

http://www.davesite.com/webstation/html/
http://www.javascripter.net/faq/index.htm
http://javascript.internet.com/
http://www.pageresource.com/

My fav is the first (Dave's Site)

It has great examples for html, css and javascript and its set out in a good "module" format.

The others I use as reference for adding functionality to sites I make!

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:23 pm

Since I was bored (OK, very bored, it's Sunday, I had no lad mail to play with and the weather is lousy) I took one random page and tried to rewrite it.

Here is the original: http://www.geocities.com/adoptalad/gbutuma/gb_17
and here is my version: http://mars.5p.org.uk/gbutuma/gb_17

Comparison: Original page 11783 bytes (including GeoCities crap), my version 2147 bytes (+510 bytes CSS and 365 bytes JavaScript, which would be the same for all pages and can be cached).

Re modeling my website. Opinions please	View next topic View previous topic