|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:14 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:25 pm
...i don't get it read the first part then i just got really confused whats it actually about?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:21 pm
renlok ...i don't get it read the first part then i just got really confused whats it actually about? It's about bad design decisions arty websites make. He forgot "use a tiny font" and "if you include anything useful in the , make it so long that nobody will ever find it". Oh wait, I guess he doesn't want to say his own site sucks.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:59 am
Quote: As long as you’re coding, make sure your site is Internet Explorer specific. You don’t want any bums using Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, OmniWeb, UNIX, LINUX or a Mac to access your site. If they can’t get a real computer, they should get lost. LMFAO, IE sucks. same goes for windows.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:28 pm
I agree with most of the article, but what's so bad about watermarking your images? People can and do steal images all the time online and try to pass them off as their own.
(On the other hand, I laugh when people watermark photos of themselves on personals sites. Very few of those people are attractive enough to merit stealing their photos. biggrin )
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:02 pm
I think this article wasn't written recently. Yeah, I agree with it on some points. The Quote that was highlighted by Renlok is totally false. Sure IE supports little more detailing, but FireFox and Opera are still wayyyyyy better than IE will ever be. No matter how many updates they go through. Take a look at it now. FireFox is on it's 2nd version. While dear old Internet Explorer is on it's 7th.
And another thing. If you are going to tell me that this thing was written a couple of months or so, ago. Listen here: The internet is becoming bigger and changing as each day goes by. It wasn't the same as a month ago. Maybe is was bad watermarking your images. Now, to protect images, I suggest you do. Though, make it a corner. I still want to see brilliant pictures and art.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:24 am
Chiea I think this article wasn't written recently. Yeah, I agree with it on some points. The Quote that was highlighted by Renlok is totally false. Sure IE supports little more detailing, but FireFox and Opera are still wayyyyyy better than IE will ever be. No matter how many updates they go through. Take a look at it now. FireFox is on it's 2nd version. While dear old Internet Explorer is on it's 7th. Did you even look at the article before commenting? If you did, you would have seen that it was written at the end of May, and that all of its suggestions -- including the one about Internet Explorer -- were sarcastic. After all, the name of the article is "How Not to Display Your Artwork on the Web."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:42 pm
That made me laugh, as I've seen it all way too many times.
I was guilty of a few of them myself years ago, I've grown wiser since, heh.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:04 pm
railrider I agree with most of the article, but what's so bad about watermarking your images? People can and do steal images all the time online and try to pass them off as their own. (On the other hand, I laugh when people watermark photos of themselves on personals sites. Very few of those people are attractive enough to merit stealing their photos. biggrin ) Yes, I don't agree about not watermarking images. I suppose it does take away some of the appeal, but I would rather do that than allow others to steal. I guess the idea of writing everything in reverse is creative, but I don't agree with everything.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:09 pm
That is brilliant! I laughed my a** off!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:40 pm
Nnnnnnnnecro post!
Flash intros ... I used to use a really cool flash intro ... some hand animated animation. Might have to dig it out and shove it on my nostalgia page hehe.
Yeah, I really did bring this thread back to life to say that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:33 am
I laughed so hard I had to use the bathroom. This is the perfect way to get people laughing. That is, if they have a sense of humor. It's amazing how somebody can act so serious, while they're being so funny. Incredible! What I want to know is how the HECK did you find this?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:25 am
Chiea I think this article wasn't written recently. Yeah, I agree with it on some points. The Quote that was highlighted by Renlok is totally false. Sure IE supports little more detailing, but FireFox and Opera are still wayyyyyy better than IE will ever be. No matter how many updates they go through. Take a look at it now. FireFox is on it's 2nd version. While dear old Internet Explorer is on it's 7th. The overall Firefox project, counting all of the predecessors has been going on for over 6 years now. IE however, has been in the Internet browser business for over 13 years. The Firefox project also went with a more gradual number scheme, often increasing only +0.1 per release. Including betas and whatnot, there were some 96 (or so) public releases, and they're only at version 3. If IE had used a similar naming scheme, they would have barely made it into version 1 by now, with their public releases. While more recent competitors in the browser market may seem to have evolved faster than IE or other older browsers, they also benefited from the experiences, developments and mistakes of those that came before them.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|