N
Neredbojias
Rubbish! Taxes aren't due till April 15th and by that time thousands of
Usenet users could be bitching about your website...
Rubbish! Taxes aren't due till April 15th and by that time thousands of
Usenet users could be bitching about your website...
D
David Segall
Both this post and your previous ones are entirely free of technicalTravis Newbury said:
content. You have not provided any tangible grounds for your judgments
so I cannot use them to improve the page.
I'm sorry but you will need to explain it to me if you want me to
understand. I actually believe that my page
<http://films.profectus.com.au> looks better than a comparable page
from IMDB like this one <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/>. Please
tell me exactly why you disagree.
C
Chris F.A. Johnson
On 2009-01-25, David Segall wrote:
....
Apart from the grey backgrounds, justified text, and sparse
content, I agree.
....
Apart from the grey backgrounds, justified text, and sparse
content, I agree.
D
David Segall
I would be grateful if you would give me two color codes so I can tryChris F.A. Johnson said:
them.
Do you object to justified text in general and, if so, why? Otherwise,
why do you think that unjustified text would be better on this
particular page?
I agree but, as it says, the page is intended to help four aged film
goers remember the films they have seen and I chose the four columns
and the sites they reference accordingly. Can you suggest a way of
rearranging the information to make it denser?
Thanks
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
David said:
Justified text always has varied spacing between words. Every time
my fast-reading eye encounters a longer than usual space, it pauses.
A quick google turned up the following, which I agree with:
<http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_textjustify.hcsp>
"..instead of the eye being able to move smoothly along the line of
text, it has to move in "fits and starts", searching for and jumping to
the start of each word."
Please leave a blank line between the quoted material and your reply;
otherwise it is hard to find what you wrote.
J
Jukka K. Korpela
Beauregard said:
Usually, but not necessarily. Sometimes spacing does not vary, since all
text fits without extra spacing, by accident. Moreover, it is possible to
justify by increasing letter spacing, though this is usually coupled with
some variation of word spacing as well. Web browsers generally use just a
coarse method that divide the extra spacing needed evenly between word
spaces. (You might get something better using nonstandard CSS features.)
Regarding David's question, the particular page
http://films.profectus.com.au/
appears on my Firefox so that in the left column I see
"The search box below will
locate any information
about the films that is
recorded on any
referenced web page."
Since amount of text on a line varies a lot, justification causes rather bad
spacing especially on the line "recorded on any" - the spacing between the
words is larger than the short words!
This happens on a fairly wide browser window, which happens to consume more
half of the screen width of 1680 pixels. (I had probably last used Firefox
on a page that needed a wide window.) In a narrower window, things often get
much worse. The point is that division into lines depends on the available
width. Actually, it would make much sense to set a reasonable minimum width
for a text column. But it would not really solve the problems caused by text
justification.
Justification reduces readability somewhat. In this context, it's perhaps
more important that it often causes a visually unpleasant effect when the
line length is small and when no hyphenation is applied. In books,
justification is common, but it is coupled by advanced typesetting software
and automatic hyphenation (often with human checking and correction, at
least in quality books). Web pages are something completely different.
In special occasions, you can manually (or programmatically) hyphenate a
piece of text, using ­ (soft hyphen). This might work for short pieces
of texts that you wish to justify. For copy text, it's just too awkward.
D
David Segall
OK. I have fixed the thumbnails at <http://films.profectus.com.au>Neredbojias said:
because I could not stand the thought of thousands of suffering
visitors to my web site and the task, although routine, was easier and
much more interesting than my tax return. However, I will ask for
contributions to pay the fine imposed by the Australian Taxation
Office which expects 2006-2007 taxes to be paid some time well before
April _last_ year.
T
Travis Newbury
David, before you get your undies all in a bunch. I told you this was
my opinion. I need no hard evidence when stating my opinion. I think
your site is bland, the colors are bad, and I don't like flexible
width. Nothing technical there. All opinion. Take them, leave then,
makes no difference to me.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
David said:
No, you haven't.
<p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870111/"> <img
src="images/films/frostnixon.jpg" alt="Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
class="imgFilmPoster"/> </a></p>
Size: 21.01 KB (21,516 bytes)
Dimensions: 261px × 385px (scaled to 100px × 140px)
The problem is in your CSS.
..imgFilmPoster {
/* This has to be used with a text tag e.g. p */
text-align: center;
border: 0;
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
padding: 0px;
margin: 3px;
width: 100px; <--- remove this
height: 140px; <--- remove this
}
You do not "size" thumbnails with HTML or CSS resizing code. You need to
make a separate image for a thumbnail, then use the exact dimension in
the HTML code.
<img ... width="100" height=140" >
Code the exact size of the image. Why don't you just resize the images
to 100x140? (These are not really thumbnails, as they do not lead to
larger versions of themselves, and only serve as a clickable link to an
IMDB page.)
Your favicon.ico is still wrong.
Oh, 'frostnixon.jpg' probably should not have:
alt="Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
Easier, because you haven't fixed them yet!
More for you to think about: CSS class names of .grey, .white, .yellow
are poor choices of names. What if you want to change the color from
grey to, say, light blue?
..grey {
color: #add8e6; ...
So: <p class="grey"> means "light blue" ...
You should also add: background: transparent;
wherever you set a foreground color, if the parent background color is
to be seen.
D
David Segall
I am disappointed because a couple of your posts seemed to indicateTravis Newbury said:
that you wanted to improve the average quality of the Web by improving
my site. We are back to my response to your first post - why did you
express your opinion?
T
Travis Newbury
Your kidding right?
First the entire layout looks like they gave it a little thought. The
colors meld together. They don't have big gray boxes as their theme.
Their menu is more obvious than yours even though it is incorporated
into the header. Oh yours is incorporated in your header too but you
went with the blank gray box aproach.
Oh this is retarded. Your page does not even begin to compare design
wise with the IMDB page. If you think it does then you are in one
major state of denial when it comes to your skills as a designer. As
I stated before. If your goal was bland. You achieved it.
Lastly, this is only my opinion. Take it, leave it, learn from it,
ignore it. No matter which you choose to do, it will not have any
impact on my life what so ever. They do have an impact on yours.
Peace out
T
Travis Newbury
http://kuler.adobe.com/ is about the best, but if you don't like Flash
there are others out there.
Justified text is harder to read than left justified text. ESPECIALLY
when the column is thin.
W
William Gill
Travis said:
Travis, maybe David needs some perspective to put your opinions into a
proper context. You typically deal with what I will call high end
"flash and dazzle sites." That's where your Flash (no pun intended)
skills are optimized, and most appreciated. You recognize that as your
niche, and are willing to surrender much of the other 80% (unimportant
number please don't parse it too closely) of the market to focus on your
specialty. It is as likely to bias your opinion, just like the
anti-Flash bias you often experience here. Bias and opinion are two
sides of the same coin. I often say Microsoft's marketing is successful
because they target the 60% in the "middle", leaving the 20% "bleeding
edge tech savvy", and the 20% "how do I turn this computer thing on.."
to anyone who wants it. Of course that leaves 40% of the market open,
but not necessarily to the same providers. So David, before you
discount Travis's opinion as a personal attack, take it for what it is,
the professional opinion of someone who regularly deals with a "bleeding
edge tech savvy" clientele (for example the music and movie industry),
and decide "Is that the audience I'm targeting?" Once you answer that
question, you can properly weight Travis's answer, but do yourself a
favor and don't completely discount it. Even if you aren't targeting
the top 20%, you don't want to totally exclude them.
N
Neredbojias
I totally agree.
Oh, _last year's_ taxes. Uh, you're not exactly the promptest person in
the world, are you? Well, the simplest solution I can think of is to
write them a postdated check. They're government workers, after all...
B
Bergamot
Travis said:
I always thought imdb was an ugly site, and I don't think the colors
meld at all - I think they're downright awful. But who cares when the
content is worthwhile?
I take it you don't like gray.
I just recall the challenge I gave you a while back, to point to some
sites you considered well-designed. I concluded your idea of good design
isn't any more credible than anybody else's.
It's all subjective.
T
Travis Newbury
See that is where I disagree. Given the same content I would rather
visit a nice looking interesting site rather than something with big
gray boxes, a few images, and some text. For me (and others I am
sure) it is not JUST the content, but also the presentation.
Years ago on the Bill Cosby Show, Cliff Huxtable's daughter was going
to get married to what appeared to be a bum (it turns out he was in
grad school and owned several homes). While at dinner Bill Cosby says
(paraphrased)
"Son, you may be a great piece of steak, with mushrooms and onions,
maybe a baked potato on the side. A delicious meal to say the least.
But you were presented to us on a garbage can lid."
When given the choice between content I want and a shitty presentation
and the same content I want presented on a golden platter? I will
pick the platter every time. Presentation matters to some.
I take it you don't like gray.
Ok, you got me on that one. I am not a fan of gray...
What makes a well designed site is in the eyes of the visitor. I
think Fox news is a well designed site. I also think Videocopilot.net
is a well designed site. I am sure that someone can list a billion
reasons why both sites suck.
A well designed site is a site that meets the expectations of the
company/organization/individual whom the site was built for.
Without a doubt.
D
David Segall
Thank you! Now that you have provided some specific criticisms I mightTravis Newbury said:
be able to improve the look of my site.
A
Andy Dingley
IMDB is one of the older sites out there, and I really can't remember
them doing major re-designs. I think we're just seeing 10 year old
design which must have been pretty good in its day and hasn't felt the
urge to change significantly since.
B
Bergamot
Travis said:
We have different priorities. Given the same content I would rather
visit a site that doesn't fall apart in my not-exactly-average browsing
environment.
I still think imdb is *not* a nice looking site. For me its looks aren't
even a factor. imdb is imdb.
I have no doubt that is true. I'm not in that group, though. For me (and
others I am sure) content is all-important. As long as the site is
usable that's good enough.
Bear in mind that we don't frequent the same kinds of sites. I rarely
visit entertainment sites. Much of my browsing is doing research at
various university and government sites. They aren't generally known for
stellar design, or flashy bells and whistles.
D
David Segall
I did not discount Travis' opinion and anyone who worries about aWilliam Gill said:
personal attack would be really stupid to post their URL in this
group.
I repeatedly asked Travis for some criticism of my site that I could
act on. Interestingly, I received some only when I asked him to
compare my site with another one. I understand that a visual artist
thinks in visual terms which is why Travis writes about steak served
on gold plates or dog turds. It is an excellent visual image but not
one that a technician like me can translate into something I can use
to improve my web site.
I think that you are underestimating Travis. He did not assume that I
might conceivably be "targeting the top 20%" nor did he suggest that I
should have a Flash site. Even if he missed the instructions to robots
not to index the page I'm sure he would have noticed that it says
"This page is intended as a record of the films we have seen". That's
an audience of four aged film goers plus, of course, dorayme whose
film crits are always welcome.