VGMaps
November 24, 2017, 12:12:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Spot three changes in the NES section.  (Read 7512 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JonLeung
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3129


« on: July 09, 2006, 05:21:07 PM »

I'm pretty sure I'll be applying the changes to the rest of the atlas pages but let's see if you can spot them.
Logged
DarkWolf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621



« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2006, 05:38:19 PM »

Table dimensions are larger and some game logos have colored backgrounds.  I give up, what's the last change?
Logged
JonLeung
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3129


« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2006, 07:58:06 PM »

No, some of those game titles had coloured backgrounds before, so that's not it...
Logged
Revned
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1091



« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2006, 08:40:26 PM »

Ick, the tables are WAY too wide. They look downright terrible on my screen. The ads at the top are now text ads, too. You also changed "KB" to "kB" throughout. Yeah, so maybe I used the Google cache and a difference comparison program for the last one, but I figured out the first two on my own.
Logged

JonLeung
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3129


« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2006, 09:02:11 PM »

What are you using, Revned?  As in, which browser?  I thought it was silly to specify 700 pixels for the width, so I changed it to 100%.  So it shouldn't extend beyond the screen regardless.  Unless with your resolution you don't like all that empty space?  I hope it is now viewable on mobile phones, PSPs (and soon DSes) with that change.



You're right about the ads.  But it's not that it's text ads per se, it's just that it's now a universal header I can apply to all pages...so I intend to be able to change them as necessary to the most profitable ads.  I'll have Inty (when he's actually available) use that for the forums' ads as well.



And I believe kB is a more correct term than KB, so you'd have good eyes if you actually spotted that without aid.



I will likely apply these changes to all of them, unless others share Revned's dislike of the table width...
Logged
TerraEsperZ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2006, 09:17:33 PM »

Well, it definitely looks good when viewed in a tiny window, but I'm not sure if setting a maximum width wouldn't be better. Not sure if it's possible, but when it's too large (like say, a 1024 or 1280 pixels wide window), it doesn't look as good anymore. I definitely prefer kB to KB, as it *is* the proper way to write it.



---

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." [...] The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. - Captain Jean-Luc Picard



B*tch, meet reality. Reality, meet b*tch. - Me
Logged

Current project that I really should try to finish:
-Drill Dozer (GBA)
-Sonic 3D Blast (Genesis)
-Naya's Quest (PC)
-Lilly Looking Through (PC)

Pending project:
-A ton of stuff that will never be finished
bustin98
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 330



« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2006, 09:19:41 PM »

I never really paid much attention to the map sections, so looking at it with 'new' eyes, I don't have a problem. And my resolution is 1280 x 1024 (using IE in Windows).



According to Wikipedia, there is no difference between KB and kB. Though I would think the difference would mean either kilobyte or kilobit. But, kilobit is usually in reference to communications and is kb, not kB. I have seen people try to use mB and MB for different meanings, too. But its the same story where mb is megabit and m(M)B is megabyte.

---

Cool beans
Logged
Revned
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1091



« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2006, 09:20:53 PM »

Safari, but I'm not talking about a browser problem. I have a widescreen display, so naturally my window is wider too. It looks very bad stretched to bigger than 1000 pixels wide. I've always preferred fixed widths for web pages so you can be sure it won't look weird on others' computers, even if it looks fine on your screen.
Logged

bustin98
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 330



« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2006, 09:26:56 PM »

I agree with Revned. As a webdesigner, my main focus is to make sure everyone gets the same viewing experience, even if it means dumbing it down for the lowest common denominator. So having the max width set at say 950 pixels, most people will see the same thing. There are a few users who still refuse to get with the times and have an old system set at 800x600, but they are shrinking.



As for combatibility for portables, it may behove someone to write a script to send those visitors to a different page, or to use a different set of style sheets.

---

Cool beans
Logged
TerraEsperZ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2006, 09:48:55 PM »

It really should be possible to program it so that it's displayed at say, 950 pixels or less. I know you can't accomodate for every situation (a logistical nightmare) that would be best I think. Don't ask me how to do it though, it's been years since I've touched HTML coding.



---

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." [...] The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. - Captain Jean-Luc Picard



B*tch, meet reality. Reality, meet b*tch. - Me
Logged

Current project that I really should try to finish:
-Drill Dozer (GBA)
-Sonic 3D Blast (Genesis)
-Naya's Quest (PC)
-Lilly Looking Through (PC)

Pending project:
-A ton of stuff that will never be finished
bustin98
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 330



« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2006, 10:11:25 PM »

It would javascript to do that. You would need to get the screen size, which isn't available to HTML. At first I was thinking of embeding the table in an element set at 950 then set the table at 100%, but that won't work. So doing some fooling around with JS is the only way to go. Using it to determine the style sheet is ideal.

---

Cool beans
Logged
Grizzly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2006, 04:19:22 AM »

In case the sizes are not bytes divided by 1000 but divided by 1024 (Windows shows filesizes this way) you might want to use KiB instead of kB. Although it still is not very common, it is the standard IEC prefix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte
Logged
JonLeung
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3129


« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2006, 06:46:41 AM »

About the width, though...the empty space on the sides bugged me, as did the really long area names that increased the heights of certain cells and various browsers' interpretations as to whether or not the text in the cells in the same rows should be by default centered (or not) along those taller cells.  It seems to me that increasing the width solves all these problems, while making it a percentage makes it more adaptable for shorter and wider screens.



I never took widescreen displays into account, though.  I'm betting those still aren't very common.  A good point to bring up though, not sure if I would want to figure out how to do all the Javascript and etc. stuff involved (for the "if more than 1000 pixels wide then etc.)...I have enough trouble with plain old HTML as it is.



While we're on the subject, though, is a widescreen display worth it, Revned?  I can understand how it might be cool for games that support it, and I'm guessing you can watch movies on your computer as widescreen as well, but those are the only two applications where I imagine that it would make a big difference.



As for the filesizes, I use the sizes as determined by Windows Explorer...though I have always noted with some dismay that for many files less than 100 kB that leaving my mouse pointer on the filename for a second will give me one or two decimal places (to make it three) and that files from 100 kB to a few hundred kB (the majority of them) show they're 1 kB less when the mouse pointer sits on it than when it's listed.



I try to be consistent and have always used the "mouse pointer idling" filesize, but it irks me that Windows itself isn't consistent.



No one's had a comment about the soon-to-be consistent, easier-to-manage, and likely more profitable ad header setup (either that or you've learned to tune out ads on web sites by now), so I will change the rest of them without a concern, it seems.
Logged
DarkWolf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621



« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2006, 08:51:57 AM »

On most sites I don't even see ads because I use NoScript for Fire Fox.  Also really annoying ads I put in my HOSTS file so they resolve to nowhere.



But alas, your page uses Javascript!  So I just have to tune them out.



Also if you really want the page to be compatible with mobile devices you should use a different CSS style sheets for them.  But it sounds like you might use a WYSIWYG editor.
Logged
Revned
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1091



« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2006, 09:48:29 AM »

I actually liked the white space. Everything looks stretched now. I'd rather have white space outside of the tables than inside of the tables, like it is now.



I didn't pay extra for a widescreen display. All Macs have widescreen displays, nowadays. I don't think paying extra for the aspect ratio is worth it, but the increased resolution is definitely worth it. I used to have 1024x768, but this 1440x900 is a lot less cramped.



I never pay attention to ads, so it doesn't really make a difference.



DarkWolf, I believe Jon uses Word for everything.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!