hey, if you use firefox, the frontpage looks even more cluttered and crap

What are you on about Arcon? The front page's layout is almost identical when images are blocked using Firefox.

Edited by - esquilax on 11/8/2004 7:29:06 PM

when im back home, i will screengrab you what i mean.


Seek the truth
Behold the truth
Reveal the truth
That is the law and the whole of the law

I'm looking forward to it .

see, looks like ass

I get the same result with my Firefox 1.0

In relative comparison I had a go with IE6 and......

PIcture 1 is almost the same as what you'd get in IE6 except that view would be spread all the way across the screen by expanding out the central text lines.

Picture 2 in IE6 would have the system names listed on the left as in this shot but the center text line space again would be stretched across to fill the screen in such way that the right hand border would be moved justified on the right side of the screen.

They both look fine to me, however remember that I said that blocking the images would allow the page(s) to load faster. I didn't even mention the aesthetic rammifications of doing so . It's a trade-off of course; either purty pictures and slower loading times, or plain text and fast loading times. Take your pick people!

Why isn't it two screenshots of the same screen? Why isn't the second one ALSO of the news posts? (which is afterall why you would be blocking images, to help its load time in the face of 60+ images..........isn't it?)

You want to know why they aren't the same?

here is a very simple answer:

The person who wrote the HTML did it badly. They failled to follow standards. As such the page should not be considered HTML, and cannot be guarenteed to load in any browser unless explicitly tested. If it was valid HTML both IE and the Gecko engine (Gecko powers FireFox, Mozilla, Netscape, AOL and a few other browsers) would render it properly

Proof can be found at the following URLs (external sites, I am not responsible for there content)
WDG Validator: http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validat ... rnings=yes
(encoutered too many errors in document to finish parsing)

WC3 validator:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... &verbose=1
(encountered nearly 700 errors in the file, This is the largest number I have ever seen)

WebThing.com
http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/pag ... seMode=web
(encountered nearly 1500 errors in document, yes I am supprised by this aswell, I wouldn't have thought a webpage could contain that much stuff to generate all thoose problems)

Main problems are failling to put quote characters i for attributes (minor problem auto-correctrd by most browser) but more majorly vendor tags are used for absolutely no reason (except to deliberatly damage compliant browsers???) vendor tags need replacing with styles (either inline, embedded or CSS)

This site has extremely good content but is let down by the poor quality of HTML work, from the HTML I glanced through everything you wanted to achieve could have been done perfectly without vendor tags, yet for some reason the webmaster thought it a good idea to reduce his potential audience by several million.

Well I'm glad you feel so indebted to Bargib, who probably set up this site before you were born. Why don't you make a website that has millions of members, huh?

Exactly which part of my comment was not factually accurate?

Oh all of it was 100% accurate.

According to registry check the domain name was registered in 2003, I can assure you I was born before then, however I do suspect it could well have been created before then.

Whats your knowledge of internet standards like? To show I wasn't just complianing I provided evidence to backup my statements, I used 3 seperate validators to check it wasn't a glitch in my browser, the W3C are the leading authority on this and when they detect 700 errors in a file, it means something bad happened. Minor errors don't annoy me its when entire pages become unreadable. Do you have any idea how many people run Gecko based browsers?

If you would be kind enough to point out to me which bit of my orriginal post you disagree with I will be happy to explian my reasoning.

Also I would like to know how exactly you know when I was born. Unless you just made that up, which I expect you did.

I also re-iterate, content good, HTML bad. If you disagree with that then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you browse the W3Cs website, and then would you be so kind as to explian to me how you consider the HTML as good?

I admit I may have put it a bit bluntly.

maybe I should have written:

--BEGIN--
I have been browsing your site, however despite the excellent content on it I had major problems viewing many pages of this site in my browser. I quick examination of your HTML source showed multipule errors when run through industry standard validators. [provide above links My browser is highly compliant with international standards as provided by the W3C and runs the Gecko rendering engine (as run by a multipule browsers). The doctype declaration states it is HTML 4.01 Transtional as specified by the W3C DTD (<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> however it does not seem to comply with the HTML 4.01 Specification
I thought it wise to bring this problem to your attention incase you were not aware of the problems.
Is there a reason why this site was designed in this manner and if so when is it likely to be changed to comply with industry standards?
The lack of standards compliance may reflect baddly on your site and may leave it open to criticism form organizations that support equal rights and accessability.
Lack of complaince may be reported.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Signed
Andy
--END--
I admit this would have been a politer way to convey the same message, but the overal message remains the same.

{Edit: Corrected a typo}

Edited by - andy101 on 6/11/2005 7:42:34 AM

Andy, chill. The creators of this site are extremly knowlegable in web sites and their workings. If you don't like the site, you don't have to come here. So don't knock others work. Its easy to go to any site and try to pick it apart and sit back and make sugjestions on how to change it, though I truly doubt you know this site and all that it is capable of handling. Its program my not handle everything that comes down the pike. Also, for your information, a new style, and code is being worked on to upgrade the site so new and additional things can be added.

So for the time being, be a ittle more cutious when visiting sites, and chill on the critisisums.

Finalday

Edited by - Finalday on 6/11/2005 7:53:05 AM

Is that a threat Andy? Make changes or else sorta thing?
As for writing code badly... maybe the standards were different when first written - afterall, they do change...

www.pathfindestudios.com (my site)

Nope - it aint W3C compliant; I tried and gave up. Report me if you feel like making threats... I look forward to seeing whatever I should be fearful of by your implied threats.

Oh yeah, I don't speak for this site... mainly cause I don't know what BP or Eraser think about this


Edited by - Mike G on 6/11/2005 9:15:58 AM

Ok lets clear a few things up.

1. Standards may have changed.
If it was designed to work on the old HTML standards why does the homepage carry a 4.01 Doctype declaration?

2. The creators of this site are extremly knowlegable in web sites and their workings.
Then surely they should be aware of HTML standards? and what errors can by caused by using vendor tags?

3. If you don't like the site, you don't have to come here.
I do like the site, as i have siad twice allready I think the content is ecellent, If i didn't like the site I wouldn't have bothered pointing out the problems it causes to certian web-browsing technology.

4. Its easy to go to any site and try to pick it apart and sit back and make sugjestions on how to change it, though I truly doubt you know this site and all that it is capable of handling.
I didn't do indepth checking to find obscure problems I performed a simple validation check (which take a supprising time to load, have you looked at the W3 link to the validatior by any chance?

And then moving on to mention code and what it can ahndle. How is that of ANY relevence? Program code should be seperate to output anyway. The sites handling of data doesn't seem to have any problems its just the fial outputting of data to a browser is poor.

5. Its program my not handle everything that comes down the pike
The url request to a homepage is a very imple request to send. It does not look like the request makes much differance eithier way the final HTML is not upto the standard it displays in its Doctype header.

6. Is that a threat Andy? Make changes or else sorta thing?
Nope I don't make threats.

Note: The changes would not be noticible to any IE users only to users of W3 compliant browsers (FieFox, Mozzila, AOL, Netscape and many more)

7. So for the time being, be a ittle more cutious when visiting sites, and chill on the critisisums
I admit the first post I made was rude and for that I appoligise. The second post (or atleast the last part) was ment to be the first post but written nicer. If you have a nicer way to re-write what I said please provide it.


8. it aint W3C compliant; I tried and gave up
I'm sorry to here yu gave up