Preview Window and Moiré Effect

[Charles Douglas Wehner]

If you go to http://www.netscape.com and search for Wehner, you will
find my site.

It will say http://wehner.org [Preview This Site]

You click to preview, and find that my home page is too big for the
preview window.

So you scroll, and things happen.

The novelty is that the Netscape preview window allows you to scroll
sideways as well as vertically - giving the Moiré effect in two
directions instead of just one.

Charles Douglas Wehner

[Mark Tranchant]

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

The novelty is that the Netscape preview window allows you to scroll
sideways as well as vertically - giving the Moiré effect in two
directions instead of just one.

No more novel than reducing the size of the browser window below 450px.
Your site doesn't validate.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

[Charles Douglas Wehner]

Mark Tranchant <ma**@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message news:<41***********************@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>...

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

The novelty is that the Netscape preview window allows you to scroll
sideways as well as vertically - giving the Moir effect in two
directions instead of just one.
No more novel than reducing the size of the browser window below 450px.

Not a particularly bright observation. The average "client" is not a
"tech-head", so even re-sizing a browser is too much - particularly if
it is to discover an effect they do not expect to find.

I say again, in a different way, that NETSCAPE have helped me to show
off my Moiré Effect, by creating a pre-view window with both vertical
and horizontal scroll-bars.
Your site doesn't validate.

Bickering is not an attractive trait. My site does not have to
"validate" - it has to WORK, which it DOES.

The shimmering Moiré effect only works with Internet Explorer - but
the majority of users have IE. The 3D effect, with reddish colours
standing out in front of a blue ground, only works due to the
difference in REFRACTION in the glass of the screen. Liquid crystal
displays will not show this.

But these "features" are not essential.

The W3C validator sometimes rejected a line of HTML because of "B
STYLE=", an IE extension. On other occasions it didn't.

As the site works, I see no need for psychoanalysing the Validator
program.

Charles Douglas Wehner

[Brian]

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

Mark Tranchant wrote...

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

The novelty is that the Netscape preview window allows you to
scroll sideways as well as vertically - giving the Moir effect
in two directions instead of just one.
No more novel than reducing the size of the browser window below
450px.

Not a particularly bright observation. The average "client" is not a
"tech-head", so even re-sizing a browser is too much

Did it not occur to you that a client might visit you with his browser
*already* set to 450px? The point of reducing the browser is probably
more for you, for testing purposes.

Your site doesn't validate.

Bickering is not an attractive trait.

There's nothing to bicker about, since "valid" in HTML terms is not
about opinion.
My site does not have to "validate" - it has to WORK, which it DOES.
If you can be sure that, errors and all, it will work in all current and
future browsers, then all power to you. (Out of curiousity, how can you
be sure of this?)
As the site works, I see no need for psychoanalysing the Validator
program.

Nor do I see a need for psychoanalysing you as a www author.

Have fun.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Spartanicus]

ch***********@hotmail.com (Charles Douglas Wehner) wrote:

Your site doesn't validate.

Bickering is not an attractive trait. My site does not have to
"validate" - it has to WORK, which it DOES.

I beg to differ:
I see a link that I cannot click: "http://wehner.org/addison.htm"
I see other linked text that disappears when I hover over them.
I see colours that make my eyes hurt.
I cannot make out what your site is about at all.
I see "[Image]" with no further information.
I see a ridiculously small textarea form field.
Etc.

--
Spartanicus

[Charles Douglas Wehner]

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<3o********************************@news.spar tanicus.utvinternet.ie>...

I beg to differ:
I see a link that I cannot click: "http://wehner.org/addison.htm"
You see things that are not there. I feel sure lots of people will
test your theory, click the link, and find that it works.
I see other linked text that disappears when I hover over them.
You see more things that are not there. Perhaps you have some bug in
your browser that makes things disappear - but there is nothing in the
HTML code to hide what is hovered over.
I see colours that make my eyes hurt.
I sympathise with the afflicted. See an oculist. The bright colours
are a way of revealing the "refractive-index" 3D effect, mentioned
elsewhere on the Web. I'm sure no permanent damage to you has
resulted.
I cannot make out what your site is about at all.
THIS IS THE CLASSIC. THE HOME PAGE AT http://wehner.org IS A LIST OF
THINGS THAT IT IS ABOUT. TO "make out" WHAT THE WORDS SAY, YOU MUST
READ THEM.
I see "[Image]" with no further information.
You seem to have a buggy browser. On proper browsers, the GIF or JPEG
image is delivered, and no place-holder appears.
I see a ridiculously small textarea form field.
It is adequate. Unlike the "Graffitti Children" who write torrents of
nonsense on the Internet, I encourage people to make contact but
prefer short messages.
Etc.

"ETC" means that if you really try hard, you can create more of a
"FLAME WAR" by inventing complaints.

This group is supposed to be "WWW AUTHORING". I started this thread
with the news that my MOIRE technology looks good in a NETSCAPE
preview window.

Instead of starting off a war of bickering, my comment was meant to
inspire PROPER HTML authors to think about ways in which a new
technology, like MOIRE, may be grafted seamlessly into the existing,
like Netscape PREVIEW.

Those whose minds are set on WAR, rather than reason, have simply lost
the plot.

Charles Douglas Wehner

[Neal]

On 9 Oct 2004 08:34:04 -0700, Charles Douglas Wehner
<ch***********@hotmail.com> wrote:

The shimmering Moiré effect only works with Internet Explorer

What I walk away from this site with is the notion that this effect is the
central point of your site. It attracts attention away from your content.

Also, giant colored text always reminds me of the Time Cube guy. It
serves, for me anyway, as the sign of a kook.

My opinion - your page would make baby Jesus cry. If that's what you're
going for, great job. If you really want to be taken seriously, this
design ain't gonna do it for you. But I suspect you don't care about that,
which is fine.

[Brian]

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

Spartanicus wrote ...

I see "[Image]" with no further information.
You seem to have a buggy browser.

You seem not to have heard of Lynx.
On proper browsers,
!
the GIF or JPEG image is delivered, and no place-holder appears.

Lynx does not display images inline. It is, however, a "proper browser"
-- quite unlike Microsoft's os component -- it is in active development,
and is one of the more standards-conforming browsers around.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Charles Douglas Wehner]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<nN*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

Spartanicus wrote ...

I see "[Image]" with no further information.

You seem to have a buggy browser.

You seem not to have heard of Lynx.

On proper browsers,

!

the GIF or JPEG image is delivered, and no place-holder appears.

Lynx does not display images inline. It is, however, a "proper browser"
-- quite unlike Microsoft's os component -- it is in active development,
and is one of the more standards-conforming browsers around.

This group is all about HTML authoring - not TEXT authoring.

My report to the HTML community is that when my MOIRE effect is
created, with IMAGES, it is enhanced by the Netscape preview window.

I know all about Lynx - it was one of the very first (a pun on LINKS).
I have tested my site on Lynx, Opera, Netscape Navigator, Mozilla,
many versions of Internet Explorer and so on.

Because Lynx does not display images, it is pointless to accuse me
when you cannot see an image-based phenomenon. This is just another
example of senseless "Flame Wars".

Everything does not have to work. For example, the 3D effect on the
home page can only be seen on a glass monitor - not on liquid
crystals. Similarly, the MOIRE effect will be visible only on modern
Internet Explorers. I have a very old version, for testing, which does
not recognise "BGPROPERTIES=FIXED".

What is important is that a list of contents can be seen, and the
links can be clicked to navigate. This all works.

It was also tested on a WAP mobile phone. The links worked, and the
books could be read. Medical students going to
http://wehner.org/addison/ can read the books even whilst sitting in a
cafe in most major cities.

I regret that I cannot deliver cinerama stereoscopic images with
surround-sound stereo to your Lynx browser.

Those who have the facilities to receive my site receive it well. It
was even listed on the Web as extremely fast.

Charles Douglas Wehner

[Brian]

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

Brian...

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

Spartanicus wrote ...
I see "[Image]" with no further information.

You seem to have a buggy browser.
You seem not to have heard of Lynx.
Lynx does not display images inline. It is, however, a "proper
browser" -- q

This group is all about HTML authoring - not TEXT authoring.

I didn't say otherwise. Since the group is about HTML authoring, it is
naturally appropriate to discuss how a site renders on Lynx. You do
understand that Lynx is an HTML user-agent, right?
My report to the HTML community is that when my MOIRE effect is
created, with IMAGES, it is enhanced by the Netscape preview window.
Swell. Now explain why [Image] shows up in Lynx. Might it be because you
failed to include the alt attribute for your images? That attribute is
required for a valid document, btw.
Because Lynx does not display images, it is pointless to accuse me
when you cannot see an image-based phenomenon.

This is an html authoring group. It is not pointless to discuss
shortcomings in your html code.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)

[Shawn K. Quinn]

begin quote from Charles Douglas Wehner in
<e3**************************@posting.google.com >:

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:<nN*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Lynx does not display images inline. It is, however, a "proper browser"
-- quite unlike Microsoft's os component -- it is in active development,
and is one of the more standards-conforming browsers around.
This group is all about HTML authoring - not TEXT authoring.

What do you think HTML stands for? Hypertext Markup Language.
Because Lynx does not display images, it is pointless to accuse me
when you cannot see an image-based phenomenon. This is just another
example of senseless "Flame Wars".
The ALT attribute on IMG is *required* as of HTML 4.0. I would say you have
even bigger problems than those obvious in GUI browsers.
Everything does not have to work. For example, the 3D effect on the
home page can only be seen on a glass monitor - not on liquid
crystals. Similarly, the MOIRE effect will be visible only on modern
Internet Explorers. I have a very old version, for testing, which does
not recognise "BGPROPERTIES=FIXED".
You may get more constructive advice by asking in the proper microsoft.*
group for IE, or perhaps comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows.
I regret that I cannot deliver cinerama stereoscopic images with
surround-sound stereo to your Lynx browser.

Frankly, those of us that just want to get the information and get it fast
(which is what Lynx is for) don't want that crap getting in the way.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Charles Douglas Wehner]

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message news:<G9********************@speakeasy.net>...

You may get more constructive advice by asking in the proper microsoft.*
group for IE, or perhaps comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows.

There are dysfunctional children who have no friends, and sit all day
waging war on the Web.

I fell into the wrong group.

I am not looking for advice - I am reporting something to do with
GRAPHICS.

You children will not get the "FULL WALT DISNEY" on a text-only
browser. So you are bickering about things you cannot see.

Charles Douglas Wehner

[Neal]

On 16 Oct 2004 09:28:38 -0700, Charles Douglas Wehner
<ch***********@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:<G9********************@speakeasy.net>...

You may get more constructive advice by asking in the proper microsoft.*
group for IE, or perhaps comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows.

There are dysfunctional children who have no friends, and sit all day
waging war on the Web.

I fell into the wrong group.

I am not looking for advice - I am reporting something to do with
GRAPHICS.

You children will not get the "FULL WALT DISNEY" on a text-only
browser. So you are bickering about things you cannot see.

Dude, if you're reporting a graphic trick, you picked the wrong ng. Anyone
who's lurked for more than a day would see we generally discuss good
authoring for the www, not for particular browsers but for all. Your
little trick is cute, I'll grant you, but it's not really an example of
good www authoring.

[Brian]

Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:

There are dysfunctional children who have no friends, and sit all day
waging war on the Web.
And there are those who act belligerent, and enter the killfiles.
I fell into the wrong group.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
I am not looking for advice

Welcome to usenet.

*plonk*

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)

[Shawn K. Quinn]

begin quote from Charles Douglas Wehner in
<e3**************************@posting.google.com >:

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:<G9********************@speakeasy.net>...

You may get more constructive advice by asking in the proper microsoft.*
group for IE, or perhaps comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows.
There are dysfunctional children who have no friends, and sit all day
waging war on the Web.

Excuse me? I know damn well you cannot possibly be talking about me. I'm not
dysfunctional nor a child. "Dysfunctional" is posting to a group about
authoring HTML for the World Wide Web, and talking about a problem which
only happens on one Web browser (if you can even call IE a Web browser!)
and which has nothing at all to do with HTML.
I fell into the wrong group.

I am not looking for advice
But you *need* advice, even if you're not looking for it.
- I am reporting something to do with GRAPHICS.
Yes, and I gave you advice that you are in the wrong newsgroup to ask about
graphics, as this is a discussion newsgroup about HTML. I even told you
which newsgroups would be better suited for your question!

If that's dysfunctional or childish in your world, you need a serious
reality check. If I had known you would have given this kind of bullshit
reply, I would have simply told you to fuck off and be done with it.
You children will not get the "FULL WALT DISNEY" on a text-only
browser. So you are bickering about things you cannot see.

Hey, if I want it, I know where the Disney channel is on my TV. And my
computer *can* show graphics.

--
Shawn K. Quinn