|
Scaredy is the best cat.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
oohhboy posted:Are there anymore active websites that are still manually updated? I am reasonably certain that http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm uses no CMS and he dutifully copies new pages from a file named DEFAULT.HTM for every new lens or camera. That is however something that has pretty much disappeared; for so many things there are standardized formats, why bother doing something yourself? Musician’s websites can have only four links - Facebook, Soundcloud, Instagram and Twitter. Why bother with more pages if that’s enough? Cojawfee posted:I liked how spergs would be all "don't use tables for formatting." Then give us a way to do that without tables then. I still don't have a complete grasp of how to get CSS to do what I want. I usually get it close enough and give up. Hot take: Your design is likely garbage if you still need tables. All tricks that tables do - repeating backgrounds, automagically scaling - tended to work great for the time before mobile, and today’s rule is to develop mobile-first, because people will not install apps for your thing. In fact, a simple website with just one H1 tag and everything else in p tags will work absolutely great on mobile with a few adjustments for text size, far better than a table based monstrosity that shows off a really great 2003-era grunge design. So get Bootstrap and use that and that will inform your aesthetic as well. Also, the idea is to indeed get close enough and then give up. People working purely in Photoshop have no business demanding pixel perfect copies, they’re not front-end developers. 10 years ago I still had to design and write CSS besides doing my actual job of writing serverside stuff. Nowadays bigger projects use a CSS compiler like SASS and that poo poo is moon language to me so you’re not alone and I can sympathize if you have to do it all by yourself (I guess that’s sort of being a tech relic too  ). Luckily there are some good books on CSS and responsive design like https://ethanmarcotte.comThe thing with “don’t use tables, ok, but what then?” Is impossible to answer with an alternative because people were doing a fuckton of ridiculous poo poo with tables. If you need anything specific, specify what you want to do, and “stop trying this bullshit in the first place” is also a valid answer. Those “spergs” like Zeldman etc had to make that poo poo up and research it as they were going but they knew that the status quo was garbage. tl;dr: Hell is other browsers. Laserjet 4P has a new favorite as of 01:00 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
My grandmother still feeds her Dogz dog to this day. Bless you, Buddy. 1997 - ?????
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Did you manage to get it running on a modern OS, or is she just running Windows 98 or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Another old web design method were sliced and diced images with hotspots. The notion being you could design elaborate looking websites that weren't constrained by squares and if it needed to be updated, simply change the graphics and spit out a new series of images. It also tried to "save space" by making every image 5kb each. You used programs like Fireworks to lay out elaborate images with over and click states that then were processed out into little pieces complete with HTML code that didn't play nice with anything else you coded in afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Another old web design method were sliced and diced images with hotspots. Was this a thing because client-side image-maps weren't supported by all browsers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:Was this a thing because client-side image-maps weren't supported by all browsers? Other uses were also attempts to protect images from being saved. The notion being no one would bother saving 30 individual squares and then reassemble. As SEO stuff came into play it was found out that these image heavy sites could not be easily indexed. Also in the case of designing for people with disabilities, they could not work at all with programs that read out text. Not too sure if alt tags worked. Other issues were that this early attempt of rich media lead to mystery meat navigation, where you had to hover over something to reveal the menu item as there was a bit of an early design movement of websites being "immersive experiences" that people had to explore. Of course much of the bad bad design habits dripped straight into Flash, which in 1999 was seen as hot poo poo as HTML still wasn't really able look decent without a ton of horrid java script.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Keith Atherton posted:I remember back in like 1996 at Microsoft I was the UX design lead for Outlook and got tasked with mocking up some "skinned" versions of Outlook. "What if it was more web-like or game-like?" I've been doing mobile dev for ~6 years and even in my career I've noticed a marked shift in the relationship between engineering teams and product/ux teams, I think as an industry I think we're still figuring the optimal dynamic out (and ux has only truly come into its own validly recognized discrete discipline in the past few years imo) Stories like this from the 90s make me want to hang myself
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
The hot garbage that was Microsoft's export to html in the early 2000s was a big reason why I started using OpenOffice by preference. I had to convert a lot of PowerPoint slideshows made by other people into online content, and trying to use Microsoft's native export tool resulted in not only absolutely hosed html but also fuckoff huge .bmp image files instead of something rational. I still ended up having to write a lot of the pages by hand, but at least OpenOffice actually gave me some useful tools rather than Microsoft's weird bloated monstrosity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Powerpoint was a common website planning tool as you were able to get any well meaning person to throw together some sort of working mockup of the site, usually with no thought for design just blocks of bullet points stating what they wanted on there with 5mb .bmp images scanned off press packets to illustrate. The worst were clients demanding a 1:1 pixel recreation of Photoshop or PowerPoint mockups. The best web-map I had delivered was a CAD file. They'd drawn up the whole map in AutoCAD and we could only open it up in 3DS Max and had to zoom around the sketch and re-draw what they'd given us on paper as we'd needed an A0 printer to get it out in a readable scale. So much web design in my days was highly constricted by creating something that was accessible across different desktops and resolutions and internet speeds. For example Flash websites had to be 800x600 as you designed for "office systems" that would be locked into fixed resolutions. You got around this by flash having scalable elements. Australia had (and still has) horrid internet where 56K was your operating baseline, even well into 2007. With Flash being dejour till the iPhone killed it, you were forced to do all sorts of bullshit in the backend to get a media rich website running and loaded under 10 seconds. Before Apple moved to Intel you also had to contend with PowerPC and Flash hating each other something fierce. Having no real way to work out a person's system specs I once resorted to coding up a timer race where if it lost chunks of the site would switch into low quality mode so flash video would play back nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
I just want to be like everyone else and have everything break in half all the time and be angry at Microsoft or some other company over a thing. I just want to have hate in my heart rather than my poo poo mostly or completely working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Laserjet 4P posted:and today’s rule is to develop mobile-first, because people will not install apps for your thing. Looking at you, imgur.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
HEY THIS FORUM SUPPORTS TAPATALK YOU TOTALLY WANT TO INSTALL THAT poo poo RIGHT HERE LET ME AUTOMATICALLY REDIRECT YOU TO THE APP STORE
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
I use this website a lot before I get gas http://www.wisconsingasprices.com/ All I fuckin want on the phone is my city or current area listed cheapest first. But no, it has to go all YO YOU WANT THE APP? and hey guess what it sucks too. Always check show desktop site. I have a similar experience trying to look up if CVS or Walgreens has Arizona drinks on sale this week, such a waste of fuckin time that I'm better off just driving to the fuckin store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
News website that you only visited because you clicked a link on Twitter would like to send you notifications. [Allow] [Deny]
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Mak0rz posted:
Ftfy
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
I reinstalled Windows and all of the same drivers as before and this time it magically works.  Good ol' DLL Hell.Hell yes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
A FUCKIN CANARY!! posted:I reinstalled Windows and all of the same drivers as before and this time it magically works. That fuckin' wallpaper brings back memories 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Australia had (and still has) horrid internet where 56K was your operating baseline, even well into 2007. With Flash being dejour till the iPhone killed it, you were forced to do all sorts of bullshit in the backend to get a media rich website running and loaded under 10 seconds. I made a website for a Real Estate company (quite a large one) completely in Macromedia Director. I was (am) an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Lest we forget Shockwave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Was I not supposed to use Dreamweaver for websites?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Was I not supposed to use Dreamweaver for websites? It was fine as a code editor and asset manager kinda thing, I never used much of the autogenerated functionality. I guess most people did though 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
hmm yes this should be fine
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
I'm just glad we have Adobe Muse these days. Just... don't look at the code, please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
I seem to remember that the last few editions of the Netscape Communicator suite had a pretty decent WYSIWYG-editor that wrote perfectly fine code. I know I used it for a bunch of my edgy teen websites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Netscape Gold had the WYSIWYG editor and pretty much everyone declares themselves a "webmaster" with <hr> breaking down chunks of their endless scrolling gif parade against clashing tiled backdrops and blinking titles in shock red times new roman. (Today we call this snowfall design.) And every novice having their site break because all links point to drive directories. There also used to be some free early CMS style site makers like Freespace, which is still around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Laserjet 4P posted:All tricks that tables do - repeating backgrounds, automagically scaling - tended to work great for the time before mobile, and today’s rule is to develop mobile-first, because people will not install apps for your thing. In fact, a simple website with just one H1 tag and everything else in p tags will work absolutely great on mobile with a few adjustments for text size, far better than a table based monstrosity that shows off a really great 2003-era grunge design. Yes! quote:So get Bootstrap and use that and that will inform your aesthetic as well. NO! gently caress bootstrap. The only thing worse than bootstrap websites are Wix/Squarespace clones of Bootstrap websites. I miss the days when websites actually had their own style, even if it was a little clunky. http://adventurega.me/bootstrap/
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Yes! you know bootstrap is just a framework right none of the bootstrap sites or tools I've built look anything like that garbage style
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I wish more web site administrators would realize this. No, I'm not going to install your garbage app to get a "better experience", and if you start limiting your web site functionality on mobile in an attempt to push me towards the app, it will only make me dislike you and push me away from your service altogether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I made a website for a Real Estate company (quite a large one) completely in Macromedia Director. I was (am) an idiot. I'm not sure if it would be fair to call yourself an idiot over it, it was a popular tool. On the other hand, gently caress you and your plugin  Sorry sir, this is the tech relics thread, why are you posting the very definition of a modern website? Admittedly someone convinced me to use bootstrap once (the only time I touched it) for an internal tool that almost nobody was going to see. If they hadn't done that it would have looked more like babby's first HTML written in Notepad, so I guess it's sometimes better than nothing. Dr. Quarex posted:I imagine those of us who basically would rather not use something than be forced to install a special program on our phones just to do something easy to do in a desktop browser ... well, we are probably the tiny minority. Even though I cannot for the life of me understand how people behave any other way. We're idiots for tiring ourselves out fighting against the current instead of just going with the flow. Just give up. Install all the garbage apps. Dehumanize and face to notifications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:
I feel the same way about Web 2.0 with the fanciest of JavaScript. There are just so many now and they all have different ways of how to use them to the fullest extent. Like one is CSS focused while another builds the CSS for you. It's confused out there now but people just throw things out like yo grundle your react after building with npm the requirements
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Was I not supposed to use Dreamweaver for websites? Shockwave vs Flash was an interesting battle. Shockwave was the defacto multimedia creating program in the 90's so almost every CD-ROM then would have "Made with Macromedia" stamped on the back cover. Flash was an animation program that had some basic interface options. On click, goto frame X or or Scene Y. It wasn't meant for much more than basic animated presentations, but someone managed to make a Pinball game in Flash 2. It was picked up really early on by Disney and The Simpsons as being a way to express their brand with decent animations as the vector graphics allowed for high quality graphics in 1997. John Kricfalusi made The Goddam George Liquor Show which no doubt inspired many to animate. You also had stuff like this which pretty much set the standard for Flash based websites for the first few years. It also had a much smaller plugin size than Shockwave so as it's features increased, such as Action Script moving away from a LINGO-esque script into something more fully fledged, it quickly took over. Also the plugin was soon bundled with Windows and later Macromedia paid for Netscape to integrate it as their plugin support was notoriously flaky as they'd effectively given up on anything but Javascript. Flash with the use of third party software was able to be used for CD/USB presentations. It had one small advantage that unlike Director you didn't have to bundle up everything into an executable but simply had the player in a Mac or PC format with common assets being shared. But the downside that web-based plugins and the security risk of Active-X stuff soon meant you had to ship out stuff with an FAQ to get it working as people could not run things on office systems. BogDew has a new favorite as of 02:26 on Nov 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
There were full-price retail games that ran on the Macromedia Director web plugin wrapped in an .exe I had some point-and-click adventure game, and when I ran a ccleaner-like program that cleared my web browser cache, all my save games were deleted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
I worked at the warehouse that used to assemble and ship all the Macromedia software so I got all of them for $20 a piece. Shockwave was a whole lot more powerful as it was more of a programming language. Flash probably took off due to it being more of an animation package so it didn't really need a whole lot of expertise and forethought. I never really could get into either, but I took a liking to Dreamweaver's partner in crime, Fireworks. Fireworks is really a relic, but it was amazing at the time for being able to manipulate images into what could be used effectively on websites when a 56k was top of the line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
I've never been completely clear on why the browser plugin used to be called Shockwave Flash. Did some of the capabilities get merged into Flash at some point, or was it just really idiotic branding? If I wanted to view both Flash and Shockwave content, would I need to install plugins for both Shockwave Flash and... Shockwave Shockwave?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
A FUCKIN CANARY!! posted:I've never been completely clear on why the browser plugin used to be called Shockwave Flash. Did some of the capabilities get merged into Flash at some point, or was it just really idiotic branding? If I wanted to view both Flash and Shockwave content, would I need to install plugins for both Shockwave Flash and... Shockwave Shockwave? Shooting from the hip here but Flash was originally a thing called FutureSplash from a company called FutureWave, that Macromedia bought rather than trying to compete head to head. They rebranded it in an effort to obscure the technology's origins, and then Macromedia's flagship Director and Shockwave products died out leaving oddball upstart Flash the key prize for Adobe to buy, leading to pointless confusion that lasts to this day. See also why JavaScript is called JavaScript, even though it has nothing to do with Java, and to this day people dealing with clueless recruiters have to do this dance around "Wait, it says here you know Java..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
A FUCKIN CANARY!! posted:I've never been completely clear on why the browser plugin used to be called Shockwave Flash. Did some of the capabilities get merged into Flash at some point, or was it just really idiotic branding? If I wanted to view both Flash and Shockwave content, would I need to install plugins for both Shockwave Flash and... Shockwave Shockwave? All of the Macromedia Software was designed to be interlinked in one fashion or another. I suspect that Flash used some Shockwave for the background non-animation parts of a Flash animation. I was never really able to get the hang of either so it's only speculation on my part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Flash and Shockwave were separate. Neither really shared features. Despite basic similarities like timeline based elements. Flash was an acquisition in the early 90s that wasn't really meant to be adopted for interactive content. Flash was meant to be an vector animator / gif creator. The only way to have an animation then was a gif or Quicktime video. It was sort of a step up from DHTML and had the advantage of using embedded sound, which early adopters took advantage of. Meanwhile Shockwave had cemented it's reputation for more complex things like games with 3D graphics and even Havok physics, so it had the tech edge in every aspect. Bottom line was Macromedia saw Flash was being quickly adopted as a medium for the web as it was simple to use (version 2/3) and so paid to have the plugin put into XP and Netscape paving the way for rapid market adoption. It also was a smaller download that helped on 28/56k speeds. Director was much bigger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
I kinda miss the old Shockwave.com. Used to waste some hours watching Radiskull and whatever back in 2000. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoC-J2iVnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg9VOBdk87o Then the dot-com crash came and took it away. Well, at least Shockwave is still alive and kicking under Adobe. http://www.adobe.com/products/shockwaveplayer.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
I kinda miss the days before High Speed Internet Penetration and YouTube, back then you had a barrier to entry on content creation. Now anyone can for practically free, and we all know how well that's been turning out the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 15:14
|
|