Babble v1 127

babble-digest Monday, January 12 1998 Volume 01 : Number 127

In this issue:
Re: is the space bar optional, too?
www mixed media ...
Re: babble-digest V1 #124
Re: is the space bar optional, too?
Typing/Grammar/Anything Non-Web Design discussion ends here
Re: 640x 480- it's really 530 x 288!!
Do we NEED capital letters?
Re: Outlook Express
Re: babble-digest V1 #126
designer's presentation
Re: 640x 480- it's really 530 x 288!!
Re: Do we NEED capital letters?
re: how big until you break it up
Actions Palette In PS4
TECH: bleeding images and browser workarounds
Web Designer wish list
Re: Actions Palette In PS4
TECH: Frames, my Love/Hate Relationship

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:39:06 -0800
From: Luis Cota <softech@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: is the space bar optional, too?

Jim Bass wrote:
>
> My post wasn't about grammar, it was about sloppy typing. If the shift key
> is optional, how about the space bar? And do we really need vowels? One
> would think that purported graphic designers would have some respect for
> type -- and have the strength to depress their shift key at key moments to
> make it easier for their "sketches" to be understood.

whichwouldyouprefer?honestly.
which would you prefer? honestly.

look, whether you care about this or not, i am getting tired of my
mailbox being bombarded with messages about how people should type. i
don't understand the problem with not having caps. as long as you can
see and understand the words, all should be well, no?

luis cota
..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
.."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:50:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Newell <matt@ns.qnis.net>
Subject: www mixed media ...

i stopped by the www.52mm.com site.. and noticed the use of sounds, which
has interested me, but i have not gotten into it yet, this brings me to my
question for you all...

what resources (ie. sites/archives) for sound media, perferably public
domain/free, do any of you use?

-- jEsTeR

www.sweetillusions.org
== ================================= === ==
jester@sweetillusions.org
== ================================= === ==
whatever is not nailed down is mine;
what i can pry loose, is not nailed down

..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
.."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:57:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Newell <matt@ns.qnis.net>
Subject: Re: babble-digest V1 #124

gif 89a is the "format/type/standard/style" of gif format. which ps uses
to save the file.

gifbuilder (or any like program) uses the same type of exporting (except
for the said extra bits of code). and yes.. other than being free...the
method is basically the same.

as it stands, youre comparing a format of file to a program that does the
formatting. they are two different things.

kind regards,

-- jEsTeR

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Kathy McMillan wrote:

> Concerning your comments on:
>
> > There is a plugin called GIf89a or something included with photoshop. (under
> > the File-export menu) I've HEARD that P/shop adds all sorts of little
> > encodings
> > that only p/shop uses when it saves files therefore Gifs saved under it tend
> > to be a bit larger than a GIF saved in another format. Personally, if you
> > have it(if not, get it) open the pshop file in debabelizer and save it as a
> > GIF there... it'll be smaller. ANOTHER way is to get Photo GIF or Image
> > vice, both plugins for photoshop,that have better GIF export than the Gif89a
> > plugin. they are available from boxtop software at:
>
>
> I'd like to know what is the difference between Gif89a and GifBuilder
> 0.5, except that GiftBuilder 0.5 is FREE???????
> ..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
> ..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
> ."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:02:42 -0500
From: Ryan Ferguson <signacct@signweb.com>
Subject: Re: is the space bar optional, too?

>look, whether you care about this or not, i am getting tired of my
>mailbox being bombarded with messages about how people should type. i
>don't understand the problem with not having caps. as long as you can
>see and understand the words, all should be well, no?

No... bad grammar and communication have always bothered me. All
lower-case type isn't a cool "attitude," it's just a bad way to
communicate. I always get a lesser "impression" about someone when they're
careless and sloppy with their words, whether it's e-mail or a verbal
conversation.

Understand why you should be a good communicator; embrace the fundamentals;
think logically. Next time, depress the "shift" key. It isn't hard - give
it a try.

Ryan Ferguson
signacct@signweb.com

Visit SignWeb, your one-stop resource for the signage industry!
- ----------------------------------
* http://www.signweb.com *
- ----------------------------------
// Searchable Sign Database // Message Boards //
// Industry Resources // OEMs //
// Suppliers // Vendors //
// Hot Products // Net News //
// Trade Schools // More...

- --> Other great ST On-Line publications:
ScreenWeb... * http://www.screenweb.com *
VisualStore... * http://www.visualstore.com *
Big Picture... * http://www.bigpicture.net *

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 98 10:05:13 -0800
From: Kevin Travers <kwt@highfive.com>
Subject: Typing/Grammar/Anything Non-Web Design discussion ends here

Ok, folks. Typing/Grammar/Anything Non-Web Design discussion ends here.
We all have a lot of email to read and a lot of websites to build.

Peace and WebGoodness.

>My post wasn't about grammar, it was about sloppy typing. If the shift key
>is optional, how about the space bar? And do we really need vowels? One
>would think that purported graphic designers would have some respect for
>type -- and have the strength to depress their shift key at key moments to
>make it easier for their "sketches" to be understood.

Kevin Travers
H I G H F I V E
kevin@highfive.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:40:41 -0500
From: Brian Dame <brian@iweb.net>
Subject: Re: 640x 480- it's really 530 x 288!!

david doull wrote:

>So to get to my point how do web designers deal with the 288 pixel
>height factor - it's not a lot of room for your page header, user
>grabbing image and a bit of enticing text.

Actually, my tests show that the height of the window "on a PC at 640 x480
on netscape 3 with all default toolbars" is closer to 313 pixels. This test
does not take into account any browser offsets.

http://www.iweb.net/~brian/ruler/

We seem to be getting several values for the height of the window under the
above conditions. Does anyone have any other opinions? Do others agree with
my assessment?

- --
Brian Dame
i n t e r w e b
http://www.iweb.net/~harold/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:25:05 -0600
From: Darrel Austin <daustin@isd.net>
Subject: Do we NEED capital letters?

I think the question of using or not using Caps is a valid design question:

>If the shift key
>is optional, how about the space bar? And do we really need vowels? One
>would think that purported graphic designers would have some respect for
>type -- and have the strength to depress their shift key at key moments to
>make it easier for their "sketches" to be understood.

We NEED the space bar to seperate words. We NEED vowels for that is the
structure of our language. But do we really NEED caps (except to emphasize
certain word in email?). This is an honest question...I don't see why we
really need capital letters in casual communications.

I think as designers we all highly respect type. But is ascii email really
type that needs to be respected? Or is it simply utilitarian and by
eliminating capitals aren't we then actually facilitating communication by
making that actual process of typing faster?

hmm...

- -Darrel

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:43:05 -0800
From: "Jim Bass" <jim@bassworks.com>
Subject: Re: Outlook Express

With Outlook Express on Windows, the default setting is for email to be
formatted as HTML. Likely this is true for the Mac version. This causes
grief for email clients that don't support it. So if you want to use it (I
do) make sure to change the default.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Zimmerman <zimmerma@hear.net>
To: babble@highfive.com <babble@highfive.com>
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 9:56 AM
Subject: Outlook Express

>
>
>Christian Kirschniak wrote:
>
>> I am just checking out Outlook as a new E-Mail client. It I S better
than
>> Emailer, especially if you use the System 8 integreated v1.1 of the
Claris
>> product.
>>
>
>On the Project Cool mailing list Outlook Express caused numerous problems
for
>many people reading their mail and posting to the list. I am not saying it
is
>full of problems or that you will encounter them too, but IMHO pine and
>Netscape mail are adequate. I hate Netscape mail too so YMMV.
>
>
>..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
>..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
>."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:25:59 -0500
From: Kathy McMillan <mckathy@erols.com>
Subject: Re: babble-digest V1 #126

Reply to Gilster:

There is a training company for Photoshop called VTC, Inc.
They have an excellent training CD. Call 1-888-TRAIN-CD or go to
www.vtco.com.
..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
.."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:51:20 +0100
From: Pascale Camus-Walter <camwal@cybercable.tm.fr>
Subject: designer's presentation

I recently visited a site with an original way of presenting the work of a
webdesigner:
http://www.zaw-studio.com/studio/Prods/index.html
He shows little clickable screen-shots of his sites.I find this very
effective and also a nice design.
Your opinion? Has annybody other good examples of cool presentations of a
webdesigner's work?

Additionnal **extra** cool sites:
*I suppose everybody knows the experimental design laboratory, the
webdesign lab of graphic 6 + ?
http://shinzo.com/
*You thought you were brilliant in skockwave? Have a look at "skroll", and
you will NOT sleep well this night, because you will become ----> JEALOUS.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/servo

+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Nota Bene: + THE ORIGINAL GOAL WAS
J'ai change d'e@mail!!! + WORKING TOGETHER
camwal@cybercable.tm.fr + Tim BERNERS-LEE
+--------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Dessins: http://www.cybercable.fr/~camwal/
Des seins: http://web.superb.net/apastras
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:52:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Newell <matt@ns.qnis.net>
Subject: Re: 640x 480- it's really 530 x 288!!

there are so many variables.. but it seems that hovering between the
250-275 height will *insure* seeing your image with no scrolling.

you can screen capture and measure for days, but if its an issue that is
a real concern, i would assume being safe then trying to push the edges,
on this issue at least. the size factors are just more unique parts of www
design that make it it's own. (id like a triple word score please, hehe ;)

keep in mind that most pepl cruise with full buttons and all the browser
junk on, so viewing a site in question on as many platforms/browsers is
always your best bet.

-- jEsTeR

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Brian Dame wrote:

> david doull wrote:
>
> >So to get to my point how do web designers deal with the 288 pixel
> >height factor - it's not a lot of room for your page header, user
> >grabbing image and a bit of enticing text.
>
> Actually, my tests show that the height of the window "on a PC at 640 x480
> on netscape 3 with all default toolbars" is closer to 313 pixels. This test
> does not take into account any browser offsets.
>
> http://www.iweb.net/~brian/ruler/
>
> We seem to be getting several values for the height of the window under the
> above conditions. Does anyone have any other opinions? Do others agree with
> my assessment?
>
> --
> Brian Dame
> i n t e r w e b
> http://www.iweb.net/~harold/
>
>
> ..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
> ..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
> ."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:56:51 -0500
From: "Kristian Andersen" <kristian@intermark1.acsc.net>
Subject: Re: Do we NEED capital letters?

>I think as designers we all highly respect type. But is ascii email really
>type that needs to be respected? Or is it simply utilitarian and by
>eliminating capitals aren't we then actually facilitating communication by
>making that actual process of typing faster?

SOUNDS LIKE 1984 TO ME.

- -Kristian Andersen
Principal
Viking Design
http://www.vikingonline.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:15:52 -0700
From: "Dean P. Grossenbach" <dgrossenbach@earthlink.net>
Subject: re: how big until you break it up

Eric:
We have done some serious testing on this issue. To start with there
are at least 2 distinct audiences, which react quite differently.
1. The general surfing public. At some time or another, even web
designers fall into this category, as does almost everybody using the
web. We can't actually tie this down to location surfing from, time of
day, from work or home, so the best we've been able to do at present is
generalize on mission. If your mission on your surf is not quite
specific, or not a business or job related search, then you're in this
category.
2. Obviously, the second is a business or job related search for
specific information.
Applying your model to the above our research would indicate as follows:

If your target audience is in category 1, a suggested depth would be
A. major idea, with descriptive information and links to screen
with descriptive information and links to sub ideas making your
depth 3.
B. and C. same as above.
Then when you do sub ideas under each, treat them the same, but increase
the informative text, for the sub idea clicks.
At the sub idea clicks you can now expand upon the text.
Sort of a reverse funnel effect.
If your target audience is in category 2, decrease levels to only 2
levels.
Based upon creating tests for site usability and information retention,
I would suggest not going beyond 1.5 screens on your level 1 and level 2
pages.
An analogy can be drawn to TV. Think about your tv news cast. The
anchor gives you a leadin. It's short; for an exercise, try counting
the words. The second level again is just a snippet of information.
Then they'll have a featured "In Depth" coverage of something.
It seems we have become a sort of "sound bite" information gleaning
society. And, from our tests, it looks like we acquire and process
information nearly the same way when we acquire it from the web.
We have not done enough retention testing to be able to present this
with any degree of certainty, however, this is starting to become a
pattern with most test subjects. We are continuing the testing and
will, at some point, publish the results.
The usability testing has been broader and suggests informative links
leading to expanded text are less confusing, and perhaps less imposing.
However, the wording of the links is crucial. It needs to be
descriptive, in terms your audience can relate to.
HTH
dean

- --
_______________________________________
Dean P. Grossenbach, Technical Director
America Info, Inc. http://www.americainfo.com
mailto:dpg@americainfo.com mailto:dgrossenbach@earthlink.net
Creative, functional, award winning business web-sites.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:09:49 EST
From: TheGilster <TheGilster@aol.com>
Subject: Actions Palette In PS4

Dear all,
I am sure all of you know about the actions palette inn (oh, i'm sorry,
typo.....throw the book at me if you have to....) PS4, but I was wondering if
it is possible to create an action where it could crop an image, add a shadow,
and reduce it's colors in a click or to so I don't have to remember all these
parameters to keep my images looking consistent.

Thanks,
Gil Kruger
..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
.."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:01:56 +1000
From: Caleb Fuller <email@calebfuller.com>
Subject: TECH: bleeding images and browser workarounds

Hmm...I seem to be receiving a different list. The last two Babbles have
actually had discussion of web development...what is going on here?
Anyway -

Many thanks to Porter Glendinning for the solution to the scrolling/non
scrolling on demand frame. It worked a charm - even knows to remove the
scrollbar again if the first page is recalled.

Ed Robinson was asking about bleeding images on pages. It just so
happens that the site I am working on features exactly this. (Hence the
need to stop pages scrolling.) The trick is to use a frame with the
borders turned off. Then make a table with height set to 100% for bottom
page bleeds, and/or align it right for right page bleeds:

You then want to make the cell sit in the bottom/right corner of the
table, with:

The code for setting frameborders in Netscape and IE are different (of
course), and NN always wants to leave a 1 pixel border on the left and
right. It bleeds off the bottom of the page OK though. Overall, IE tends
to handle this much better than Netscape. For consistent alignment in
both browsers, you might want to set the border to 1 pixel in both. You
must also set scrolling="no" in the frameset, or it will display a
scrollbar.

Now another question relating to this. I have noticed that Netscape (NN
4 Mac) seems to handle fixed height frame rows rather poorly. The actual
height seems to be a random amount (1-10 pixels) less than the height
specified. ROWS="80,*" results in a top row of about 65-79 pixels
height. Again, IE handles this perfectly. How prevalent is this bug? Any
fixes, workarounds?

Caleb Fuller
Analog Creations
email@calebfuller.com
..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
.."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:22:50 +1000
From: Caleb Fuller <email@calebfuller.com>
Subject: Web Designer wish list

Sitting in my studio late last night, checking manuals and references
when code didn't work and colors are remapped almost at random in my
images, I began to formulate a web design wish list.

1. A poster size chart of the web safe color palette to stick on the
wall. Lynda Weinman has a great chart, with the colors arranged usefully
according to hue, and RGB and hex codes written on each one, available
for download. I want this thing 3 foot square and stuck on the wall.

2. A reference which not only lists ALL HTML tags, and ALL options, but
which versions of which browsers first supported them. Thus I could
easily tell, for instance, if the browser has moved into a frameset, it
MUST also support these other tags. If it has called a piece of
Javascript, then by definition these other tags can be used. Even some
sort of browser version chronology, with the tags added to each version
listed, would be good.

Anyone care to add to this? I am looking for ideas for things (NOT
software products - that has been discussed enough) that would make your
life as a web developer so much easier.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 09:06:45 +0800
From: Chris McLay <chris@eycon.com.au>
Subject: Re: Actions Palette In PS4

Hi Gil,

The best way to see if you can do something with an action is to record one
and see if it does. What you describe sounds possible to me...

Chris

>Dear all,
> I am sure all of you know about the actions palette inn (oh, i'm sorry,
>typo.....throw the book at me if you have to....) PS4, but I was wondering if
>it is possible to create an action where it could crop an image, add a shadow,
>and reduce it's colors in a click or to so I don't have to remember all these
>parameters to keep my images looking consistent.
>
> Thanks,
> Gil Kruger

___________________________________________________________________________

Chris McLay E y c o n S t u d i o
managing director
3b Hubble Street, East Fremantle WA 6158, Australia
Email chris@eycon.com.au Web http://www.eycon.com.au/
Telephone 08 9339 0909 Mobile 041 123 9190 Facsimile 08 9339 0808
___________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:55:26 -0500
From: Porter Glendinning <pglendinning@cen.com>
Subject: TECH: Frames, my Love/Hate Relationship

At 11:01 AM 1/13/98 +1000, Caleb Fuller wrote:
[snip]
>Many thanks to Porter Glendinning for the solution to the scrolling/non
>scrolling on demand frame. It worked a charm - even knows to remove the
>scrollbar again if the first page is recalled.

No problem, glad to help. If anyone else is interested the page Caleb is
referring to is at:
http://www.serve.com/apg/babble/frameScroll/

[snip]
>Now another question relating to this. I have noticed that Netscape (NN
>4 Mac) seems to handle fixed height frame rows rather poorly. The actual
>height seems to be a random amount (1-10 pixels) less than the height
>specified. ROWS="80,*" results in a top row of about 65-79 pixels
>height. Again, IE handles this perfectly. How prevalent is this bug? Any
>fixes, workarounds?

Ah yes, the frame bug that haunts my every waking hour -- at least the ones
where I'm working with frames, anyway. Here is an excerpt from a post I
sent a while back on exactly this topic:

At 11:04 AM 12/1/97 -0500, Porter Glendinning wrote:
[snip]
>This has annoyed the crap out of me like you wouldn't believe! What appears
>to be going on is something like this: Netscape seems to be taking the
>absolute pixel size that I specify and converting it into some percentage
>of the current browser size. That is, if I specify a frameset where
>ROWS="50,*" and the user's window is 500 pixels tall, then all is well --
>50 is exactly 10% of the browser height, so the frameset renders correctly,
>one 50-pixel frame and one 450-pixel frame. However, if you resize the
>browser window to 475 pixels tall, it looks like Netscape makes an
>approximation like: "50 pixels is roughly 11% of the browser height, and
>11% of 475 is roughly 52 pixels." And what you get is a 52-pixel frame and
>a 423-pixel frame.
[snip]

- - Porter

+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Porter Glendinning | Century Computing, Inc. |
| WWW Developer | 8101 Sandy Spring Rd. |
| | Laurel, MD 20707 |
| http://www.cen.com | T: 301-953-3330 |
| pglendinning@cen.com | F: 301-953-2368 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
..H5 Babble Design List Info: http://www.highfive.com/h5/babble.html
..To unsubscribe, send the following one line to majordomo@highfive.com:
.."unsubscribe (babble or babble-digest) (e-mail address)"

------------------------------

End of babble-digest V1 #127
****************************

Previous | ToC | Next