Alan Douglas wrote:
Hi,


http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html


From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.

73, Alan

Time to replace a few 01As in that old-timey browser, huh Alan?

It doesn't render all that smoothly for me but I'm not sure why not. I
think it has something to do with the large gif file being constricted
rather than resized beforehand which would speed up loading and
possibility eliminate the poor edging on the text.

-Bill M

From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

Ron

It's just fine with me once I helped get the semantics and spelling fixed.
I'm not going to nitpick about the "gap" in the box on the right side where
the background unexplainedly shows between the text panel and the border. I
think it's an interesting subject and hope you'll add to it soon. Reed Park
and I think Lou G. want to add test equipment items to it and would be happy
to talk to you. I think it has a lot of potential good use. Thanks for
pointing it out to us!
"Ron, KC4YOY" wrote in message
. com...

From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

Ron

Ron, KC4YOY wrote:


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

Ron


Here's the same image after some tinkering....50k file size instead of
298k and it looks better to me.
http://www.sparkbench.com/CBtext1revised.gif

Not a problem for me, just a point of discussion.

Two things occur to me, Ron. First, only about 50% of web subscribers
are using 'broadband' in the US, and certainly less in the rest of the
world. So it still behooves one to opt for download time preference
where it is possible and its a no-brainer if the quality can be better
in the process.

Secondly, the format you are using constricts the image into a 'frame'
and on a common 800x600 monitor thats resulting in about 50%
compression. Might not look so bad on a 1024-wide format. Things like
this always look better when blowing upwards as opposed to downwards.
800x600 still seems to be the norm these days.

"What-you-see-isnt-always-what-you-get" when it comes to folks with
different internet connections, different size monitors, etc. I looked
at the home page in both Netscape 7 (Mozilla) and IE. In my Netscape
the "From a 1941 catalog..." is spilling outside of the box. Not a
biggie but you can see the implications with some of the IE-only webpage
designs. Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might
not work with others. No need for things to be that way when a page can
be made to work correctly on all browsers.

Regards,
Bill M

Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might not work
with others.

On Homestead you either optimize for Nutscape or I.E..
I use I.E., which do you think I'm going to pick.

Ron

Just finish it. If somebodies' browser ***** it up maybe they'll be smart
and read the INFORMATION instead of groaning about the format. I was pleased
to help. Nobody ever built their webpages based on anything! I have ever
said or done : )

"Ron, KC4YOY" wrote in message
. com...

Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might not work
with others.

On Homestead you either optimize for Nutscape or I.E..
I use I.E., which do you think I'm going to pick.

Ron

Ron, KC4YOY wrote:
Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might not work

with others.

On Homestead you either optimize for Nutscape or I.E..
I use I.E., which do you think I'm going to pick.

Ron

Thats all well and good but the fact that you use IE doesn't restrict
you to webpage creation software that only works correctly for IE.
Its really a generic thing, not a matter of optimizing for one or the
other. Out of the 3 or 4 billion pages showing on Google only a small
fraction are "only works properly with IE". I've never seen a page that
"only works with Netscape".
Generic is best or we wouldn't be dragging out this thread.

-Bill M

Here's the same image after some tinkering....50k file size instead of
298k and it looks better to me.
http://www.sparkbench.com/CBtext1revised.gif


Bill, I used it, looks great, thanks a bunch.
I've also added some more stuff, check it out.
http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html

Ron

Ron, KC4YOY wrote:

Bill, I used it, looks great, thanks a bunch.
I've also added some more stuff, check it out.
http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html

Ron

Glad it helped.

-Bill

Here's the same image after some tinkering....50k file size instead of
298k and it looks better to me.
http://www.sparkbench.com/CBtext1revised.gif


Bill, explain to me what you did to get it so small.
I'm sure I'll need to do again for some future page.
I have some Clough-Brengle catalog pages that
I'd like to put on, but the scans are more than 2 meg.
and still are hard to read the small text.

Thanks,

Ron
http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html