Printable View
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