C-130 accident

If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.


It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Morgans" wrote

Let me fix my sig line, to the right place.

"Newps" wrote

So if you're dumb enough to use IE

This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here. Why do you bother
with this type of thing? Does it make you feel better about yourself to
run
other people down?

I was taught to live by the expression of, "If you don't have anything good
to say, don't say anything." Please consider following that. It will make
everyone around you feel better.
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
says...
If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.


It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

ok, agreed - bad example. But surely you get the point.

..jpg's are a must for many images - but they don't support tranparency.
So if you want to blend an image into the background - ya better set the
background.

Just pretend there's no text in that image if you like.

--
Duncan

In article ,
says...
If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.


It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

I've just found an example page for you - not the best, as it *nearly*
works (nearly gets away with it) - due to that there's basically no
pictures on the page. Check the Google button down the bottom though,
and the Newsletter links table at top right (even the Google adbar at
top for that matter).

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/65.htm

(Interesting review on Microsoft Antispyware BTW - which is why I read
it).

--
Duncan

So if you're dumb enough to use IE

This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here.

Talk about "railing against the machine." According to my website stats, a
mere 4% of the people hitting our site use a browser other than Internet
Explorer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article AYuEd.84506$k25.55352@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

So if you're dumb enough to use IE

This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here.

Talk about "railing against the machine." According to my website stats, a
mere 4% of the people hitting our site use a browser other than Internet
Explorer.

do you realize that some browsers can be configured to report being
a different browser? This is done because way too many websites are
designed by idiots who insist that the site be viewed only by IE.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

.jpg's are a must for many images - but they don't support tranparency.
So if you want to blend an image into the background - ya better set the
background.

That's my issue - the idea that "blending an image into the
background" is the way web sites (should) work. With printed matter
you have full control, but web pages are not printed matter. Blending
an image into the background is usually just a nicety which should not
be =imposed on= (but rather, just suggested to) the browser.

Just pretend there's no text in that image if you like.

I'm quite happy to see a little white frame around an image rather
than have it blend, so long as the main part of the page respects my
background color choice, which if made is surely made with good reason.

I've just found an example page for you - not the best, as it *nearly*
works (nearly gets away with it) - due to that there's basically no
pictures on the page. Check the Google button down the bottom though,
and the Newsletter links table at top right (even the Google adbar at
top for that matter).

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/65.htm

I have no trouble whatsoever with the white around the google button.
In fact, it makes it stand out as a separate element rather than
be seamlessly and mysteriously integrated into the page, where its
function is less evident.

Web pages are not works of art, and are not supposed to be.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I waited a while to post this.

Computers are tools or toys. In normal life, not everyone needs a
framing hammer or a ball-peen hammer and most don't know the difference
between one claw-type and another. The same holds true of computers and
their SCPs (System Control Program or O/S).

Most people are completely unaware that they have options as to
browsers. Some don't know that they don't have to use anything that M/S
produces.

While I might take a swipe at M/S from time to time, I realize that
most people want things to work right out of the box. If it weren't for
me being the IT guy here where I am, IE would be the browser used. But
because I was able to get Netscape to work with that clicky thing, and
Eudora met all their needs for email, those M/S products don't get
used.

Just wait until I finish configuring the Linux KDE system and get all
the Office products working under Linux...
Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:57:04 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Talk about "railing against the machine." According to my website stats, a
mere 4% of the people hitting our site use a browser other than Internet
Explorer.

this is only about 35% here on one of my sites.

#m

--
http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg