Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: One more hand grenade huh, Tom.

Expand Messages
  • mark.wightman@xx.xxx
    ... something, Mark? If I have I m confused, and certainly don t remember when. I m sure if you stretch your memory that it will come to you. ... exiting. It s
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 25, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom Tweedy wrote :

      >As for taking Dip2000 to pieces... why? Have I stepped on your toes or
      something, Mark? If I have I'm confused, and certainly don't remember
      when.

      I'm sure if you stretch your memory that it will come to you.

      >But one thing I can assure you - dip2000 is not supposed to be visually
      exiting. It's done simply for speed and information. Why would I want
      anything else? I'm not going to put any flashy 'kewl kiddie' stuff on my
      site, because that sort of stuff slows down loading time. And I dislike
      frame sites for other reasons. What is it you want me to prove?

      Well, congratulations are in order then, because Dip2000 isn't visually
      exciting at all. OK, so it will probably download very quickly, but what is
      the point, if casual surfers take one look and think "This looks awful" and
      disappear? OK, so they shouldn't judge a book by its cover, nevertheless
      people do.

      >>Sproutworld http://www.btinternet.com/~mr.sprout deliberately uses red
      text
      >against a black background to differentiate it from the paper version.
      >Primarily because I find the use of black on white to be a bit dull,
      >especially when viewed on a computer screen. And yes, your 'not quite'
      black
      >'#000080' type, on a 'not quite' white '#FFFFF0' background qualifies.
      >

      >I never mentioned colours I don't think... I just thought it worth
      mentioning to John that I *really* can't read the print. I'm not
      kidding! I'm blind on red, green and browns.

      Sorry, I thought you had. Didn't you say that you couldn't read Sproutworld
      because it uses red text?

      Actually, I'd never thought of colour blind people before. Perhaps I should
      make a black and white version available too. Maybe using paper, hmmm . . .
      Now there is a thought.

      >>Also, your use of cascading style sheets without any attempt to check the
      >browser of the viewer makes your site a pretty much hit or miss affair.
      >Older browsers will just see some barely formatted text, but perhaps that
      is
      >a kindness, sparing them, as it does, your delightfully naff buttons.
      >

      >Heh he - you're sad, Mark. They're not buttons... only background
      images. Buttons are graphics/pictures... and apart from the logo and
      maps... I don't *want* pictures to slow the pages down! Remember? [See
      above]. And, as for older browsers... I deliberately designed my pages
      to be downwardly compatible with older browsers. There's still people
      out there using text-only browsers and suchlike. That's why I don't use
      Flash or Javascript. Do you think I'm stupid because I don't use such
      things?

      Buttons or Background images made to look like buttons? What is the
      difference?
      But if you are concerned about text only browers, why not go the whole hog
      and just put your whole site in a plain text file and let people ftp it?

      >I use CSS to control the format exactly the way it was intended. I use
      it so as to not *force* my style and fonts on other users/browsers. My
      deliberate simple style was too gross for you, was it? :-)

      >CSS is used to 'suggest' font sizes, colour etc. Not force other
      browsers to only see what *I* want.

      >If you knew anything about CSS and HTML you'd know HTML is not supposed
      to be used like DTP - i.e. for laying out pretty pictures, tabbed
      paragraphs etc.

      Yawn. Dinosaurs like you are missing the point of the web. It's amazing
      exactly how much display control you can exercise, should you take the time
      to do it. Try this site http://www.dsiegel.com/tips/index.htm for a few
      ideas.


      >>Hugs N Kisses

      >Hey, okay... I can recognise sarcasm when I see it.

      Hmm . . . how about, Peace N Luv then?

      Mark
      http://www.btinternet.com/~mr.sprout


      >P.S. I tried getting on to your site tonight at the address above, but I
      can't get on. Is btinternet having trouble?

      They may have been, it isn't the most reliable in the world (according to
      Internet Works magazine). It loaded in less than 2 seconds for me when I
      just tried it.
    • Tom Tweedy
      In message , mark.wightman@bt.com writes ... I ve never had any contact with you in the whole
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 25, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        In message <BFDD070F873DD211A54C00606DD5EC3328AD37@...>
        , mark.wightman@... writes
        >
        >Tom Tweedy wrote :
        >
        >>As for taking Dip2000 to pieces... why? Have I stepped on your toes or
        >something, Mark? If I have I'm confused, and certainly don't remember
        >when.
        >
        >I'm sure if you stretch your memory that it will come to you.
        >

        I've never had any contact with you in the whole time I've been in the
        hobby. Was it somewhere else?

        >Well, congratulations are in order then, because Dip2000 isn't visually
        >exciting at all. OK, so it will probably download very quickly, but what is
        >the point, if casual surfers take one look and think "This looks awful" and
        >disappear? OK, so they shouldn't judge a book by its cover, nevertheless
        >people do.

        *Sigh* ... I'm not after 'casual surfers'. I'm not SELLING anything. I
        haven't used meta tags. I haven't even submitted dip2000's URL to any
        search engines, and 'Robots' are 'forbidden' to trawl my site.

        This may sound sacrilegious to such a 'kewl' web author with all your
        borrowed Javascript and 'kewl piccies', but I don't have to *impress*
        anyone. My main aim is and always has been to help the players in SPOFF
        Online to play Diplomacy. Nothing else.

        >>I never mentioned colours I don't think... I just thought it worth
        >mentioning to John that I *really* can't read the print. I'm not
        >kidding! I'm blind on red, green and browns.
        >
        >Sorry, I thought you had. Didn't you say that you couldn't read Sproutworld
        >because it uses red text?
        >
        No, if you check back on my message to John, you see I made no mention
        of colours whatsoever. What I said was, and I quote:-

        "Then there's sites like 'Grapes of Wrath' which I cannot read
        whatsoever [I'm colour blind] so I couldn't recommend or review it even
        if I wanted to."

        >Buttons or Background images made to look like buttons? What is the
        >difference?
        >But if you are concerned about text only browers, why not go the whole hog
        >and just put your whole site in a plain text file and let people ftp it?
        >
        The difference is, Mark - buttons [like yours] are different from each
        other, whereas a background image is only *one* image. You have several
        button images taking up x amount KB - my single background 'button'
        takes up 1KB.

        Now, even you must understand that once my single background 1KB gif has
        been downloaded to your computer cache, every time my code calls for it
        again, it doesn't have to be downloaded again. Saving time.

        More to the point, if surfers, whatever, come to your site with their
        graphics switched off, your 'kewl' site will look a little... um,
        what... bare? At the very least, confusing to your surfers. Whereas
        without my background 'buttons' my pages will look exactly the same
        [apart from my maps] with 'link text' quite visible to navigate from
        page to page.

        You're clearly not concerned about older browsers or your 'customers'.
        Anyone that is too lazy to include a noframes option on their frames-
        only site but puts as a concession...

        <NOFRAMES>
        Your browser cannot display frames.
        </NOFRAMES>

        clearly doesn't want to include anything but modern browsers viewing his
        site. Some might even consider it rude. It's like saying: "If your
        browser cannot read frames, why don't you piss off and update it". Why
        not include - THIS SITE IS IE5 COMPATIBLE - and - BETTER VIEWED IN 1024
        X 768 RESOLUTION! - as well?

        >>If you knew anything about CSS and HTML you'd know HTML is not supposed
        >to be used like DTP - i.e. for laying out pretty pictures, tabbed
        >paragraphs etc.
        >
        >Yawn. Dinosaurs like you are missing the point of the web. It's amazing
        >exactly how much display control you can exercise, should you take the time
        >to do it. Try this site http://www.dsiegel.com/tips/index.htm for a few
        >ideas.

        Oh? What's the point of the web, Mark? Please, enlighten us.
        >
        >>P.S. I tried getting on to your site tonight at the address above, but I
        >can't get on. Is btinternet having trouble?
        >
        >They may have been, it isn't the most reliable in the world (according to
        >Internet Works magazine). It loaded in less than 2 seconds for me when I
        >just tried it.

        Yes, I got onto it today myself - thanks for supplying the address. I
        still cannot read it, but have to admit I've never seen such an
        innovative use of frames. Most framed sites use the large window to
        change information. You keep the unreadable text permanently in the
        large widow and change the small left hand widow. I must congratulate
        you on your originality.

        Tom
        --
        Tom Tweedy
        Diplomacy 2000
        http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000
        Fax [only in emergency] +44 (0)1494 581276
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.