OT-Killing Pop-ups as a webmaster

Doug Vetter wrote in news:muMtb.19345$YZ2.6250949
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

1) Go get a copy of Dreamweaver. You owe it to yourself AND the people
who will visit your site.

http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/

Doug, I agree that Dreamweaver makes better and more consistently
accessible web pages. I'd also consider, however, whether the user is a
casual web writer or someone that does it for a living or supports some
organization. I, personally, am a Dreamweaver MX user.

When asked, I recommend that people shy away from MS Front Page unless
they are certain that MSIE is the only browser which will access the
site. Microsoft has a habit of hooking into their own code segments
which may not exist in other corresponding competitive programs. On the
otherhand, I also suggest that they stay away from Dreamweaver unless
they have the time to learn it, a reason to spend the money, and the need
for the bells and whistles.

There are several web page authoring programs (some free and some
shareware) which I've heard do an adequate job of web creation. Folks
might want to check http://download.com.com/

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...

Well, Bill, despite Peter's (and others) elitist attitudes toward building
a
web page, this ain't rocket science. Microsoft FrontPage -- for all of
its quirks -- is head and shoulders above any other web editor I've tried,
for ease of use.

Sure, you can go with Dreamweaver for more "power" -- if you've got a few
weeks of your life to devote to something as stupid as learning a new
program. Nowadays, with PCs as powerful as mainframes once were, there is
simply no reason for a program to be anything but naked-butt simple to
use. If it's NOT, that's indicative of poor programming design, IMHO.

I understand (and agree) that learning to use new software can be a pain. In
this case however there is a different issue involved besides whose
software is better.

It is certainly in your best interests to produce web pages that conform to
standards. By settling for "good enough" you ignore a growing trend of
people using alternatives to MS software. Many people are opting to run
other browsers on MS not to mention other OS's (Linux, Mac) altogether.

I use Mozilla (or Konquerer) on Linux. As a result I encounter many sites
that do not conform and are therefore unavailable to me. If it's something
like the video clips you link to it's not too big of a deal, although I
would like to view them. But if I'm trying to make travel plans then your
place is skipped and we both lose. (Fortunately I am able to see most of
your site without trouble. Besides, if I ever have to travel in your neck
of the woods I won't need a browser to book a room.)

On more of a philosophical note, the internet works because users and
providers _cooperate_ on protocols. Tolerance of non-conforming sites hurts
us all. I submit that one cannot continue to _knowingly_ publish
non-conforming pages and be a good internet 'citizen'.


--
Frank....H

I find it fascinating that you say:

On more of a philosophical note, the internet works because users and
providers _cooperate_ on protocols. Tolerance of non-conforming sites
hurts
us all.

Yet admit:

I use Mozilla (or Konquerer) on Linux. As a result I encounter many sites
that do not conform and are therefore unavailable to me.

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because of
YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
illogical.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Just returned to Minnesota, after a visit to Iowa City.
(Lots of nice stuff snipped)

*blush* Thanks, man.

Jay's (3 story x 3 buildings) Inn is much, much nicer than it appears in
the
web photos.

Okay, NOW we're on to some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism here. What, exactly do
you mean by that?

If you mean the photos suck, I agree with you. I have struggled to take
pictures in our suites that "capture" their spaciousness and the "feeling"
you get in them, to no avail. Because you simply can't "back up" far enough
to take in an entire room, I can't seem to take a photo that really "works".

One promising option: I just purchased a new Canon FS400, which came with
some nifty software for "stitching" several photos together. (A crude first
try can be seen at http://alexisparkinn.com/renovation.htm ) This
certainly helps with that "looking through a tube" feeling of most interior
photos, but it's far from perfect.

Stitching is the only reasonably simple, easy, cheap option (there's
also perfectly good free software available that'll work with photos
from any camera). Wide-angle shots are the achilles heel of consumer
digital (and even a bit of a problem in many of the professional
cameras). For stuff that holds still, and where you can take your
time taking the photos, there's not really any downside to stitching.
Luckily your suites hold still, so you should be able to get somewhat
better images (I didn't think the images you have posted were bad
enough to comment on; but then I haven't seen the original, maybe
they're worse than I think :-)).

In wideangle work, and especially in architectural photography, you
need to get *really* anal about setting the camera level (or learn how
to correct it later). I've actually got a level I can put in my
"flash" shoe; but most of the time I just line up the edges of the
frame with various vertical lines, and get it level enough that way.

Lots of the photos really need brightness and contrast adjustment,
too. And I just noticed, looking at photos of the Red Baron suite,
that you seem to be somehow using 300k for a quality of image I can
generally provide with only 60k; that would make a *big* difference to
people on dial-up connections. (And those photos would really benefit
from being shot level, too.)

I know there are a billion competing demands for your money and your
time, but I'd suggest you either spend the money on some professional
photography (or at least on some professional photoshop work on
existing pictures), or else spend some time improving your own
photoshop skills some. If you can find someone local who's good, they
can teach you enough in a couple of hours to do the basic
brightness/contrast corrections pretty well, and that alone will make
a *big* difference, and not cost too much.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

In article d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because
of
YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
illogical.

not exactly. A website, by definition, claims to comply with the
HTML standards. A browser, by definition, is able to render HTML.
If a compliant browser can't properly display a webpage because
the site has invalid HTML, the fault lies with the site.

The whole point of the www is to move away from closed systems
and properitary software. The point is to move to platform
independance.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you
because
of
YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
illogical.

not exactly. A website, by definition, claims to comply with the
HTML standards. A browser, by definition, is able to render HTML.


If a compliant browser can't properly display a webpage because
the site has invalid HTML, the fault lies with the site.

Valid by whose definition, W3C? The guidelines they come out with are
interpreted so differently by companies like Microsoft and Netscape that
it's hard to define valid :-)


The whole point of the www is to move away from closed systems
and properitary software. The point is to move to platform
independance.

--
Bob Noel

In wideangle work, and especially in architectural photography, you
need to get *really* anal about setting the camera level (or learn how
to correct it later). I've actually got a level I can put in my
"flash" shoe; but most of the time I just line up the edges of the
frame with various vertical lines, and get it level enough that way.

Interesting. Photos that Mary takes are always (and I mean ALWAYS) three
degrees "off" to one side or the other. Using Photoshop I always have to
"rotate" the photo back to level.

We figure it's something to do with her eyes. (Probably why she can't hit a
baseball, either...)

Lots of the photos really need brightness and contrast adjustment,
too. And I just noticed, looking at photos of the Red Baron suite,
that you seem to be somehow using 300k for a quality of image I can
generally provide with only 60k; that would make a *big* difference to
people on dial-up connections. (And those photos would really benefit
from being shot level, too.)

Yeah, I've learned a lot about down-sizing photos since then. Take a gander
at the Amelia Earhart Suite, and see if the photos aren't more properly
sized?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:5a5ub.221622$HS4.1934129@attbi_s01...

If you mean the photos suck, I agree with you. I have struggled to take
pictures in our suites that "capture" their spaciousness and the "feeling"
you get in them, to no avail. Because you simply can't "back up" far
enough
to take in an entire room, I can't seem to take a photo that really
"works".



I take a lot of real estate photos and a wide angle (not fisheye) lens is a
must. I use the Nikon Coolpix 5000 with wide adapter but anything similar
should do the job. See if anyone you know has something like that and
borrow it. Perhaps a local realtor might have one? If I were in that area
I would shoot it for you but, alas, no current plans.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03...

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because
of
YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
illogical.
--


Please send this to Bill Gates. This is JUST what he wants to hear! He
will be so happy!

Make products which claim to be compliant with standards (yet don't) but
that only really work together, then claim that everyone else is at fault
and it's not your problem, then boost prices in every market you become a
monopoly in.


Let me put this another way, related to aviation. Bill Gates decides he
will now build airplanes. So he buys several manufacturers and engine
suppliers. He then claims big improvements can be made if he had a special
additive in fuel. Unfortunately this additive corrodes the fuel systems of
older, non-compliant planes. No matter, it's optional. Most planes can be
retrofitted for it, but the older engines still don't run that well on it.
Now, Bill's planes are indeed good and he sells lots of them. Enough, in
fact, that he buys an oil company and has that company specialize in this
custom fuel. He sells it at a very low price, further enhancing the appeal
of his planes. His fuel company also sells regular avgas at very low
prices. Other oil companies decide the aviation market is too small to
fight for, so start dropping out. Bill's oil company ends up with 90% of
the market. Then he decides to start phasing in the additive and only
supplying fuel with it.

YOUR problem, dude; it's your plane that uses the "nonstandard" fuel.

(I know, terrible analogy, but still fun to think up and type)
Peter

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
news
(I know, terrible analogy, but still fun to think up and type)

It IS a terrible analogy. I found myself reading it, thinking to myself
"well, as long as the airplanes and fuel are less expensive that way and
just as safe, I could live with that."

A slightly (only slightly) better analogy might be the highway system.
Suppose those in charge of maintaining the highway system decided that,
since there are vehicles available that can handle pot-holes up to two feet
across, that they should not bother to fix pot-holes that large, even though
many vehicles on the road cannot safely negotiate pot-holes that large, or
may even be damaged by pot-holes that large.

(Analogy mapping: the highway is the Internet, the pot-holes are the
deviations from the HTML "standard", such as it is, and the vehicles are the
browsers. )

Anyway, it IS silly to blame a browser just because it cannot process
invalid HTML code. A great many programs are written to be "fault
tolerant", but the fact that they are fault tolerant doesn't mean that the
faults should be considered acceptable.

On the other hand, while Front Page is a great way to write incorrect HTML,
it also does what it's supposed to reasonably well. If someone doesn't care
about his web site not being viewable by some subset of the Internet
population, I see no reason that person should not feel free to use Front
Page as they see fit.

Pete