Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

Discussion in 'Graphics' started by TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. In article <-september.org>,
    Fred Moore <> wrote:

    > Seashore puts a reasonably useful GUI frontend on GIMP for basic editing.
    >
    > <http://seashore.sourceforge.net/index.php>


    Hadn't heard of that yet, will check it out.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Nov 29, 2009
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9x5bl.1bc9yl417sw3qnN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme <> wrote:

    [..]
    > > I ran the page through the W3C checker, and only three errors were found
    > > relating to the Counter. I'll have a look through the font settings to
    > > see if I can find anything relating to changing text size.

    >
    > There is, but be careful. It is:
    >
    > body {
    > -webkit-text-size-adjust: none;
    > }


    Righto, I looked for that, and didn't see it. W3C didn't find it as an
    error though.

    > Perhaps I should have just shut up. But if I had, my enemies would be
    > far too pleased! <g>


    Yeah, shut up! :)

    > You could ruin the site that works probably well enough for friends and
    > so on. The problems are deep and fundamental, the whole thing is
    > stitched together like a home-made boat glued and strung with whatever.
    > It might make it across if it does not hit *any* stormy seas or
    > conditions unexpected. Any real time spent on attempt to fix would be
    > better spent on scrapping and rebuilding with first principles in mind
    > and a preparedness to sacrifice exact looks for greater functionality
    > across the whole internet.


    Is that going to work though? Is there a browser that's likely to work
    with every site? Or a site that works perfectly with every browser?

    Barring keeping it *very* simple, I suspect unlikely is the answer.

    > Whoever made iWeb was either very naughty (font-sizes in pixels,
    > line-heights with units, some of the questionable practices guaranteed
    > to set the scene for *inflexibility*.) or simply machiavellian.


    I've had a really good look around the settings and such, and nothing
    that seems obvious.

    > TaliesinSoft's recommendation is possibly better if you do not want to
    > go all the way and produce with a text editor. (I don't suppose I can
    > tempt you? Come over to alt.html, you will get all the help you want.)


    No, that's too much bother, I probably could knock up a site in HTML
    with an editor, but I pay for the convenience of iWeb and MobileMe for a
    reason - my priorities are elsewhere.

    Put this into context though. I've been using iWeb more or less since it
    came out, and you're the first one to comment on this, although now I've
    seen it, I do find it annoying :-/. I may do some more digging on this
    though.

    Cheers.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:07:54 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote (in article
    <1j9xxw5.1wbc3gq9xa304N%>):

    [responding to dorayme's suggestion in regards to the problems with an iWeb
    produced website]

    >> TaliesinSoft's recommendation is possibly better if you do not want to go
    >> all the way and produce with a text editor. (I don't suppose I can tempt
    >> you? Come over to alt.html, you will get all the help you want.)

    >
    > No, that's too much bother, I probably could knock up a site in HTML with
    > an editor, but I pay for the convenience of iWeb and MobileMe for a reason
    > - my priorities are elsewhere.


    You'd be surprised how quickly on can produce a website with Freeway, a
    website that most likely will be error free. My suggestion is to give Freeway
    a quick try.

    Let's take a look....

    Using the W3C Markup Validation Service at <http://validator.w3.org/>

    Microsoft's home page at <http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx>
    295 errors, 26 warnings

    Adobe's home page at <http://www.adobe.com/>
    20 errors, 7 warnings

    Apple's home page at <http://www.apple.com/>
    6 errors, 1 warning

    Softpress's home page at <http://softpress.com/>
    0 errors, 0 warnings

    Softpress is the implementor of Freeway and uses their own application to
    develop their own website!

    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 29, 2009
    #43
  4. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:07:54 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote (in article
    > <1j9xxw5.1wbc3gq9xa304N%>):
    >
    > [responding to dorayme's suggestion in regards to the problems with an iWeb
    > produced website]
    >
    > >> TaliesinSoft's recommendation is possibly better if you do not want to go
    > >> all the way and produce with a text editor. (I don't suppose I can tempt
    > >> you? Come over to alt.html, you will get all the help you want.)

    > >
    > > No, that's too much bother, I probably could knock up a site in HTML with
    > > an editor, but I pay for the convenience of iWeb and MobileMe for a reason
    > > - my priorities are elsewhere.

    >
    > You'd be surprised how quickly on can produce a website with Freeway, a
    > website that most likely will be error free. My suggestion is to give Freeway
    > a quick try.


    [..]

    I might try the demo, however... For me, it's an expensive replacement -
    iLife is about the same price, and I already own iLife. It's an
    expensive solution to fix 3 page errors!

    I've had a very quick trial of the demo, and find it does have a steeper
    learning curve than iWeb, but, I can overcome that. I like using the
    templates in iWeb, and being able to change them at any time. I can't
    see how to do that in Freeway.

    Apart from that, it could be a viable option, although I personally
    don't have any problem with the pages iWeb produces, and managing
    multiple sites is an absolute breeze.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #44
  5. TaliesinSoft

    Calum Guest

    On 29/11/09 03:19, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:

    > Indeed not.:) - Latest update is from 19th of Aug. this year for Mac OS
    > X/X11, and if I remember right the latest Win version is from late
    > September... - I sure admit that the appearance 'interface' isnot the
    > best. So I do hope that we very soon will have a native OS X beta out...


    There was an experimental native OS X build of GIMP 2.6.0, it didn't
    really work all that well though. You can still get it here:
    <http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/>

    Some folks may also be unaware that GIMP has been undergoing a
    substantial redesign recently, which amongst other things means that 2.8
    will have more Photoshop-like, single-window interface:
    <http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2009/09/gimp-single-mode.html>
    <http://www.chromecode.com/temp/gimp-single-window-mode-in-progress.png>
     
    Calum, Nov 29, 2009
    #45
  6. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:45:56 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote
    (in article <1j9yefq.147cdcagy0hyoN%>):

    [commenting on my suggestion to use Freeway Express instead of iWeb in order
    to address the problems on an iWeb produced website]

    > I might try the demo, however... For me, it's an expensive replacement -
    > iLife is about the same price, and I already own iLife. It's an
    > expensive solution to fix 3 page errors!


    There may be only a small number of reported problems but they are pervasive
    throughout the site, affecting every page I've tried.

    As an aside, I'm one who routinely when viewing a website in Safari magnify
    the presented image of a site to fill the width of my browser window, and
    that is usually the full 1650 pixel width of my screen. I visit a great many
    sites and the one under discussion here is the only one that exhibits the
    falling apart behavior that, as I suggest, is pervasive throughout the site.

    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 29, 2009
    #46
  7. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9xxw5.1wbc3gq9xa304N%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <1j9x5bl.1bc9yl417sw3qnN%>,
    > > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    > >
    > > > dorayme <> wrote:

    > [..]
    > > > I ran the page through the W3C checker, and only three errors were found
    > > > relating to the Counter. I'll have a look through the font settings to
    > > > see if I can find anything relating to changing text size.

    > >
    > > There is, but be careful. It is:
    > >
    > > body {
    > > -webkit-text-size-adjust: none;
    > > }

    >
    > Righto, I looked for that, and didn't see it. W3C didn't find it as an
    > error though.
    >


    Oh, I did not mention it because of any validity or well-formedness
    question. You asked about what factors affect text size change. It is
    like you asking me why does some site take five minutes to fully load
    and I point out that there is this scrap of html:

    <img src="http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/justPics/shoalhavenHorses.jpg"
    width="700" height="451">

    except that the website author has loaded a humongous multi megabyte
    version of the image file onto the server and is relying on the browser
    to down size it. The fault is not anything about validity, it is about
    cause and effect and bad practice.

    Analogy: an argument can be lousy but strictly valid.

    Another thing but related: when you set font-sizes in pixels, most good
    browsers will not stop the user from changing the text size. But Win
    Internet Explorer prevents it and it is very frustrating! There is
    nothing invalid about it.

    So, beware of thinking that all is A OK because some validator ticks it.

    ....

    >
    > > You could ruin the site that works probably well enough for friends and
    > > so on. The problems are deep and fundamental, the whole thing is
    > > stitched together like a home-made boat glued and strung with whatever.
    > > It might make it across if it does not hit *any* stormy seas or
    > > conditions unexpected. Any real time spent on attempt to fix would be
    > > better spent on scrapping and rebuilding with first principles in mind
    > > and a preparedness to sacrifice exact looks for greater functionality
    > > across the whole internet.

    >
    > Is that going to work though? Is there a browser that's likely to work
    > with every site? Or a site that works perfectly with every browser?
    >
    > Barring keeping it *very* simple, I suspect unlikely is the answer.
    >


    I am afraid this is based on quite a nest of misunderstandings. If you
    absolutely insist on your pages looking *exactly* the same in all visual
    browsers, you probably should be into PDFs. But you can get pretty close
    to looking more or less beautifully the same in browsers post IE6, if
    you get to know the not inconsiderable members of the set of HTML and
    CSS instructions that are widely supported. To cater for IE6, a little
    extra knowledge is needed for a few things.

    One misunderstanding that some people have is that all those folks out
    there are like you. With your eyesight and screen and habits for browser
    size or indeed type.

    Anyway, large questions!

    > > Whoever made iWeb was either very naughty (font-sizes in pixels,
    > > line-heights with units, some of the questionable practices guaranteed
    > > to set the scene for *inflexibility*.) or simply machiavellian.

    >
    > I've had a really good look around the settings and such, and nothing
    > that seems obvious.
    >


    Obvious to what? You mean to get rid of the inability to adjust text
    size on Safari (for example)? Well, I would not know. But in a text
    editor one simply deletes the offending bit(s) I mentioned above.

    > > TaliesinSoft's recommendation is possibly better if you do not want to
    > > go all the way and produce with a text editor. (I don't suppose I can
    > > tempt you? Come over to alt.html, you will get all the help you want.)

    >
    > No, that's too much bother, I probably could knock up a site in HTML
    > with an editor, but I pay for the convenience of iWeb and MobileMe for a
    > reason - my priorities are elsewhere.
    >

    Not any longer. You will now drop all other intersts, divorce your wife,
    leave your kids, shoot the dog. And concentrate!

    > Put this into context though. I've been using iWeb more or less since it
    > came out, and you're the first one to comment on this, although now I've
    > seen it, I do find it annoying :-/. I may do some more digging on this
    > though.
    >


    I can understand this. Good luck.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 29, 2009
    #47
  8. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:45:56 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote
    > (in article <1j9yefq.147cdcagy0hyoN%>):
    >
    > [commenting on my suggestion to use Freeway Express instead of iWeb in order
    > to address the problems on an iWeb produced website]
    >
    > > I might try the demo, however... For me, it's an expensive replacement -
    > > iLife is about the same price, and I already own iLife. It's an
    > > expensive solution to fix 3 page errors!

    >
    > There may be only a small number of reported problems but they are pervasive
    > throughout the site, affecting every page I've tried.
    >
    > As an aside, I'm one who routinely when viewing a website in Safari magnify
    > the presented image of a site to fill the width of my browser window, and
    > that is usually the full 1650 pixel width of my screen. I visit a great many
    > sites and the one under discussion here is the only one that exhibits the
    > falling apart behavior that, as I suggest, is pervasive throughout the site.


    That's fair enough. But without knowing my circumstances, it's a bit
    unfair to keep suggesting I should spend (to me) quite a lot of money to
    fix errors which don't really affect me.

    At the moment, I could easily go out and buy PhotoShop Elements 8, iWork
    09 (I'm still working with '08), and now a new web creator. All of which
    would make my computing life better, but each may only give me the
    benefit of one particular feature over what I already have to hand.

    However, as a widowed single parent, working 3 hours a day, my
    priorities are elsewhere, so I quite often just have to 'make do'. My
    Mac is a hobby, and I buy what I can for it, but I have to really decide
    whether I *need* it first, and how much 'value' something will give me.
    I got iLife because it offers more than one function for me, at a price
    that is similar to just a single web page creator suggested here.

    Remember, I didn't actually ask for this here, it was a comment made
    about my site that started it.

    Not meaning to sound grumpy, but too often I see replies insisting that
    someone *needs* to buy a particular thing, without considering whether
    they may be able to afford it - there is often an assumption that we all
    have a perfect budget for stuff.

    I probably could buy something like Freeway, but would I be sensible to
    do so - almost certainly not.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #48
  9. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9xxw5.1wbc3gq9xa304N%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:


    [..]
    > > Righto, I looked for that, and didn't see it. W3C didn't find it as an
    > > error though.
    > >

    >
    > Oh, I did not mention it because of any validity or well-formedness
    > question. You asked about what factors affect text size change. It is
    > like you asking me why does some site take five minutes to fully load
    > and I point out that there is this scrap of html:


    Actually, the question about text size was more a response to the
    comments about it being a problem in the first place.

    > <img src="http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/justPics/shoalhavenHorses.jpg"
    > width="700" height="451">
    >
    > except that the website author has loaded a humongous multi megabyte
    > version of the image file onto the server and is relying on the browser
    > to down size it. The fault is not anything about validity, it is about
    > cause and effect and bad practice.


    For sure, I understand that.

    > Analogy: an argument can be lousy but strictly valid.
    >
    > Another thing but related: when you set font-sizes in pixels, most good
    > browsers will not stop the user from changing the text size. But Win
    > Internet Explorer prevents it and it is very frustrating! There is
    > nothing invalid about it.


    To be pedantic, they are set in 'point' sizes, which I believe is
    *slightly* different to pixel sizes. However, in this case I suspect the
    difference is irrelevant.

    > So, beware of thinking that all is A OK because some validator ticks it.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > >
    > > > You could ruin the site that works probably well enough for friends and
    > > > so on. The problems are deep and fundamental, the whole thing is
    > > > stitched together like a home-made boat glued and strung with whatever.
    > > > It might make it across if it does not hit *any* stormy seas or
    > > > conditions unexpected. Any real time spent on attempt to fix would be
    > > > better spent on scrapping and rebuilding with first principles in mind
    > > > and a preparedness to sacrifice exact looks for greater functionality
    > > > across the whole internet.

    > >
    > > Is that going to work though? Is there a browser that's likely to work
    > > with every site? Or a site that works perfectly with every browser?
    > >
    > > Barring keeping it *very* simple, I suspect unlikely is the answer.
    > >

    >
    > I am afraid this is based on quite a nest of misunderstandings. If you
    > absolutely insist on your pages looking *exactly* the same in all visual
    > browsers, you probably should be into PDFs. But you can get pretty close
    > to looking more or less beautifully the same in browsers post IE6, if
    > you get to know the not inconsiderable members of the set of HTML and
    > CSS instructions that are widely supported. To cater for IE6, a little
    > extra knowledge is needed for a few things.


    Not really, I'm not so concerned that it looks 'identical' on all
    browsers, just that it's viewable at all (I'm a function-over-form guy).

    Hmm, I thought it was suggested I use 'standards compliance', isn't IE
    the least standards compliant browser?

    > One misunderstanding that some people have is that all those folks out
    > there are like you. With your eyesight and screen and habits for browser
    > size or indeed type.


    No such assumption here, just ignorance of the matter regarding the
    fonts, which I note does only occur in Safari, both FireFox and Opera
    (all I have tested thus far) zoom the pages correctly.

    > Anyway, large questions!


    Indeed.

    > > > Whoever made iWeb was either very naughty (font-sizes in pixels,
    > > > line-heights with units, some of the questionable practices guaranteed
    > > > to set the scene for *inflexibility*.) or simply machiavellian.

    > >
    > > I've had a really good look around the settings and such, and nothing
    > > that seems obvious.
    > >

    >
    > Obvious to what? You mean to get rid of the inability to adjust text
    > size on Safari (for example)? Well, I would not know. But in a text
    > editor one simply deletes the offending bit(s) I mentioned above.


    Yes, I have manually edited some bits in the past. Now I don't because
    iWeb 09 manages all the FTP'ing, so there's thing I can edit.

    > > > TaliesinSoft's recommendation is possibly better if you do not want to
    > > > go all the way and produce with a text editor. (I don't suppose I can
    > > > tempt you? Come over to alt.html, you will get all the help you want.)

    > >
    > > No, that's too much bother, I probably could knock up a site in HTML
    > > with an editor, but I pay for the convenience of iWeb and MobileMe for a
    > > reason - my priorities are elsewhere.
    > >

    > Not any longer. You will now drop all other intersts, divorce your wife,
    > leave your kids, shoot the dog. And concentrate!


    Bugger that :)

    > > Put this into context though. I've been using iWeb more or less since it
    > > came out, and you're the first one to comment on this, although now I've
    > > seen it, I do find it annoying :-/. I may do some more digging on this
    > > though.
    > >

    >
    > I can understand this. Good luck.


    Looks like I'll need it :-/

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #49
  10. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    Andy Hewitt <> wrote:

    [..]
    > > > Put this into context though. I've been using iWeb more or less since it
    > > > came out, and you're the first one to comment on this, although now I've
    > > > seen it, I do find it annoying :-/. I may do some more digging on this
    > > > though.
    > > >

    > >
    > > I can understand this. Good luck.

    >
    > Looks like I'll need it :-/


    Well, I'm sure you will be saying this is horrible, but a kind of
    workaround has been found in the Apple forums.

    Add a shadow to the text (set to minimum opacity), and that does allow
    it to be zoomed - abeit a but jagged. I believe this just forces the
    text to be a graphic (which is how iWeb saved all the text in the first
    release).

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #50
  11. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9ysnm.11u85pn1pl28u1N%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <1j9xxw5.1wbc3gq9xa304N%>,
    > > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    >


    > >
    > > Another thing but related: when you set font-sizes in pixels, most good
    > > browsers will not stop the user from changing the text size. But Win
    > > Internet Explorer prevents it and it is very frustrating! There is
    > > nothing invalid about it.

    >
    > To be pedantic, they are set in 'point' sizes,


    You might have set them in pts, your software outputs it as px. See your:

    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/main_web_site/Home_files/Home.css>


    > *slightly* different to pixel sizes. However, in this case I suspect the
    > difference is irrelevant.
    >


    It has no meaning for a screen, so px are used.Don't worry about this,
    the point is still it is not a good idea in general to use what is
    appropriate for a printed page for the world *wide* web.

    > > So, beware of thinking that all is A OK because some validator ticks it.
    > >
    > > ...
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > You could ruin the site that works probably well enough for friends and
    > > > > so on. The problems are deep and fundamental, the whole thing is
    > > > > stitched together like a home-made boat glued and strung with whatever.
    > > > > It might make it across if it does not hit *any* stormy seas or
    > > > > conditions unexpected. Any real time spent on attempt to fix would be
    > > > > better spent on scrapping and rebuilding with first principles in mind
    > > > > and a preparedness to sacrifice exact looks for greater functionality
    > > > > across the whole internet.
    > > >
    > > > Is that going to work though? Is there a browser that's likely to work
    > > > with every site? Or a site that works perfectly with every browser?
    > > >
    > > > Barring keeping it *very* simple, I suspect unlikely is the answer.
    > > >

    > >
    > > I am afraid this is based on quite a nest of misunderstandings. If you
    > > absolutely insist on your pages looking *exactly* the same in all visual
    > > browsers, you probably should be into PDFs. But you can get pretty close
    > > to looking more or less beautifully the same in browsers post IE6, if
    > > you get to know the not inconsiderable members of the set of HTML and
    > > CSS instructions that are widely supported. To cater for IE6, a little
    > > extra knowledge is needed for a few things.

    >
    > Not really, I'm not so concerned that it looks 'identical' on all
    > browsers, just that it's viewable at all (I'm a function-over-form guy).
    >

    I would not be bothering if I did not sense a function-over-mere-form
    conscience in you. You are worth saving. And this remark convinces me
    you need to throw all else to the wind and think alt.html... <g>

    > Hmm, I thought it was suggested I use 'standards compliance', isn't IE
    > the least standards compliant browser?
    >


    Sure, but it would be pretty bold to ignore way over half the average
    market. IE8 is getting there, 7 is not half as bad and you might for a
    personal site simply ignore 6. But the point is that when you make a
    webpage, it is nice if it degrades to something that sort of makes the
    content obtainable to most people on browsers that are not up to
    scratch.


    > > One misunderstanding that some people have is that all those folks out
    > > there are like you. With your eyesight and screen and habits for browser
    > > size or indeed type.

    >
    > No such assumption here, just ignorance of the matter regarding the
    > fonts, which I note does only occur in Safari, both FireFox and Opera
    > (all I have tested thus far) zoom the pages correctly.
    >
    > > Anyway, large questions!

    >
    > Indeed.
    >


    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2009
    #51
  12. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9yr7a.1505ymr3kh6rnN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > Not meaning to sound grumpy, but too often I see replies insisting that
    > someone *needs* to buy a particular thing, without considering whether
    > they may be able to afford it - there is often an assumption that we all
    > have a perfect budget for stuff.
    >
    > I probably could buy something like Freeway, but would I be sensible to
    > do so - almost certainly not.


    I am a bit sorry I mentioned Freeway (whenever T mentions it, I seem to
    be the grumpy about it for reasons not all that dissimilar to those I
    give again iWeb. But from what I recall, it was more configurable and
    not as naughty. This iWeb twists my internals particularly badly!)

    Let me remind you, Andy, I was proposing something for zero cost. All
    you need is the free and excellent TextWrangler (it will do for the
    html, the css and - but don't worry about this fancy addition - any js
    or php).

    You know, there is another alternative that I reckon would suit you,
    given your personal circumstances (which I respect and sympathise with).
    It will cost you nothing again. Get hold of well constructed valid good
    practice templates and put in your own materials. You need only
    TextWranagler (free classy Mac editor) and a pointer to such templates,
    this requires guidance from more experienced people. You can search the
    archives of alt.html or better still, pay a visit.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2009
    #52
  13. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9ysnm.11u85pn1pl28u1N%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    [..]
    > It has no meaning for a screen, so px are used.Don't worry about this,
    > the point is still it is not a good idea in general to use what is
    > appropriate for a printed page for the world *wide* web.


    OK, moving on...

    [..]
    > > Not really, I'm not so concerned that it looks 'identical' on all
    > > browsers, just that it's viewable at all (I'm a function-over-form guy).
    > >

    > I would not be bothering if I did not sense a function-over-mere-form
    > conscience in you. You are worth saving. And this remark convinces me
    > you need to throw all else to the wind and think alt.html... <g>


    Oh blimey no, I did a fair share with LaTeX for a while, but just find
    that I can get quite acceptable results by much easier means.

    Oh, I'm also a tiny bit lazy too :)

    > > Hmm, I thought it was suggested I use 'standards compliance', isn't IE
    > > the least standards compliant browser?
    > >

    >
    > Sure, but it would be pretty bold to ignore way over half the average
    > market. IE8 is getting there, 7 is not half as bad and you might for a
    > personal site simply ignore 6. But the point is that when you make a
    > webpage, it is nice if it degrades to something that sort of makes the
    > content obtainable to most people on browsers that are not up to
    > scratch.


    Well, I've now just tried the site in IE8, and it all works just fine in
    that, so after all that, it's just the WebKit apps that have failed with
    this.

    I also manage a site for a church, also using iWeb, and I do check that
    in IE, as I know a lot of the target audience use IE. I have had to make
    a few minor adjustments to make it view OK in that, but overall, it
    functions as intended.

    Ironically, it seems to only fail in the very app that you'd expect it
    to work best in! I even tried the 'Zoom only text', which ends up doing
    nothing at all.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 30, 2009
    #53
  14. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9yr7a.1505ymr3kh6rnN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > Not meaning to sound grumpy, but too often I see replies insisting that
    > > someone *needs* to buy a particular thing, without considering whether
    > > they may be able to afford it - there is often an assumption that we all
    > > have a perfect budget for stuff.
    > >
    > > I probably could buy something like Freeway, but would I be sensible to
    > > do so - almost certainly not.

    >
    > I am a bit sorry I mentioned Freeway (whenever T mentions it, I seem to
    > be the grumpy about it for reasons not all that dissimilar to those I
    > give again iWeb. But from what I recall, it was more configurable and
    > not as naughty. This iWeb twists my internals particularly badly!)


    Aye, yes, it's more configurable I agree, although that isn't always a
    good thing!

    > Let me remind you, Andy, I was proposing something for zero cost. All
    > you need is the free and excellent TextWrangler (it will do for the
    > html, the css and - but don't worry about this fancy addition - any js
    > or php).


    I do keep a copy of TextWrangler on my system.

    > You know, there is another alternative that I reckon would suit you,
    > given your personal circumstances (which I respect and sympathise with).
    > It will cost you nothing again. Get hold of well constructed valid good
    > practice templates and put in your own materials. You need only
    > TextWranagler (free classy Mac editor) and a pointer to such templates,
    > this requires guidance from more experienced people. You can search the
    > archives of alt.html or better still, pay a visit.


    Hmm, it's still a much more complicated way than I have now. As my setup
    is, it would be extremely difficult to edit the code that iWeb produces,
    as the pages aren't created until you perform an upload operation. I
    expect I could possibly edit the site directly, but I've no idea how
    that would affect iWeb.

    A few years ago, I'd not have thought twice about tackling this in such
    a way, but now my time is used elsewhere.

    I know that iWeb works in a 'black arts' kind of way, and some things
    don't work in an ideal manner, but I decided to adapt myself to work
    with it that way. For one, to edit the HTML directly, you need to
    publish the site to a local folder. Trouble is, that means uploading the
    whole site each time, and mine is pretty large (iWeb date stamps all the
    files, so it's impossible to check for changed files - I know about it,
    so I work around it).

    Thing is, I decided to invest in iLife and MobileMe for the sake of
    convenience. I can't afford to dump it and move to something else - at
    least not until it becomes an economical solution (or my circumstances
    change).

    What I wouldn't mind paying for (a sensible figure of course) is a way
    to configure iWeb better. There are some solutions that work like a
    plug-in, but they don't seem to fix any issues that matter at this
    point.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 30, 2009
    #54
  15. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9yxy2.t8og0vngwwbyN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > I even tried the 'Zoom only text', which ends up doing
    > nothing at all.


    This was my very first complaint actually, I did not go into how I had
    set my zoom (I prefer just text zoom). It is nice to be able to adjust
    just the text and that is one of the main points i was making. That was
    the context in which that snippet of css I quoted you about "adjust" was
    all about.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2009
    #55
  16. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9yyf7.b9q0bb1wt48qlN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <1j9yr7a.1505ymr3kh6rnN%>,
    > > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    > >

    ....
    > > You know, there is another alternative that I reckon would suit you,
    > > given your personal circumstances (which I respect and sympathise with).
    > > It will cost you nothing again. Get hold of well constructed valid good
    > > practice templates and put in your own materials. You need only
    > > TextWranagler (free classy Mac editor) and a pointer to such templates,
    > > this requires guidance from more experienced people. You can search the
    > > archives of alt.html or better still, pay a visit.

    >
    > Hmm, it's still a much more complicated way than I have now. As my setup
    > is, it would be extremely difficult to edit the code that iWeb produces,
    > as the pages aren't created until you perform an upload operation. I
    > expect I could possibly edit the site directly, but I've no idea how
    > that would affect iWeb.
    >

    Oh, the idea is that you give up iWeb altogether and simply have your
    text files on your disk in a folder (the Sites folder, you have a
    powerful web sever on your Mac btw and this is where you need to put the
    html files to see them on a home server but this is another issue and
    you can simply use the folder as a simple store). You get a free FTP
    program, (Cyberduck is great) and simply upload them to a server. There
    are even free ones.

    You see, the idea is that you piggy back off people who know what they
    are doing in templates rather than the iWeb crowd (I know I might be
    unfair but I have seen what I have seen! You get cleanish html templates
    and decent CSS. You can tweak it if you want or know how or get help
    with (and lord there is plenty of help around).


    > A few years ago, I'd not have thought twice about tackling this in such
    > a way, but now my time is used elsewhere.
    >
    > I know that iWeb works in a 'black arts' kind of way, and some things
    > don't work in an ideal manner, but I decided to adapt myself to work
    > with it that way. For one, to edit the HTML directly, you need to
    > publish the site to a local folder.


    No. You don't have to publish anything or have any server at all to see
    how it is going. All you have to do is to grab the html file and drop it
    over any open browser window and Bob is your uncle. It gets more
    complicated when you need php or any server side scripting but you can
    get a *long way without* this.

    ....
    > iLife
    >

    I honestly don't know what iLife is. Hey Nick, you there? Here's a
    program that sounds like it may give you a life and get away from them
    thar sheep...

    > What I wouldn't mind paying for (a sensible figure of course) is a way
    > to configure iWeb better. There are some solutions that work like a
    > plug-in, but they don't seem to fix any issues that matter at this
    > point.


    Up to you. But from where I stand, this is like digging a bigger hole in
    order to get out of one... <g>

    Remember, it will not cost you any more to at least look for a template
    you fancy and at least try one... if you need a hand, scream out.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2009
    #56
  17. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9yyf7.b9q0bb1wt48qlN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    [..]
    > > Hmm, it's still a much more complicated way than I have now. As my setup
    > > is, it would be extremely difficult to edit the code that iWeb produces,
    > > as the pages aren't created until you perform an upload operation. I
    > > expect I could possibly edit the site directly, but I've no idea how
    > > that would affect iWeb.
    > >

    > Oh, the idea is that you give up iWeb altogether and simply have your
    > text files on your disk in a folder (the Sites folder, you have a
    > powerful web sever on your Mac btw and this is where you need to put the
    > html files to see them on a home server but this is another issue and
    > you can simply use the folder as a simple store). You get a free FTP
    > program, (Cyberduck is great) and simply upload them to a server. There
    > are even free ones.


    Yes, I do know all that. Before iWeb could handle external FTP sites
    directly, I had to publish the site to local disk and upload it manually
    - I used CyberDuck for that.

    However, dumping iWeb is unlikely to happen any time soon. I have three
    sites I manage, one of which is much larger than my personal site, I
    just do not have the time to rebuild all of these, and manage them
    manually.

    Right now, if I want to add photos to a page, I simply drag them over
    from my Aperture library, and click on 'Upload changes'. Job done.

    > You see, the idea is that you piggy back off people who know what they
    > are doing in templates rather than the iWeb crowd (I know I might be
    > unfair but I have seen what I have seen! You get cleanish html templates
    > and decent CSS. You can tweak it if you want or know how or get help
    > with (and lord there is plenty of help around).


    Righto.

    > > A few years ago, I'd not have thought twice about tackling this in such
    > > a way, but now my time is used elsewhere.
    > >
    > > I know that iWeb works in a 'black arts' kind of way, and some things
    > > don't work in an ideal manner, but I decided to adapt myself to work
    > > with it that way. For one, to edit the HTML directly, you need to
    > > publish the site to a local folder.

    >
    > No. You don't have to publish anything or have any server at all to see
    > how it is going. All you have to do is to grab the html file and drop it
    > over any open browser window and Bob is your uncle. It gets more
    > complicated when you need php or any server side scripting but you can
    > get a *long way without* this.


    Yes, I do know that too.

    > > iLife
    > >

    > I honestly don't know what iLife is. Hey Nick, you there? Here's a
    > program that sounds like it may give you a life and get away from them
    > thar sheep...


    It's the suite of apps containing iWeb, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and
    Garageband. Quite good value really.

    > > What I wouldn't mind paying for (a sensible figure of course) is a way
    > > to configure iWeb better. There are some solutions that work like a
    > > plug-in, but they don't seem to fix any issues that matter at this
    > > point.

    >
    > Up to you. But from where I stand, this is like digging a bigger hole in
    > order to get out of one... <g>


    At the moment, not - there's nothing out there to fix what I need.

    > Remember, it will not cost you any more to at least look for a template
    > you fancy and at least try one... if you need a hand, scream out.


    Righto.....

    Of course I could really wind you up, and recreate my site using MS
    Word! ;-)

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 30, 2009
    #57
  18. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9zjae.rbfjdx7u916bN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > Of course I could really wind you up, and recreate my site using MS
    > Word! ;-)



    You know, with Office 97, but not later, the HTML exporter, from what I
    recall, does a job that is not all that hard to edit by hand (using a
    bit of Search and Replace and GREP) to end up with something not that
    indecent... I used to use it a bit for helping me html mark up long
    essays and stuff like that... ditching all the classes and CSS
    afterwards and cleaning up. Time saving but I can't prove it now.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2009
    #58
  19. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9zjae.rbfjdx7u916bN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > Of course I could really wind you up, and recreate my site using MS
    > > Word! ;-)

    >
    >
    > You know, with Office 97, but not later, the HTML exporter, from what I
    > recall, does a job that is not all that hard to edit by hand (using a
    > bit of Search and Replace and GREP) to end up with something not that
    > indecent... I used to use it a bit for helping me html mark up long
    > essays and stuff like that... ditching all the classes and CSS
    > afterwards and cleaning up. Time saving but I can't prove it now.


    OK. I could only do it in Office 2007 or 2008.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 30, 2009
    #59
  20. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:44:50 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote
    (in article <1j9yr7a.1505ymr3kh6rnN%>):

    > That's fair enough. But without knowing my circumstances, it's a bit
    > unfair to keep suggesting I should spend (to me) quite a lot of money to
    > fix errors which don't really affect me.


    But the fact remains that those errors do affect a great many of those who
    would view your site, and they are the ones that count!

    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 30, 2009
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nosredna
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    407
    Erik Richard Sørensen
    Jan 4, 2006
  2. Marc Heusser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    183
    Marc Heusser
    Jan 21, 2008
  3. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Apps
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    709
  4. Robert Montgomery
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    677
    Robert Montgomery
    Dec 14, 2011
  5. Michael Redman

    Can't open Photoshop 6 files in Photoshop CS

    Michael Redman, May 25, 2005, in forum: Graphics
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    472
    Gerhard Huber
    May 26, 2005
  6. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Misc
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    955
  7. Mark

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator?

    Mark, Apr 15, 2009, in forum: UK Macs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    289
    Amanita
    Apr 16, 2009
  8. D.M. Procida
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,163
    Steve Hodgson
    Jan 24, 2010
Loading...