Yes. Good idea. With a little tab on the top that re-opens the interface.Quote:
I would love to see a button that hides the whole interface, just showing the image underneath.
Printable View
Yes. Good idea. With a little tab on the top that re-opens the interface.Quote:
I would love to see a button that hides the whole interface, just showing the image underneath.
http://www.2advanced.com
regarding 2advanced, I dont think anyone can doubt they are easily and consistently in the top 3 hi-end flash designers.
I wish I had the "vision" these guys have on their own site.
Top Notch!!!!
Dez
Aversion, download the wallpapers, they're your wish come true ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by aversion
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7260/cat3gv.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by tpnovak
Hope that helps :)
PS: Tony, pass this on if you can please, but im really disappointed about the background images not being wide enough :( Im on 1920x1200 and it sucks they they cut off on the sides. It would've been awesome if they covered the entire width!
Same thing happens to me. (Using Firefox 1.0.4)
same here with undefined using FF 1.05.04
maybe you should ahve posted the site up on the site check forums, lol :)
My browser/OS is exactly the same as Zak's but it works for me. Odd.
You took the words outta my keyboard. I was sooo gonna post it before you.... :smoov:Quote:
Originally Posted by zakp0
i have the same version also and it works fine for me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by aversion
misquote
That seems to show that the xml files that support the content are failing for some reason. Could be a bug with the deep linking, but more than likely the variables used to pick out the different nodes for the site were not passed properly.
It is reading the xml though, otherwise it would just be blank and not "undefined". I do know that IE 7 is crappy at reading xml through Flash ... but again, this is probably a variable/linking problem and not a browser problem.
BTW, works fine for me on FF, IE and NS
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakp0
I'm thinking more of a feature on the interface, so you don't have to go somewhere else and download something.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakp0
One of my favourite visual design sites, now defunct, was subakt.com which had a feature like this, a small area of the interface you could roll over and it hid the interface so you could see the image underneath. It was really simple and worked nicely.
That site is pretty amazing. 2advanced studios did a good job.
Yeah I got the undefined problem on my Windows box: Windows XP Service Pack 2, on Firefox. It loads fine on my Mac on Firefox. Odd problem.
Wierd villian 2. Tony, did 2A test this in all the diffrent browsers that were having problems.
yep the new look is there .. for sure I have no idea how they have time to do all that ... but I must say the style has not changed ... I guess it doesn't even look that fresh , apart from the imagery they created for the backdrops ... I think their main new feature is having all that havy backend stuff ... looks like their client list is growing and they needed to show it of :))))
I am not sure I still like their style as much as I like their eye for detail ....
Dude, read the case study of the site. They had 13 people working on it.
whoaaa that's maad :)))
I just picked up copy of the book they were listed in Web Design Studios ... worth checking out ..there is a whole series of books published by Icon covering web design ...
i just go to flashkit. No money involed. :)
Strange. I just tested in Firefox and had no problems here either. Same Version (1.5.0.4). Half of our team actually developed the site and tested using Firefox (as many of them prefer it to IE). From the sound of it... Its pretty intermitent as to who is having the problem, but we'll keep checking.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakp0
Sorry about the 1920x1200... We were considering this originally, but then the lower resolutions would suffer by having much less to take in. It was basically our compromise.
Aversion... Still getting that Autokern.init bug? Just checked on this end, and the guys tell me they saw/fixed that one. I can't duplicate it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by aversion
So, the "show/hide content area" button doesn't remove enough of the interface elements? There is a button in each subsection, which will minimize the main content window (and of course you can roll-up the navigation bar). Do you think we should hide more?
I think every thing looks fine with the nav up and content hided.
Don't think it's a good idea to test in FireFox. In my experience, I've made stuff that comes out perfect in firefox, only to go over to IE and find that it is totally f*&$ed. I hate IE ... HATE, HATE, HATE IE!
Hell, some times IE makes my pages look worse than ****, **** and crap.
Hint: STOP USING IE !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Adobemedia
Regards,
Biro
I don't. But some of my cliients do. (They don't care about "browser stuff")
Quite a few flash sites seem to experience inconsistant problems in firefox which seems to of only happened with the deployment of the swfObect script used to compensate for microsofts legal battle. It's difficult to pin point considering I use the same version of XP and firefox both at home and the office, yet I experience the bugs mentioned here at work and not at home?? Very strange. Maybe it's worth looking at that javascript routine - however I'm pulling at straws here ...
I'd be interested to discover the problem.
Seems to be fine now :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by tpnovak
I did have a problem loading the site in IE, which I had mentioned to our friend, but turns out I didn't have the latest flash installed in IE, it's been so long since I used it....
I don't think you should take advice from a hack like me :DQuote:
So, the "show/hide content area" button doesn't remove enough of the interface elements? There is a button in each subsection, which will minimize the main content window (and of course you can roll-up the navigation bar). Do you think we should hide more?
What you have is fine, subakt was an art site and was all about the images, you guys are some sort of design firm right? In that case you don't want to be hiding it all and risk confounding less web savvy clients.
hmmm i wonder
Atlast finally a really nice flash site ! Not been a fan of 2A's earlier work but this is very clean and nice to navigate. The previous version was so tight in its navigation and hard for a normal user to navigate. But this one fills up your screen and really takes advantage of all the space.
Graphics are also very well done ! Keep it up
When 90% of users are using IE ? Yeah good advice. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by wbwd
unless you are on 1920x1200 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Shiro
1. Few people are using 1920x1200 screen resolution ... most are at 1024x768 with 800x600 coming in secondQuote:
Originally Posted by rooney
2. IE is necessary to develop on because, as Johnny said, it's 90% of the market. You can't develop a site in Firefox, see it works, but then go to IE and see it doesn't and go "oh well, IE sucks so I'm not wasting my time". There are many developmental problems regarding Internet Explorer that probably won't get fixed, and until the average person becomes web-savvy enough to learn that Firefox is a far superior browser, we'll have to develop for IE first and foremost.
2 Great points villian. I work at 1152x864, though, and every thing is fine.Quote:
1. Few people are using 1920x1200 screen resolution ... most are at 1024x768 with 800x600 coming in second
2. IE is necessary to develop on because, as Johnny said, it's 90% of the market. You can't develop a site in Firefox, see it works, but then go to IE and see it doesn't and go "oh well, IE sucks so I'm not wasting my time". There are many developmental problems regarding Internet Explorer that probably won't get fixed, and until the average person becomes web-savvy enough to learn that Firefox is a far superior browser, we'll have to develop for IE first and foremost.
I know you're saying that tongue-in-cheek but I also use 1920x1200 yet haven't noticed the edges of the image because I never max the browser window, it seems silly and unnecessary at this big a resolution. I think it's reasonable to think that the majority of the minority of viewers at larger resolutions than 1600 will actually be viewing in a smaller window and design accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rooney
1900x1200 damn yall mus have 20/20 vision...
Might want to ask how big his monitor is :o)
Looked at my site stats (and I'm sure it's different from other sites), and I noticed that Firefox is on the up and up. In this day and age, it's Netscape that's seriously phasing out, if it hasn't already.
MS Internet Explorer No 20046 55.2 %
Mozilla No 14131 38.9 %
Opera No 1240 3.4 %
Unknown ? 385 1 %
Safari No 266 0.7 %
NetShow Player (media player) No 109 0.3 %
Netscape No 73 0.2 %
Konqueror No 3 0 %
So while Explorer holds solid ground, sites should cater to such a strong percentile as Firefox's. Anything above 5% should always be considered, IMO.
Actually, for development, I like to use Netscape because it allows you to flip back and forth between Firefox display and IE display without opening a new window or tab. It simply reconfigures itself in the same window.
I probably spend more time with Netscape open, as a web designer, than I do IE.
Aversion and me both are actually using 1920x1200 on a 17" laptop screen :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 3PRIMATES
He uses a Dell Inspiron 9300 WUXGA screen, and I use the same screen, but with my Inspiron 9400.
I swear I'm no stalker :D