In comp.os.linux.advocacy, flatfish+++
<flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:20:14 -0500
<8vwmh.18$vX6.0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:57:23 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, flatfish+++
>> <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:09:41 -0500
>> <2Dxjh.1724$h21.946@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 10:09:09 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mget
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Movie Get aims to be a simple console script allowing a user to
>>>> | download embeded movies from various video hosting services. It uses
>>>> | common *nix programs to download the file and convert it from flv to
>>>> | mpg format... 22.12.2006 - mget 1.10 released
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://green.kom.pl/~mget/
>>>
>>> "Movie Get aims to be a simple console script"
>>>
>>> It fails.............
>>>
>>> Also, that has to be one of the worst looking web pages I have ever seen.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. All webpages nowadays must use:
>
> Snip a bunch of stuff I have no idea about.....
Oh come now; surely you can see popup menus being a plus. :-)
>
> Actually I prefer a simple website, but one that is easy on the eyes.
>
> I happen to feel that Roy Schestowitz's site is an example of what I would
> call a very well, actually, extremely well done website.
I have a few nitpicks. Part of it might be Galeon, but
there's some behavior which is a little peculiar-looking.
(The fact that W3C validates it is a nice plus.)
[1] I'm assuming that the top left area refers to some
sort of pulldown menu. However, I'm seeing no menu,
just a flyover somewhere below the text. This flyover
is visually disconnected from the text, which might be
a problem for screenshots; however, the actual moving of
the mouse makes it obvious enough.
[2] Alt/A, Alt/C, Alt/F and ALT/S simply do not work.
At best, Alt/A seems to select everything.
[3] Error 80040154 in IE. Granted, IE is schlock anyway,
but there might be something in line 26, char 3 -- I'd have
to dig. W3C validation does not include Javascript,
presumably. Best I can pin it down is somewhere in
DoNextFade(), assuming I'm even looking at the right place.
Mozilla doesn't seem to have this particular problem,
though it complains about "opacity" and "filter" in its
error console.
[4] The page uses an embedded style sheet, a concept I
dislike simply because one cannot edit the style without
also editing the page. However, it also uses a <link>
construct, so Roy's apparently splitting the middle here;
I suspect a fair number of websites do that (including my
employer's, as it turns out).
[5] The "Happy New Year" banner confusingly displays popups
inviting one to "view gallery". Worse, the popups respond
in a very peculiar manner if one attempts to mouse over
them; basically, they flicker. I'll give Roy good points
for more or less properly positioning both the RSS link
button and the "Happy New Year" banner (although the latter
tends to overlap the former if one compresses the page too
much; there's probably not a lot anyone can do about that).
[6] The styles are a little inconsistent within the
weblog; the "Search All Entries" does not, for instance,
highlight mouseovers using a hatch pattern, whereas the
calendar does, with a flyover. (It's worth noting that
apart from the loss of the "Inconvenient Truth promo" --
which is a video anyway and therefore Dillo isn't expected
to handle it -- and the movement of much of the sidebar
to the bottom, Dillo works. However, there's a few weird
characters that show up in Dillo, plus three unexplained
horizontal lines.)
Whether all this is significant or not is in the eye
of the beholder. My website is far cruder in general
construction and style (mostly because I've not updated
it in a coon's age). :-)
>
> It has all the basics (contact information etc) on the first page and it
> is easy on the eyes as well as having a overall very professional look to
> it.
It does look nice, from a visual standpoint.
>
> One of his clients websites is another example although I'm not sure if
> Roy did the design itself or just maintains the site.
>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
