David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
This is a general problem with web sites. 90% of all web sites are designed like a magazine page (tall orientation). It makes absolutely no sense as all computer screens are either 4:3 or 16:9.
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Actually the screen is layed out at 771 pixels wide which is the maximum size that can be displayed on an 800x600 screen resolution without causing a horizontal pan bar on a PC using IE. That is the reason it is done that way. Unofortunately most people are still using 800x600 resolution intead of 1024x768 so they are still catered to. That is the reason you see most sites this size. You can build expanding sites but then you loose control of how the page looks and most of the placement. You can build multiple versions of a site, one for each resolution, but that is a pretty huge effort, perhaps some day when there is a larger staff to build the site 5 times over.
|
|
|
|
Kevin Collier
(K=19076) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
...I don't buy it...none of the other sites I visit to have this problem of gray bars on the edges of the screen...K
|
|
|
|
Deb Mayes
(K=19605) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
No one has to build multiple versions if css is used instead of tables. Setting an absolute table size and using spacer gifs is just crazy in this day and age.
There's so much hard-coding (sizes, colors, alignment) that fixing things will be a misery.
|
|
|
|
Markus Scholz
(K=23722) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Before the upgrade it was just fine. Just return to the old concept.
|
|
|
|
David Waxman
(K=35) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
I am hoping this is a bug, as I can't remember the last time I saw a hardcoded width like this. I agree with the comment above. Please return to the old presentation format (as it relates to screen width).
|
|
|
|
Nicole Marcisz
(K=10268) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
yes I agree, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the wasted space. I would like to see better use. When I am critiquing an image I like that there are random photos on the side but they are so darn tiny. (especially when all that dead space is next to it.) I appreciate all the hard work that goes into making this site work, I'm not complaining really, just suggesting and giving feedback.
thanks guys,
Nicole
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Phil - it's a step backward to an earlier internet 'age'. The design to apply, today, is as others have said - css, text-oriented, and able to fit small cell screen or standard desktop/notepad (which is not 800 wide, by the way - but 1280 or greater). They completely missed the bet with this 'upgrade'. I'm just one voice, and one donor. And surely they won't listen to me. But if they want to save this site, they need to revert to the old site design by this weekend at the latest, and then gradually introduce new features based on that. But I'm almost sure that's exactly what they won't do.
|
|
|
|
Kevin Collier
(K=19076) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
...I have discovered as have others that the only way to see the site "full" screen is by changing your screen resolution to 800x600 - this is not my prefered resolution but it works if you can stand the coarse look...
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Anyone who cares to take a crack at making this site in CSS be my guest, if you've got skills that would do it let me know and I'll make it happen.
|
|
|
|
Paul Lara
(K=88111) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
I seriously doubt very many digital photographers have their screens at 800x600. Just doing a quick Google yielded this from a European report: "The display resolution of 800×600 pixels was the standard resolution until around 2000. Since then, 1024×768 has been the standard resolution. Most web sites are designed for this resolution. The trend goes towards the resolutions of 1280×1024 or 1600×1200 pixels."
...Please, give us back our screen real-estate.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Admin Al, I'll give it one last shot. Surely, I or others could improve on the design, css and scripts, etc. But I'm begging you. That's not the answer. Just return to what you had a week ago. Just restore by the end of the weekend. All I can do is suggest it. I'm just one, single donor. But I'm suggesting it. And then on that design, incorporate better server-side stuff, more features, and so on. Anyhow.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Joe you want a shot at it go ahead, if you can take what we have and translate it into ViABLE css that works in ie 5.5, 6.0, firefox 1.0 - 1.5, safari
I'll take you up on it.
Do the browse page and the image page, front page, if you succeed and we like the design you get to be a donor for life.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
No way in hell this site is ever going back to the old code. You didnt have to maintain that every night, not happening, no way, no how, never, ever, ever.
|
|
|
|
Tiger Lily
(K=10966) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Kevin,
No, it's true.
Take a look at Yahoo page. It has a max width beyond which you get lot of white space on either side.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Lily, it's not the case that sites typically limit the width. They allow the browsers to do this, except for the particularly 'commercial' sites that still bombard you with Flash ads and a lot of garbage scripts. Notice, on the contrary, how Amazon does things (and there's a few scripts in there, as well). This site had an Amazon/Google look to it, before. I can't understand Admin Al insisting that the style, the layout, was someone inextricably tied to "the old code". I don't understand that, at all. The scripts are one thing, the styling something else. The two are supposed to be separated. But he heard my suggestion that they revert to the old style, and he replied - "no way in hell." Somebody convinced them this is trendy or appealing. And I just suspect that I'm not the only former donor who disagrees very much with that.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/16/2005
|
Admin Al - while I've said repeatedly, now, that I think the real answer is hitting the reset button on this upgrade, if you seriously wanted some advice on styles, etc., I would simply suggest replacing table widths of 771 with "100%", cells of 151 and 5xx, etc. with 25% and 75%, instead, but some percentage, and not using the FONT tag, or if you do for compatibility with I don't know what, don't use a fixed size font like "2", but a relative value like "+1", for example. For the arktic blue nav-bar, don't set a pixel width for each cell, but a percentage, like 14.25% since there are seven cells (admittedly, given your scheme, that might require a forced reflow onresize). Let the browser, or cell phone, or whatever, do the work. Otherwise, as they always say, you might consider just publishing as .pdf. Don't use fixed font sizes in the styles, like "10px", but "small", "x-small", or even "1.1em" or something would work. As for Firefox, I didn't look into why what I assume is a 'display:none' problem is causing other areas to vanish with rollovers.
|
|
|
|
Peter Houtmeyers
(K=3519) - Comment Date 12/17/2005
|
I can understand( not really) why this site had to upgrade(downgrade)
to this better version(for the ones that are maintaining it). If this layout is the one that will be on forever......at least change the color of the grey bands to a bright white. Furthermore you could leave some more space between the photo and text surrounding it. I would prefer to look at a photo that is somehowe a bit more isolated from all these distrackting eyecatchers.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/17/2005
|
Joe fire up an editor and show me how easy it is to do, get your hands dirty, as you can see my hands are quite busy right now.
It's easy to talk the talk, show me and im happy to consider it.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/17/2005
|
Admin Al, I would do only what I just suggested above. This is the layout, the styling, remember - not the programming and functionality. Where you have 771, for ex., in concert with other table widths, use 100%, to fill the width of the screen, and so on. I downloaded a portion of your site with HTTrack and made precisely those sorts of changes, mentioned above, both to the generated web page and the style sheets, and the pages looked much better, even with your complicated new 'skins' scheme. I can't be any clearer than that.
I suggested that instead of a style upgrade that strikes some, at least, as more of a downgrade, you hit the reset button on that and return to the previous styling; and just the styling. That's all. All we're talking about is the look of the site - nothing more. And return to the previous image and filesizes, etc. It's your site. And if you absolutely won't do it, then so be it. Your site. But when one pays to support such a site, as I have, you shouldn't be so surprized that one might take a certain interest in how it looks to the eye, and on the screen, particularly since I'm serious about photography.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/17/2005
|
Joe, enough already, show me or let it die.
It's easy to talk, lets see you do it.
I'll pay to have it implemented if you can pull it off, if its that simple, show me.
No talk, no forum posts, show me code that will work as i specified.
|
|
|
|
Tiger Lily
(K=10966) - Comment Date 12/17/2005
|
Al, I'll send you the updated version of the HTML by email if you want me to. I tried it on my machine for this page alone and it works fine.
|
|
|
|
Tiger Lily
(K=10966) - Comment Date 12/17/2005
|
Al, I just emailed you the HTML with my changes. It clears up the grey areas, and makes the page expandable. Good Luck guys. You all need a break.
|
|
|
|
marco "dheim" orciuoli
(K=4467) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
i don't understand a damn of these web design matters... i can tell you i preferred very much the older design, but this isn't very important...
the important thing is that i don't want to upload sVGA images just to let them fit in those damn grey bars! it's ridiculous, and please don't tell us that most users set their monitors to 800x600, i stopped using that resolution more or less in 1997, and i don't personally know ANYONE still using it... i think even my usual 1024x768 has become almost obsolete by now... and i didn't see any complaint about the already tiny 800x800 images we were allowed to upload until 4-5 days ago...
this is a damn photography site, so it would be nice to leave some space on the page for photos themselves...
you cold use such a layout:
--------
| |
| |
--------
|| xx ||
|| xx ||
where the large square is the space for large images and the space below is the other bulls**t surrounded by function bars. NO, i won't send you any html, css or asp code, i couldn't even design a blank page in html... there's a lot of people concerned about the new layout (and the immense variety of bugs), i know you worked hard to upgrade the site and this can be frustrating, but it's useless and not very kind to get upset for the critics... you won't EVER go back to the old design?. ok. make a new one better than this.
admit the new layout is a failure, noone will blame you for it!
|
|
|
|
marco "dheim" orciuoli
(K=4467) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
sorry, the square thing didn't work exactly as i did it... :)
|
|
|
|
Steve Hennerley
(K=5776) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
Come on people - give the guys a break.....
Al - I admit to being a little irritated by some of the bugs (having no 'return to section' after commenting, annoying adsense ads even to donors, and not getting notify emails) - but this is the way it is in the real world. Al - i feel your pain!
All you web design 'experts' - yes of course it's possible to make a website dynamically resize - but there are also constraints around this - and it doesn;t always work. And when it does (especially with CSS) it usually stuffs up in at least one of the browsers and looks REALLY ugly. There's much more work required than to just go and say "use percantages" or "x-small" etc.
There are MANY MANY high budget commercial sites out there catering for the 800x600 resolution - and I'm certain there are UFers out there who use this size.
Yes I DO design active web sites and applications as part of my living before anyone asks - but here is the crunch.... it's my living... do I have time out of work to maintain a complex and high maintainence site of my own - no - I really don't - I prefer to relax and occasionally take a few photos - and maybe share them here.
Every credit to Al and his team for the new look site. I certainly think it feels much more grown up now. I am certain that the bugs will get worked out - and to those 'demanding' Al return the site back to the old one - give the guy some respect.
Good luck Al - I'm behind you anyway! - if I can help at all (can do HTML, classic ASP, ASP.net 1/2) , feel free to give me a shout :)
Steve
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
>>There's much more work required than to just go and say "use percantages" or "x-small" etc.
And the rain in Spain, etc. You're accusing people of saying things they never said. And just modifying the three main style sheets used for this site is only part of the fix. I like that in the last few hours that they just dropped the background images on the rollovers. That makes it more cross-browser compatible, in case you wanted to know. But one would have to have a copy of the scripts they use, as well, since so much of the LAYOUT, is hard-coded when the page is generated. You'd have to have both the scripts and styles. The styles I have. The scripts I don't. If Admin Al wants to forward me some copies, I certainly take a look and make whatever mods. He can do that at any time. But I still say the better approach is simply to restyle as it was - hit the reset button. We're just talking layout here, not server issues, not db issues - just . . presentation. I don't understand Admin Al's confusion over that. I really don't.
It's just a matter of widening things out.
|
|
|
|
Steve Hennerley
(K=5776) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
*sigh*
I tried not to and will not get into a flame war. There's no point.
My comments were general and deliberately generalised so as not to 'nit-pick' finer points. I never accused anyone of sayng anything....
Joe. I am assuming that the old site (and quite probably the new one to seeing an .asp (not aspx) extension) are coded in classic asp. This means that in all likelyhood the active (vb/c# etc) parts of the page are written right in there with the html (ie no codebehind for the server stuff). With this in mind, the task of "hit(ting) the reset button" becomes A LOT more than just "LAYOUT" issues.
To all practical purposes, a roll back to the old layout maintaining new functionality would almost certainly take longer than to fix the new layout. as you say (paraphrasing this time - apologies if I miss your point), the scripts dictate layouts in many cases (as you would expect for such a site).
Al has already said there is not chance of a rollback to the old code - which was hard to maintain. Reading between the lines, it is impossible to believe that the maintenance problems were with "layout" code. Clearly the active code differs significantly. There IS NO "reset button" to hit! With that in mind, I think we can clearly take this to mean it's not going to happen and let this idea drop.
Al, could I suggest letting Joe put his money where his mouth is? - sanitise the code (take out sql connection strings, karma code, and other sensitive stuff), and let's see if Joe can fix it. If he can then we all win, if not then at least this thread will go away :)
And a final thought... he who shouts loudest does not necessarily have the most to say... the guys are clearly still working on this site, and bugs from other threads are getting fixed - and to be perfectly honest, I would MUCH RATHER have operational/functionality issues fixed before wasting time on pure aesthetics.
Let's not turn this into something ugly. In principle, i agree it might be better to have dynamic sizing etc, but in the grand scheme of things, this new site is evolving.
And Joe, just to be clear, this is in no way personal - we are on the whole on the same side:) - Just took a look at your portfolio some nice stuff in there - I like the insect macros... I can never get them to work!
Steve
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
All joe needs to do is take the current pages and make them work with css and not look like crap. The old site the only thing it had going for it was the float so the thumbnails fit, otherwise all you had was a ton of whitespace and very little design.
Personally I am surprised no one has even mentioned the AWESOME logo that was created for this site and that tells me a lot about who's design taste i should trust.
Personally i think other than the float this site is lightyears prettier than the old one, anyone who wants the old one back probably just doesnt like change, and that's understandable but not something that is going to drive me back to the old version.
In order to do css layout all you need to do is save the pages to your browser, fire them up in an editor and show me it works at all resolutions from 800x600 to apples 30 inch cinema display. On 4 major platforms, ie 5, 5.5, 6, opera, netscape 7+, firefox 1+, and safari 1+
Show me and I will be MORE THAN HAPPy to have it implemented, I just want to see someone pull it off.
you don't need scripts to do it, all you need is whats on the page now.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
And BTW we didnt drop anything, we swapped out menus and the site speed has risen considerably due to it. We are not averse to change, we are just not going to act rashly because someone who doesnt understand the scope of this site is telling us to go back, when we intend to go forward.
|
|
|
|
Steve Hennerley
(K=5776) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
The Logo -
I did notice it and love it (a new logo was one of my new site suggestions months ago - and whilst I'm sure it wan;t my post that triggered it - it's good to ee it there!!!) - who do we credit for this?
I do very much like the way the deisgn is new yet familiar, and keys to both the new and old sites very well...
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
*sigh*
There was a complaint by some involved with this site, feeling a little down, that this was a "volunteer" site, even for the donations, the fees, and that depression might lead to cessation. But even donors could be asked to volunteer to improve the site. Then everyone gets involved, as it were. That's a positive way to look at it, rather than imagining that all the donors are out to getcha, or censoring and mindlessly deleting comments from donor-only threads. The latter genuine negativity only serves to infuriate people, and rightly so.
I think you're mistaken about the way the site is created. There are three principal style sheets, in an INCLUDE subdirectory. You can find these simply by examing any page. As for the pages, you can see that they are generated, and that much of the layout is hard-coded into the page, and obviously and particularly table cell widths. Again I just mention to say that to repair the site, one would have to repair the scripts which generate the pages. And there are a lot of compatibility issues, as well.
And by the way, and again, Al could have zipped up and emailed the scripts he uses at any time. He never did. He has my email, obviously. I would take a look at them, and email back a suggested solution, for that's all it could be, for the various scripts and styles.
|
|
|
|
Tiger Lily
(K=10966) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
Joe,
Obviously to make the changes to the site layout you have to change the scripts that generate the HTML. But, you can assist the programmers even if you don't have the scripts by taking a sample page, making a copy, changing the HTML/CSS to fix the layout, then giving the programmer the before & after files. They can do
a "diff", see what needs to change and go edit the scripts.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
Lily - how did Admin Al react to the suggestions that you already sent him by email? which I guess was much the same. I get the sense that the layout was by FAR . . THE most important aspect of this 'upgrade' to the site owners. They wanted narrow. They got narrow. I also get the sense they want ole Joe to be grateful for it all, to be quiet, and go away. I could say like Radner's old SNL character - never mind. But it was just such an enjoyable site, for all those months. I felt that it encouraged me to try things for which I wouldn't have otherwise made the time. And as with anything, it's just difficult to see things slip away. Maybe someone needs to come up with a new approach to these photo critique and photo sharing sites. I don't know. I don't have the answer. I wish I did.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
That is an incorrect assumption, im happy to use our look in a full width format, and im not going to say it again.
Show me it can be done, you dont need the scripts, i will do the programming to make it fit the css, just generate the css as indicated if its possible.
All the information you need if you know what you are doing is right in front of you.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/18/2005
|
If i wanted you to go away, its one click to ban you and nuke your entire existence on usefilm, the fact im repeating myself is that I would like a solution that works for everyone.
So show me something that works and I'll make it happen. (REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT)
|
|
|
|
Tiger Lily
(K=10966) - Comment Date 12/19/2005
|
Joe,
I sent Al the changes needed for this page only (a simple case vs. other pages) and tested it only on IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.5.
On the layout, I agree that it feels a little cramped. The Ads and the background color are probably exacarbating the problem. I figure they will address these issues once they have a chance to work through any bugs or more serious problems they may be seeing.
|
|
|
|
Monique Marie
(K=457) - Comment Date 12/19/2005
|
even if there wasnt grey on the sides, i miss the old usefilm site
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/19/2005
|
What do you miss about it marie
|
|
|
|
Steve Hennerley
(K=5776) - Comment Date 12/21/2005
|
Al,
Since no-one else seems to have taken up the challenge, I have emailed you a page layout mod (based on the critique main page) to generate a dynamic sizing page that works cross-browser.
The 'floating' image frames are in there (which will change number of images across witht the screen size as it was on the old site)
The changes are not overly major - but if you need any aspects explaining then just give me a shout.
Obviously - I realise this is nowhere near the top of the bug list, but, hey, I had some spare time, and thought I'd put my daytime brain to use after hours... :)
Good luck Al and the team - looks like the bugs are getting fewer by the hour!!!!
|
|
|
|
Gustav Miller
(K=309) - Comment Date 12/21/2005
|
Before the upgrade it was just fine. Just return to the old concept.
|
|
|
|
dal mandle
(K=1484) - Comment Date 12/25/2005
|
I like the new look... a bit of change never hurt anyone... without changes society stagnates... I reckon there's lots of you out there that could use a good change in your life judging by this lot of piffle... get out of the house, get a life and have a Happy New Year :)
|
|
|
|
John Beavin
(K=4477) - Comment Date 12/25/2005
|
O K, so some of you are, for various reasons upset at the changes to usefilm, peronally I liked the old version but surely the administration know what they are doing, when it's up and running to their satisfaction will we be seeing some apologies? just give them time and a bit of encouragement. Nobody is perfect.
|
|
|
|
Alper Tecer
(K=7007) - Comment Date 12/26/2005
|
I hope the problem of screen & layout would be corrected soon. I cant get pleasure while seeing only 3 photos when I look thumbnails page. İf scroll half way, I can see at most 6 photos' thumbs on one page at the same time. The full screen F11 help nothing. This is very difficult and annoying problem especially navigating through thumbnails. Regards.
|
|
|
|
Wez
(K=14339) - Comment Date 12/29/2005
|
I gotta admit, i do much prefer the visual style of this new site, though the width issue does bother me some.
Ive stayed away a little bit due to the annoyances, waiting for the fellas to get everything straightened out.
All in all, im happy with the upgrade. Just lets get those bray side bars sorted at some point.
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 12/29/2005
|
We are fixing the major bugs that are left and then we are going to expand the thing to the full width
|
|
|
|
