By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,379 Members | 1,404 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,379 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Andkon's brand spanking new website

P: n/a
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/

Too avoid the *unneccessary* flames read these two:
http://www.andkon.com/stuf/rebirth/
http://mozillacss.mozdev.org/
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
20 Replies


P: n/a
mo**************@yahoo.com (MozillaCensorsMe) wrote:
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago?


We remember someone who advertized his or her tutorial as the best,
apparently without having read a decent tutorial before taking the job
of writing one.

I don't remember whether it was some anonymous coward, but the quality
of the "tutorial" you now advertize can be estimated pretty well in
advance.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/


I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.

Peter Foti
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a

"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/


I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.


I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a
little.
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...

"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/


I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.


I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a
little.


Hahahaha!!! I decided I wanted to donate a negative amount... Andkon.com can
pay me for viewing the site. ;)


Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/


I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.

Peter Foti


Not yet. Later.

Cluttered? That's called content. But certainly doesn't compete with
brilliance like http://systolicnetworks.com/

It's my understanding that sites that stand out are remembered. Black
and white doesn't work for a page that tries to be all comprehensive.
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message news:<3f**********************@news.rcn.com>...
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/


I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.


I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a
little.


Yeah, it's called a fluid design. Instead of using a fixed design,
this one doesn't have a horizontal scrollbar on even the lowest
resolution. I will teach about such things in the tutorial.
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
http://www.andkon.com/


I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.

Peter Foti


Not yet. Later.


Uh, then why did you bring it up?

Cluttered? That's called content. But certainly doesn't compete with
brilliance like http://systolicnetworks.com/


Hahaha!!! Note, that site was done 2 years ago and has since been hacked
down to a single page (not by me... I should update the page to not include
my name, and update my newsreader to use a current email address). But
thanks for the brief trip down memory lane.

Even so, rather than get into a pissing contest with someone who commands
people to "SALUTE! His Excellency, Andkon" (ironic considering your
anti-communist views), I will note that YOU posted something about a
tutorial and your website... and since there is no such tutorial, your post
and this thread is off topic.

Cheers,
Peter Foti
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message

news:<3f**********************@news.rcn.com>...
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
> Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
> everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
> http://www.andkon.com/

I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.


I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a
little.


Yeah, it's called a fluid design. Instead of using a fixed design,
this one doesn't have a horizontal scrollbar on even the lowest
resolution. I will teach about such things in the tutorial.


Surprise... I have a horizontal scrollbar! My browser windows is not
maximized and much of your content is off the screen to the left, AND
overlapping other content on the site.

Peter Foti
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message

news:<3f**********************@news.rcn.com>...
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
> "MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
> > Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
> > everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
> > http://www.andkon.com/
>
> I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.
>

I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a
little.


Yeah, it's called a fluid design. Instead of using a fixed design,
this one doesn't have a horizontal scrollbar on even the lowest
resolution. I will teach about such things in the tutorial.


Surprise... I have a horizontal scrollbar! My browser windows is not
maximized and much of your content is off the screen to the left, AND
overlapping other content on the site.

Peter Foti


Two questions:
1. What browser are you using?
2. Why isn't your browser maximized at 640x480?

I tested the site in Opera 7, Firebird 0.7, IE 5.5, and IE 6.0 on win.
They all seem fluid and have no horizontal bars
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message

news:<3f**********************@news.rcn.com>...
> "Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
> news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
> > "MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
> > > Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well, > > > everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
> > > http://www.andkon.com/
> >
> > I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.
> >
>
> I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a > little.

Yeah, it's called a fluid design. Instead of using a fixed design,
this one doesn't have a horizontal scrollbar on even the lowest
resolution. I will teach about such things in the tutorial.


Surprise... I have a horizontal scrollbar! My browser windows is not
maximized and much of your content is off the screen to the left, AND
overlapping other content on the site.

Peter Foti


Two questions:
1. What browser are you using?


I tried it with IE6/Win, and Netscape 7.1/Win. Netscape produced slightly
better results in that the content did not go off the screen to the left,
but it still overlapped other content.
2. Why isn't your browser maximized at 640x480?
My screen resolution is 1280x1024. If I create my browser window small
enough (not maximized), for example, so I can view several windows at once,
that's when the site begins to degrade. In other words, my browser window
size is less than 640 wide (of course, I have no way of knowing exactly what
size the window is, since I'm not maximized), which I am comfortable with
for many sites, but which makes your site look bad.

I tested the site in Opera 7, Firebird 0.7, IE 5.5, and IE 6.0 on win.
They all seem fluid and have no horizontal bars


I presume you tested with the window maximized on a 640x480 resolution
setting. But don't forget, not everyone likes/needs/wants to have his/her
browser maximized. In a 1280x1024 resolution, it's just wasting space.

Regards,
Peter

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message
news:vv***********@corp.supernews.com...
My screen resolution is 1280x1024. If I create my browser window small
enough (not maximized), for example, so I can view several windows at once, that's when the site begins to degrade. In other words, my browser window
size is less than 640 wide (of course, I have no way of knowing exactly what size the window is, since I'm not maximized), which I am comfortable with
for many sites, but which makes your site look bad.
See, my opinion is this. If you're going to do something against the grain,
you should expect problems. As an author I cannot predict how small a window
the user may prefer. However, I do know that some users narrow the viewport
to 500 pixels. So what I do is make sure that designs will look at least OK
at 500px. It might be cramped, it might require limited horizontal
scrolling, but it'll work.

Totally accomodating users like yourself results in the pages looking "big
and stupid" in a more typical viewing setup. As you can see, we've gone from
800 across DOWN to 500. That's not progress.

If a designer makes it look alright at 800 across and passable at 500, it's
OK in my book. Still, anyone viewing much smaller than 800 across is
engaging in unusual practice and should expect complications.
I presume you tested with the window maximized on a 640x480 resolution
setting. But don't forget, not everyone likes/needs/wants to have his/her
browser maximized. In a 1280x1024 resolution, it's just wasting space.


So what resolution do YOU think designers should accomodate?
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
anyone viewing much smaller than 800 across
....like I was at a recent temp data-entry job...
is engaging in unusual practice and should expect complications.
Oh? Because the computer provided by my employer is sub-optimal, I'm
stuck with complications? Well, yes, I suppose I am, thanks to bad
designs, but I'm afraid I must lay the blame at the feet of the designer.
So what resolution do YOU think designers should accomodate?


any resolution
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

The nature of the content sometimes makes accessing the content
difficult, but the layout should not, at least not due to aggressive
attempt to force layouts on a user.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Neal wrote:
See, my opinion is this. If you're going to do something against the grain,
you should expect problems.
Perhaps you should take that principle on board yourself...
As an author I cannot predict how small a window
the user may prefer.
Exactly. So design flexibly.

Some content, by its very nature, cannot adapt in that way. But
that's no excuse for provoking the problem when there's no need to
provoke it.
Totally accomodating users like yourself results in the pages looking "big
and stupid" in a more typical viewing setup.
Does it? Then you may be doing something inappropriate. A max-width
in em units can be handy for such a situation.
As you can see, we've gone from
800 across DOWN to 500. That's not progress.
OH YES IT IS. The trend is indubitably towards more diverse browsing
situations - some are downsizing to hand-held devices, while others
are getting larger fixed displays. That's why flexible design makes
increasing sense (as if it hadn't been Sir Tim's intention from the
start).
If a designer makes it look alright at 800 across and passable at
500, it's OK in my book. Still, anyone viewing much smaller than 800
across is engaging in unusual practice and should expect
complications.
Tell that to the Japanese...
So what resolution do YOU think designers should accomodate?


None in particular. Except where the nature of the material makes it
genuinely inescapable.
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message
news:vv***********@corp.supernews.com...
My screen resolution is 1280x1024. If I create my browser window small
enough (not maximized), for example, so I can view several windows at once,
that's when the site begins to degrade. In other words, my browser window size is less than 640 wide (of course, I have no way of knowing exactly

what
size the window is, since I'm not maximized), which I am comfortable with for many sites, but which makes your site look bad.


See, my opinion is this. If you're going to do something against the

grain, you should expect problems.
By "against the grain" do you mean the fact that I don't have my window
maximized??? I hardly think that's an unusual practice.

As an author I cannot predict how small a window
the user may prefer.
But you CAN design a page that won't cave in on itself.
However, I do know that some users narrow the viewport
to 500 pixels. So what I do is make sure that designs will look at least OK at 500px. It might be cramped, it might require limited horizontal
scrolling, but it'll work.
Nothing wrong with that.

Totally accomodating users like yourself results in the pages looking "big
and stupid" in a more typical viewing setup.
How so?

As you can see, we've gone from
800 across DOWN to 500. That's not progress.
I think you are misinterpretting the issue. I'm not suggesting coding for a
particular resolution. I'm suggesting that a page should be viewable no
matter what the resolution (even if it means there will be horizontal
scrollbars). A page where content overlaps other content is DEFINATELY not
progress.

If a designer makes it look alright at 800 across and passable at 500, it's OK in my book. Still, anyone viewing much smaller than 800 across is
engaging in unusual practice and should expect complications.


If the site is designed correctly, then content won't overlap itself...
thus, no complications. For example, I am able to shrink the W3 website
(www.w3.org) down below 600 and still view all of the content... no
complications. THIS is what should be expected.

I presume you tested with the window maximized on a 640x480 resolution
setting. But don't forget, not everyone likes/needs/wants to have his/her browser maximized. In a 1280x1024 resolution, it's just wasting space.


So what resolution do YOU think designers should accomodate?


I agree with generally designing for 800x640 (by that, I mean no scrollbars
at this resolution, maximized window). And if the viewport is smaller than
that, then horizontal scrollbars would be better (IMO) than overlapping
content. Or, alternatively, something like the W3 website where content is
moved down to fit (without overlapping).

Regards,
Peter

Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message
news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
I agree with generally designing for 800x640 (by that, I mean no scrollbars at this resolution, maximized window). And if the viewport is smaller than that, then horizontal scrollbars would be better (IMO) than overlapping
content. Or, alternatively, something like the W3 website where content is moved down to fit (without overlapping).


This is great discussion, folks.

One issue I continually face is when I use a fluid layout, the div will
never get narrower than the longest word or string within. For example, if I
set a column to 20%, add text including a few big words, and shrink the
viewport, at some point the column will take more than 20%, it will stop
getting smaller. I hope I'm describing this well.

Anyway, I do agree that efforts should be made to satisfy the smallest
screens. However, I do think there is a practical limit. I can build a 1/2"
TV, but that does not mean the networks need to make shows that look good on
it. Likewise, there is SOME size viewport which is beyond the neccessity of
web authors to accommodate.

Does the user have the right to complain that websites look awful when he
projects them upside down on the side of a oak tree? That's silly, but the
point is that there are at least a few user tendencies that are not worthy
of accommodation. Who is the arbiter of what is necessary? Who can say that
this mode of viewing or that is within or beyond the bounds of author
responsibility?

Who can be other than the author himself?

That's the philisophical point I'm trying to resolve.
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...
This is great discussion, folks.


Unfortunately, I must bow out at this point... leaving for the holiday. But
I'll check back Monday to see where this leads. :)

Regards,
Peter
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
Peter Foti wrote
I agree with generally designing for 800x640 (by that, I mean no
scrollbars at this resolution, maximized window). And if the
viewport is smaller
This is great discussion, folks.


I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's not like it's the first time
we've ever discussed it here. This has been done to death, as they say.
Anyway, I do agree that efforts should be made to satisfy the
smallest screens. However, I do think there is a practical limit. I
can build a 1/2" TV, but that does not mean the networks need to
make shows that look good on it.
The old web as tv metaphor.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9705b.html
Likewise, there is SOME size viewport which is beyond the
neccessity of web authors to accommodate.
HTML does not concern itself with the size of the viewport. That's
what user-agents are for.
Does the user have the right to complain that websites look awful
when he projects them upside down on the side of a oak tree?
Does only your website look awful when displayed in this manner? Or do
all websites look this way?
Who is the arbiter of what is necessary? Who can say that this mode
of viewing or that is within or beyond the bounds of author
responsibility?
I'd argue that the author's responsibility is at minimum to describe
the document in a way that ua's can interpret it meaningfully. Adding
css to enhance that presentation is not necessary -- a reasonably
conforming ua can choose a presentation that is at least passable --
but it's a nice gesture.
That's the philisophical point I'm trying to resolve.


Perhaps a look through the Google ciwa* archives will help you.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message news:<vv***********@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
> "Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message news:<3f**********************@news.rcn.com>... > > "Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message
> > news:vv************@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
> > > > Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well, > > > > everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
> > > > http://www.andkon.com/
> > >
> > > I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.
> > >
> >
> > I can't find it either. But the header is amusing at 640x480. Well, a > > little.
>
> Yeah, it's called a fluid design. Instead of using a fixed design,
> this one doesn't have a horizontal scrollbar on even the lowest
> resolution. I will teach about such things in the tutorial.

Surprise... I have a horizontal scrollbar! My browser windows is not
maximized and much of your content is off the screen to the left, AND
overlapping other content on the site.

Peter Foti


Two questions:
1. What browser are you using?


I tried it with IE6/Win, and Netscape 7.1/Win. Netscape produced slightly
better results in that the content did not go off the screen to the left,
but it still overlapped other content.
2. Why isn't your browser maximized at 640x480?


My screen resolution is 1280x1024. If I create my browser window small
enough (not maximized), for example, so I can view several windows at once,
that's when the site begins to degrade. In other words, my browser window
size is less than 640 wide (of course, I have no way of knowing exactly what
size the window is, since I'm not maximized), which I am comfortable with
for many sites, but which makes your site look bad.


IE6, as I noticed right now too, seems that IE has a margin/padding
problem, as a scrollbar is shown, though no content is actually
sticking anywhere for me at least.


I tested the site in Opera 7, Firebird 0.7, IE 5.5, and IE 6.0 on win.
They all seem fluid and have no horizontal bars


I presume you tested with the window maximized on a 640x480 resolution
setting. But don't forget, not everyone likes/needs/wants to have his/her
browser maximized. In a 1280x1024 resolution, it's just wasting space.


I doubt that anyone with 640x480 wouldnt maximize their screen.
HOWEVER, in Mozilla or Opera, even such screen widths have no
horizontal scrollbar. I'll try to look into what exactly is the IE
problem. Thanks for the heads up though. (I must have missed it...
arg)
Regards,
Peter

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Peter Foti" <pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> wrote in message news:<vv************@corp.supernews.com>...
"MozillaCensorsMe" <mo**************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
> Remember that tutorial I'm was threathening a few months ago? Well,
> everyone, just take a peek at completely wow-new
> http://www.andkon.com/

I see no tutorial. Just a cluttered website.

Peter Foti


Not yet. Later.


Uh, then why did you bring it up?


To show the overall imrpovement of the site. It foreshadows things to
come. Something like that.

Cluttered? That's called content. But certainly doesn't compete with
brilliance like http://systolicnetworks.com/


Hahaha!!! Note, that site was done 2 years ago and has since been hacked
down to a single page (not by me... I should update the page to not include
my name, and update my newsreader to use a current email address). But
thanks for the brief trip down memory lane.


It still is rather plain and not very memorable.
Even so, rather than get into a pissing contest with someone who commands
people to "SALUTE! His Excellency, Andkon" (ironic considering your
anti-communist views), I will note that YOU posted something about a
That's funny. I got an email yesterday or so telling me that the
slogan reminds the guy of "Hitlerist remarks." In all honesty, His
Excellency most of the time refers to quasi-elected/self-selected
presidents and the like. (btw, communists superficially hated such
"noble" distinctions, hence the all encompassing comrade.)
tutorial and your website... and since there is no such tutorial, your post
and this thread is off topic.

Like most of my posts.
Cheers,
Don't you mean Your Excellency?
Peter Foti

Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Neal wrote:

One issue I continually face is when I use a fluid layout, the div will
never get narrower than the longest word or string within. For example, if I
set a column to 20%, add text including a few big words, and shrink the
viewport, at some point the column will take more than 20%, it will stop
getting smaller. I hope I'm describing this well.


You must be looking at it with IE, what you describe is its broken
default overflow behavior. Did you notice that other browsers behave
differently?

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #21

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.