The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Science & Nature => Topic started by: jough on March 17, 2004, 12:35:03 am
-
Hey,
Could you people check out something I've been working on?
http://plagiarist.com/4.0/
Basically I would like to know if it looks insanely bad on your browser/operating system. I'm particularly interested if anyone uses non-standard OSes like Linux or Mac OS X or something, or a wonky browser like Safari or Opera.
Thanks,
-- Jough
-
Uh, the red highlight on Articles is virtually invisible. Of course I'm about ready to take a sledge to my monitor for other reasons . . .
Edit: Firefox (0.8) on XP Pro
-
Looks fine over here, but I'm an IE peon running ME.
-
Looks pretty good to me (Firebird 0.7 on a Win ME machine), except that the text on the red background is a bit hard to read.
-
IE 6.0 in Win2K. Looks good to me.
-
Wonky Safari user checking in. Looks great.
-
Ohh that Adobe [maybe its standard, but I first encountered it on Adobe Pagemaker at YEARBOOK CAMP] autotext... site looks good though.
(Another Firefox user checking in...)
-
Oh, I just generated dummy paragraphs from here:
http://www.lipsum.com/
a long time ago. The Lorem Ipsum faux Latin is a standard in the design business.
-
Still gorgeous. Mozilla on Win XP.
-
Might I say, a grand improvement. Two design notes, though (from the non-designing programmer) either go with fluid, total-width design or not, just go with one. The footer shouldn't span the total width unless the entire site does, and the site shouldn't be bound to a specific width unless the footer is (which would demand a footer background that blends completely)
(But then, like I said, I'm a programmer, not a designer.)
The layout looks as though you intended it to look that way. I think that's what you're really looking for.
-
The 404 page frightened me. I can't go to sleep now. It reminds me of my former coworker Inge cursing our boss.
-
either go with fluid, total-width design or not, just go with one. The footer shouldn't span the total width unless the entire site does
Um... doesn't the entire site span the total width?
*weeps*
It should.
-
Sorry, no. Firefox, Win2kPro.
The colors are off due to the MS-Paint operation and Imageready optimization (http://www.10mar2001.com/images/grabs/plagiarist-new.gif).
-
Sorry, no. Firefox, Win2kPro.
The colors are off due to the MS-Paint operation and Imageready optimization (http://www.10mar2001.com/images/grabs/plagiarist-new.gif).
Okay, that's how it should look.
Everything that should be full browser width is. It's tough to make those images expand. ;)
-
The footer shouldn't span the total width unless the entire site does, and the site shouldn't be bound to a specific width unless the footer is (which would demand a footer background that blends completely).
Well, damn. The chap's quite right.
I'm still seeing the page sort of skewed to the left; my screen res is set to 1024x768, which may be unusual. It doesn't necessarily bother me -- but then, I may be used to it.
Just thoughts.
-
Looks okay on MacOS 8.6 using Opera 5. The top advertising banner being so wide kind of makes the text blocks look lonely off to the left side, though.
-
Looks good to me.
One possible comment is that at 1280X1024 the ad banner is centred somewhat to the right of the content and such, but that's not an issue I haven't seen on a million other sites, that tend to look generally nasty.
So yea, looks good.
Firefox 0.8, 1280X1024 normal font size.
-
Okay, I made the entire thing fixed width, and centered the box on the page.
How you like me now, bitch? => http://plagiarist.com/4.0/
^ That's the web site talking.
-
Looks good. All seems to work fine, same browser setup as just above.
Oh, and your 404 kicks ass!
-
Copy that.
-
Mmmmmm...delicious. The new format seems to look good no matter how much I embiggen my text -- a definite plus!
Also, I see one of your links under "interactive" would, were it operable, lead to comments on a poem by my favorite poet. Kudos, my dear.
-
Mmmmmm...delicious. The new format seems to look good no matter how much I embiggen my text -- a definite plus!
*whistle*
Improper Use of "Embiggen"! Two minutes in the box.
-
Mmmmmm...delicious. The new format seems to look good no matter how much I embiggen my text -- a definite plus!
*whistle*
Improper Use of "Embiggen"! Two minutes in the box.
It *can* mean "to make bigger." It just usually refers to one's moral stature, rather than physical...
Right?
Right?
-
Mmmmmm...delicious. The new format seems to look good no matter how much I embiggen my text -- a definite plus!
*whistle*
Improper Use of "Embiggen"! Two minutes in the box.
It *can* mean "to make bigger." It just usually refers to one's moral stature, rather than physical...
Right?
Right?
The only canonical use refers to metaphoric growth not a change in physical size so I'm going to have to go with Wrong.
-
I believe "embiggen" means to make greater, not larger.
So you could say that having read the book embiggens your understanding of a film, or Viagra embiggns your member.
-
I must agree. In it strictest sense, "embiggens" refers to moral or spiritual growth. However, I think it is proper to use "embiggen" to refer to any sort of growth. This sort of lexicographical expansionism is common.
For instance, take the idiom "Travel broadens the mind." This phrase does not mean that one's brain phyiscially expands along the horizontal plane, as a narrow reading of the word "broaden" would suggest. It's metaphor, man!