Tuesday January 8th, 2002
A few of you have asked for us to post a news item taking your suggestions for the site, so here it is. Tell us all your ideas for what we can do to improve the site. Anything you want we'll think about, but try to keep it realistic.
Just to keep you updated, one of the things we're planning on working on is getting the ChromeZone up again, if we can find some volunteer editors to help organize themes. If you're interested, please email me and I'll get back to you sometime this week.
UPDATE! Right now we're working on dumping all the tables and other old HTML within the site to both show off Mozilla's skills, and to get our file sizes smaller. If you're using Communicator to view the site, you'll notice everything looking pretty ugly, thanks to the poor CSS support it offers. If you're using IE, it'll look a bit better, but thanks to IE's lacking CSS2 support, the sidebar will show up incorrectly. We've completely redone the homepage and talkback code, and we'll be working on the forums next.
UPDATE 2! We discovered Google's great "Search Site" feature, and have added it. Right now it has most areas of the site indexed except news item talkback pages. It will start indexing talkback today, and will hopefully add all of the old items, in addition to picking up the new ones.
UPDATE 3! We've been working hard to get as many of your suggestions as possible implemented, and we encourage you to continue the feedback. You can check this article's responses for what items we have fixed, or are working on.
#92 Swords at Dawn
by TonyG <email@example.com.Yuk>
Sunday January 13th, 2002 11:29 AM
You are replying to this message
I agree with most of this. I personally think a useful compromise is to create a simple table to shape the page and then use CSS for everything else.
<table width="100%"> <tr> <td colspan="2">banner</td> </tr> <tr> <td>content</td> <td width="140">Sidebar</td> </tr> </table>
guarantees your page will look acceptable in just about every browser that matters. you could even drop the top row and use a DIV if you like, but in terms of bandwidth I would estimate this method will be more economic. you can style the table in CSS if you like obviously, although I have gone for a bare bones table that does the job.
Also, this makes the site easier to maintain than having an "advanced" version and then a cruddy version for everyone else.
Plus, if you are going to serve content customised for different browsers, you are going to inccur the bandwidth overhead of a redirect for each request, thus undermining your drive for efficient file size.
This is a reasonable and easy to reverse engineer accomodation.
I offer my own site <http://www.nomad-jedi.com>, as an example. It looks fine in Opera 5, Galeon, *Mozilla, IE5+, konqueror. In IE4 and NS4 it looks a bit ugly but is legible and maintains a similar layout. However, it has donkey loads of advanced CSS, no font tags whatsoever and most importantly, works best if not better in Mozilla.
Just my opinion of course :)
BTW - MacPeep - you got your PPC2002 upgrade disk yet? I got mine on saturday only to discover its got a big crack in it. Grrrrr... any chance of a download? :)