My site again

[KosmikFool]

Cool. That makes tables so easy.

 

[Shannon]

You used Flash just for those little nav buttons! A simple rollover would've done the trick, or even better, a few lines of CSS.

You also need to work on cross-browser compatibility. Your site doesn't look that good in my favourite browser, Firebird. And like everyone else sayid, try to compact it a bit.

Finally, stop using that damn pixel font at like 32pt! It looks ridiculous.

Originally posted by Super-Supra
Yeah. I don't know how to do that table stuff. So I kept it basic. I'm gonna try to use CSS on my v2. But I'm in the process of learning how to use it.

Wha...and you get up me for calling you a n00b! If you don't know how to do something as basic as tables, then I think you're going to have a hard time learning CSS.

Originally posted by KosmikFool
Tables are super easy! Heck, I learned those before CSS! Get the HTML editor Arachnophilia 4.0. Its the older version but I think its the best. Get it here.

Tables suck. Div layers rock. I'm currently working on a tableless design. It isn't too hard once you know some basic CSS.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Shannon
[...] I'm currently working on a tableless design. It isn't too hard once you know some basic CSS.

Except for the fact that stupid ******* IE doesn't ****** know how to ******* follow ****** web standards and has lousy *** support for ******* CSS 2 and can't find its *** from a hole in the ****** ground!

Whew, I'm done.

But seriously, its CSS 2 support is lousy (it doesn't even have full CSS 1 support!), so making sites totally based on CSS 2 work properly in IE can be a pain, especially when you get into multi-column, fluid, centered, etc. designs.

<--- Irked!

 

[Super-Supra]

Noticably, when I goto some CSS sites, at first the page is without the css, and then the CSS loads on the page.

Meh. I don't know, I cancelled my idea of having a v2 in a month or so. I'm going to keep this layout. Just edit it.

 

[skip0110]

you REALLY need to work on cross-browser capabilities. This is what I see on Mozilla 1.4.1 (the only good browser for linux). UGLY!!

 

[Super-Supra]

Damn!

That's sick. Meh. I had a page that said

Best veiwed with......... but then I took it off.

 

[Concept]

Your wallpapers suck. What the **** are they all supposed to be anyway? I see the same crap for each one pretty much. Add some ****ing variety for crying out loud. Also, stamping SM on every picture is very tacky. I don't think anyone is going to rip your **** man, really. If you're going to slap your name on every picture you do, make it less obvious.

Yep, I'm critical.

 

[VIPFREAK]

Nice sunny, I wouldn't mind learning that stuff I have to have a web page for my portfolio for class.

Yeah, nice avatar Concept 👍

Nick

 

[Concept]

Originally posted by VipFREAK
Yeah, nice avatar Concept 👍

I've changed avatars 3 times in the past 5 minutes. I have no idea which avatar you're talking about.

 

[VIPFREAK]

umm... the one you just had... the No Honda pic

 

[Concept]

Ah, ok.

 

[Super-Supra]

Originally posted by Concept
Your wallpapers suck. What the **** are they all supposed to be anyway? I see the same crap for each one pretty much. Add some ****ing variety for crying out loud. Also, stamping SM on every picture is very tacky. I don't think anyone is going to rip your **** man, really. If you're going to slap your name on every picture you do, make it less obvious.

Yep, I'm critical.

It's ma style maaaaan.

 

[Concept]

We can all use the filter clouds and/or difference clouds.

 

[Shannon]

Originally posted by Sage
Except for the fact that stupid ******* IE doesn't ****** know how to ******* follow ****** web standards and has lousy *** support for ******* CSS 2 and can't find its *** from a hole in the ****** ground!

Whew, I'm done.

But seriously, its CSS 2 support is lousy (it doesn't even have full CSS 1 support!), so making sites totally based on CSS 2 work properly in IE can be a pain, especially when you get into multi-column, fluid, centered, etc. designs.

<--- Irked!

I'm not having many problems with my layout yet. It even looks just as good in Firebird! The only problem I'm having is that the overflow: hidden; style won't work in IE, yet it works in Mozilla Firebird.

For all you CSS n00bs out there, if you redefine the body tag and add overflow: hidden; to it, it removes the scrollbar completely.

body {
	margin: 0px;
	padding: 0px;
	background-color: #EEECEC;
	[color=green]overflow: hidden;[/color]
	}

Anyway, back to the IE problem - I found this hack a while ago before I started my tableless design.

#Whatever {
	margin: 50px 0px 10px 0px;
	padding: 17px 3px 3px 20px;
	[color=red]/* For IE5/Win's benefit height = correct height + top padding + top and bottom border widths */[/color]
	height: 33px; [color=red]/* 14px + 17px + 2px = 33px */[/color]
	border-style: solid;
	border-color: #000000;
	border-width: 1px 0px; [color=red]/* top and bottom borders: 1px; left and right borders: 0px */

	/* Here is the ugly brilliant hack that protects IE5/Win from its own stupidity. Thanks to Tantek Celik for
	the hack and to Eric Costello for publicizing it. IE5/Win incorrectly parses the "\"}"" value, prematurely
	closing the style declaration. The incorrect IE5/Win value is above, while the correct value is below. See
	[url]http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp[/url] for details. */[/color]

	voice-family: "\"}\"";
	voice-family:inherit;
	height:14px; [color=red]/* the correct height */
	}

	/* I've heard this called the "be nice to Opera 5" rule. Basically, it feeds correct length values to user
	agents that exhibit the parsing error exploited above yet get the CSS box model right and understand the
	CSS2 parent-child selector. ALWAYS include a "be nice to Opera 5" rule every time you use the Tantek Celik
	hack (above). */[/color]

body>#Whatever {height:14px;}

 

[Super-Supra]

Updated.

 

[Concept]

In your next post, ask if anyone actually cares.

 

[Cobraboy]

Originally posted by Concept
In your next post, ask if anyone actually cares.

Does he really need to ask?

 

[KosmikFool]

To get rid of the load times of 56k, try using rollovers instead of Flash. You'll need to upload more images but it'll be worth it. Just look into some Javascript code.

 

[Shannon]

Originally posted by KosmikFool
To get rid of the load times of 56k, try using rollovers instead of Flash. You'll need to upload more images but it'll be worth it. Just look into some Javascript code.

The rollover effects he is using can be done with some simple CSS, further reducing the load time.

a:link {
	font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
	[color=green]/* Select the font you wish to use here - but be aware that the user must have that font on their computer */[/color]
	font-size: 9px;
	[color=green]/* Select the font size. You can you between pixels 'px', points 'pt', percent '%' and more */[/color]
	color: #FFFFFF;
	[color=green]/* Font color */[/color]
	text-decoration: none;
	[color=green]/* This defines wheather the the link should be decorated.
	   none = no decoration
	   underline = underlines the link
	   overline = overlines the link
	   line-through = puts a line through the middle of the link
	   blinks = flashes the link
	*/[/color]
}

a:hover {
	font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
	font-size: 9px;
	color: #000000;
	text-decoration: underline;
}

• a:link controls the link as it is normally.
• a:hover controls how the link will be displayed when the mouse hovers over it.
• There is also a:visited which controls how the link will appear after it has been visited, and a:active which will control the link as it is active.

As you can see, the link is white (#FFFFFF) with no decoration, but when the user hovers his/her mouse over it, it changes to black with an underline.

 

[KosmikFool]

How did I forget that code? I used it in pretty much all of my old websites! It looks pretty spiffy too.