2advanced.com

I think 2a spent too much time with there compositing on that demo than they did the site. Of course I cannot see all the back end database crap that might be in there....but still. Was a whole lotta hype for nothing. I am not going to bash the site,the developers.....they are extremely talented, but to build up this whole version and then release that....well, lets just say I am dissapointed. But then again why are we always talking and compairing to 2A, its almost like they are getting blow jobs from them. I mean if you look at the old(ver3) now, don't you think there lack of color is really boring...just using that shade of blue ! blah ! But no, nobody dare speakith such bad words about 2A. AFter all they are the Gods ( cough cough )of flash. All kids do is ultimatly compair themselves to 2A, 2a did this, 2a did that, who freaking cares. As far the developers......well they abvioulsy have extreem talent, I just think they could have dont better...and if they are not goint to "AWE" us...don't build up so much hype next time....its like trying to **** with a limp dick ! .....Just a dissapointment. :)

Have a nice day !

I've gone through and tried to read most of this thread (impossible to read all - it's 34 pages! :p). It seems to me that most people are having missconceptions towards a "revolutionary" new website, like what 2a just may be now. V3, no one has any idea the time and or scripting that took place in that, the lines of coding, etc. For all we know V3 could have taken 1000 lines of coding, where as V4, now with more effects, eye candy, etc, only took 250 lines of coding (these are only example numbers) - that alone fits the definition of "revolutionary".

The fact that they now changed the color scheme, styel, etc... well change is good. If the kept ANYTIHNG the same or slightly similar, we would have complained about that too... infact because it's 2A, we would have found ANYTHING to complain about - because they are one of the BEST.

FYI: think of how many times you've written a new actionscript for a site or what ever. The time and effort and the 1 month it took you to write that script. Yet when you did a new site and had to do a similar script it only took you 2 days to complete it, and have it less than half the file size of the last, having 3x more power than the last. Isn't that a revolution? cuz if it's not, then what is?

Can I throw 2 q's at Tony or Pixelranger?

What do you think is your prospect's impression of the 3D thingabobs and how do they sell your product when viewed in the context that the visitor probably has not seen the demo reel?

On your prior version, I got a little shiver every time I clicked a link and heard that great little "plink" sound that cut the music. It indicated to me a high level of professionalism and detail, that single sound. Now it's just a simple fade. Why that approach instead of something that made a statement similar to the old version?

Thanks guys, and congrats on your launch!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Rich
I've gone through and tried to read most of this thread (impossible to read all - it's 34 pages! :p). It seems to me that most people are having missconceptions towards a "revolutionary" new website, like what 2a just may be now. V3, no one has any idea the time and or scripting that took place in that, the lines of coding, etc. For all we know V3 could have taken 1000 lines of coding, where as V4, now with more effects, eye candy, etc, only took 250 lines of coding (these are only example numbers) - that alone fits the definition of "revolutionary".

The fact that they now changed the color scheme, styel, etc... well change is good. If the kept ANYTIHNG the same or slightly similar, we would have complained about that too... infact because it's 2A, we would have found ANYTHING to complain about - because they are one of the BEST.

FYI: think of how many times you've written a new actionscript for a site or what ever. The time and effort and the 1 month it took you to write that script. Yet when you did a new site and had to do a similar script it only took you 2 days to complete it, and have it less than half the file size of the last, having 3x more power than the last. Isn't that a revolution? cuz if it's not, then what is?

---

I agree 100%. I have also tried to keep up with this thread and noticed a similiar theme. Being someone who works full time developing (coding) in and around Flash (actionscript, cold fusion, remoting, comm server, database, java) and does very little design (ie graphics/images type stuff) I can appreciate the non graphical part of what 2A has done. Compared to most other Flash sites out there 2A's site is revolutionary in the amount and ways they are using (or seem to be using) newer Flash technologies like remoting and communications server. Plus if you factor in any coding efficiencies they have realized from the last version then the new version really is 'revolutionary'. Just harnessing the power of flash remoting alone into a site and fully using it to it's abilities pushes most sites into the forefront of flash sites if you compare them on a 'non graphical' basis.

PS.

In respone to your footer question
"ActionScript > VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI) True or False?"

I would have to say false, BUT
Actionscript + Remoting + Comm Server > (VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI))^10 is certainly true

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deker
I agree 100%. I have also tried to keep up with this thread and noticed a similiar theme. Being someone who works full time developing (coding) in and around Flash (actionscript, cold fusion, remoting, comm server, database, java) and does very little design (ie graphics/images type stuff) I can appreciate the non graphical part of what 2A has done. Compared to most other Flash sites out there 2A's site is revolutionary in the amount and ways they are using (or seem to be using) newer Flash technologies like remoting and communications server. Plus if you factor in any coding efficiencies they have realized from the last version then the new version really is 'revolutionary'. Just harnessing the power of flash remoting alone into a site and fully using it to it's abilities pushes most sites into the forefront of flash sites if you compare them on a 'non graphical' basis.

PS.

In respone to your footer question
"ActionScript > VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI) True or False?"

I would have to say false, BUT
Actionscript + Remoting + Comm Server > (VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI))^10 is certainly true

---

dude... that was really nerdy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deker
I agree 100%. I have also tried to keep up with this thread and noticed a similiar theme. Being someone who works full time developing (coding) in and around Flash (actionscript, cold fusion, remoting, comm server, database, java) and does very little design (ie graphics/images type stuff) I can appreciate the non graphical part of what 2A has done. Compared to most other Flash sites out there 2A's site is revolutionary in the amount and ways they are using (or seem to be using) newer Flash technologies like remoting and communications server. Plus if you factor in any coding efficiencies they have realized from the last version then the new version really is 'revolutionary'. Just harnessing the power of flash remoting alone into a site and fully using it to it's abilities pushes most sites into the forefront of flash sites if you compare them on a 'non graphical' basis.

PS.

In respone to your footer question
"ActionScript > VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI) True or False?"

I would have to say false, BUT
Actionscript + Remoting + Comm Server > (VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI))^10 is certainly true

---

Yes I think I posted on page 3 and have completely lost track of the thread. I think you do make a good point though. I am a designer. My coding skills ammount to enough Flash action scripting to get done what I want and basic Java knowledge or jack squat. I know the first thing I look at with a new site is the design aspect not the scipting. But I am a designer.:rolleyes:

www.2advanced.com

might need a fast computer/connection.

serious, serious sh*t

I'm sure their scripting could put fear in the hearts of ordinary coding experts, but I'm a graphic designer so I like things to look pretty. I thought it looked ok all in all, but I was disappointed that it looked like a rearranged rehash of the look it had before. I'm not saying I could even do anything half as cool as what they've done. All I'm saying is I was hoping to see some fresh eye candy and I didn't.

Quote:

---

I'm sure their scripting could put fear in the hearts of ordinary coding experts, but I'm a graphic designer so I like things to look pretty. I thought it looked ok all in all, but I was disappointed that it looked like a rearranged rehash of the look it had before. I'm not saying I could even do anything half as cool as what they've done. All I'm saying is I was hoping to see some fresh eye candy and I didn't.

---

Now here is the $50 000 question, did 2A promise too much or did we expect too much?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Rich
Now here is the $50 000 question, did 2A promise too much or did we expect too much?

---

How about asking yourself if you have a life first? 2A owes you nothing. You should actually be thanking all them that they set such high standards in all their work, encouraging a more ravenous competition to evolve from the crap people used to pass off as sites before. so instead of asking preposterous questions, go get a perspective and practice your trade.

I will believe whatever this guy says, his site rocks.

yes, I'm that shallow

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deker
I

In respone to your footer question
"ActionScript > VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI) True or False?"

I would have to say false, BUT
Actionscript + Remoting + Comm Server > (VB+((ASP*JSP)/PHP-CGI))^10 is certainly true

---

christ whats wrong with you people.

when you break it up all he is saying is

Actionscript, Remoting and Comm Server is better than Visual basic and ASP times JSP all divided by php-cgi to the power of 10.


[size=small] I think[/size]

Quote:

---

How about asking yourself if you have a life first? 2A owes you nothing. You should actually be thanking all them that they set such high standards in all their work, encouraging a more ravenous competition to evolve from the crap people used to pass off as sites before. so instead of asking preposterous questions, go get a perspective and practice your trade.

---

Did you not read my statements before you posted... I'm telling people 2A DID make a revolutionary new site, and that people are asking too much of them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bvgroote
when you break it up all he is saying is

Actionscript, Remoting and Comm Server is better than Visual basic and ASP times JSP all divided by php-cgi to the power of 10.


[size=small] I think[/size]

---

Exactly.

The combination of Flash/Remoting/Comm Server allows developers to build much tighter and more powerful web apps (RIA's) than trying to cludge something together using a variety of other web technologies. I'm not trying to say that the other technologies are not good (I have used them all and all of them can be the right one for the right project) but the combination that Macromedia has put together really lets people push the limits of what is possible with web based technology and in many cases (atleast that I have seen), similiar things would be much more difficult and not provide the same level of completeness and function if you had to use a combination of the 'other' web technologies.

Relating this back to the thread about 2A, I think that while not everyone agrees that interface/design part is neccessarily cutting edge or revolutionary I think most would agree that based on how it functions they are using alot of the 'revolutionary' technologies MM is making available. Hopefully 2A and others will continue to push the 'development' side of Flash and MM technologies and also, hopefully, people (designers especially based on what I have seen in this thread) will appreciate the effort and amount of work that goes into it.

(note: I changed my handle from deker to dgrigg incase anyone wondered, so I'm carrying on the post from a few messages back)

Aversion, do you have the power to shut this thread down, i am getting addicted to reading this nonsense. Can´t be good for the soul.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Hey kasracer

So wait.. a standard HTML page, created in dreamweaver, with a simple table, 4 graphics, some javascript and an embedded Flash movie created 17 errors according to w3c.com standards?

I think you should e-mail Macromedia then big fella. Because both Flash and Dreamweaver seem to be out of compliance.

---

Dreamweaver sucks. If a company is relying on a piece of software to code everything correctly, then they are worse off than I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myounis
Technically, that is the LEAST important thing. Wait what? Think about what you are saying for a second.

---

Wrong. When a webpage is validated that means that
1. The code is done correctly, theirfor has much much better chance to be displayed correctly in other browsers. Displaying correctly in more than 1 browser SHOULD be important.
2. They know how to code. If someone who is more tech savy goes to a company's website, and sees it does not validate, it's quite clean they obviously don't know HTML well enough to do it correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tom314
I can make very VALID sites that are stupid, boring etc..

or..

make something useful, interesting, catchy.. but not 100% validated..

mmm, lemme think.

further: I like the matrix-comparison in terms of style and sequel-theory..

---

That comment just shows your ignorance to what validation is. Just because something validates doesn't mean it will be boring. You do realize with a few adjustments, most sites can be made validated, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak
Are you serious? I'd really like to be a fly on the wall the first time you sit across the table from a client and explain:

"It's not the quality of layout and design, nor the impressions you'll achieve, nor even the return on investment calculations... THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS VALIDATION. Validation will win your site monumental acclaim and more importantly respect from HTML coders all over the world. So in conclusion, Mr. Client, you should choose me as your vendor. I FULLY understand what it takes to make a site validate through the w3c.org validator... This is what differentiates my company... I HAVE the skills."

I'd take a minute and stop to realize that the w3c is not an infallible standard authority and NO standard authority has ever been recognized for moving with and degree of fervor. For years throughout my career, I have had the 'pleasure' of dealing with technical authorities such as ISO, ANSI and IEEE. The end result is that either you as a professional take what is important and build upon that (in order to define a competitive edge); Or, you simply succumb to being one of the following masses and see how quickly you can achieve Chapter 13.

---

You have absolutely no clue what I was even talking about, do you? The w3c creates the standards, they should be followed. Validation doesn't mean that you're going to sit around trying to figure out what's wrong with the site for hours and hours neglecting the layout. All you have to do is actaully learn HTML and their you go, you have valid websites. Wasn't that easy? In the time it takes to write a site without validation as opposed to a validating website.... well their is no difference. You people act like validating is hard and that it will take forever to do. Writing a webpage can take only a couple of minutes, then you can work on the layout and everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Have to agree with Tony on this one (I'm sure that will make him sleep better at night! ;)). As much as anyone tries to make their code as compliant as possible, the truth is that 96+% of users are using IE, while 100% compliant code is catering for Netscape, Opera...etc. So, does that mean you decide not to use some of the more advanced features that IE has to offer, simply because it won't be "compliant"? Or do you accept some degree of non-compliancy in order to deliver the most effective online solution?

If I had to choose (and fair enough, in some cases you can do both) I know which I'd go for.

---

Stupid. Complient code works 100% perfectly fine in Internet Explorer. Complient code doesn't lean towards certain browsers. Complient code versus not complient code can look the same, but the non-complient code can look totally different in other broiwsers because it doesn't know how to interpret the mark-up since it was coded incorrectly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by No-Tec
owned.

---

Yes, I was owned from an individual who works at a company who has no idea what standards are :rolleyes:

get real

Quote:

---

Originally posted by k2f
Only one problem... since nearly every site of theirs uses Flash and if you put in the resulting correct code for a Flash movie as designated, it will simply not validate, no matter how correct the other code is or what mark-up. This is not a 2A fault.

---

No! You can use the flash code it "automaticly generates" or make your own code, and both can validate. It is 2A's fault that their webpages don't validate, please don't blame it on others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by k2f
Sometimes, it is simply not possible for pure validation even though the designers code is perfect. If data is getting extracted from a server that has been written by an external company or has been set-up many years back, this data can be putting in extra bits of unwanted code ie hidden BOM or <p><p> or charset like £ or ". For it to be changed may likely be additional cost that the original company simply do not wish to spend.

---

Yes, sometimes validation cannot be possible, those are very very rare and I doubt 2A ever ran into them. But when the company or person(s) have a chance to make a site validate, THEY SHOULD!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Rich
I've gone through and tried to read most of this thread (impossible to read all - it's 34 pages! :p). It seems to me that most people are having missconceptions towards a "revolutionary" new website, like what 2a just may be now.

---

They say on their website that they "raised the bar for the flash community" yet it looks like the bar was lowered to me :confused:


I am still waiting for a responce as to why soo much stuff is marked as a trademark. How the hell can you trademark auxillery panel? Seriously,..

Validation, i personally don't care, 96% of users have IE, thats enough for me, if my client disagrees then i will think again, tv producers don´t make programs in black and white just cos 4% of the population have black and white tvs

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kasracer
You have absolutely no clue what I was even talking about, do you? The w3c creates the standards, they should be followed. Validation doesn't mean that you're going to sit around trying to figure out what's wrong with the site for hours and hours neglecting the layout. All you have to do is actaully learn HTML and their you go, you have valid websites. Wasn't that easy? In the time it takes to write a site without validation as opposed to a validating website.... well their is no difference. You people act like validating is hard and that it will take forever to do. Writing a webpage can take only a couple of minutes, then you can work on the layout and everything else.

---

Once again... The w3c is NOT an infallible organization, and your fanatical devotion just shows your inexperience in the matter. Moreover, your last response shows your lack of professionalism.

I'm actually quite interested in how you arrived at the bald assertion that: IF a site does not validate, the underlying coder does not know HTML. That's a pretty bold statement for someone with no real world experience just yet.

But, no worries my young friend. Call me in a couple years, when your company is high-flying and then perhaps we can have an insightful discussion on how validation paved the way for your success. I'm sure that will be the differentiator over your design skills.

And on the topic of standards... What do you have to say about non-compliant browsers? Have you called Microsoft and yelled at them for formulating their own tags without the blessing of the w3c as a standard? Your life must be quite boring if all you do is look for others to set the standards that you will follow! Perhaps you should tone it down a notch.

Quote:

---

I am still waiting for a responce as to why soo much stuff is marked as a trademark. How the hell can you trademark auxillery panel? Seriously,..

---

Read the thread following your first inquiry. As mentioned by someone else, those would be design elements.

Validation, Validation, Validation, Validation, Validation, Validation

jees that sounds like some seriously boring stuff!!

well that is my proffesional contribution to the thread, i am sorry but that was all i could think to say after reading god knows how much gumf about VALIDATION!!

hey can someone tell me if my site validates, i want to know how proffesional i am!!?

Nevil , you are not validated , you may as well sell your computer, move to devon and start fishing for a living, you have no future in web design

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jaybirch
Nevil , you are not validated , you may as well sell your computer, move to devon and start fishing for a living, you have no future in web design

---

your right, ok garage sale in the field oposite my house this saturday at 10am, see you all there!!!

Me too. I'm out.

I cant believe I ever thought of stripping the margins out of my web pages, or using background tags for tables to make them look pretty.

DAMN how could I be so dumb as to do that. Man oh man. Someone please find it in your hearts to forgive me for using the following body tag

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" background="Graphics/background.gif" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">

Man. oh man... How could I ever use that code to make my pages align correctly and not do it in CSS.

Oh yah..while you are at it..please forgive me for this line of code I've used

<table align="center" width="760" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" background="Graphics/tablebg.gif">

I dont know what I was thinking putting in a background image to my table.

(Pops a handful of pills)










(falls over)







Shane
www.pixelranger.com

sh1t happens to the best of us...

Validate this!!! :finger:

:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Budget Nudist
sh1t happens to the best of us...

---

lmao, yo u stupid

jk :D

Everyone, validate quickly.

since the big '2a didn´t validate there html scandal' the company have been reduced to doing $50 websites for www.auntmaggiesfamilyhomepage.com

Beware the perils of not validating your html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak


Once again... The w3c is NOT an infallible organization, and your fanatical devotion just shows your inexperience in the matter. Moreover, your last response shows your lack of professionalism.

I'm actually quite interested in how you arrived at the bald assertion that: IF a site does not validate, the underlying coder does not know HTML. That's a pretty bold statement for someone with no real world experience just yet.

But, no worries my young friend. Call me in a couple years, when your company is high-flying and then perhaps we can have an insightful discussion on how validation paved the way for your success. I'm sure that will be the differentiator over your design skills.

And on the topic of standards... What do you have to say about non-compliant browsers? Have you called Microsoft and yelled at them for formulating their own tags without the blessing of the w3c as a standard? Your life must be quite boring if all you do is look for others to set the standards that you will follow! Perhaps you should tone it down a notch.
[/B]

---

If someone does not code in HTML correctly, they do not know HTML. It's as simple as that. It's like making a program in C++, then when you go to compile the program, it doesn't work cause it was coded incorrectly. However, browsers are too lenient and just guess which can be very bad.

I never said I was going into the webdesigning career or make my own program. Your company claims to be professiona and the end all be all to webdesign, yet you don't have anyone who knows how to properly code in HTML. I thought it was kind of funny.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer complies pretty well with the standards. They have DX filters in which you can apply different effects to browsers, but they are only microsoft IE and WIndows compatable, yet the web is a medium in which can work correctly on all platforms so therefore the components it adds are propriatry. Those should not be used unless you want only views with IE and WIndows to view them, which is a stupid decision to make. Microsoft's IE leaves alot to be designed with it's buggy CSS level 2 rendering and the PNG displaying problems, but it can render standard HTML/XHTML mark-up perfectly.

The Standards the W3C makes should be followed. They do not have to be followed (replace the tag <body></body> with <crap></crap> and it will still work with IE :rolleyes: ) but they should be whenever possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Me too. I'm out.

I cant believe I ever thought of stripping the margins out of my web pages, or using background tags for tables to make them look pretty.

DAMN how could I be so dumb as to do that. Man oh man. Someone please find it in your hearts to forgive me for using the following body tag

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" background="Graphics/background.gif" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">

Man. oh man... How could I ever use that code to make my pages align correctly and not do it in CSS.

Oh yah..while you are at it..please forgive me for this line of code I've used

<table align="center" width="760" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" background="Graphics/tablebg.gif">

I dont know what I was thinking putting in a background image to my table.

(Pops a handful of pills)



(falls over)



Shane
www.pixelranger.com

---

Layout and Content should be seperate from style. That is what CSS was made for. You can put background iamges wherever you want to.

CSS makes coding and styling webpages sooo much easier, I just don't understand why people still use the old html methods.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jaybirch
Everyone, validate quickly.

since the big '2a didn´t validate there html scandal' the company have been reduced to doing $50 websites for www.auntmaggiesfamilyhomepage.com

Beware the perils of not validating your html

---

You people are all idiots

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kasracer
Layout and Content should be seperate from style. That is what CSS was made for. You can put background iamges wherever you want to.

CSS makes coding and styling webpages sooo much easier, I just don't understand why people still use the old html methods.

---

CSS doesn't work too well in Netscape 3.0 and most of the features you want didnt' work in IE 3.0 either.

I'm trying to make my personal site compatible for IE 3.0 as much as possible while you seem to only want to comply with the latest browsers.

What about the 2% of people browsing my site from Korea with IE 3.0. Sorry..gotta give them a good experience too even if it means not "Validating". :)



Just kidding man. Hey...just relax a bit here. You're gonna blow a gasket. Its not the end of the world.

FYI...the following pages on your personal site did not validate according to w3c.org specifications.


http://binaryidiot.com/cssbas.php
http://binaryidiot.com/phphello.php
http://binaryidiot.com/xhtmltags.php

I didn't feel like going thru your entire site. There might be more cases. You should probably go and validate those pages here: http://validator.w3.org/

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

My advice Kasracer... Chill out. Stop being anal-retentive and obsessive over technicalities. ;)

Quote:

---

You people are all idiots

---

That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who's trying to evangelize W3C validation and can't manage to follow suit.

I'm not here to argue frivolously about what you can or can't do, what you claim is correct or incorrect or who you think is an idiot or not. But there is an obvious fallacy in you argument here. So next time you post, could you please scrutinize it a couple times to determine if it is even worth typing?

I'm so sick of everybody arguing on this thread that
on my way home from work yesterday, I cried.

I cried and couldn't stop.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
CSS doesn't work too well in Netscape 3.0 and most of the features you want didnt' work in IE 3.0 either.

I'm trying to make my personal site compatible for IE 3.0 as much as possible while you seem to only want to comply with the latest browsers.

What about the 2% of people browsing my site from Korea with IE 3.0. Sorry..gotta give them a good experience too even if it means not "Validating". :)



Just kidding man. Hey...just relax a bit here. You're gonna blow a gasket. Its not the end of the world.

FYI...the following pages on your personal site did not validate according to w3c.org specifications.


http://binaryidiot.com/cssbas.php
http://binaryidiot.com/phphello.php
http://binaryidiot.com/xhtmltags.php

I didn't feel like going thru your entire site. There might be more cases. You should probably go and validate those pages here: http://validator.w3.org/

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

---

Most CSS things like backgrounds, and formatting will and should work in browsers even that old.

Yes I know parts of my site don't validate, most parts do. I ONLY put it up to test things out and make sure it works okay (since I haven't had time to re-compile the kernal on my linux partition, it doesn't have the ability to access NTFS so I uploaded to check in Linux). It also isn't finished, I just did a bunch of content, I am currently re-doing the design entirely, I was just testing stuff and found some pretty interesting ways CSS breaks in IE (when the site is done, they will be documented)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by annexion
My advice Kasracer... Chill out. Stop being anal-retentive and obsessive over technicalities. ;)



That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who's trying to evangelize W3C validation and can't manage to follow suit.

I'm not here to argue frivolously about what you can or can't do, what you claim is correct or incorrect or who you think is an idiot or not. But there is an obvious fallacy in you argument here. So next time you post, could you please scrutinize it a couple times to determine if it is even worth typing?

---

I do follow suit. Every website I've actaully produced (I did 1 for my school and another for a friend) all validated. Those were COMPELTED websites. Mine is not completed, nor did I EVER advertise it as being completed (it looks very plain, I don't see why people would consider it completed). Please see my above reply.
It was worth typing, most people have absolutely no clue what validation even means, this makes me sad.

Kasracer, your site is up, and therefore available for criticism. That's like a vegetarian telling me I'm a horrible person for eating meat while they are wearing a leather coat. If you're for the cause, then you are for the cause. Otherwise, let it go.

2advanced.com is up, and that's the way it is. If you don't like it, don't go there as it is your right, but don't rely on W3C validation to determine what you and everyone else should think of the site. By your reaction, it seems like you've just learned some web design and are trying to call out the veterans. There are more civil means of establishing your place in the community.

Also, look up the word "evangelizing".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kasracer
Most CSS things like backgrounds, and formatting will and should work in browsers even that old.

Yes I know parts of my site don't validate, most parts do. I ONLY put it up to test things out and make sure it works okay (since I haven't had time to re-compile the kernal on my linux partition, it doesn't have the ability to access NTFS so I uploaded to check in Linux). It also isn't finished, I just did a bunch of content, I am currently re-doing the design entirely, I was just testing stuff and found some pretty interesting ways CSS breaks in IE (when the site is done, they will be documented)


I do follow suit. Every website I've actaully produced (I did 1 for my school and another for a friend) all validated. Those were COMPELTED websites. Mine is not completed, nor did I EVER advertise it as being completed (it looks very plain, I don't see why people would consider it completed). Please see my above reply.
It was worth typing, most people have absolutely no clue what validation even means, this makes me sad.

---

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares4.jpg

owned....




so...owned

Ironically, I'm currently taking a college
course specificially on W3C standards.
What a coincidence. :D

Hmm..... :rolleyes:

how did this get so out of hand? the orignal posting which talked about the validation was this

Quote:

---

I won't even bring up validation with 2advanced, I doubt they know what that means :p

---

doesn't seem like it was meant to be taken so seriously, denoted by the smiley. i mean its a comment. its a piece of criticism. even if you do take it more seriously than its meant to be, i would have though we'd all have thicker skins...

because someone thinks its important to have a site totally validated doesn't mean they're being overally anal. its preference. we all have our little things that we get really particular over. whats stupid is all these sarcastic comments that have come afterwards . This is supposed to be a professional forum (i mean, aren't all the you pros complaining that you only want to come to a prof forum) which doesn't mean you have agree with comments or opinions, but that you handle urself respectfully. saying you disagree, and then explaining why is respectful. one-liners like "owned" and these other sarcastic bits, aren't.

anways, this has become so overblown, and its really strayed from anything to do with the actual 2a site - maybe its time to close...

Agreed.

Look I don't want to do anything crazy like talk about whether the site is cool or not, but yeah it's excellent. If it were made by anyone else, lotsa folks here would be saying "these guys are gonna kick 2A's ass, yeah, they'll show 'em".:D

The thing I miss on v4 -vs- v3 is that great little v3 sound, that little wink that shut off the music, when you hit an offsite link. It spoke volumes in tightness and good form.

Can someone tell me something, since this thread is fairly OT now, what is it with loops? Is it just because it's easier to loop digital music? Can they actually speak musically beyond a pulse for your girlfriend to dance to? Can you synth fans fill me in, 'cause I don't get it.:confused:

Validation is great, because I hate paying for parking.