|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Wed, 11th Aug 2004 22:54 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Mad Skillz wrote: | | Maybe you can make a poll to see if ppl want the old design back ot want to keep this new one?? |
That would be nice. I prefer the old one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepRed
Posts: 158
Location: :noitacoL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spike_UK
[Admin] Web Monkey
Posts: 101
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Aug 2004 07:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mad Skillz wrote: | | Maybe you can make a poll to see if ppl want the old design back ot want to keep this new one?? |
There already is a poll, and by the looks of it the majority of people like it.
http://www.nfohump.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2306&start=40
As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all the time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spike_UK
[Admin] Web Monkey
Posts: 101
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Aug 2004 19:04 Post subject: |
|
|
the 2 worst things imo are:
1. the gradient behind the actual releases makes it really hard to read about what this site is all about! (Because the main thing with this site aint the design right?) My suggestion would be to use a solid color on the release collumn, and use gradient only on the right side, fading into the release collumn if you know what i mean.
2. the placement of the sponsors on the right side, making most release info's on two lines instead of one is making it harder to get a clear overview. (It smells sellout all the way too i must say, sorry.) My suggestion here is to move the things on the right side to under the sections on the left side instead. Not only would it look better, but the release infos (again, which this site is all about, right?) could span all the way to the right and most releases would become on a single line again.
I guess i could live with not beeing able to get an nfo in plain text in the browser with one click, as i could before, but i still don't think it's a good thing that function was dropped in favour of a 2 click counterpart, especially when it'd be so easy to re-implement.
.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[mrt]
[Admin] Code Monkey
Posts: 1340
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Aug 2004 22:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 2. the placement of the sponsors on the right side, making most release info's on two lines instead of one is making it harder to get a clear overview. (It smells sellout all the way too i must say, sorry.) |
Sell-out? please...if you think we're trying to make money off the site because we have a bit more banners, your dead wrong. I can guess (and not be to far off) that you have no idea how much it costs us to keep the site up and running for your (free) enjoyment.
As for the gradient. I dont see how its distracting really, you can barely notice its a gradient fade and not a solid color. Looks absolutley fantastic imho and it doesnt interfere with the text.
The clean txt nfo will probably be back.
teey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arw
Posts: 1281
Location: Barry - Wales - (UK)
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Aug 2004 23:15 Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="[mrt]"] | Quote: |
Sell-out? please...if you think we're trying to make money off the site because we have a bit more banners, your dead wrong. |
And so what if you are...you don't have to explain yourself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 03:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| [mrt] wrote: | | Quote: |
Sell-out? please...if you think we're trying to make money off the site because we have a bit more banners, your dead wrong. I can guess (and not be to far off) that you have no idea how much it costs us to keep the site up and running for your (free) enjoyment.
|
|
What i mean is that the placement of the banners on the right not only makes the release info collumn messier, by forcing most of them beeing on two rows, but at the same time takes focus off what should be the important thing: the release info's. That was why i wondered if the add placement was something you negotiated with the advertisers. As i see it, the sites overviewability (is that even a word?  ) is compromised because of the rightmost collumn.
| [mrt] wrote: | | Quote: |
As for the gradient. I dont see how its distracting really, you can barely notice its a gradient fade and not a solid color. Looks absolutley fantastic imho and it doesnt interfere with the text.
|
|
It might not show on your screen for diffrent reasons, but on this side, the dark blue color is quite a contrast against the blue, rightmost one. And since you intend to keep the gradient, i'd suggest to make the dark blue a little bit lighter.
| [mrt] wrote: | | Quote: |
The clean txt nfo will probably be back.
|
|
Now that is some good news, thx for that 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 06:15 Post subject: |
|
|
I like the new page!
Vote Pro-Gun.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spike_UK
[Admin] Web Monkey
Posts: 101
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 07:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| dmg wrote: |
It might not show on your screen for diffrent reasons, but on this side, the dark blue color is quite a contrast against the blue, rightmost one. And since you intend to keep the gradient, i'd suggest to make the dark blue a little bit lighter.
|
I've tested the gradient on both a TFT (you don't get a brighter screen than that) and a CRT. The gradient doesn't effect text clarity on either of them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 12:05 Post subject: |
|
|
I actually think it sucks. The design is ok, but the code is terrible.
I can't enter the site anymore with (Mozilla) FireFox, well FU
whoever came with the idea to screw up this once so great site.
Or at least fix this :'(
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 12:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| DeathMaster wrote: | I actually think it sucks. The design is ok, but the code is terrible.
I can't enter the site anymore with (Mozilla) FireFox, well FU
whoever came with the idea to screw up this once so great site.
Or at least fix this :'( |
Strange, i'm using netscape (wich is based on mozilla) and have no problems at all.
And this is a nice first post to introduce you to the community :/ The service is for free, so what right have we (you) to complain? Why not look for other places to get the info from, like pre-chans for example.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[mrt]
[Admin] Code Monkey
Posts: 1340
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spike_UK
[Admin] Web Monkey
Posts: 101
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 14:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| DeathMaster wrote: | I actually think it sucks. The design is ok, but the code is terrible.
I can't enter the site anymore with (Mozilla) FireFox, well FU
whoever came with the idea to screw up this once so great site.
Or at least fix this :'( |
I'm currently browsing the site using Firefox 0.9.3...what's the problem??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
razor1394
VIP Member
Posts: 3571
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 14:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Working for me too in firefox nightly aviary branch (2004-08-11).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 14:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 17:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Using XHTML at this point of time is not really usefull, because the browser that most people use (IE) doest support the application/xhtml+xml header, which is the only way to keep browsers from going into quirks mode and to use the extensibility that XHTML offers, by for instance using MathML. The best method at this moment would be HTML 4.01 strict with CSS, but I have offered to remake the website with the same design, but proper markup and CSS and I was declined multiple times, so I do not think NFOrce is interested in that (even if it would save 50+% of their bandwidth).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Aug 2004 19:15 Post subject: |
|
|
works fine here in Mozilla 1.7 too
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 14th Aug 2004 08:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| TheRec wrote: | I don't say it would be useful...and as I said it should be AT LEAST "HTML 4.01 Transitional" ... plus coding it XHTML 1.0 Strict / CSS 2 isn't so hard and makes it much cross-browser compatible... Even if IE doesn't manage XHTML dtd's it's worth to do it IMO...
Anways I wouldn't propose to do it XHTML 1.0 Strict since onMouseOver on <tr> isn't supported in XHTML 1.0 Strict...and without this highlight function main page would look bad
I don't see why you said "best method" for HTML 4.01 Stric...you think it's funny to rewrite websites ? I mean when common browsers will support XHTML will you rewrite all your site..personnally I won't since I already planned it and I code them XHTMl 1.0 Strict...just be logical and use the "next" standards instead of the actual one which is made to be replaced...well you do as you want..but the less I rewrite website the better I feel...lol |
No, I dont think it's funny to rewrite websites, thats why I use content negotiation to send XHTML to browsers that support that (with the proper content-type header), and HTML 4.01 strict to other browsers by parsing the XHTML with XSLT.
The problem with XHTML however is that, if you use it correctly, tons of things change. First of all, there are a lot of javascript funtions that you cannot use whenever you use application/xhtml+xml (document.write, element.innerHTML, etc.).
I wouldnt use onMouseOver btw, :hover works fine in all browsers (using whatever:hover or IE7 as htc), and if I had to add things that only work when javascript is enable, then I would add such elements trough the DOM. I've for instance written a table sorting, coloring (it adds the className's odd and even to tr's) and column remover, which all add elements trough the DOM, so if you do not have javascript enabled, you wont even notice it exists.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 14th Aug 2004 11:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| TumTum wrote: | No, I dont think it's funny to rewrite websites, thats why I use content negotiation to send XHTML to browsers that support that (with the proper content-type header), and HTML 4.01 strict to other browsers by parsing the XHTML with XSLT.
The problem with XHTML however is that, if you use it correctly, tons of things change. First of all, there are a lot of javascript funtions that you cannot use whenever you use application/xhtml+xml (document.write, element.innerHTML, etc.).
I wouldnt use onMouseOver btw, :hover works fine in all browsers (using whatever:hover or IE7 as htc), and if I had to add things that only work when javascript is enable, then I would add such elements trough the DOM. I've for instance written a table sorting, coloring (it adds the className's odd and even to tr's) and column remover, which all add elements trough the DOM, so if you do not have javascript enabled, you wont even notice it exists. |
I agree, but personnally I don't see the problem of writing websites in XHTML Strict 1.0...I mean the simple user who want 3 lines of text and 2 images on his website don't really need it, but for big sites I think it's a must to have...not for right now but for the future...although for right now it's very useful for "partially-sighted person" or even "blind" people, their display interpretor are not as tolerant as IE which allows you mostely everything...anyways I don't code it specially for them but this is also important...
Maybe off-topic..but for the content negociation, you'r using Apache usually ? or Jigsaw ? Since on Apache it would mean duplicate files with differents extension...which is not bad but harder to manage when you update some pages or are you using symbolic links ? ;S
Anways about the design...I thought I would get used to these gradiant colors but it's not the case lol ..spcially on the release details page (where there's is the nfo)...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 14th Aug 2004 11:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| TheRec wrote: | | TumTum wrote: | No, I dont think it's funny to rewrite websites, thats why I use content negotiation to send XHTML to browsers that support that (with the proper content-type header), and HTML 4.01 strict to other browsers by parsing the XHTML with XSLT.
The problem with XHTML however is that, if you use it correctly, tons of things change. First of all, there are a lot of javascript funtions that you cannot use whenever you use application/xhtml+xml (document.write, element.innerHTML, etc.).
I wouldnt use onMouseOver btw, :hover works fine in all browsers (using whatever:hover or IE7 as htc), and if I had to add things that only work when javascript is enable, then I would add such elements trough the DOM. I've for instance written a table sorting, coloring (it adds the className's odd and even to tr's) and column remover, which all add elements trough the DOM, so if you do not have javascript enabled, you wont even notice it exists. |
I agree, but personnally I don't see the problem of writing websites in XHTML Strict 1.0...I mean the simple user who want 3 lines of text and 2 images on his website don't really need it, but for big sites I think it's a must to have...not for right now but for the future...although for right now it's very useful for "partially-sighted person" or even "blind" people, their display interpretor are not as tolerant as IE which allows you mostely everything...anyways I don't code it specially for them but this is also important...
Maybe off-topic..but for the content negociation, you'r using Apache usually ? or Jigsaw ? Since on Apache it would mean duplicate files with differents extension...which is not bad but harder to manage when you update some pages or are you using symbolic links ? ;S
Anways about the design...I thought I would get used to these gradiant colors but it's not the case lol ..spcially on the release details page (where there's is the nfo)... |
No I do not use apache for content negotiation, I have my own content managment system which does that for me. But if you do not send XHTML with an xml mimetype you can get big problems, first of all, browsers go into quirks mode and some see <tag /> as <tag> />. In XHTML you can use <script type="text/javascript" src="javascript.js" />, but when you do not send it with an xml mimetype, that wont work and you must use <script type="text/javascript" src="javascript.js"></script>, so with me the view is reversed, it's ok for small sites, but big sites should keep using HTML 4.01 untill IE starts supporting XHTML.
The IE team have said that they wont add XHTML support in their next version unless the W3C comes up with test cases, the same goes for a lot of CSS functions (their views may have changed in the last few months though). And, allthough I personally love writing XHTML, I think you should still send IE HTML 4.01. I prefer content negotiation with this, but on a site like NFOrce, the constant transforming of XHTML -> HTML 4.01 would cost a lot of performance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaramanga
Banned
Posts: 777
Location: just around the corner first street left 2nd house on ur right
|
| Posted: Sun, 15th Aug 2004 10:35 Post subject: |
|
|
just fix the bugs will ya specially the one where u cant go back to the previous page when u clicked on a nfo !!!!!!!!! that bug happens alot in the xvid and the game dox section !
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 21st Aug 2004 09:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, please, fix the back button.
Going back no longer goes back, the link changes (address bar goes to what it previously was), but the nfo still stays on the main window.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaramanga
Banned
Posts: 777
Location: just around the corner first street left 2nd house on ur right
|
| Posted: Sun, 29th Aug 2004 16:03 Post subject: |
|
|
dunno bout that problem.......using same as u and seems like all the bugs i noticed before are gone since a week or so......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
). Can't find what I want to see fast enough now. Any way of putting the old site layout in the user control panel (or is it already there and did I miss it somehow) ?
