|
Post by knoeki on Jul 7, 2006 18:26:34 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I have started a new site about Retrocomputers (and some other things too). www.webcentre.nl/knoekiLet me know what you think about it and what I should change. Please keep in mind that it is long from finnished, so there isn't much content yet. Also, I'm planning to make a special text only version of the site, so you can browse it nicely using the Contiki browser /knoeki
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Jul 7, 2006 18:34:01 GMT -5
Hate to throw water... but 10.x.x.x is a NAT address.. Any chance that you can run www.whatismyip.com and see the real address? Jeff
|
|
|
Post by knoeki on Jul 8, 2006 3:48:58 GMT -5
Hate to throw water... but 10.x.x.x is a NAT address.. Any chance that you can run www.whatismyip.com and see the real address? Jeff yes, I know, Golan already told me on Lemon64... new URL: www.webcentre.nl/knoekiNOTE: somehow, the navigation images at the top don't work. I already know. any sugestions on how to fix it are welcome (I already tried a few things)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Jul 8, 2006 8:17:50 GMT -5
Black with bright colors.. One of my favorite design methods.. Which HTML editor are you using? Or is this hand code? I can take a look at your code and make some adjustments if you want. Just tell me where the other two are suppost to link to.. a BORDER=0 might also be a good idea. (perfectionist talk) <smirk> The site looks great.. Very nice collection. I should post my own list of stuff somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by knoeki on Jul 8, 2006 8:22:57 GMT -5
a BORDER=0 might also be a good idea. (perfectionist talk) <smirk> Oh yeah, I know, I already tried BORDER="no", but, I was wrong on that one I'm using Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004. And, thank you for liking my site and the help
|
|
TMR
Newbie
Posts: 38
|
Post by TMR on Jul 8, 2006 8:35:30 GMT -5
Best viewed at 1024x768...? Have to excuse me if i don't look any further, then.
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Jul 8, 2006 14:04:51 GMT -5
Best viewed at 1024x768...? Have to excuse me if i don't look any further, then. Best viewed perhaps but it isn't essential. It's fairly straightforward HTML and should render reasonably well at any resolution. I'm with you though in that I prefer web pages that carry this notice: "Best viewed in the browser, resolution and colour depth of the viewer's choosing."
|
|
|
Post by knoeki on Jul 8, 2006 14:40:15 GMT -5
Best viewed at 1024x768...? Have to excuse me if i don't look any further, then. Best viewed perhaps but it isn't essential. It's fairly straightforward HTML and should render reasonably well at any resolution. I'm with you though in that I prefer web pages that carry this notice: "Best viewed in the browser, resolution and colour depth of the viewer's choosing." It's only 'best viewed', that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to view it in any other way. /knoeki
|
|
|
Post by knoeki on Jul 9, 2006 2:50:41 GMT -5
a BORDER=0 might also be a good idea. (perfectionist talk) <smirk> Oh yeah, I know, I already tried BORDER="no", but, I was wrong on that one Well, I tried the BORDER=0 thinggy, but it doesn't work... any other solutions? /knoeki
|
|
TMR
Newbie
Posts: 38
|
Post by TMR on Jul 9, 2006 4:44:06 GMT -5
Well, I tried the BORDER=0 thinggy, but it doesn't work... any other solutions? Well, there's no border there - if the issue is the distancing between table cells you're not setting the cellspacing or cellpadding attributes; generally speaking, the former defaults to 2 and the latter to 1. T'be honest, there's no real "shape" to the site - have a look at Microsoft, the BBC, Yahoo, Google, in fact any site that needs to be robust and deal with a lot of traffic and they've all evolved into one of only a couple of general shapes - usually it's logo at the top/bar of menu links/content (the BBC get it into a very compact area) or logo at the top/menu links in a column/column of content. At the moment, your menu is taking the job of the page header.
|
|
|
Post by knoeki on Jul 10, 2006 19:10:24 GMT -5
T'be honest, there's no real "shape" to the site - have a look at Microsoft, the BBC, Yahoo, Google, in fact any site that needs to be robust and deal with a lot of traffic and they've all evolved into one of only a couple of general shapes - usually it's logo at the top/bar of menu links/content (the BBC get it into a very compact area) or logo at the top/menu links in a column/column of content. At the moment, your menu is taking the job of the page header. yes, I know... but I just had enough of screwing aroud with frames, and I don't want to learn PHP (yet)... I think it looks clear enough like this... and who knows? I might change it
|
|
TMR
Newbie
Posts: 38
|
Post by TMR on Jul 11, 2006 6:11:47 GMT -5
yes, I know... but I just had enough of screwing aroud with frames, and I don't want to learn PHP (yet)... I think it looks clear enough like this... and who knows? I might change it Well, you did ask what you should change, probably best not to if you don't plan to act on what people say... and you don't need PHP or frames for what i'm talking about, you just need a more solid design that stops the menu looking like a masthead (and being too wide, thus breaking the layout on 800x600 for some browsers) and doesn't use the quite dark #00ff00 green on black for text. Look at the sites i mentioned, none use low contrast text and all have a very specific shape - that can be achieved very easily with tables, a couple of images and nothing more.
|
|