 | | Re: traffic page changes? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) Sorry about that. I used ' instead of ' in a couple places. I forgot that ' is only valid in XML (as opposed to all versions of HTML) and Mozilla happened to display it correctly so I didn't even notice. Anyway thanks for reporting (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) OK so it wasn't an inadvertant layout change, then... what was wrong with the old layout? This one seems less polished somehow but without a side by side I can't quite put my finger on why. (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | (...) Has this page always had the nonstandard "newsgroup-only" search box? (URL) know I've seen it before somewhere, but I assumed it was a forgotten code relic from LUGNET's early days; I'm surprised to see it survived a reworking of the page. -- (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? (a 2nd error to report) —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | | | | I personally like the new traffic page layout. The old layout was outdated. The lugnet layout is very sterile IMHO. Anyway, I have another error report for you Todd: when traffic for the market.b-s-t forum is posted, because it line wraps, the whole (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? (a 2nd error to report) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Or use Dan Boger's code for "squeezing" group names 8?) ROSCO (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? (a 2nd error to report) —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | Same probelm with o-t.clone-brands Also, you may want this info, I am running IE 6.0.2 with 1024 X 768 Screen Resolution. and don't listen to the old-timers, the new page is great! :-) Jeremy (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? (a 2nd error to report) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Whoops, I forgot that Internet Explorer likes to break words at hyphens. See if it works better for you now. I added a 'NOWRAP' attribute in the <TD> tags. The reason it was never an issue before is because the three (actually six) columns (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? (a 2nd error to report) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I dunno - I end up with half the page empty, except for the paragraph you read only once. What if you took the "Past 60 minutes" column, and put it under that paragraph? Would that look too odd? Dan (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? (a 2nd error to report) —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | | | | | Yes, the whole page now works, but it is a bit small. As I said before, the new layout is very nice and it makes Lugnet look more up-to-date, I mean the old one looks like it is 5 years old (which it is!) I would give and few extra percent of space (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) (URL) it's a rilly old page. (...) Prolly here: (URL) but I assumed it was a forgotten code relic from LUGNET's early days; Yup! (...) The reason I didn't upgrade it the other day is because I've got a new header module in the works that does (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) We've been getting rid of that old Times Roman and converting things over gradually to Verdana over the years. It was also using drab brownish gray colored table backgrounds that didn't really add anything graphic-design-wise. I moved the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) My big suggestion: Put the intro para at the top again, right now you're wasting a lot of horizontal space farther down below it. Or if you MUST have it on the side, blowing a column, at least when you resize the page, don't resize just that (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Ok, let's try that. Howzit now? I moved the text back up to the top and also removed the bold title that I'd added yesterday. (...) Verdana was the main change I wanted to make, but perhaps got a bit carried away with simplification. How do (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) ...Or, alternatively, this: (URL) your thoughts... --Todd (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Either one works for me.... no strong preference. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | | This is a great, great compromise! Kudos! My only suggestion, other than this is way better than the gray version you have in the reply, is to align the "read once" paragraph to the edges of the three tables. Such as this: <table> <tr (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | | | | And also, for uniformity, why not make the imbeded tables that hold the post info a fixed size? I know I am just blabbing but this line is really a blab to add more to message. I need 10% of to be original. :-X ~Jeremy! (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I thought about doing that, but... wouldn't the free-flowing intro text want to take up the full width of the browser window, and cause the three columns to be unnaturally wide or far-spaced? I'm skeptical that it would render the way we (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Jeremy Scott
|
| | | | | | I have an easy answer, just put the width for the <td> to be width="100" and colspan to be the proper amount. This will make the cell very small, but when the remainder of the table is drawn, the cell will be forced to conform. Therefore, even (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: traffic page changes? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Big improvement, it behaves much more gracefully under resize now. (...) The font being bigger is a huge relief for me, I could not read the old one. I like this lots better. I have just one more suggestion and I'm done... lose the leading '.' (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
