 |
| |
|
|
rentgen
|
|
Novosibirsk, Russia
Oct 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Thanks for the job done, guys!
I'll go with criticizing right away if you don't mind 
1. Ermm.. Could we do without frames? It is very easy to do the same layout using tables and we get rid of the frames which are considered by many to be *not very good style*
You have a good point there about not having much graphics -- now, this is actually a *very* good point. It would allow to view the page with as many browsers as possible -- even the text only ones. (Like lynx -- many unix people use it. I use it occasionally) And then, having frames kills this advantage since not so many browsers out there support frames. Lynx doesn't.
We aim to make clash an inter platform project -- so we better make web site "interbrowserable" as well.
2. About the layout on the left. It would probably be good to make it "double-level". Meaning the following: to have a top level structure outlined first:
- Main
- Downloads
- Models
- Screenshots
etc,
and then below we can expand on it, providing opportunity for "fine-choosing" from the main page:
...
- Main
**** news
**** project synopsis
- Model
**** diplomacy
**** military
etc.
With this layout we will have to have additional pages that will be shown when a person chooses top-level links ("main", "models" etc) that will describe the contents a bit and provide the same links as in the corresponding "expanded" section below on the left.
I hope this is understandable 
3. Minor comments.
-- should have a "status" section
-- links that lead off the clash site should be opened in the new window (well, this is definetely optional but worth discussing)
Also i have much to say about the improvements that could be made on sub-pages, but i wonder if you gonna change them pretty soon anyways. If you don't, i'll post my thoughts.
Thanks,
-- Anton.
[This message has been edited by rentgen (edited October 31, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominic
|
|
El Paso, Texas, USA
Jun 1999
time: 22:13
|
|
1) In the regards to the frame. Kull and myself have thought long and hard on that question. He had a very good idea. That if go to a site, without frames, you can leave vary easily. With the frame you have to stick with the web site. This can of course be easily changed. I think it would go against Kull's better judgment.
2) Now for the frame not working with Netscape; I don't know really why it dose not work.
Thanks,
Dom
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I think the page is great!
It keeps me from having to spend hours reading the enormous amout of threads on Apolyton anyway.
Well, that was kinda short!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rentgen
|
|
Novosibirsk, Russia
Oct 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominic on 10-31-1999 01:53 PM
1) In the regards to the frame. Kull and myself have thought long and hard on that question. He had a very good idea. That if go to a site, without frames, you can leave vary easily. With the frame you have to stick with the web site. This can of course be easily changed. I think it would go against Kull's better judgment.
2) Now for the frame not working with Netscape; I don't know really why it dose not work.
|
[*]Now, i'll tell you why it doesn't work. Look at the source of clash_list.html very carefully... YOU ARE MISSING A CLOSING </TABLE> TAG, that's why it doesn't work! Insert one after the line
<tr>
<td align="center" width="117">
and before the start of the script at the very end. Also it is a good practice to put closing </HTML> tag in the end of the document. You know.. just to respect standards.. Because there are GOOD browsers that somehow conform to them and don't automatically suppose anything about what you meant.. like ie does for instance.. (which is not necesserily a good thing)
Now i don't know whether it's M$ frontPage or what... but if it is -- take a good advice - throw it in garbage along with windoze and get the work done in some good old text editor...
[*]About the frames.
First of all, it's not hard at all to get out of such a site. Just do "open the link in the new window". I do it all the time, don't know about others..
Second, "tabled" sites look better. Virtually all big corporations have tabled layout.. Ah.. I guess i can't convince you of that anyways.. It's just my experience and general ideas of web design.. Even this: frames may look good.. but that scrolling bar -- it destroys the beauty of the whole design solution you have there.. i mean, the colors and pics. It is made cool, but - my opinion - tables would make it better...
[/list]
-- Anton.
[This message has been edited by rentgen (edited November 01, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by rentgen (edited November 01, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rentgen
|
|
Novosibirsk, Russia
Oct 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
So, the frames.. Let's have 'em if you insist, but let's then get rid of the scroll bar at least..
One more thing...
Guys, REMOVE THAT UGLY <BLINK> thing from the news section!!!
Read some guidelines for a good web design - it says everywhere - DON'T USE BLINK!
The reason is simple -- it takes 80% of your attention so you can't see anything else on the page.
Now, it doesn't show in ie, but after i corrected the clash_list and loaded it in Netscape, it is perfectly there...
Also, you will probably need to do some more script magic to get rid of the ad on the left in Netscape.. but if the site will be hosted on apolyton, that doesn't really needed i guess..
If i sound harsh, i don't mean to. I just want the web-page to be super-top-class-best-of-all-pages
And you really did a good job.
[This message has been edited by rentgen (edited November 01, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominic
|
|
El Paso, Texas, USA
Jun 1999
time: 22:13
|
|
Over the past few days I have been working on a non frame section of the site. This way the user can have the option of having frames or no frame. I think that this would be better for most people out there on the web.
Thanks for telling me Anton. I'll try to fit that in. I have mainly been working hard on the non frame part of the site.
Thanks,
Dom
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glak
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominic on 10-31-1999 01:53 PM
1) In the regards to the frame. Kull and myself have thought long and hard on that question. He had a very good idea. That if go to a site, without frames, you can leave vary easily. With the frame you have to stick with the web site. This can of course be easily changed. I think it would go against Kull's better judgment.
Dom |
Umm don't you see anything wrong with that? That is simply immoral. For that reason alone the frames should be removed. People should be able to come and go as they please, that is what people expect. Sure they might stay a little longer on their first trip but if they find it hard to leave then they will not come back.
Trying to get people to stay longer through means of the medium is very bad, only the content should influence how long they choose to stay. If you want people to linger then just improve the content, otherwise the people will just go off and spend those portions of their finite lifespans doing something else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kull
|
|
El Paso, TX USA
Mar 1999
time: 22:13
|
|
Frames:
OK. Let's clear something up. My partiality toward frames is not part of some evil, Machiavellian plot to "trap" helpless surfers within the web of the Clash Site. There is ONLY one reason: Making it easy for people to move around within the Clash World.
You'll note I use the term "World" instead of "Web Site". It's NOT an accident. Although many important Clash events will be chronicled by and hosted within the Clash Web Site, it's not the only Clash thing happening out there. We have the Apolyton Forums, member sites, and many related topics. ALL of these exist elsewhere on the web. If you use the Web Index frame as it's intended, you can do ONE-CLICK hopping from a Model description, to a related thread on the Apolyton Clash forum, to Mark Everson's site, to the Java download page, back to Clash Home, etc. etc. Maybe it's just me, but I LOVE being able to do that! I find it to be extremely user friendly. (Down off my "frame" soap box.)
Having said that, there's clearly a number of folks who have no use for frames. So be it. Mark and Dom have suggested using the standard approach of allowing folks to choose between frames and non-frames. And perhaps right now there aren't enough good examples to fully highlight my "Clash World" vision. But in the long run, I truly believe frames are the best way to implement it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glak
|
|
yeah who'd want a simple game where everything is abstracted and very unrealistic? Well I for one am into that type of game and I think a lot of other people like chess too. Got to love the realistic movement system and the complex battle resolution. Don't believe the hype, realism is overrated.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Paul Crocker
|
|
Slidell, LA, USA
Jul 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Glak: That's fine if you prefer an abstract game - I do too at times (FE I enjy Doug Greening's "World at War - Basic" as much as the Standard game). It's also a real treat when I run across a realistic simulation (military, flight, or economic). Many of these are quite FUN. There is certainly a lot of interest out there in a realistic civ-genre game, or else this project/site would be an absolute flop. I doubt that it's all hype, so you might be think twice before ripping on those of us that would like to see this REALISTIC sim pulled off successfully. It's just a matter of balancing out the micromanagement that kills the fun in the realism. I hate micromanagement, but you obviously revel in it, and that's fine. Everyone has opinions on this topic, and many will obviously (thankfully!) be different, so just be content to disagree with us on the level of realism and leave it at that, since it's already been decided. If you absolutely hate this level of realism and would prefer to play chess, then please do so. Otherwise your other criticisms (sp?) related to the models are certainly welcomed! Thanks for all of your positive input on the models.
[This message has been edited by Paul Crocker (edited November 07, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hear, hear!
----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rentgen
|
|
Novosibirsk, Russia
Oct 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
About the text editor -- never mind It's just that being a programmer i don't usually like often unreliable ms products, so i kinda overreacted..
quote:
Originally posted by Kull on 11-06-1999 02:23 PM
Frames:
<snip>
We have the Apolyton Forums, member sites, and many related topics. ALL of these exist elsewhere on the web. If you use the Web Index frame as it's intended, you can do ONE-CLICK hopping from a Model description, to a related thread on the Apolyton Clash forum, to Mark Everson's site, to the Java download page, back to Clash Home, etc. etc. Maybe it's just me, but I LOVE being able to do that! I find it to be extremely user friendly. (Down off my "frame" soap box.)
And perhaps right now there aren't enough good examples to fully highlight my "Clash World" vision. But in the long run, I truly believe frames are the best way to implement it. |
Kull,
I haven't thought about it at all. What you're saying makes perfect sense to me -- indeed, it is convinient to be able to browse through all the forums and stuff having all links in the frame on the left ready.. So, thanks for enlightening Had you said this before, i believe my post about frames would be very different
Taking that into account, just a suggestion about non-framed version. I dunno what you have in mind already, but i would keep the layout but would make it using tables instead of frames, and that's it. Minimum changes. And then, as i alraedy said somewhere, you could make all the links that lead off the main site (like forums) open in the new window. Thus, it would somehow comply to your idea of navigability in the "clash world."
There's a very simple way to implement it.. Probably you can do it easier in FrontPage, but in case it's not the case Make something like a layout stub: two-column table i believe, and then just cut-n-paste (int the text editor )the code from the left frame into all the pages' left table column, and the corresponding code from the right frame into the right table column..
In case i failed to mention - i really like your overall design
-- Anton
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I just wanted to say that I love the music that was put on the site. I downloaded the mediaplayer and the little web address box still pops up, maybe we should just include a link to the player rather than the pop-up, (it's annoying after you've already downloaded it, just my opinion though). Other than that the site is really great, and filling out nicely.
If that track is not copyrighted already, I think we should see about including it in the final product.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kanzid Stonebreath
|
|
Macclesfield, Cheshire, England.
Apr 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Has any date been set for moving the Clash webpage over to the site here at Apolyton.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominic
|
|
El Paso, Texas, USA
Jun 1999
time: 22:13
|
|
Kanzid Stonebreath:
We hope to have the Clash Web Site up at Apolyton by December 1st. This means that we are going to finish most of the links, and all of the models should be in order, before moving to Apolyton. So, keep a look out.
Dom
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I tried to go see if the new graphics shots were up, but I can't get to the web page. It loads the first page, where I choose frames. Then as it's almost done loading the second page it freezes my computer. I was just wondering if anyone else is having the same problem or if it is just a problem on my computer. I can't seem to find the problem if it's just on my computer so, if anyone out there has an idea of what is wrong, please tell me.
thanxs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
Nevermind, I think I found the problem, Media player hadn't fully downloaded, so I downloaded it again, and now everything is fine.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-10-1999 08:57
|