Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?
am 26.11.2007 01:09:09 von rf
"Mika" wrote in message
news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in
> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for
> broadband):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
I have purposely avoided looking at this until now. The main reason being
the reports of huge size and slow load time. I just changed my mind.
Huge size is correct. Three megabytes. I don't load flash so I can't comment
on that.
Slow load time is correct. 1.21 minutes. This is simply stupid and no, I
don't have a slow connection, it is a 10 megabit per second cable
connection.
Now, the initial impact: Google ads all over the place. What look like ads
elsewhere, especially in the very important banner area. A bunch of images
of what look like shops. Ah, the "streetscape" that has been mentioned. The
first "shop" takes me four scroll right's to get past and the "image" is so
repetitive that it looks like a bad job of copy/paste. I didn't bother to go
any further.
Nowhere on the page is there any indication of what the site is actually
about. I tried reading the fine print (which looks just like another add)
until I came across a "click here" directive. Apart from being silly, what
if I don't use a mouse? Tab never gets to that link. Accessibility problem.
In any case "clicking here" simply jumps the page down a couple of inches.
Very informative, not.
Ok, hover over one of the images. A tooltip appears: "See street usage guide
above". Alright, scroll back up... What "street usage guide". I see nothing
at all with a heading of "street usage guide". I see an IKEA advertisement.
Is that what you mean? Or perhaps that fineprint I have already read?
Other things:
What on earth does the mean? <view source> Ah, keyword stuffing. The <br />
title is supposed to be just that, a title. You know, when I look across at <br />
the windows task bar I see a browser icon and the title of the page that <br />
browser instance is currently displaying.<br />
<br />
Lots of keyword stuffing elsewhere. Do you realise this is why search <br />
engines no longer look at meta elements?<br />
<br />
Why is the font specified as 14 pixels?<br />
<br />
Why does the copyright stuff (Imagery (c) 2007) sit right over the top of <br />
the, sometimes white, images so I can't read it? An unreadable copyright <br />
notice is not a copyright notice at all.<br />
<br />
Why does my default hot pink background show through?<br />
<br />
The <squint> "designed for" </squing> stuff at the bottom is illegible, as <br />
is the <squint> "welcome to..." </squing> stuff at the top. 9 pixels is <br />
not a font size for use on computer screens.<br />
<br />
Ah, is that illegible stuff at the top telling me what the site is about? <br />
<Ctrl mouse wheel *several* times>... Ah, I see it just might be. But now <br />
that I have enlarged my font size sufficiently to view this the rest of the <br />
page totally breaks. The font size is not horrendously large and the google <br />
ads, apart from being unreadable because they now escape their box (and are <br />
largely invisible) overlap the rest of your content, including the <br />
navigation bar at the bottom of the screen.<br />
<br />
You have a javascript error. Use firebug to find it.<br />
<br />
Final impression: Hit the back button and go to somewhere that makes it easy <br />
for me to shop online.<br />
<br />
I hope you are doing this for yourself and not a consortium of those shops. <br />
If this page were offered up to me as a solution to my needs I would simply <br />
not pay.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 01:54:48 von Bone Ur</span>
<p>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:44:31<br />
GMT Mika scribed: <br />
<br />
> JS never hurt anyone with a decent virus checker, unless they tend to <br />
> frequent undesirable websites I guess.<br />
<br />
Ahh, that one sentence synopizes your reasoning processes perfectly.<br />
<br />
> I think you guys could benefit a lot from loosening up, learning that<br />
> not everyone thinks like a programmer, that everyone is different, to<br />
> live and let live, and realise how good it feels to say something nice<br />
> to someone, even if you don't share their beliefs.<br />
<br />
I agree, and well-put.<br />
<br />
> The frankly incredibly offensive behaviour we have witnessed here is<br />
> enough to make us stay away for life. Any good advice given by *some*<br />
> of you was completely undone by the disgusting manner in which you<br />
> speak. <br />
<br />
Melodramatic, or actually over-dramatic is probably more accurate. If you <br />
can't deal with reality in a normal manner, remain abnormal.<br />
<br />
> As for the others, thanks again for the constructive feedback. The<br />
> site is now better for it.<br />
<br />
But it's still broken...<br />
<br />
> Over and out. <br />
<br />
Under and in.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Bone Ur<br />
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 02:35:18 von Sherm Pendley</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> writes:<br />
<br />
> The frankly incredibly offensive behaviour we have witnessed here is enough <br />
> to make us stay away for life.<br />
<br />
If you find helpful advice offensive, staying away from this group might be<br />
a good idea.<br />
<br />
sherm--<br />
<br />
-- <br />
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com<br />
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 03:36:26 von Kevin Scholl</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
> I think you guys could benefit a lot from loosening up, learning that not <br />
> everyone thinks like a programmer, that everyone is different,<br />
<br />
You do realize, that a significant part of the professional Web <br />
designer/developer job is understanding a target audience, right? If <br />
we're doing our job properly, we're not thinking like a programmer, but <br />
as a potential user. Ergo, it's not about loosening up, but rather <br />
directing the focus.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
<br />
Kevin Scholl<br />
http://www.ksscholl.com/</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 09:31:55 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
news:F8o2j.17044$CN4.4806@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
><br />
> Slow load time is correct. 1.21 minutes. This is simply stupid and no, I <br />
> don't have a slow connection, it is a 10 megabit per second cable <br />
> connection.<br />
<br />
One person in Australia has a load time of 6 seconds over a 0.5Mb/s <br />
connection, and you have 1.21 minutes. Our site is designed and focused for <br />
UK users who don't have this inconsistency, however if there is a way to <br />
reduce international server delays to our UK server please do let us know.<br />
<br />
> Now, the initial impact: Google ads all over the place. What look like ads <br />
> elsewhere, especially in the very important banner area. A bunch of images <br />
> of what look like shops. Ah, the "streetscape" that has been mentioned. <br />
> The first "shop" takes me four scroll right's to get past and the "image" <br />
> is so repetitive that it looks like a bad job of copy/paste.<br />
<br />
If you visited this street you would know that shop is famous in the area <br />
and a big department store. And no it isn't copy and paste. It is what <br />
people landing there would want to see. We don't ask you to understand <br />
that.<br />
<br />
> I didn't bother to go any further.<br />
><br />
> Nowhere on the page is there any indication of what the site is actually <br />
> about.<br />
<br />
That is because you came in via a thread that directed you past the home <br />
page. Try clicking the logo at the top and you'll find the home page, which <br />
explains incredibly simply what the site is about. We did NOT ask for <br />
critiques from people in the wrong country landing at the wrong page. <br />
*Sigh* We asked 'does it work in Firefox' as 1 user claimed it did not with <br />
JS enabled, which nobody has been able to recreate.<br />
<br />
> I tried reading the fine print (which looks just like another add) until I <br />
> came across a "click here" directive. Apart from being silly, what if I <br />
> don't use a mouse? Tab never gets to that link. Accessibility problem.<br />
<br />
The site is designed for a mouse and would be unusable without. Sorry but <br />
we are catering for a majority here as it is very specific.<br />
<br />
> In any case "clicking here" simply jumps the page down a couple of inches. <br />
> Very informative, not.<br />
<br />
It centres the streetscape div in the page for the best view, as testing <br />
showed people did not.<br />
<br />
> Ok, hover over one of the images. A tooltip appears: "See street usage <br />
> guide above". Alright, scroll back up... What "street usage guide". I see <br />
> nothing<br />
<br />
Where is the usage guide?... It's the very obvious icon of a guidebook and <br />
help symbol on it. We will consider renaming the tooltip to 'See blue book <br />
with yellow help symbol above.<br />
<br />
> What on earth does the <title> mean? <view source> Ah, keyword stuffing. <br />
> The<br />
<br />
At the advice of someone here, we amended the title to 60 characters. Our <br />
Google hits fell through the floor. We put it back as this is a hobby to <br />
make money, not please programmers who are the only ones that would even <br />
know what <title> is.<br />
<br />
> Why is the font specified as 14 pixels?<br />
<br />
Because that is a valid option in HTML, and enlarging the font causes issues <br />
with a precisely designed page.<br />
<br />
> Why does the copyright stuff (Imagery (c) 2007) sit right over the top of <br />
> the, sometimes white, images so I can't read it? An unreadable copyright <br />
> notice is not a copyright notice at all.<br />
<br />
It doesn't unless you right-click. It is just a right-click disable popup.<br />
<br />
> Why does my default hot pink background show through?<br />
<br />
Because you chose it. We tried changing the body tag to FFFFFF but it <br />
caused CSS validation errors that some text was the same colour as the <br />
background. If you want hot pink, have hot pink!<br />
<br />
> The <squint> "designed for" </squing> stuff at the bottom is illegible, as <br />
> is the <squint> "welcome to..." </squing> stuff at the top. 9 pixels is <br />
> not a font size for use on computer screens.<br />
<br />
That is called small print. You'll find it a lot in life. Would you prefer <br />
it larger, talking about our copyrights? No.<br />
<br />
> Ah, is that illegible stuff at the top telling me what the site is about? <br />
> <Ctrl mouse wheel *several* times>... Ah, I see it just might be. But now <br />
> that I have enlarged my font size sufficiently to view this the rest of <br />
> the page totally breaks.<br />
<br />
No, the home page is what the site is about! Gosh it's a wonder how you get <br />
through life! Quite a struggle you've made out of this :P<br />
<br />
> Final impression: Hit the back button and go to somewhere that makes it <br />
> easy for me to shop online.<br />
<br />
I think we can safely say the site is not designed or aimed at you.<br />
<br />
The question was "Does it work in Firefox". Thanks for confirming it does.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 09:55:02 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:%vv2j.53376$c_1.5496@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
<br />
>> Why does the copyright stuff (Imagery (c) 2007) sit right over the top of <br />
>> the, sometimes white, images so I can't read it? An unreadable copyright <br />
>> notice is not a copyright notice at all.<br />
><br />
> It doesn't unless you right-click. It is just a right-click disable <br />
> popup.<br />
<br />
*Correction: My colleague thinks you mean the white text that Google Maps <br />
provide. This is their standard copyright notice for satellite imagery and <br />
it displays over the top of anything else on a website. Ugly we agree, but <br />
unavoidable.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 11:05:43 von rf</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:%vv2j.53376$c_1.5496@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:F8o2j.17044$CN4.4806@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
<br />
I thought you had over and outed :-)<br />
<br />
>> Slow load time is correct. 1.21 minutes. This is simply stupid and no, I <br />
>> don't have a slow connection, it is a 10 megabit per second cable <br />
>> connection.<br />
><br />
> One person in Australia has a load time of 6 seconds over a 0.5Mb/s <br />
> connection, and you have 1.21 minutes. Our site is designed and focused <br />
> for UK users who don't have this inconsistency, however if there is a way <br />
> to reduce international server delays to our UK server please do let us <br />
> know.<br />
<br />
Perhaps dorayme's IPS was doing some caching. Or perhaps she had looked at <br />
your site before and most of your images came from her cache. Who knows. For <br />
me it was that long. Even if I simply press the refresh button I wait for <br />
eighteen seconds.<br />
<br />
>> I didn't bother to go any further.<br />
>><br />
>> Nowhere on the page is there any indication of what the site is actually <br />
>> about.<br />
><br />
> That is because you came in via a thread that directed you past the home <br />
> page.<br />
<br />
Where in your original post did you mention that this was not the "home" <br />
page?<br />
<br />
I saw a URL containing a directory (I assumed this was a "test" thing) and a <br />
file called index.shtml. I feel I am justified in thinking that may have <br />
been a "home" page. And, BTW, why shtml? There is nothing on this page that <br />
needs security.<br />
<br />
> Try clicking the logo at the top and you'll find the home page, which<br />
<br />
Hmmm. Bloody snowflakes. How last century. And links that leaps all over the <br />
page when mouseovered. Egad, it just gets worser and worser.<br />
<br />
"As bigged up by"? He he.<br />
<br />
> explains incredibly simply what the site is about.<br />
<br />
I am telling you that it does not. I am still as much in the dark as to what <br />
the site is about as before.<br />
<br />
> We did NOT ask for critiques<br />
<br />
Welcome to usenet.<br />
<br />
> from people in the wrong country<br />
<br />
So because I live in Australia I am in the "wrong" country and am therefore <br />
prohibited from your "virtual shopping"? How arrogant. I wonder if the shops <br />
you represent know that you discriminate against shoppers from other <br />
countries?<br />
<br />
> landing at the wrong page.<br />
<br />
The page you told me to land on.<br />
<br />
>> I tried reading the fine print (which looks just like another add) until <br />
>> I came across a "click here" directive. Apart from being silly, what if I <br />
>> don't use a mouse? Tab never gets to that link. Accessibility problem.<br />
><br />
> The site is designed for a mouse and would be unusable without. Sorry but <br />
> we are catering for a majority here as it is very specific.<br />
<br />
Sorry but if you pulled that sort of stunt in Australia your site would be <br />
against the disabilities leglislation. That is, your site would be illegal <br />
and I could not use a mouse then I could sue you for damages because I <br />
cannot use your site to buy something.<br />
<br />
>> In any case "clicking here" simply jumps the page down a couple of <br />
>> inches. Very informative, not.<br />
<br />
> It centres the streetscape div in the page for the best view, as testing <br />
> showed people did not.<br />
><br />
<br />
Yes, I know. I thought it would do something much better and more inovative <br />
than that. But that's just me, expecting a link to do more than scroll the <br />
page an inch or so.<br />
<br />
>> Ok, hover over one of the images. A tooltip appears: "See street usage <br />
>> guide above". Alright, scroll back up... What "street usage guide". I see <br />
>> nothing<br />
><br />
> Where is the usage guide?... It's the very obvious icon of a guidebook and <br />
> help symbol on it. We will consider renaming the tooltip to 'See blue <br />
> book with yellow help symbol above.<br />
<br />
This is not obvious at all. Not at all. And even after you have told me what <br />
it is the title (tooltip) for that book icon is "popup usage guide". I abhor <br />
popups so why would I click on a "popup usage guide"?<br />
<br />
Informative, not.<br />
<br />
>> What on earth does the <title> mean? <view source> Ah, keyword stuffing. <br />
>> The<br />
><br />
> At the advice of someone here, we amended the title to 60 characters. Our <br />
> Google hits fell through the floor. We put it back as this is a hobby to <br />
> make money, not please programmers who are the only ones that would even <br />
> know what <title> is.<br />
<br />
Nothing pisses me off more than searching for stuff only to find that I <br />
cannot even find the stuff I searched for on a page that has been "found". <br />
Immediate back button.<br />
<br />
>> Why is the font specified as 14 pixels?<br />
><br />
> Because that is a valid option in HTML, and enlarging the font causes <br />
> issues with a precisely designed page.<br />
<br />
You have a lot to learn about page design then. The font size is *my* <br />
choice, not yours. If *my* choice of font breaks your design then your <br />
design is broken.<br />
<br />
>> Why does my default hot pink background show through?<br />
><br />
> Because you chose it. We tried changing the body tag to FFFFFF but it <br />
> caused CSS validation errors that some text was the same colour as the <br />
> background. If you want hot pink, have hot pink!<br />
<br />
So, *you* want to choose my font size but you insist that I supply the <br />
background?.<br />
<br />
> I think we can safely say the site is not designed or aimed at you<br />
<br />
Correct. My idea of a link farm is a list of links, not an intentionally <br />
hard to use grossly over bloated thing such as this. Just my opinion of <br />
course :-)<br />
<br />
> The question was "Does it work in Firefox". Thanks for confirming it <br />
> does.<br />
<br />
For whatever definition of "work" you are using. For me it does not work, <br />
not in any browser. But I think I told you that last year as well :-)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 11:50:49 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
news:XTw2j.17210$CN4.11777@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
<br />
We don't really want to prolong this particular response, but you have asked <br />
questions and it is polite to answer them:<br />
<br />
> I thought you had over and outed :-)<br />
<br />
To some.<br />
<br />
>> explains incredibly simply what the site is about.<br />
><br />
> I am telling you that it does not. I am still as much in the dark as to <br />
> what the site is about as before.<br />
<br />
We are shocked you cannot work it out from the bullet points. It does not <br />
get any more plain English than that. What exactly you find so mentally <br />
confusing about "Virtual Shopping... REAL Streets" or "Walk inside famous <br />
high street stores ... any time or weather, no hassle or crowds!" we will <br />
never know.<br />
<br />
>> We did NOT ask for critiques<br />
><br />
> Welcome to usenet.<br />
<br />
Hello and goodbye very soon! Lol.<br />
<br />
>> from people in the wrong country<br />
><br />
> So because I live in Australia I am in the "wrong" country and am <br />
> therefore prohibited from your "virtual shopping"? How arrogant. I wonder <br />
> if the shops you represent know that you discriminate against shoppers <br />
> from other countries?<br />
<br />
Oh dear you are ready to be offended... but no, it is not our choice, it is <br />
the choice of the shops. 99% of them do not offer International delivery <br />
you see, so unless you live in the UK, there is little point shopping at UK <br />
online shops. Do you understand now? Is that okay? Shall we rewrite all <br />
their websites and convert their delivery depots for you? This is a UK site <br />
featuring UK streets on a UK server. Is that unfair? Do you want us to <br />
move Oxford Street to Pakistan perhaps?<br />
<br />
>> The site is designed for a mouse and would be unusable without. Sorry <br />
>> but we are catering for a majority here as it is very specific.<br />
><br />
> Sorry but if you pulled that sort of stunt in Australia your site would be <br />
> against the disabilities leglislation. That is, your site would be illegal <br />
> and I could not use a mouse then I could sue you for damages because I <br />
> cannot use your site to buy something.<br />
<br />
'Stunt'? If you cannot use a mouse with this interactive system, then go to <br />
Amazon - we are not stopping you. I'd love for you to report us to the <br />
regulatory body in Australia and see how far you get based on that over <br />
reaction! Are all video games and Nintendo Wii banned there also, because <br />
some people with disabilities cannot grip the controllers? And what was <br />
your complaint, that you couldn't click the small print?! Oh dear.<br />
<br />
>> It centres the streetscape div in the page for the best view, as testing <br />
>> showed people did not.<br />
>><br />
> Yes, I know. I thought it would do something much better and more <br />
> inovative than that. But that's just me, expecting a link to do more than <br />
> scroll the page an inch or so.<br />
<br />
Is this really worth the discussion?!<br />
<br />
>> Where is the usage guide?... It's the very obvious icon of a guidebook <br />
>> and help symbol on it. We will consider renaming the tooltip to 'See <br />
>> blue book with yellow help symbol above.<br />
><br />
> This is not obvious at all. Not at all. And even after you have told me <br />
> what it is the title (tooltip) for that book icon is "popup usage guide". <br />
> I abhor popups so why would I click on a "popup usage guide"?<br />
<br />
To get to the usage guide.<br />
<br />
Anyway we have changed the text now based on your feedback, thank you. See, <br />
sometimes you hit on a valid comment! ;)<br />
<br />
> Informative, not.<br />
<br />
Sometimes.<br />
<br />
>>> Why is the font specified as 14 pixels?<br />
>><br />
>> Because that is a valid option in HTML, and enlarging the font causes <br />
>> issues with a precisely designed page.<br />
><br />
> You have a lot to learn about page design then. The font size is *my* <br />
> choice, not yours. If *my* choice of font breaks your design then your <br />
> design is broken.<br />
<br />
It is valid HTML.<br />
<br />
> So, *you* want to choose my font size but you insist that I supply the <br />
> background?.<br />
<br />
Yes, the background colour is rarely changed by anyone - most people can't <br />
even find that setting! Font size however is commonly changed, so we have <br />
to have some control there.<br />
<br />
> For whatever definition of "work" you are using. For me it does not work, <br />
> not in any browser. But I think I told you that last year as well :-)<br />
<br />
If the people here had been more honest instead of using words like 'broken' <br />
when they mean 'takes a long time when accessed from the other side of the <br />
world in a country it is not designed for', or 'JS streetscape does not <br />
display', when they mean, 'we have turned JS off', it would have saved us an <br />
entire day's work chasing red herrings. I guess that's how you guys pass <br />
your time and get your kicks.<br />
<br />
(Cue clever retort throwing the blame back in our direction etc. etc. blah <br />
blah...)<br />
<br />
Over and out :P<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 14:04:48 von Chaddy2222</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message<br />
> news:%vv2j.53376$c_1.5496@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
> > "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message<br />
> > news:F8o2j.17044$CN4.4806@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
><br />
> I thought you had over and outed :-)<br />
><br />
> >> Slow load time is correct. 1.21 minutes. This is simply stupid and no, I<br />
> >> don't have a slow connection, it is a 10 megabit per second cable<br />
> >> connection.<br />
> ><br />
> > One person in Australia has a load time of 6 seconds over a 0.5Mb/s<br />
> > connection, and you have 1.21 minutes. Our site is designed and focused<br />
> > for UK users who don't have this inconsistency, however if there is a way<br />
> > to reduce international server delays to our UK server please do let us<br />
> > know.<br />
><br />
> Perhaps dorayme's IPS was doing some caching. Or perhaps she had looked at<br />
> your site before and most of your images came from her cache. Who knows. For<br />
> me it was that long. Even if I simply press the refresh button I wait for<br />
> eighteen seconds.<br />
><br />
It took ages to load on my 256K broadband conection as well.<br />
<br />
> >> I didn't bother to go any further.<br />
> >><br />
> >> Nowhere on the page is there any indication of what the site is actually<br />
> >> about.<br />
> ><br />
> > That is because you came in via a thread that directed you past the home<br />
> > page.<br />
><br />
> Where in your original post did you mention that this was not the "home"<br />
> page?<br />
><br />
He did not, but then again he didn't mention a lot of things.<br />
<br />
> I saw a URL containing a directory (I assumed this was a "test" thing) and a<br />
> file called index.shtml. I feel I am justified in thinking that may have<br />
> been a "home" page. And, BTW, why shtml? There is nothing on this page that<br />
> needs security.<br />
><br />
SSI!.<br />
A lot of people recommend that you use the .shtml extention (+ some<br />
servers need it.)<br />
<br />
> > Try clicking the logo at the top and you'll find the home page, which<br />
><br />
> Hmmm. Bloody snowflakes. How last century. And links that leaps all over the<br />
> page when mouseovered. Egad, it just gets worser and worser.<br />
><br />
Yeah, my web design is much more better (just taking the piss now).<br />
<br />
> "As bigged up by"? He he.<br />
><br />
> > explains incredibly simply what the site is about.<br />
><br />
> I am telling you that it does not. I am still as much in the dark as to what<br />
> the site is about as before.<br />
><br />
> > We did NOT ask for critiques<br />
><br />
> Welcome to usenet.<br />
><br />
> > from people in the wrong country<br />
><br />
> So because I live in Australia I am in the "wrong" country and am therefore<br />
> prohibited from your "virtual shopping"? How arrogant. I wonder if the shops<br />
> you represent know that you discriminate against shoppers from other<br />
> countries?<br />
><br />
Richard, the UK is a bit strange, well at least some members of the<br />
business community are:<br />
They are yet to discover what this whole "web" thing is all about!.<br />
<br />
> > landing at the wrong page.<br />
><br />
> The page you told me to land on.<br />
><br />
> >> I tried reading the fine print (which looks just like another add) until<br />
> >> I came across a "click here" directive. Apart from being silly, what if I<br />
> >> don't use a mouse? Tab never gets to that link. Accessibility problem.<br />
> ><br />
> > The site is designed for a mouse and would be unusable without. Sorry but<br />
> > we are catering for a majority here as it is very specific.<br />
><br />
> Sorry but if you pulled that sort of stunt in Australia your site would be<br />
> against the disabilities leglislation. That is, your site would be illegal<br />
> and I could not use a mouse then I could sue you for damages because I<br />
> cannot use your site to buy something.<br />
><br />
Ahh, Richard, they do have pritty much identical legislation in the<br />
UK as well.<br />
Well it's similar put it that way.<br />
<br />
> >> In any case "clicking here" simply jumps the page down a couple of<br />
> >> inches. Very informative, not.<br />
><br />
> > It centres the streetscape div in the page for the best view, as testing<br />
> > showed people did not.<br />
> ><br />
><br />
> Yes, I know. I thought it would do something much better and more inovative<br />
> than that. But that's just me, expecting a link to do more than scroll the<br />
> page an inch or so.<br />
><br />
> >> Ok, hover over one of the images. A tooltip appears: "See street usage<br />
> >> guide above". Alright, scroll back up... What "street usage guide". I see<br />
> >> nothing<br />
> ><br />
> > Where is the usage guide?... It's the very obvious icon of a guidebook and<br />
> > help symbol on it. We will consider renaming the tooltip to 'See blue<br />
> > book with yellow help symbol above.<br />
><br />
> This is not obvious at all. Not at all. And even after you have told me what<br />
> it is the title (tooltip) for that book icon is "popup usage guide". I abhor<br />
> popups so why would I click on a "popup usage guide"?<br />
><br />
Maybe cause the designer has no idea and needs to have a good read of:<br />
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com<br />
<br />
> Informative, not.<br />
><br />
> >> What on earth does the <title> mean? <view source> Ah, keyword stuffing.<br />
> >> The<br />
> ><br />
> > At the advice of someone here, we amended the title to 60 characters. Our<br />
> > Google hits fell through the floor. We put it back as this is a hobby to<br />
> > make money, not please programmers who are the only ones that would even<br />
> > know what <title> is.<br />
><br />
> Nothing pisses me off more than searching for stuff only to find that I<br />
> cannot even find the stuff I searched for on a page that has been "found".<br />
> Immediate back button.<br />
><br />
Not to mention dicks that call people that write HTML "programmers"<br />
come on lets get sirious people!.<br />
HTML is not a programming language!<br />
<br />
> >> Why is the font specified as 14 pixels?<br />
> ><br />
> > Because that is a valid option in HTML, and enlarging the font causes<br />
> > issues with a precisely designed page.<br />
><br />
> You have a lot to learn about page design then. The font size is *my*<br />
> choice, not yours. If *my* choice of font breaks your design then your<br />
> design is broken.<br />
><br />
This is true although the font can only expant to a certon point<br />
(unless you use a high resolution).<br />
<br />
> >> Why does my default hot pink background show through?<br />
> ><br />
> > Because you chose it. We tried changing the body tag to FFFFFF but it<br />
> > caused CSS validation errors that some text was the same colour as the<br />
> > background. If you want hot pink, have hot pink!<br />
><br />
> So, *you* want to choose my font size but you insist that I supply the<br />
> background?.<br />
><br />
> > I think we can safely say the site is not designed or aimed at you<br />
><br />
> Correct. My idea of a link farm is a list of links, not an intentionally<br />
> hard to use grossly over bloated thing such as this. Just my opinion of<br />
> course :-)<br />
><br />
ROTFL: I could not agree more.<br />
<br />
> > The question was "Does it work in Firefox". Thanks for confirming it<br />
> > does.<br />
><br />
> For whatever definition of "work" you are using. For me it does not work,<br />
> not in any browser. But I think I told you that last year as well :-)<br />
><br />
--<br />
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 14:58:32 von Sherm Pendley</span>
<p>"rf" <rf@invalid.com> writes:<br />
<br />
> BTW, why shtml? There is nothing on this page that <br />
> needs security.<br />
<br />
Shtml has SFA to do with security - it's used for server-side includes.<br />
You're probably thinking of HTTPS, which enables SSL encryption over HTTP.<br />
<br />
sherm--<br />
<br />
-- <br />
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com<br />
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 15:46:43 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message <br />
news:60a9b68a-be4f-48db-a623-9904e9e825d0@e23g2000prf.google groups.com...<br />
<br />
> It took ages to load on my 256K broadband conection<br />
<br />
Thanks for the feedback. This info is useful to us if you can confirm:<br />
<br />
* Are you in the UK or behind international servers? The online sites we <br />
link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship <br />
overseas unfortunately (this is out of our hands). If you are in the UK the <br />
page should load in a few seconds.<br />
<br />
* Can you define "ages" please, roughly?<br />
<br />
We are not too convinced that 256k qualifies as fast broadband, but <br />
appreciate the feedback.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 16:38:12 von Adrienne Boswell</span>
<p>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Mika" <anon@anon.com> writing in<br />
news:zNn2j.53327$c_1.44317@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk: <br />
<br />
>> But I don't *want* the sights and sounds of real-world shopping.<br />
>> That's why<br />
>> I'm shopping on the internet to begin with.<br />
> <br />
> And you are an individual who many disagree with. It is not aimed at<br />
> you, someone who likes Internet shopping. It is aimed at those who<br />
> DON'T, and who love real streets because of what they see, and what<br />
> they HEAR. Your advice is, make it simpler, turn the sound off.<br />
> <br />
<br />
I like going shopping. I like going window shopping. I like taking my <br />
four year old son, Spane, window shopping as well. <br />
<br />
I like online shopping. I like online because I don't hear "I want... I <br />
want... I want... I want...". I also don't hear musak, chattering in <br />
Armenian (I live in Glendale), walkie talkies, boom boxes, etc.<br />
<br />
Frequently, I will go in the store, kick the tires, then go home and <br />
purchase the item online, where I can do it quickly without the dreaded <br />
"I want...".<br />
<br />
The whole point of online shopping is to save time and get what you want <br />
quickly, instant gratification. No sounds - musak, and/or "I want...". <br />
Easily find things (immediately - no having to walk up and down aisles <br />
because the marketing people decided to move things again). Quick check <br />
out - (can't stand "extra" things like GoDaddy tries to hawk, but that's <br />
for another discussion) done.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Adrienne Boswell at Home<br />
Arbpen Web Site Design Services<br />
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info<br />
Please respond to the group so others can share</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 17:55:36 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Adrienne Boswell" <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote in message <br />
news:Xns99F44D7368048arbpenyahoocom@69.28.186.121...<br />
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Mika" <anon@anon.com> writing in<br />
> news:zNn2j.53327$c_1.44317@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:<br />
><br />
>>> But I don't *want* the sights and sounds of real-world shopping.<br />
>>> That's why<br />
>>> I'm shopping on the internet to begin with.<br />
>><br />
>> And you are an individual who many disagree with. It is not aimed at<br />
>> you, someone who likes Internet shopping. It is aimed at those who<br />
>> DON'T, and who love real streets because of what they see, and what<br />
>> they HEAR. Your advice is, make it simpler, turn the sound off.<br />
><br />
> I like going shopping. I like going window shopping. I like taking my<br />
> four year old son, Spane, window shopping as well.<br />
><br />
> I like online shopping. I like online because I don't hear "I want... I<br />
> want... I want... I want...". I also don't hear musak, chattering in<br />
> Armenian (I live in Glendale), walkie talkies, boom boxes, etc.<br />
><br />
> Frequently, I will go in the store, kick the tires, then go home and<br />
> purchase the item online, where I can do it quickly without the dreaded<br />
> "I want...".<br />
><br />
> The whole point of online shopping is to save time and get what you want<br />
> quickly, instant gratification. No sounds - musak, and/or "I want...".<br />
> Easily find things (immediately - no having to walk up and down aisles<br />
> because the marketing people decided to move things again). Quick check<br />
> out - (can't stand "extra" things like GoDaddy tries to hawk, but that's<br />
> for another discussion) done.<br />
<br />
Does this page work in your Firefox?</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 22:48:34 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for<br />
> broadband):<br />
><br />
> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
><br />
> Thanks,<br />
> Mika<br />
<br />
We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
<br />
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
<br />
Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific question - <br />
that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 22:52:36 von exjxw.hannivoort</span>
<p>Mika wrote on 26 nov 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:<br />
<br />
> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
<br />
What is that, international servers?<br />
<br />
Or national servers for that matter?<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Evertjan.<br />
The Netherlands.<br />
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 23:22:45 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:F8o2j.17044$CN4.4806@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
>><br />
>> Slow load time is correct. 1.21 minutes. This is simply stupid and no, I <br />
>> don't have a slow connection, it is a 10 megabit per second cable <br />
>> connection.<br />
><br />
> One person in Australia has a load time of 6 seconds over a 0.5Mb/s <br />
> connection, and you have 1.21 minutes. Our site is designed and focused for <br />
<br />
rf didn't have it cached.<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 23:23:45 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
><br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:%vv2j.53376$c_1.5496@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:F8o2j.17044$CN4.4806@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
><br />
> I thought you had over and outed :-)<br />
<br />
He's grasped "over"; he's still reading about "out". :)<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 26.11.2007 23:27:18 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Adrienne Boswell wrote:<br />
<br />
> I like online shopping. I like online because I don't hear "I want...<br />
> I want... I want... I want...". I also don't hear musak, chattering<br />
> in Armenian (I live in Glendale), walkie talkies, boom boxes, etc.<br />
<br />
Heh. One of my buddies lives a couplethree doors from Lexington and<br />
Maryland. :)<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 01:52:08 von Rick Brandt</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is<br />
> any faster for those of you who found it slow across international<br />
> servers.<br />
> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
><br />
> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific<br />
> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
<br />
If I turn off caching in Firefox and reload the page it is 20 seconds before all <br />
hourglass activity ceases.<br />
<br />
I have *very* good ADSL with between 2 and 3 mb download speeds.<br />
<br />
The page is too slow in my opinion. Anyone with less than very high end <br />
broadband will almost certainly kill the page before it finishes.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 04:19:18 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Rick Brandt wrote:<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is<br />
>> any faster for those of you who found it slow across international<br />
>> servers. http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific<br />
>> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
><br />
> If I turn off caching in Firefox and reload the page it is 20 seconds<br />
> before all hourglass activity ceases.<br />
><br />
> I have *very* good ADSL with between 2 and 3 mb download speeds.<br />
><br />
> The page is too slow in my opinion. Anyone with less than very high<br />
> end broadband will almost certainly kill the page before it finishes.<br />
<br />
What? And miss the sound of the traffic and the smell of the taxi<br />
exhausts? :)<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 04:49:18 von Ed Mullen</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
>> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for<br />
>> broadband):<br />
>><br />
>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks,<br />
>> Mika<br />
> <br />
> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
> <br />
> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
> <br />
> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific question - <br />
> that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
> <br />
> Mika <br />
> <br />
> <br />
<br />
The site still took about 40 seconds to load on a 6 Mbs cable connection <br />
from Alpharetta, GA. To me that is ponderously sloooooow. Even if the <br />
payoff is to my liking, and I'm having trouble liking (let alone <br />
understanding) your site.<br />
<br />
Comments (which are meant constructively):<br />
<br />
Previously when I visited the page I had my sound muted. This time (by <br />
chance) I did not, and it was set quite low, but still enough to drive <br />
the subwoofer on my system. We are having some rather robust wind here <br />
in alpharetta, GA right now. I can hear the leaves flying about outside <br />
and the wind buffeting the house. As I was counting the seconds as the <br />
page loaded I heard a terrible rumbling which I coincided with the wind <br />
outside. I became quite alarmed as we live in an area where destructive <br />
storms and tornadoes are not all that uncommon (in April 2006 a tornado <br />
swept through less than a mile from my house, leaving some significant <br />
destruction). I actually rose from my chair, swapped my computer <br />
eyeglasses for my regular ones and was headed downstairs to go outside <br />
and see what was happening. As I opened my office door the aural <br />
perspective to my computer speakers changed and I stopped, thought for a <br />
second, turned back to my PC and closed your page's tab. Thanks so much <br />
for the scare.<br />
<br />
Also, I doubt very much that your page's load time has little to do with <br />
your server being across the pond from my location. I Googled: <br />
[shopping uk] and clicked the first 20 links returned. All of them <br />
loaded fully in 10 seconds or less. The time-to-load issue is either <br />
because your host has dreadfully slow access anywhere outside of the UK <br />
and/or the page is simply bloated (no offense meant) with way too much <br />
content. Which, frankly, regardless of the likelihood of my dropping by <br />
there to shop, is just not a good design strategy.<br />
<br />
When you keep saying things like: "You're not our targeted customer <br />
base ..." have you considered tourists? You know, people like me, <br />
strangers in strange lands, who regularly travel to countries like yours <br />
and research where they might go beforehand? You really should, you <br />
know. I spent a bundle of money last month in Italy. And in France in <br />
2004. And in Ireland in 2003. Next on my wife's and my agenda? The <br />
UK. We shop a lot. We research a lot before we travel.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Ed Mullen<br />
http://edmullen.net<br />
http://mozilla.edmullen.net<br />
http://abington.edmullen.net<br />
Why do they call it the Department of Interior when they are in charge <br />
of everything outdoors?</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 09:21:24 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote in message <br />
news:YSJ2j.71426$YL5.121@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is<br />
>> any faster for those of you who found it slow across international<br />
>> servers.<br />
>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific<br />
>> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
><br />
> If I turn off caching in Firefox and reload the page it is 20 seconds <br />
> before all hourglass activity ceases.<br />
<br />
Thanks, it sounds like it is getting faster. That is what we are aiming <br />
towards.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 09:22:42 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
>>> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed <br />
>>> for<br />
>>> broadband):<br />
>>><br />
>>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>>><br />
>>> Thanks,<br />
>>> Mika<br />
>><br />
>> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
>> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
>><br />
>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific <br />
>> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
>><br />
>> Mika<br />
><br />
> The site still took about 40 seconds to load on a 6 Mbs cable connection <br />
> from Alpharetta, GA. To me that is ponderously sloooooow. Even if the <br />
> payoff is to my liking, and I'm having trouble liking (let alone <br />
> understanding) your site.<br />
<br />
That is too slow. It should be under 10 seconds. Could you report the <br />
results of a tracert to superhigstreet.com?<br />
<br />
Sadly there is little we can do about delays on your hops towards our site, <br />
aside from relocating the server to the USA, and then we lose our majority <br />
audience which are UK based.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 09:38:06 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
<br />
> When you keep saying things like: "You're not our targeted customer base <br />
> ..." have you considered tourists?<br />
<br />
Thanks for the constructive comments.<br />
<br />
In an ideal world we would love for everyone to be able to access the site. <br />
We do try to attract tourists, in the hope their route to our server is <br />
decent. But it is predominantly a shopping site, and that is the <br />
prerogative we have chosen to target it. However on a secondary level we do <br />
have tourist related content which search engines pick up, particularly <br />
street names like Oxford Street, London.<br />
<br />
The thing is, to load the page fully and see the streetscape is under 300K <br />
(not 6MB as someone reported). If someone has trouble downloading 300K via <br />
broadband, and it is not down to our servers or page size, then it is down <br />
to the route their hops take to get to and from us.<br />
<br />
It seems some people get lucky, others don't, but we still feel we have done <br />
all we can really by getting it down to 300K and using robust servers. <br />
Sure, that size isn't recommended for dial-up, but then neither is our site. <br />
But for broadband, it is nothing. Your connection should blitz through that <br />
in seconds.<br />
<br />
A tricky one to solve really for overseas visitors unless anyone here is <br />
able to contribute a workable solution that does not involve going back to <br />
the drawing board (which would be unrealistic).</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 10:09:26 von Andrew</span>
<p>On 2007-11-27, Mika <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
> The thing is, to load the page fully and see the streetscape is under 300K <br />
> (not 6MB as someone reported). If someone has trouble downloading 300K via <br />
> broadband, and it is not down to our servers or page size, then it is down <br />
> to the route their hops take to get to and from us.<br />
<br />
Using the 'Information -- Document Size' of the web developer tool bar<br />
the following page:<br />
<br />
http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/index. shtml<br />
<br />
weighed in at an extraordinary:<br />
<br />
Total 1902 KB (2089 KB uncompressed)<br />
<br />
and loaded very slowly and sluggishly on Firefox. I have read the<br />
discussion about broadband / traceroute / bandwidth / geographical<br />
locality but surely if you are publishing on the /internet/ you are<br />
obligated to serve content that is useful to /all/ possible readers of<br />
your site?<br />
<br />
Certainly if you have some sort of closed system such as an intranet<br />
you could do as you please but the Internet implies a world market for<br />
your site with all the problems of variable access, lack of plugins,<br />
different browsers, operating systems etc.<br />
<br />
Andrew<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Now I can praise him, now that I can stand by to mourn<br />
and speak before this web that killed my father; yet<br />
I grieve for the thing done, the death, and all our race.<br />
I have won; but my victory is soiled, and has no pride.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 11:11:14 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"andrew" <andrew@ilium.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:slrnfknnk0.eag.andrew@ilium.invalid...<br />
> On 2007-11-27, Mika <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
> [...]<br />
><br />
>> The thing is, to load the page fully and see the streetscape is under <br />
>> 300K<br />
>> (not 6MB as someone reported). If someone has trouble downloading 300K <br />
>> via<br />
>> broadband, and it is not down to our servers or page size, then it is <br />
>> down<br />
>> to the route their hops take to get to and from us.<br />
><br />
> Using the 'Information -- Document Size' of the web developer tool bar<br />
> the following page:<br />
> weighed in at an extraordinary:<br />
> Total 1902 KB (2089 KB uncompressed)<br />
<br />
That is misleading. To the initial load point, it is under 300K then it <br />
stops there. However once you start strolling/scrolling, and only then, it <br />
loads additional tiles of the image *on demand*. In other words, if you do <br />
nothing but load the page, it is less than 300K. The toolbar must be <br />
looking at all elements that eventually can be loaded. That is not what <br />
people are testing here - they are reporting the time until the initial <br />
street finishes loading.<br />
<br />
> I have read the<br />
> discussion about broadband / traceroute / bandwidth / geographical<br />
> locality but surely if you are publishing on the /internet/ you are<br />
> obligated to serve content that is useful to /all/ possible readers of<br />
> your site?<br />
<br />
It would be impossible to be innovative to this degree by doing so. If you <br />
want to show realistic medium size streetscapes, not puny little ones like <br />
those at a competitor site, at some point whether by Flash or JS or AJAX, <br />
you need to load those images of that size into the user's browser. You <br />
can't get them on the screen in that quality by magic. We use highly <br />
compressed JPEGs and load the tiles on demand.<br />
<br />
We had three choices really:<br />
<br />
A) Do it for UK broadband users, and those with good routes to the UK, <br />
using a good quality image and sound that can recreate the sense of being on <br />
a real street, to blur the divide between the High Street and Super Highway.<br />
<br />
B) Do it using low quality images which would load fast for everyone, but <br />
be unimpressive, and just copying a competitor who we noticed after we <br />
devised the idea.<br />
<br />
C) Don't do it at all.<br />
<br />
If you are saying we are the only UK-oriented website out there, well no. <br />
The USA is even worse. We are forever finding websites that are written as <br />
if there are no other countries in the world.<br />
<br />
At least we have written all the text on our site 'region free', i.e. not <br />
obviously prejudiced towards one country or currency - you'll notice that if <br />
you look around. We were very conscious of this.<br />
<br />
Another reason we target the UK as because it has the highest broadband <br />
rollout in the world - over 84% of online homes use broadband. We have to <br />
choose 'a market', somewhere, and so it is our home country predominantly.<br />
<br />
The rest I'm afraid is down to the luck of the overseas visitors route. We <br />
simply cannot control that *and* provide decent quality images. Flash <br />
cannot get a 50K image across the pond in anything less than 50K. AJAX <br />
can't either. As time goes on and server technology evolves, the situation <br />
will only get better.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 11:43:25 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
<br />
> Previously when I visited the page I had my sound muted. This time (by <br />
> chance) I did not, and it was set quite low, but still enough to drive the <br />
> subwoofer on my system. I became quite alarmed as we live in an area where <br />
> destructive storms and tornadoes are not all that uncommon<br />
> Thanks so much for the scare.<br />
<br />
I hope once you can look back and laugh at this you may be able to come back <br />
and say it was unreasonable of you to blame us for not thinking of subwoofer <br />
users living in tornado regions.<br />
<br />
For a number of reasons we have defaulted the sound to 'off', as well as <br />
removing what people thought were 'waves on a beach'. A beach that had <br />
lorries on it.<br />
<br />
We have now made several major changes based on constructive feedback at <br />
these groups, and it is welcomed when made in a friendly way, so thank you.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 12:00:28 von Andrew</span>
<p>On 2007-11-27, Mika <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
> We have now made several major changes based on constructive feedback at <br />
> these groups, and it is welcomed when made in a friendly way, so thank you.<br />
<br />
I for one was impressed with the mostly good humour you have shown<br />
when some have given you what I believe the English call 'a right good<br />
bollocking' :-)<br />
<br />
Andrew<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Now I can praise him, now that I can stand by to mourn<br />
and speak before this web that killed my father; yet<br />
I grieve for the thing done, the death, and all our race.<br />
I have won; but my victory is soiled, and has no pride.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 13:01:09 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"andrew" <andrew@ilium.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:slrnfknu47.f6r.andrew@ilium.invalid...<br />
> On 2007-11-27, Mika <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
> [...]<br />
><br />
>> We have now made several major changes based on constructive feedback at<br />
>> these groups, and it is welcomed when made in a friendly way, so thank <br />
>> you.<br />
><br />
> I for one was impressed with the mostly good humour you have shown<br />
> when some have given you what I believe the English call 'a right good<br />
> bollocking' :-)<br />
<br />
Thanks, it took some doing. Yes we have been well and truly bollocked. <br />
Wait you weren't saying they were talking bollocks were you? :P (Joke!).<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 20:48:14 von Bergamot</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:XTw2j.17210$CN4.11777@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
> <br />
>> So, *you* want to choose my font size but you insist that I supply the <br />
>> background?.<br />
> <br />
> Yes, the background colour is rarely changed by anyone - most people can't <br />
> even find that setting! Font size however is commonly changed, so we have <br />
> to have some control there.<br />
<br />
Um, if people change their browsers font size, dontcha think there's a<br />
good reason for that? Like, maybe, so they can actually *read* text? If<br />
your design cannot accommodate variations in your visitors' settings,<br />
it's a flawed design. If it breaks easily, then it's seriously flawed.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Berg</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 21:09:41 von Bergamot</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> <br />
> The online sites we <br />
> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship <br />
> overseas<br />
<br />
Really? When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York<br />
relocate to the UK? They are listed bold as day on your home page.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Berg</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 27.11.2007 22:17:17 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
news:5r3bs6F12lfo6U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>><br />
>> The online sites we<br />
>> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
>> overseas<br />
><br />
> Really? When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York<br />
> relocate to the UK? They are listed bold as day on your home page.<br />
<br />
*Sigh* it's like spoon feeding a baby this. Reread what we said, then work <br />
out why your comment is pointless.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 00:49:31 von Bergamot</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:5r3bs6F12lfo6U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>><br />
>>> The online sites we<br />
>>> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
>>> overseas<br />
>><br />
>> Really? When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York<br />
>> relocate to the UK? They are listed bold as day on your home page.<br />
> <br />
> *Sigh* it's like spoon feeding a baby this. Reread what we said, then work <br />
> out why your comment is pointless. <br />
<br />
I reread it. I quote:<br />
"...The online sites we<br />
link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
overseas unfortunately (this is out of our hands). If you are in the UK<br />
the page should load in a few seconds."<br />
<br />
In another post, replying to rf:<br />
"Oh dear you are ready to be offended... but no, it is not our choice,<br />
it is the choice of the shops. 99% of them do not offer International<br />
delivery you see, so unless you live in the UK, there is little point<br />
shopping at UK online shops. Do you understand now? Is that okay?<br />
Shall we rewrite all their websites and convert their delivery depots<br />
for you? This is a UK site featuring UK streets on a UK server. Is<br />
that unfair? Do you want us to move Oxford Street to Pakistan perhaps?"<br />
<br />
Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false. BTW, if<br />
it were true, you wouldn't have a .com domain name, but a .uk domain.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Berg</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 01:23:30 von rf</span>
<p>"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
<br />
> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false. BTW, if<br />
> it were true, you wouldn't have a .com domain name, but a .uk domain.<br />
<br />
Don't worry, Berg.<br />
<br />
They have hived off to c.i.w.a.site.design to conduct a download time <br />
survey. One is not allowed to comment on anything other than the download <br />
time, though:<br />
<br />
> We would appreciate your testing the following pages and responding with<br />
> *only* the following information for each of the pages. Please copy and<br />
> paste *just the following* into your reply for each page.<br />
<br />
There are some !important caveats to the use of the site though:<br />
<br />
> NB:<br />
> ! The site is designed for Broadband so please do not test using dial-up<br />
> ! JavaScript must be enabled<br />
> ! Designed for IE, FF and Safari only so please do not test elsewhere <br />
> (Opera<br />
> limitations on div widths prevent it working currently)<br />
> ! Please familiarise yourself with the home page first to understand the<br />
> concept: http://tinyurl.com/...<br />
<br />
I particularly like the Opera limitations. So, now not only must we live in <br />
the UK but we are prohibited from using other than the authors designated <br />
browsers.<br />
<br />
It gets more amusing all the time :-)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 01:47:14 von lws4art</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
<br />
> I particularly like the Opera limitations. So, now not only must we live in <br />
> the UK but we are prohibited from using other than the authors designated <br />
> browsers.<br />
> <br />
> It gets more amusing all the time :-)<br />
> <br />
<br />
It's called "Focused Web Design" ;-)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Take care,<br />
<br />
Jonathan<br />
-------------------<br />
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO<br />
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 02:36:46 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <d2ab3$474cba91$40cba7bd$9492@NAXS.COM>,<br />
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:<br />
<br />
> rf wrote:<br />
> <br />
> > I particularly like the Opera limitations. So, now not only must we live in <br />
> > the UK but we are prohibited from using other than the authors designated <br />
> > browsers.<br />
> > <br />
> > It gets more amusing all the time :-)<br />
> > <br />
> <br />
> It's called "Focused Web Design" ;-)<br />
<br />
Why are there two Boots pharmacies next to each other? Is that a <br />
bus stop outside one of them and they decided to move next door <br />
after an unsuccesful protest to council? <br />
<br />
Do the notices in the window of the Boots that is smaller in <br />
width have signs in the windows outlining their protests to <br />
Council? <br />
<br />
Why can't I read them? I could if I was there shopping in the <br />
street. <br />
<br />
I like picking fights with strangers passing by when shopping. <br />
Why can't I do this?<br />
<br />
I like window shopping better than actually handing over my <br />
dough. Why can't I see stuff in the windows clearly. 6953 x 290 <br />
is too small for the pic, it is an insult to my incredibly fast <br />
ADSL connection. Mika, please make much bigger and allow me to <br />
bump into innocent people and argue with them, ask Travis for <br />
help with games and Flash.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 02:46:33 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
><br />
>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false. BTW, if<br />
>> it were true, you wouldn't have a .com domain name, but a .uk domain.<br />
><br />
> Don't worry, Berg.<br />
><br />
> They have hived off to c.i.w.a.site.design to conduct a download time <br />
> survey. One is not allowed to comment on anything other than the download <br />
> time, though:<br />
<br />
And will anyone be joining them? Perhaps they could use...uhh...an<br />
escort. :)<br />
<br />
>> We would appreciate your testing the following pages and responding with<br />
>> *only* the following information for each of the pages. Please copy and<br />
>> paste *just the following* into your reply for each page.<br />
><br />
> There are some !important caveats to the use of the site though:<br />
><br />
>> NB:<br />
>> ! The site is designed for Broadband so please do not test using dial-up<br />
>> ! JavaScript must be enabled<br />
>> ! Designed for IE, FF and Safari only so please do not test elsewhere <br />
>> (Opera<br />
>> limitations on div widths prevent it working currently)<br />
>> ! Please familiarise yourself with the home page first to understand the<br />
>> concept: http://tinyurl.com/...<br />
><br />
> I particularly like the Opera limitations. So, now not only must we live in <br />
> the UK but we are prohibited from using other than the authors designated <br />
> browsers.<br />
><br />
> It gets more amusing all the time :-)<br />
<br />
:)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 04:02:46 von Ed Mullen</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
> news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
>>>> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed <br />
>>>> for<br />
>>>> broadband):<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Thanks,<br />
>>>> Mika<br />
>>> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
>>> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
>>><br />
>>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>>><br />
>>> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific <br />
>>> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
>>><br />
>>> Mika<br />
>> The site still took about 40 seconds to load on a 6 Mbs cable connection <br />
>> from Alpharetta, GA. To me that is ponderously sloooooow. Even if the <br />
>> payoff is to my liking, and I'm having trouble liking (let alone <br />
>> understanding) your site.<br />
> <br />
> That is too slow. It should be under 10 seconds. Could you report the <br />
> results of a tracert to superhigstreet.com?<br />
> <br />
> Sadly there is little we can do about delays on your hops towards our site, <br />
> aside from relocating the server to the USA, and then we lose our majority <br />
> audience which are UK based. <br />
<br />
Tracing route to superhigstreet.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
over a maximum of 30 hops:<br />
<br />
1 * * * Request timed out.<br />
2 * * * Request timed out.<br />
3 12 ms 18 ms 19 ms <br />
ge-1-5-ur01.n1alpharetta.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.109.217]<br />
4 21 ms 25 ms 12 ms <br />
te-9-1-ur01.n2alpharetta.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.222]<br />
5 13 ms 13 ms 11 ms <br />
te-9-3-ur01.g1norcross.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.226]<br />
6 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms <br />
te-9-1-ur01.d9chamblee.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.142]<br />
7 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms <br />
te-9-1-ur01.d8decatur.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.146]<br />
8 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms <br />
te-9-1-ur02.d1stonemtn.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.150]<br />
9 10 ms 38 ms 11 ms <br />
te-9-1-ur01.d1stonemtn.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.154]<br />
10 14 ms 12 ms 11 ms <br />
te-9-2-ar01.d1stonemtn.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.158]<br />
11 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms <br />
te-9-1-ar01.b0atlanta.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.1]<br />
12 21 ms 21 ms 21 ms COMCAST-IP.car1.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
[4.71.252.6]<br />
13 20 ms 22 ms 33 ms te-3-2.car1.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
[4.71.252.5]<br />
14 22 ms 34 ms 35 ms ae-31-53.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
[4.68.103.94]<br />
15 46 ms 21 ms 32 ms ae-68.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
[4.69.134.50]<br />
16 47 ms 53 ms 39 ms ae-2.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net <br />
[4.69.132.86]<br />
17 36 ms 50 ms 38 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net <br />
[4.69.134.134]<br />
18 36 ms 35 ms 35 ms ae-23-79.car3.Washington1.Level3.net <br />
[4.68.17.69]<br />
19 46 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-7-2.r04.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.9.113]<br />
20 40 ms 47 ms 40 ms ae-1.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.2.180]<br />
21 228 ms 219 ms 240 ms po-3.r05.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.2.87]<br />
22 90 ms 255 ms 235 ms fa-0.opendns.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.12.114]<br />
23 35 ms 38 ms 35 ms nxdomain.guide.opendns.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Ed Mullen<br />
http://edmullen.net<br />
http://mozilla.edmullen.net<br />
http://abington.edmullen.net<br />
If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 04:14:37 von Ed Mullen</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
> news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
> <br />
>> Previously when I visited the page I had my sound muted. This time (by <br />
>> chance) I did not, and it was set quite low, but still enough to drive the <br />
>> subwoofer on my system. I became quite alarmed as we live in an area where <br />
>> destructive storms and tornadoes are not all that uncommon<br />
>> Thanks so much for the scare.<br />
> <br />
> I hope once you can look back and laugh at this you may be able to come back <br />
> and say it was unreasonable of you to blame us for not thinking of subwoofer <br />
> users living in tornado regions.<br />
<br />
I'm not angry with you and I didn't "blame" you for anything. I merely <br />
pointed out an actual scenario of how defaulting sound to "on" could be <br />
a very unwelcome thing for a user.<br />
<br />
> <br />
> For a number of reasons we have defaulted the sound to 'off', as well as <br />
> removing what people thought were 'waves on a beach'. A beach that had <br />
> lorries on it.<br />
<br />
Very wise and much appreciated. Fewer surprise sounds on the Web is a <br />
good thing.<br />
<br />
> We have now made several major changes based on constructive feedback at <br />
> these groups, and it is welcomed when made in a friendly way, so thank you.<br />
> <br />
> Mika <br />
<br />
HTH.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Ed Mullen<br />
http://edmullen.net<br />
http://mozilla.edmullen.net<br />
http://abington.edmullen.net<br />
Are there seeing eye humans for blind dogs?</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 04:27:04 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <5dWdnZrAqsaDQNHanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>,<br />
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:<br />
<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
> > "Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
> > news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
> > <br />
> >> Previously when I visited the page I had my sound muted. This time (by <br />
> >> chance) I did not, and it was set quite low, but still enough to drive the <br />
> >> subwoofer on my system. I became quite alarmed as we live in an area where <br />
> >> destructive storms and tornadoes are not all that uncommon<br />
> >> Thanks so much for the scare.<br />
> > <br />
> > I hope once you can look back and laugh at this you may be able to come <br />
> > back <br />
> > and say it was unreasonable of you to blame us for not thinking of <br />
> > subwoofer <br />
> > users living in tornado regions.<br />
> <br />
> I'm not angry with you and I didn't "blame" you for anything. I merely <br />
> pointed out an actual scenario of how defaulting sound to "on" could be <br />
> a very unwelcome thing for a user.<br />
<br />
As it happens, I had an experience right at the start that sort <br />
of alarmed me with this sound. Had come back into the room when <br />
it was loaded and playing and I first thought something might be <br />
up with my tower, my HD, I was worried a bit. Took me a mo to <br />
realise it was the speakers and the website. I would not blame OP <br />
for not thinking of beings on the other side of the planet who <br />
dash in and out to grab cups of tea and stuff and have paranoid <br />
thoughts about their hardware <g><br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 06:05:29 von Bergamot</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
> <br />
>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false. BTW, if<br />
>> it were true, you wouldn't have a .com domain name, but a .uk domain.<br />
> <br />
> Don't worry, Berg.<br />
> <br />
> They have hived off to c.i.w.a.site.design<br />
<br />
Yeah, I noticed. They probably didn't consider that the same people<br />
subscribe to both ciwas-d and alt.html groups. :)<br />
<br />
> There are some !important caveats to the use of the site though:<br />
> <br />
>> (Opera limitations on div widths prevent it working currently)<br />
<br />
I can't imagine where they came up with this. More cluelessness, no<br />
doubt. :)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Berg</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:25:32 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
news:5r4b8rF12s7meU1@mid.individual.net...<br />
> rf wrote:<br />
>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message<br />
>> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>><br />
>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false. BTW, if<br />
>>> it were true, you wouldn't have a .com domain name, but a .uk domain.<br />
>><br />
>> Don't worry, Berg.<br />
>><br />
>> They have hived off to c.i.w.a.site.design<br />
><br />
> Yeah, I noticed. They probably didn't consider that the same people<br />
> subscribe to both ciwas-d and alt.html groups. :)<br />
<br />
Someone here helpfully suggested that group would be best placed to answer <br />
future queries. You can find that suggestion in this thread. Then we take <br />
that advice, and someone else has a complaint with it. That's fine! It's <br />
funny!<br />
<br />
>> There are some !important caveats to the use of the site though:<br />
>><br />
>>> (Opera limitations on div widths prevent it working currently)<br />
><br />
> I can't imagine where they came up with this. More cluelessness, no<br />
> doubt. :)<br />
<br />
Our streetscape on Oxford Street is very wide, and it scrolls from one end <br />
of a very wide div to the other. You only see a small portion of it through <br />
the window, but it is there Opera is the only browser that is incapable of <br />
supporting scrolling of a div that wide.<br />
<br />
We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when you <br />
balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser which 1% of the <br />
people *arriving* at our site have, and they all have IE installed anyway if <br />
they wish to use it after consulting our FAQ, then that is the choice we <br />
made. We understand the objections to it, however it was a carefully <br />
considered decision and that is the one we as the designers of our site have <br />
the right to make.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:38:12 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message<br />
>> news:5r3bs6F12lfo6U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> The online sites we<br />
>>>> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
>>>> overseas<br />
>>><br />
>>> Really? When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York<br />
>>> relocate to the UK? They are listed bold as day on your home page.<br />
>><br />
>> *Sigh* it's like spoon feeding a baby this. Reread what we said, then <br />
>> work<br />
>> out why your comment is pointless.<br />
><br />
> I reread it. I quote:<br />
> "...The online sites we<br />
> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
> overseas unfortunately (this is out of our hands). If you are in the UK<br />
> the page should load in a few seconds."<br />
><br />
> In another post, replying to rf:<br />
> "Oh dear you are ready to be offended... but no, it is not our choice,<br />
> it is the choice of the shops. 99% of them do not offer International<br />
> delivery you see, so unless you live in the UK, there is little point<br />
> shopping at UK online shops. Do you understand now? Is that okay?<br />
> Shall we rewrite all their websites and convert their delivery depots<br />
> for you? This is a UK site featuring UK streets on a UK server. Is<br />
> that unfair? Do you want us to move Oxford Street to Pakistan perhaps?"<br />
><br />
> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.<br />
<br />
Oh. My. God. Well, just for fun, we are going to help you with the plain <br />
English we used. Ready? Are you sitting down? Here we go...<br />
<br />
<br />
We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".<br />
<br />
You replied, "When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York <br />
relocate to the UK?"<br />
<br />
Solution to the puzzle:<br />
<br />
Miami, Beverley Hills, SF, and NY are not... "SHOPS"... *gasp*. They are <br />
funny things called "States".<br />
<br />
<br />
Now let's think about this Berg. Did we say, "The online sites we link to <br />
are UK STATES"? Or did we say, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS"? <br />
Hmm... are you getting warm yet?<br />
<br />
That's right! Clever boy! :) You got it! All 3 full Streetscapes are UK <br />
streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find around the <br />
world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.<br />
<br />
Why? Because you can't actually have a truly international shopping site <br />
where all or even most products are available to be delivered to visitors <br />
from all countries. Virtually no single retailer supports this delivery <br />
structure. The USA is reknowned for not allowing UK delivery addresses when <br />
shopping at its websites. Even Amazon have not managed this on the whole, <br />
so they split their site into UK, USA, Germany, Australia, etc. to solve the <br />
problem.<br />
<br />
Berg, let's help you understand. We are a small startup. We have chosen to <br />
start in the UK. It could have been USA or Australia if we lived there, but <br />
we are in the UK.<br />
<br />
If we get big, sure, one day Superhighstreet.COM (which means 'Commercial', <br />
not 'USA', and is used by the majority of British websites) will be our <br />
global portal, and redirect you to our .co.uk, .au and all other <br />
country-specific sites just like Amazon, but for now, as we are just <br />
beginning, is it okay by you if we just support one country at the start? <br />
Like just about every single website that has ever been launched in the <br />
history of mankind did? Is that okay? Please Berg? Pretty please? Only <br />
with your consent to this ludicrous proposal of ours can we ever find the <br />
comfort to go on!...<br />
<br />
:P</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:40:27 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
news:J4CdnTgQ47DFR9HanZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
<br />
>> Sadly there is little we can do about delays on your hops towards our <br />
>> site, aside from relocating the server to the USA, and then we lose our <br />
>> majority audience which are UK based.<br />
><br />
> Tracing route to superhigstreet.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
> over a maximum of 30 hops:<br />
<br />
Thanks Ed, this is helpful.<br />
<br />
> 1 * * * Request timed out.<br />
> 2 * * * Request timed out.<br />
<br />
These are your most local hops, and they are timing out. I would take this <br />
up urgently with your ISP, explaining they were hops towards a UK server. <br />
That would explain your extended delay.<br />
<br />
> 3 12 ms 18 ms 19 ms <br />
> ge-1-5-ur01.n1alpharetta.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.109.217]<br />
> 4 21 ms 25 ms 12 ms <br />
> te-9-1-ur01.n2alpharetta.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.222]<br />
> 5 13 ms 13 ms 11 ms <br />
> te-9-3-ur01.g1norcross.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.226]<br />
> 6 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms <br />
> te-9-1-ur01.d9chamblee.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.142]<br />
> 7 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms <br />
> te-9-1-ur01.d8decatur.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.146]<br />
> 8 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms <br />
> te-9-1-ur02.d1stonemtn.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.150]<br />
> 9 10 ms 38 ms 11 ms <br />
> te-9-1-ur01.d1stonemtn.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.154]<br />
> 10 14 ms 12 ms 11 ms <br />
> te-9-2-ar01.d1stonemtn.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.158]<br />
> 11 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms <br />
> te-9-1-ar01.b0atlanta.ga.atlanta.comcast.net [68.86.106.1]<br />
> 12 21 ms 21 ms 21 ms COMCAST-IP.car1.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
> [4.71.252.6]<br />
> 13 20 ms 22 ms 33 ms te-3-2.car1.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
> [4.71.252.5]<br />
> 14 22 ms 34 ms 35 ms ae-31-53.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
> [4.68.103.94]<br />
> 15 46 ms 21 ms 32 ms ae-68.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net <br />
> [4.69.134.50]<br />
> 16 47 ms 53 ms 39 ms ae-2.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net <br />
> [4.69.132.86]<br />
> 17 36 ms 50 ms 38 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net <br />
> [4.69.134.134]<br />
> 18 36 ms 35 ms 35 ms ae-23-79.car3.Washington1.Level3.net <br />
> [4.68.17.69]<br />
> 19 46 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-7-2.r04.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
> [129.250.9.113]<br />
> 20 40 ms 47 ms 40 ms ae-1.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
> [129.250.2.180]<br />
> 21 228 ms 219 ms 240 ms po-3.r05.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
> [129.250.2.87]<br />
> 22 90 ms 255 ms 235 ms fa-0.opendns.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
> [129.250.12.114]<br />
<br />
Finally you reach the UK where we are able to have some control!...<br />
<br />
> 23 35 ms 38 ms 35 ms nxdomain.guide.opendns.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
<br />
Thanks again for the info. Very useful.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:41:26 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message <br />
news:doraymeRidThis-B11D15.14270428112007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...<br />
> In article <5dWdnZrAqsaDQNHanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>,<br />
> Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:<br />
><br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>> > "Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message<br />
>> > news:JuydncROB8siDtbanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
>> ><br />
>> >> Previously when I visited the page I had my sound muted. This time <br />
>> >> (by<br />
>> >> chance) I did not, and it was set quite low, but still enough to drive <br />
>> >> the<br />
>> >> subwoofer on my system. I became quite alarmed as we live in an area <br />
>> >> where<br />
>> >> destructive storms and tornadoes are not all that uncommon<br />
>> >> Thanks so much for the scare.<br />
>> ><br />
>> > I hope once you can look back and laugh at this you may be able to come<br />
>> > back<br />
>> > and say it was unreasonable of you to blame us for not thinking of<br />
>> > subwoofer<br />
>> > users living in tornado regions.<br />
>><br />
>> I'm not angry with you and I didn't "blame" you for anything. I merely<br />
>> pointed out an actual scenario of how defaulting sound to "on" could be<br />
>> a very unwelcome thing for a user.<br />
><br />
> As it happens, I had an experience right at the start that sort<br />
> of alarmed me with this sound. Had come back into the room when<br />
> it was loaded and playing and I first thought something might be<br />
> up with my tower, my HD, I was worried a bit. Took me a mo to<br />
> realise it was the speakers and the website. I would not blame OP<br />
> for not thinking of beings on the other side of the planet who<br />
> dash in and out to grab cups of tea and stuff and have paranoid<br />
> thoughts about their hardware <g><br />
<br />
Incredibly, it didn't cross our minds ;)<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:47:30 von rf</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:UN93j.54364$c_1.10348@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
<br />
> Miami, Beverley Hills, SF, and NY are not... "SHOPS"... *gasp*. They are <br />
> funny things called "States".<br />
<br />
Last time I was there (and yes, I have been to all of them, except Miami) <br />
they were either cities or suburbs of some city. States are much bigger <br />
things, like California. Well, you might get away with calling NY a state <br />
but most people differentiate between New York, the city and Upstate New <br />
York, or New York State, the state.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:53:51 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
news:CW93j.17938$CN4.8309@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
><br />
> Last time I was there (and yes, I have been to all of them, except Miami) <br />
> they were either cities or suburbs of some city. States are much bigger <br />
> things, like California. Well, you might get away with calling NY a state <br />
> but most people differentiate between New York, the city and Upstate New <br />
> York, or New York State, the state.<br />
<br />
My sincere apologies for any distress caused to any cities or their families <br />
by calling them states. It is early in the morning and I was referring of <br />
course just to the state of NY, rather than the city of New York, NY.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 09:56:04 von Randy Webb</span>
<p>Mika said the following on 11/26/2007 4:48 PM:<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
>> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed for<br />
>> broadband):<br />
>><br />
>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks,<br />
>> Mika<br />
> <br />
> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
> <br />
> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
> <br />
> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific question - <br />
> that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
<br />
After 60 seconds on an 8mb Cable line, and being asked twice if I wanted <br />
to cancel the script, I canceled it. The sound on there is annoying though.<br />
<br />
What you might want to do, for testing, is to make a "dummy" copy of it <br />
and add a timer to the page to tell any potential user/tester how long <br />
it took to load the page.<br />
<br />
Set a variable to a new Date() at the very beginning of the page, then <br />
after the last script has executed, and the page is "ready", take a <br />
second new Date() and compare them. Then insert it in the page to tell <br />
the user "This page took: ### time to download and be ready". It would <br />
keep people from having to guess at how long it took because they aren't <br />
sure it is finished loading yet.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Randy<br />
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind<br />
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html<br />
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:19:18 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome@aol.com> wrote in message <br />
news:fKydnaUQSuC5sNDaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...<br />
> Mika said the following on 11/26/2007 4:48 PM:<br />
>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
>>> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed <br />
>>> for<br />
>>> broadband):<br />
>>><br />
>>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>>><br />
>>> Thanks,<br />
>>> Mika<br />
>><br />
>> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
>> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
>><br />
>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific <br />
>> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
><br />
> After 60 seconds on an 8mb Cable line, and being asked twice if I wanted <br />
> to cancel the script, I canceled it. The sound on there is annoying <br />
> though.<br />
<br />
What sound? We removed the sound the day before you posted the above <br />
message. We also sped up the site significantly. Feel free to test again <br />
today, which would be more relevant.<br />
<br />
Thanks.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:25:36 von Randy Webb</span>
<p>Mika said the following on 11/28/2007 5:19 AM:<br />
> "Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome@aol.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:fKydnaUQSuC5sNDaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...<br />
>> Mika said the following on 11/26/2007 4:48 PM:<br />
>>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:d2S1j.52361$c_1.21339@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>>> Hi all, if you could kindly test this W3C validated page specifically in<br />
>>>> Firefox only and advise if you see the streetscape appear. (Designed <br />
>>>> for<br />
>>>> broadband):<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Thanks,<br />
>>>> Mika<br />
>>> We have done some tweaks to the site and would like to know if it is any <br />
>>> faster for those of you who found it slow across international servers.<br />
>>><br />
>>> http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr<br />
>>><br />
>>> Thanks in advance for any constructive answers to this specific <br />
>>> question - that is all that is needed, thanks.<br />
>> After 60 seconds on an 8mb Cable line, and being asked twice if I wanted <br />
>> to cancel the script, I canceled it. The sound on there is annoying <br />
>> though.<br />
> <br />
> What sound? <br />
<br />
It was cache related. Reloaded and no sound now.<br />
<br />
> We removed the sound the day before you posted the above message. <br />
<br />
I posted it 2 hours ago. Not sure why, but I got sound the first two <br />
times I tested it. Just tried again and the sound is gone.<br />
<br />
> We also sped up the site significantly. Feel free to test again <br />
> today, which would be more relevant.<br />
<br />
Unless you have changed something in the last 2 hours, it won't change <br />
anything. Although this time, I don't get the hourglass and script <br />
warning and it seems to load fairly quickly. Didn't time it though.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Randy<br />
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind<br />
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html<br />
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:40:12 von a.nony.mous</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when<br />
> you balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser which<br />
> 1% of the people *arriving* at our site have,<br />
<br />
which is probably the most standards-compliant browser available. It's<br />
the only one to pass the Acid2 test. (But I believe I've already<br />
mentioned this.)<br />
<br />
What, no Opera? Next, we'll find a note on the page that says, "Sorry,<br />
Jamaicans can't shop here." <snorkle><br />
<br />
Oh, and your iframe does work for me with Opera 9.23.<br />
<br />
> and they all have IE installed anyway<br />
<br />
Only those using Windows...<br />
<br />
-- <br />
-bts<br />
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:40:21 von a.nony.mous</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
<br />
> "Mika" wrote:<br />
> <br />
>> Miami, Beverley Hills, SF, and NY are not... "SHOPS"... *gasp*. They are <br />
>> funny things called "States".<br />
> <br />
> Last time I was there (and yes, I have been to all of them, except Miami)<br />
<br />
Do you speak Spanish? ;-)<br />
<br />
> they were either cities or suburbs of some city. States are much<br />
> bigger things, like California. Well, you might get away with calling<br />
> NY a state but most people differentiate between New York, the city<br />
> and Upstate New York, or New York State, the state.<br />
<br />
We Upstate New Yorkers [1] sometimes wish that *Downstate* New York<br />
could be cut off and pushed out to sea. Or give 'em to Connecticut and<br />
New Jersey. Our taxes would halve.<br />
<br />
1. I'm actually halfway between "Upstate" and "Western" New York.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
-bts<br />
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:44:41 von a.nony.mous</span>
<p>In alt.html, Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
> "Ed Mullen" wrote:<br />
>> Tracing route to superhigstreet.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
>> over a maximum of 30 hops:<br />
> <br />
> Thanks Ed, this is helpful.<br />
> <br />
>> 1 * * * Request timed out.<br />
>> 2 * * * Request timed out.<br />
> <br />
> These are your most local hops, and they are timing out. I would take<br />
> this up urgently with your ISP, explaining they were hops towards a<br />
> UK server. That would explain your extended delay.<br />
<br />
There is no problem with his ISP. That merely indicates those two hops<br />
(which could very well be his own router and cable modem) do not respond<br />
to pings and traceroutes.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
-bts<br />
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:56:39 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Randy Webb" <HikksNotAtHome@aol.com> wrote in message <br />
news:97ydnds_4cO939DaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...<br />
<br />
>> We also sped up the site significantly. Feel free to test again today, <br />
>> which would be more relevant.<br />
><br />
> Unless you have changed something in the last 2 hours, it won't change <br />
> anything. Although this time, I don't get the hourglass and script warning <br />
> and it seems to load fairly quickly. Didn't time it though.<br />
<br />
That's great to know Randy. Rough time guess would be appreciated.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:57:46 von Andrew</span>
<p>On 2007-11-28, Mika <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when you <br />
> balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser which 1% of the <br />
> people *arriving* at our site have, and they all have IE installed anyway if <br />
> they wish to use it after consulting our FAQ, then that is the choice we <br />
> made. We understand the objections to it, however it was a carefully <br />
> considered decision and that is the one we as the designers of our site have <br />
> the right to make. <br />
<br />
Hmmm.... I appreciate that in the beginning of this thread you were<br />
asking about Firefox, but if you go down the road of aiming at IE you<br />
will be deliberately excluding those of us who run Linux. IE runs on<br />
Linux but it is a bit of a pain to get running and most don't.<br />
<br />
Andrew<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Now I can praise him, now that I can stand by to mourn<br />
and speak before this web that killed my father; yet<br />
I grieve for the thing done, the death, and all our race.<br />
I have won; but my victory is soiled, and has no pride.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 11:59:05 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:gAb3j.57910$if6.26725@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
><br />
>> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when<br />
>> you balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser which<br />
>> 1% of the people *arriving* at our site have,<br />
><br />
> which is probably the most standards-compliant browser available. It's<br />
> the only one to pass the Acid2 test. (But I believe I've already<br />
> mentioned this.)<br />
<br />
Zzz yes you did... if you think regular web surfers know or care... :P<br />
<br />
> What, no Opera? Next, we'll find a note on the page that says, "Sorry,<br />
> Jamaicans can't shop here." <snorkle><br />
<br />
No, then I'd be racist like some people here.<br />
<br />
> Oh, and your iframe does work for me with Opera 9.23.<br />
<br />
You're on the wrong street. Oxford Street does not load properly on Opera, <br />
does it?<br />
<br />
>> and they all have IE installed anyway<br />
><br />
> Only those using Windows...<br />
<br />
Hahah you guys are hilarious! If they don't have Windows, then they have <br />
Safari installed, which the site is also written for! What the heck are you <br />
going on about? :-S ;)</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 12:00:24 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"andrew" <andrew@ilium.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:slrnfkqib5.81m.andrew@ilium.invalid...<br />
> On 2007-11-28, Mika <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
> [...]<br />
><br />
>> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when you<br />
>> balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser which 1% of <br />
>> the<br />
>> people *arriving* at our site have, and they all have IE installed anyway <br />
>> if<br />
>> they wish to use it after consulting our FAQ, then that is the choice we<br />
>> made. We understand the objections to it, however it was a carefully<br />
>> considered decision and that is the one we as the designers of our site <br />
>> have<br />
>> the right to make.<br />
><br />
> Hmmm.... I appreciate that in the beginning of this thread you were<br />
> asking about Firefox, but if you go down the road of aiming at IE you<br />
> will be deliberately excluding those of us who run Linux. IE runs on<br />
> Linux but it is a bit of a pain to get running and most don't.<br />
<br />
The site is fully FF compliant, as well as Safari, and always will be. We <br />
just said Opera does not support our scrolling div width.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 12:51:20 von a.nony.mous</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when<br />
>>> you balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser<br />
>>> which 1% of the people *arriving* at our site have,<br />
>> <br />
>> which is probably the most standards-compliant browser available.<br />
>> It's the only one to pass the Acid2 test. (But I believe I've<br />
>> already mentioned this.)<br />
> <br />
> Zzz yes you did... if you think regular web surfers know or care... <br />
> :P<br />
<br />
Probably not, but _you_ should.<br />
<br />
>> What, no Opera? Next, we'll find a note on the page that says, "Sorry,<br />
>> Jamaicans can't shop here." <snorkle><br />
> <br />
> No, then I'd be racist like some people here.<br />
<br />
<snorkle> is like <guffaw> or <chuckle>.<br />
<br />
>> Oh, and your iframe does work for me with Opera 9.23.<br />
> <br />
> You're on the wrong street. Oxford Street does not load properly on Opera, <br />
> does it?<br />
<br />
Oh, I didn't realize you had different templates for different streets.<br />
We've been looking at George Street for so long ...<br />
<br />
[checks Oxford] The street starts with a London bus with a Harrod's ad<br />
on the side of it, then horizontally scrolls down the street if I wish<br />
to do so. I don't see any difference from George.<br />
<br />
>>> and they all have IE installed anyway<br />
>><br />
>> Only those using Windows...<br />
> <br />
> Hahah you guys are hilarious! If they don't have Windows, then they have <br />
> Safari installed, which the site is also written for!<br />
<br />
My Linux distro did not come with Safari installed.<br />
<br />
> What the heck are you going on about? :-S ;)<br />
<br />
You said, "they all have IE installed anyway"<br />
<br />
...for some value of "all", I suppose.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
-bts<br />
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 13:18:49 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:YCc3j.58048$if6.27100@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
><br />
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:<br />
>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when<br />
>>>> you balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser<br />
>>>> which 1% of the people *arriving* at our site have,<br />
>>><br />
>>> which is probably the most standards-compliant browser available.<br />
>>> It's the only one to pass the Acid2 test. (But I believe I've<br />
>>> already mentioned this.)<br />
>><br />
>> Zzz yes you did... if you think regular web surfers know or care...<br />
>> :P<br />
><br />
> Probably not<br />
<br />
Glad we agree on something.<br />
<br />
>>> Oh, and your iframe does work for me with Opera 9.23.<br />
>><br />
>> You're on the wrong street. Oxford Street does not load properly on <br />
>> Opera,<br />
>> does it?<br />
><br />
> Oh, I didn't realize you had different templates for different streets.<br />
> We've been looking at George Street for so long ...<br />
><br />
> [checks Oxford] The street starts with a London bus with a Harrod's ad<br />
> on the side of it, then horizontally scrolls down the street if I wish<br />
> to do so. I don't see any difference from George.<br />
<br />
You really gotta trust us when we say it does not work. Oxford Street on <br />
Opera only goes as far as House of Fraser, then Opera's limitation is <br />
reached. Load Oxford Street in IE or FF and you'll see it goes on for over <br />
a mile.<br />
<br />
Please, no more arguing for the sake of it. We know it doesn't work with <br />
Opera, and we don't need to convince anyone else of that fact.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 13:34:07 von rf</span>
<p>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:pAb3j.165112$kj1.147178@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...<br />
> rf wrote:<br />
><br />
>> "Mika" wrote:<br />
>><br />
>>> Miami, Beverley Hills, SF, and NY are not... "SHOPS"... *gasp*. They <br />
>>> are<br />
>>> funny things called "States".<br />
>><br />
>> Last time I was there (and yes, I have been to all of them, except Miami)<br />
><br />
> Do you speak Spanish? ;-)<br />
<br />
No. Why? Not many Spaniards over here. Although funilly enough the girl down <br />
the end of the street grew up in Spain and speaks it well.<br />
<br />
> We Upstate New Yorkers [1] sometimes wish that *Downstate* New York<br />
> could be cut off and pushed out to sea. Or give 'em to Connecticut and<br />
> New Jersey. Our taxes would halve.<br />
><br />
> 1. I'm actually halfway between "Upstate" and "Western" New York.<br />
<br />
Spent some weeks with friends in Utica, skiing in all the upstate areas. <br />
Placid down to the Finger Lakes and over to Vermont. That was about 5 or so <br />
years ago, the year the snow dumped all the way down to South Carolina and <br />
shut it down. Had to brush a foot of snow off the rent-a-car every morning <br />
in Placid.<br />
<br />
Very Nice part of the planet :-)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 14:13:24 von a.nony.mous</span>
<p>rf wrote:<br />
<br />
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:<br />
>> rf wrote:<br />
>>>... except Miami)<br />
>><br />
>> Do you speak Spanish? ;-)<br />
> <br />
> No. Why? ...<br />
<br />
The last time I was in Miami, signs were starting to appear on<br />
storefronts stating "English spoken here" ... and that was nearly twenty<br />
years ago.<br />
<br />
> [Upstate New York]<br />
> Very Nice part of the planet :-)<br />
<br />
'Tis true. I'm moving in a couple of weeks, and the new house overlooks<br />
Canandaigua Lake.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
-bts<br />
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 18:44:22 von lws4art</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
> news:gAb3j.57910$if6.26725@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
>>> and they all have IE installed anyway<br />
>> Only those using Windows...<br />
> <br />
> Hahah you guys are hilarious! If they don't have Windows, then they have <br />
> Safari installed, which the site is also written for! What the heck are you <br />
> going on about? :-S ;) <br />
> <br />
> <br />
<br />
My Ubuntu and Mandrake boxes have neither IE or Safari...<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Take care,<br />
<br />
Jonathan<br />
-------------------<br />
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO<br />
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 19:32:42 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message <br />
news:d66ec$474da8f4$40cba7b1$19021@NAXS.COM...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
>> news:gAb3j.57910$if6.26725@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
>>> Mika wrote:<br />
><br />
>>>> and they all have IE installed anyway<br />
>>> Only those using Windows...<br />
>><br />
>> Hahah you guys are hilarious! If they don't have Windows, then they have <br />
>> Safari installed, which the site is also written for! What the heck are <br />
>> you going on about? :-S ;)<br />
><br />
> My Ubuntu and Mandrake boxes have neither IE or Safari...<br />
<br />
You know the site runs on Firefox so why even bother replying? You guys <br />
crack me up. Picky picky picky picky. You should all change your usernames <br />
to Picky McPickleson.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 19:38:37 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:J0d3j.54448$c_1.33165@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
> news:YCc3j.58048$if6.27100@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>><br />
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:<br />
>>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>>> We know, we could rewrite the entire site from scratch, however when<br />
>>>>> you balance the cost and time of that with supporting a browser<br />
>>>>> which 1% of the people *arriving* at our site have,<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> which is probably the most standards-compliant browser available.<br />
>>>> It's the only one to pass the Acid2 test. (But I believe I've<br />
>>>> already mentioned this.)<br />
>>><br />
>>> Zzz yes you did... if you think regular web surfers know or care...<br />
>>> :P<br />
>><br />
>> Probably not<br />
><br />
> Glad we agree on something.<br />
><br />
>>>> Oh, and your iframe does work for me with Opera 9.23.<br />
>>><br />
>>> You're on the wrong street. Oxford Street does not load properly on <br />
>>> Opera,<br />
>>> does it?<br />
>><br />
>> Oh, I didn't realize you had different templates for different streets.<br />
>> We've been looking at George Street for so long ...<br />
>><br />
>> [checks Oxford] The street starts with a London bus with a Harrod's ad<br />
>> on the side of it, then horizontally scrolls down the street if I wish<br />
>> to do so. I don't see any difference from George.<br />
><br />
> You really gotta trust us when we say it does not work. Oxford Street on <br />
> Opera only goes as far as House of Fraser, then Opera's limitation is <br />
> reached. Load Oxford Street in IE or FF and you'll see it goes on for <br />
> over a mile.<br />
><br />
> Please, no more arguing for the sake of it. We know it doesn't work with <br />
> Opera, and we don't need to convince anyone else of that fact.<br />
<br />
That's interesting... no reply. You guys are like a rottweiler with a bone <br />
when you think you're right about something and often turn to pack bullying, <br />
but as soon as you realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without <br />
a word.<br />
<br />
People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature enough <br />
to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice, take it or <br />
leave it though.<br />
<br />
Mika<br />
<br />
PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry I was <br />
wrong, Opera is the only browser that doesn't support the length of your <br />
div - you were right". We are very happy we have such a big div! It means <br />
we don't need to compensate in other areas of life ;)</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 19:43:41 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:UN93j.54364$c_1.10348@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message<br />
>>> news:5r3bs6F12lfo6U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>>><br />
>>>>> The online sites we<br />
>>>>> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
>>>>> overseas<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Really? When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York<br />
>>>> relocate to the UK? They are listed bold as day on your home page.<br />
>>><br />
>>> *Sigh* it's like spoon feeding a baby this. Reread what we said, then <br />
>>> work<br />
>>> out why your comment is pointless.<br />
>><br />
>> I reread it. I quote:<br />
>> "...The online sites we<br />
>> link to are UK shops and designed for UK visitors as they won't ship<br />
>> overseas unfortunately (this is out of our hands). If you are in the UK<br />
>> the page should load in a few seconds."<br />
>><br />
>> In another post, replying to rf:<br />
>> "Oh dear you are ready to be offended... but no, it is not our choice,<br />
>> it is the choice of the shops. 99% of them do not offer International<br />
>> delivery you see, so unless you live in the UK, there is little point<br />
>> shopping at UK online shops. Do you understand now? Is that okay?<br />
>> Shall we rewrite all their websites and convert their delivery depots<br />
>> for you? This is a UK site featuring UK streets on a UK server. Is<br />
>> that unfair? Do you want us to move Oxford Street to Pakistan perhaps?"<br />
>><br />
>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.<br />
><br />
> Oh. My. God. Well, just for fun, we are going to help you with the plain <br />
> English we used. Ready? Are you sitting down? Here we go...<br />
><br />
><br />
> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".<br />
><br />
> You replied, "When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York <br />
> relocate to the UK?"<br />
><br />
> Solution to the puzzle:<br />
><br />
> Miami, Beverley Hills, SF, and NY are not... "SHOPS"... *gasp*. They are <br />
> funny things called "States".<br />
><br />
><br />
> Now let's think about this Berg. Did we say, "The online sites we link to <br />
> are UK CITIES"? Or did we say, "The online sites we link to are UK <br />
> SHOPS"? Hmm... are you getting warm yet?<br />
><br />
> That's right! Clever boy! :) You got it! All 3 full Streetscapes are <br />
> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find around <br />
> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.<br />
><br />
> Why? Because you can't actually have a truly international shopping site <br />
> where all or even most products are available to be delivered to visitors <br />
> from all countries. Virtually no single retailer supports this delivery <br />
> structure. The USA is reknowned for not allowing UK delivery addresses <br />
> when shopping at its websites. Even Amazon have not managed this on the <br />
> whole, so they split their site into UK, USA, Germany, Australia, etc. to <br />
> solve the problem.<br />
><br />
> Berg, let's help you understand. We are a small startup. We have chosen <br />
> to start in the UK. It could have been USA or Australia if we lived <br />
> there, but we are in the UK.<br />
><br />
> If we get big, sure, one day Superhighstreet.COM (which means <br />
> 'Commercial', not 'USA', and is used by the majority of British websites) <br />
> will be our global portal, and redirect you to our .co.uk, .au and all <br />
> other country-specific sites just like Amazon, but for now, as we are just <br />
> beginning, is it okay by you if we just support one country at the start? <br />
> Like just about every single website that has ever been launched in the <br />
> history of mankind did? Is that okay? Please Berg? Pretty please? Only <br />
> with your consent to this ludicrous proposal of ours can we ever find the <br />
> comfort to go on!...<br />
><br />
> :P<br />
<br />
Just going to repeat this but...<br />
<br />
That's interesting... no reply from you. You are like a rottweiler with a <br />
bone<br />
when you think you're right about something and often turn to pack bullying,<br />
but as soon as you realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without<br />
a word.<br />
<br />
People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature enough<br />
to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice, take it or<br />
leave it though.<br />
<br />
Mika<br />
<br />
PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry I was<br />
wrong, you do only link to UK shops... I confused them with cities - you <br />
were right."</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 21:31:30 von Ed Mullen</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
> news:J4CdnTgQ47DFR9HanZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
> <br />
>>> Sadly there is little we can do about delays on your hops towards our <br />
>>> site, aside from relocating the server to the USA, and then we lose our <br />
>>> majority audience which are UK based.<br />
>> Tracing route to superhigstreet.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
>> over a maximum of 30 hops:<br />
> <br />
> Thanks Ed, this is helpful.<br />
> <br />
>> 1 * * * Request timed out.<br />
>> 2 * * * Request timed out.<br />
> <br />
> These are your most local hops, and they are timing out. I would take this <br />
> up urgently with your ISP, explaining they were hops towards a UK server. <br />
> That would explain your extended delay.<br />
<br />
Have to agree with BTS that this is insignificant as it happens on <br />
virtually every tracert I do. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I can get <br />
to most every UK site I tested in just a couple of seconds. And the <br />
largest times are when the tracert leaves the US and starts hitting <br />
ntt.net in the UK:<br />
<br />
19 46 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-7-2.r04.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.9.113]<br />
20 40 ms 47 ms 40 ms ae-1.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.2.180]<br />
21 228 ms 219 ms 240 ms po-3.r05.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.2.87]<br />
22 90 ms 255 ms 235 ms fa-0.opendns.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net <br />
[129.250.12.114]<br />
23 35 ms 38 ms 35 ms nxdomain.guide.opendns.com [208.69.32.130]<br />
<br />
Still, 219-255 ms is fine. So, the only conclusion I can make is that <br />
the load time is dependent upon the amount of "stuff" coming down the <br />
pipe to create your page. I suppose it's also possible that the way <br />
your page is built could be contributing but I honestly can't say. Hey, <br />
I'm not complaining, just discussing.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Ed Mullen<br />
http://edmullen.net<br />
http://mozilla.edmullen.net<br />
http://abington.edmullen.net<br />
And whose cruel idea was it to put an S in the word Lisp?</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 21:33:32 von a.nony.mous</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
> That's interesting... no reply.<br />
<br />
Sorry, I was away from home for most of the day. I guess that's<br />
interesting.<br />
<br />
> You guys are like a rottweiler with a bone when you think you're right<br />
> about something and often turn to pack bullying, but as soon as you<br />
> realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without a word.<br />
<br />
<guffaw><br />
<br />
> People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature<br />
> enough to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice,<br />
> take it or leave it though. <br />
<br />
So tell me then why Opera seems to work on George Street?<br />
<br />
> PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry<br />
> I was wrong, Opera is the only browser that doesn't support the<br />
> length of your div - you were right". We are very happy we have such<br />
> a big div! It means we don't need to compensate in other areas of<br />
> life ;)<br />
<br />
"Sorry, how was I to know by just a quick scan of Oxford Street that it<br />
was not complete?" Having never been there, of course. It scrolled and<br />
scrolled and scrolled. If you hadn't written it, would you notice at a<br />
glance that the display was not a complete street? No, you wouldn't.<br />
<br />
Keep your chair.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
-bts<br />
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 28.11.2007 23:05:03 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:wgk3j.59126$if6.59058@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
><br />
>> That's interesting... no reply.<br />
><br />
> Sorry, I was away from home for most of the day. I guess that's<br />
> interesting.<br />
<br />
Now lying to cover your inability to admit when you should have trusted what <br />
we said about Opera? I wrote the above message at 12:18 BST. You were here <br />
responding to others at 13:13 BST. Funny how you answered other topics but <br />
not ours where you were proved wrong.<br />
<br />
Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better stop <br />
this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years spouting <br />
the same old nonsense! :P<br />
<br />
>> You guys are like a rottweiler with a bone when you think you're right<br />
>> about something and often turn to pack bullying, but as soon as you<br />
>> realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without a word.<br />
><br />
> <guffaw><br />
<br />
Oh it is funny, not without a word, you typed lots of words to other people <br />
just not to me.<br />
<br />
>> People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature<br />
>> enough to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice,<br />
>> take it or leave it though.<br />
><br />
> So tell me then why Opera seems to work on George Street?<br />
<br />
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!<br />
<br />
*STILL* you're making us explain ourselves? You could have just kept shshed <br />
and took our word for it that we knew what we were talking about, but now <br />
you want even more justifications for something we never even asked you to <br />
comment on?! :O<br />
<br />
George Street is tiny. Oxford Street is huge. Therefore, George Street <br />
never hits Opera's limitation, wherease Oxford Street does before you get <br />
halfway.<br />
<br />
Again, you didn't need to know this, you just needed not to comment and tell <br />
us we were wrong.<br />
<br />
>> PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry<br />
>> I was wrong, Opera is the only browser that doesn't support the<br />
>> length of your div - you were right". We are very happy we have such<br />
>> a big div! It means we don't need to compensate in other areas of<br />
>> life ;)<br />
><br />
> "Sorry, how was I to know by just a quick scan of Oxford Street that it<br />
> was not complete?" Having never been there, of course. It scrolled and<br />
<br />
You weren't. You weren't even asked to consider it let along comment or say <br />
"it works fine" when we know it doesn't.<br />
<br />
> Keep your chair.<br />
<br />
Keep your hair.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 01:34:47 von Bone Ur</span>
<p>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03<br />
GMT Mika scribed: <br />
<br />
> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better<br />
> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years<br />
> spouting the same old nonsense! :P<br />
<br />
Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get that <br />
far. However, you may wish to tone it down, anyway, so as not to offend <br />
Andrew.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Bone Ur<br />
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 09:16:16 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message <br />
news:Xns99F6B2D4875B0boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...<br />
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03<br />
> GMT Mika scribed:<br />
><br />
>> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better<br />
>> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years<br />
>> spouting the same old nonsense! :P<br />
><br />
> Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get that<br />
> far.<br />
<br />
Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong on <br />
2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters like <br />
you.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 10:01:36 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <kzu3j.54796$c_1.10991@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,<br />
"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> "Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:Xns99F6B2D4875B0boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...<br />
> > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03<br />
> > GMT Mika scribed:<br />
> ><br />
> >> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better<br />
> >> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years<br />
> >> spouting the same old nonsense! :P<br />
> ><br />
> > Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get that<br />
> > far.<br />
> <br />
> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong on <br />
> 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters like <br />
> you. <br />
<br />
A lot of stuff has gotten twisted and confused. Beauregard T. <br />
Shagnasty is a good man and his instincts are not to be lightly <br />
brushed aside. Never mind the micro details of the exchanges.<br />
<br />
There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is <br />
your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to <br />
confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that <br />
people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so <br />
on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?<br />
<br />
Is there a site that has no js, no flash, no constant big or <br />
little delays, that has perhaps simple diagramatic (rather than <br />
the 6953 x 290px jpg you use in one of your pages) very low <br />
bandwidth implementation of the idea at least of moving along a <br />
street with a mouse (think low bandwidth b & w sketches or <br />
diagrams to *represent* the street rather than *depict* it)? <br />
<br />
Without some control of this kind, it is impossible to go on <br />
anything but hunches and guesses. And the feedback from people <br />
here has been pretty hard on you and irritating to you. But in <br />
the absence of hard evidence what is there to go on?<br />
<br />
You see, I really question whether people would be prepared to <br />
pay the price of slowness and clunkiness for an experience that <br />
is so far below the one of real shopping. I do not hear any <br />
people from the UK on this newsgroup supporting the site in terms <br />
of speed and handiess?<br />
<br />
I have mentioned (not just as a joke) a few things before about <br />
how great is the shortfallin any meaningfiul claim that it "like" <br />
really being there. One can barely read any window signs or see <br />
in for a start. I know what you would like ideally. You would <br />
love a way to give your viewers a high quality virtual experience <br />
(think Boeing 747 simulators). How can a jpg of your dimensions <br />
(look at the tiny 290px height for a start) possibly do this? It <br />
falls *so far short of any real experience* that perhaps you <br />
should bite the bullet and not even try to be so realistic and <br />
fail. Better to be representative, to enable things efficiently <br />
and quickly in another way.<br />
<br />
If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to <br />
you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 10:23:55 von Bone Ur</span>
<p>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:16:16<br />
GMT Mika scribed: <br />
<br />
>>> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better<br />
>>> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for<br />
>>> years spouting the same old nonsense! :P<br />
>><br />
>> Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get<br />
>> that far.<br />
> <br />
> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name)<br />
> wrong on 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed<br />
> masters like you. <br />
<br />
That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're using <br />
non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it correct, and <br />
defending your position by stating that is has to be that way to work. <br />
Without denying the reliance of "Google Maps" on anything at all, the <br />
premise is bullshit. Period. If the empirical facts are as you profess, <br />
and, indeed, I have no reason to believe they are not, then a change _must_ <br />
be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack and one <br />
fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck. If you <br />
want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the same way, <br />
not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in self-denial over <br />
that concept, my remark was quite valid and accurate.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Bone Ur<br />
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 13:02:18 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message <br />
news:doraymeRidThis-F09CE7.20013629112007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...<br />
> In article <kzu3j.54796$c_1.10991@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
>> "Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message<br />
>> news:Xns99F6B2D4875B0boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...<br />
>> > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03<br />
>> > GMT Mika scribed:<br />
>> ><br />
>> >> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better<br />
>> >> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years<br />
>> >> spouting the same old nonsense! :P<br />
>> ><br />
>> > Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get <br />
>> > that<br />
>> > far.<br />
>><br />
>> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong <br />
>> on<br />
>> 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters <br />
>> like<br />
>> you.<br />
><br />
> A lot of stuff has gotten twisted and confused. Beauregard T.<br />
> Shagnasty is a good man and his instincts are not to be lightly<br />
> brushed aside. Never mind the micro details of the exchanges.<br />
><br />
> There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is<br />
> your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to<br />
> confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that<br />
> people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so<br />
> on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?<br />
><br />
> Is there a site that has no js, no flash, no constant big or<br />
> little delays, that has perhaps simple diagramatic (rather than<br />
> the 6953 x 290px jpg you use in one of your pages) very low<br />
> bandwidth implementation of the idea at least of moving along a<br />
> street with a mouse (think low bandwidth b & w sketches or<br />
> diagrams to *represent* the street rather than *depict* it)?<br />
><br />
> Without some control of this kind, it is impossible to go on<br />
> anything but hunches and guesses. And the feedback from people<br />
> here has been pretty hard on you and irritating to you. But in<br />
> the absence of hard evidence what is there to go on?<br />
><br />
> You see, I really question whether people would be prepared to<br />
> pay the price of slowness and clunkiness for an experience that<br />
> is so far below the one of real shopping. I do not hear any<br />
> people from the UK on this newsgroup supporting the site in terms<br />
> of speed and handiess?<br />
><br />
> I have mentioned (not just as a joke) a few things before about<br />
> how great is the shortfallin any meaningfiul claim that it "like"<br />
> really being there. One can barely read any window signs or see<br />
> in for a start. I know what you would like ideally. You would<br />
> love a way to give your viewers a high quality virtual experience<br />
> (think Boeing 747 simulators). How can a jpg of your dimensions<br />
> (look at the tiny 290px height for a start) possibly do this? It<br />
> falls *so far short of any real experience* that perhaps you<br />
> should bite the bullet and not even try to be so realistic and<br />
> fail. Better to be representative, to enable things efficiently<br />
> and quickly in another way.<br />
><br />
> If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to<br />
> you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.<br />
<br />
In a nutshell as I think this thread is getting a little tiresome, yes the <br />
site makes money in the UK, and we get 5-figure hits per month, many from <br />
repeat visitors. That is the science behind the chat.<br />
<br />
Also just to clarify for once and for all, in the UK the site is not "slow & <br />
clunky" to use, it is rather nippy on any reasonably modern pooter or <br />
connection. See the video:<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2m8pON8n0 This was captured live off the <br />
web, not locally.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 13:11:45 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message <br />
news:Xns99F71865A6959boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...<br />
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:16:16<br />
> GMT Mika scribed:<br />
><br />
>>>> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better<br />
>>>> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for<br />
>>>> years spouting the same old nonsense! :P<br />
>>><br />
>>> Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get<br />
>>> that far.<br />
>><br />
>> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name)<br />
>> wrong on 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed<br />
>> masters like you.<br />
><br />
> That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're using<br />
> non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it correct, and<br />
> defending your position by stating that is has to be that way to work.<br />
<br />
It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is true, <br />
are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have. We have <br />
done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.<br />
<br />
The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that give <br />
doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't <br />
know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that the Great <br />
British shopping public would first run a test to see if the site has any <br />
inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.<br />
<br />
Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go <br />
shopping.<br />
<br />
The major differences of opinion here are through some here's inability to <br />
understand that:<br />
<br />
A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence <br />
commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops is <br />
about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong language <br />
for Americans.<br />
<br />
B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge <br />
majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as it <br />
displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100% <br />
everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to as <br />
invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a validation site <br />
reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The elements that are in <br />
'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know that a validation site <br />
thinks it is not right, who on earth does that affect the browsing <br />
experience of? I have never understood that. These errors all function <br />
100% perfectly! What harp on about them then? Is that important to you, <br />
that they work well, but some website says they are wrong? Who cares? I <br />
shouldn't be cause they cause no issue whatsoever at all zilch nada.<br />
<br />
> a change _must_<br />
> be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack and <br />
> one<br />
> fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck. If you<br />
> want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the same way,<br />
> not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in self-denial over<br />
> that concept, my remark was quite valid and accurate.<br />
<br />
As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is the <br />
UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA portal, rest <br />
assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in 5 seconds for you <br />
too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so tiresome and is what I have <br />
said from the start. This is a *UK* website.<br />
<br />
Long live the Queen!</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 13:45:34 von Andy Dingley</span>
<p>On 29 Nov, 12:11, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
> This is a *UK* website.<br />
<br />
I'm in the UK.<br />
<br />
It's still shit.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 13:50:59 von Norman Peelman</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message <br />
> news:wgk3j.59126$if6.59058@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne t...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>><br />
>>> That's interesting... no reply.<br />
>> Sorry, I was away from home for most of the day. I guess that's<br />
>> interesting.<br />
> <br />
> Now lying to cover your inability to admit when you should have trusted what <br />
> we said about Opera? I wrote the above message at 12:18 BST. You were here <br />
> responding to others at 13:13 BST. Funny how you answered other topics but <br />
> not ours where you were proved wrong.<br />
> <br />
> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better stop <br />
> this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years spouting <br />
> the same old nonsense! :P<br />
> <br />
>>> You guys are like a rottweiler with a bone when you think you're right<br />
>>> about something and often turn to pack bullying, but as soon as you<br />
>>> realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without a word.<br />
>> <guffaw><br />
> <br />
> Oh it is funny, not without a word, you typed lots of words to other people <br />
> just not to me.<br />
> <br />
>>> People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature<br />
>>> enough to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice,<br />
>>> take it or leave it though.<br />
>> So tell me then why Opera seems to work on George Street?<br />
> <br />
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!<br />
> <br />
> *STILL* you're making us explain ourselves? You could have just kept shshed <br />
> and took our word for it that we knew what we were talking about, but now <br />
> you want even more justifications for something we never even asked you to <br />
> comment on?! :O<br />
> <br />
> George Street is tiny. Oxford Street is huge. Therefore, George Street <br />
> never hits Opera's limitation, wherease Oxford Street does before you get <br />
> halfway.<br />
> <br />
> Again, you didn't need to know this, you just needed not to comment and tell <br />
> us we were wrong.<br />
> <br />
>>> PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry<br />
>>> I was wrong, Opera is the only browser that doesn't support the<br />
>>> length of your div - you were right". We are very happy we have such<br />
>>> a big div! It means we don't need to compensate in other areas of<br />
>>> life ;)<br />
>> "Sorry, how was I to know by just a quick scan of Oxford Street that it<br />
>> was not complete?" Having never been there, of course. It scrolled and<br />
> <br />
> You weren't. You weren't even asked to consider it let along comment or say <br />
> "it works fine" when we know it doesn't.<br />
> <br />
>> Keep your chair.<br />
> <br />
> Keep your hair. <br />
> <br />
> <br />
<br />
<br />
Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
(run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way <br />
to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
<br />
Norm</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 17:15:56 von Bergamot</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:UN93j.54364$c_1.10348@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>>><br />
>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.<br />
>><br />
>> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".<br />
>><br />
>> All 3 full Streetscapes are <br />
>> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find around <br />
>> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.<br />
<br />
So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK<br />
if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.<br />
<br />
>> We are a small startup. We have chosen <br />
>> to start in the UK. It could have been USA or Australia if we lived <br />
>> there, but we are in the UK.<br />
<br />
Now your disregard for how the site performs outside the UK makes even<br />
less sense. Good luck with that international thing.<br />
<br />
> That's interesting... no reply from you.<br />
<br />
Not interesting at all. I do have another life away from Usenet, and<br />
I'll be returning to it now.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Berg</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 17:49:09 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Bergamot wrote:<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:UN93j.54364$c_1.10348@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.<br />
>>><br />
>>> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".<br />
>>><br />
>>> All 3 full Streetscapes are <br />
>>> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find around <br />
>>> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.<br />
><br />
> So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK<br />
> if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.<br />
<br />
Mostly what he wants is pats on the back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 18:41:50 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
<br />
> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way to <br />
> the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
><br />
> Norm<br />
<br />
That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does Portobello <br />
Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work correctly in <br />
Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. In any other <br />
browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 18:44:15 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message <br />
news:ea5e6af7-a124-4772-bb69-435f7d0fa65b@e6g2000prf.googleg roups.com...<br />
> On 29 Nov, 12:11, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
>> This is a *UK* website.<br />
><br />
> I'm in the UK.<br />
><br />
> It's still shit.<br />
<br />
That is perhaps the most unhelpful info anyone has given to date, and from a <br />
fellow Brit no less.<br />
<br />
Can you define your swear word - what does it refer to specifically? Your <br />
broadband load time should be under 10 seconds, around 5 more likely. We <br />
therefore doubt that is the "it" you refer to, unless you have major ISP <br />
issues.<br />
<br />
If you feel the concept is **** that is your opinion to which you are <br />
entitled. As others have said here, they feel it is neat. It is just slow <br />
outside the UK.<br />
<br />
If you feel like contributing anything mature or remotely specific and <br />
therefore useful, please feel free.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 18:48:56 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message <br />
news:5r86tuF13etdeU1@mid.individual.net...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message<br />
>> news:UN93j.54364$c_1.10348@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message<br />
>>> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.<br />
>>><br />
>>> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".<br />
>>><br />
>>> All 3 full Streetscapes are<br />
>>> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find <br />
>>> around<br />
>>> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.<br />
><br />
> So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK<br />
> if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.<br />
<br />
Perhaps with 5 more seconds thought you might have 'got it'. Brand names <br />
are universal. Our UK visitors however like the idea of shopping in other <br />
famous streets outside the UK.<br />
<br />
So, they could go to Fifth Avenue, click on Tiffany & Co., and be taken <br />
inside the Tiffany *UK* website. Tiffany will then deliver their goods to <br />
them in the UK. They can literally have breakfast at the world famous 5th <br />
Avenue Tiffany's, in their dressing gown. Breakfast at Tiffany's.<br />
<br />
We haven't finished the 5th Ave. streetscape yet, but it is coming.<br />
<br />
>>> We are a small startup. We have chosen<br />
>>> to start in the UK. It could have been USA or Australia if we lived<br />
>>> there, but we are in the UK.<br />
><br />
> Now your disregard for how the site performs outside the UK makes even<br />
> less sense. Good luck with that international thing.<br />
<br />
Sorry that makes no sense. We are testing the site to a UK audience. Thus <br />
how it works in Pakistan is not important. When we launch our portal in <br />
Pakistan, then it will. That is quite logical and how every single web <br />
company in the world started. You wanted us to launch globally from day <br />
one? Fine, if you give us the money to enable it! Think things through <br />
before posting.<br />
<br />
>> That's interesting... no reply from you.<br />
><br />
> Not interesting at all. I do have another life away from Usenet, and<br />
> I'll be returning to it now.<br />
<br />
Yet you replied to others just not our message where you were proven wrong. <br />
Oops. :P</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 18:50:19 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message <br />
news:slrnfktrcv.lj8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net...<br />
> Bergamot wrote:<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message<br />
>>> news:UN93j.54364$c_1.10348@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>>>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message<br />
>>>> news:5r3oodF12u6n2U1@mid.individual.net...<br />
>>>>><br />
>>>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> All 3 full Streetscapes are<br />
>>>> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find <br />
>>>> around<br />
>>>> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.<br />
>><br />
>> So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK<br />
>> if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.<br />
><br />
> Mostly what he wants is pats on the back.<br />
<br />
Says Blinky conveniently forgetting that we have received many criticisms <br />
here and acted on every single one that we possibly could, thus changing <br />
many things. How does that mean we just want praise? Again people here <br />
talking nonsense and making up fairy tales. Good luck with that. What a <br />
waste of time!<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 21:06:15 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <eTx3j.54885$c_1.50609@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,<br />
"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> news:doraymeRidThis-F09CE7.20013629112007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...<br />
> > In article <kzu3j.54796$c_1.10991@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,<br />
> > "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> > There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is<br />
> > your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to<br />
> > confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that<br />
> > people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so<br />
> > on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?<br />
> ><br />
.....<br />
> ><br />
> > If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to<br />
> > you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.<br />
> <br />
> yes the <br />
> site makes money in the UK, and we get 5-figure hits per month, many from <br />
> repeat visitors. <br />
> <br />
<br />
If you are making significant money, why are you bothering with <br />
the criticisms here that are way off all proper understanding in <br />
your estimation? Frankly, I would not mind seeing an objective <br />
analysis of what your UK visitors actually do and think? What <br />
really constitutes repeat visitors (I am a repeat visitor). The U <br />
tube demo is publicity, it does not show the average UK visitor <br />
experience, I could make that here. <br />
<br />
Please now publish a full account of your costs and takings, in <br />
detail (*we* can do the dividing by 3). And prepare for a <br />
representative committee from alt.html visiting to look into your <br />
books and commission focus groups and surveys among the UK <br />
residents. <br />
<br />
You will be expected to put the committee up in comfortable <br />
circumstances. By the way, in case I am lucky enough to get on to <br />
it, I don't like Earl Grey (too scenty for me), but I do like <br />
Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 21:15:29 von Els</span>
<p>dorayme wrote:<br />
<br />
> but I do like <br />
> Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.<br />
<br />
http://www.hydeparkwinterwonderland.com/<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Els http://locusmeus.com/</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 21:25:21 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <19z8vnfunl5qm.44fahncu8ct6.dlg@40tude.net>,<br />
Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote:<br />
<br />
> dorayme wrote:<br />
> <br />
> > but I do like <br />
> > Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.<br />
> <br />
> http://www.hydeparkwinterwonderland.com/<br />
<br />
<g><br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 22:34:38 von Bone Ur</span>
<p>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:11:45<br />
GMT Mika scribed: <br />
<br />
>> That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're<br />
>> using non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it<br />
>> correct, and defending your position by stating that is has to be<br />
>> that way to work. <br />
> <br />
> It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is<br />
> true, are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have.<br />
> We have done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.<br />
> <br />
> The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that<br />
> give doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who<br />
> doesn't know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that<br />
> the Great British shopping public would first run a test to see if the<br />
> site has any inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.<br />
> <br />
> Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go <br />
> shopping.<br />
> <br />
> The major differences of opinion here are through some here's<br />
> inability to understand that:<br />
> <br />
> A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence <br />
> commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops<br />
> is about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong<br />
> language for Americans.<br />
> <br />
> B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge<br />
> majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as<br />
> it displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100% <br />
> everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to<br />
> as invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a<br />
> validation site reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The<br />
> elements that are in 'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know<br />
> that a validation site thinks it is not right, who on earth does that<br />
> affect the browsing experience of? I have never understood that. <br />
> These errors all function 100% perfectly! What harp on about them<br />
> then? Is that important to you, that they work well, but some website<br />
> says they are wrong? Who cares? I shouldn't be cause they cause no<br />
> issue whatsoever at all zilch nada. <br />
<br />
Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it <br />
against every possibly condition under which it should work as it <br />
supposedly does?<br />
<br />
Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I <br />
will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain <br />
invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that <br />
doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page, <br />
and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical <br />
conditions.<br />
<br />
>> a change _must_<br />
>> be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack<br />
>> and one<br />
>> fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck. <br />
>> If you want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the<br />
>> same way, not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in<br />
>> self-denial over that concept, my remark was quite valid and<br />
>> accurate. <br />
> <br />
> As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is<br />
> the UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA<br />
> portal, rest assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in<br />
> 5 seconds for you too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so<br />
> tiresome and is what I have said from the start. This is a *UK*<br />
> website. <br />
> <br />
> Long live the Queen! <br />
<br />
Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Bone Ur<br />
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 29.11.2007 22:47:50 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message <br />
news:Xns99F794483B759boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...<br />
><br />
> Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it<br />
> against every possibly condition under which it should work as it<br />
> supposedly does?<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
> Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I<br />
> will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain<br />
<br />
No, they all function perfectly in all supported browsers now.<br />
<br />
> invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that<br />
> doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page,<br />
> and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical<br />
> conditions.<br />
<br />
Why? That is just unnecessary work and expense to fix something that isn't <br />
broken. If it works, don't mend it.<br />
<br />
>> Long live the Queen!<br />
><br />
> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a<br />
> King.<br />
<br />
I don't think you've actually agreed with a single point I've ever raised <br />
here. If I said black was white, you'd probably try to explain that it is <br />
grey.<br />
<br />
Shall we leave it alone now lol?!</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 00:35:21 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Bone Ur wrote:<br />
<br />
> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
<br />
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 01:13:36 von Norman Peelman</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
> <br />
>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
>> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way to <br />
>> the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
>><br />
>> Norm<br />
> <br />
> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does Portobello <br />
> Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work correctly in <br />
> Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. In any other <br />
> browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far. <br />
> <br />
> <br />
<br />
Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px <br />
for the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does <br />
not exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.<br />
<br />
Norm</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 03:34:45 von Ed Mullen</span>
<p>Blinky the Shark wrote:<br />
> Bone Ur wrote:<br />
> <br />
>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
>> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
>> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
>> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
>> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
> <br />
> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
<br />
I am SO glad that wasn't a pic of the queen running around the palace <br />
without her bloomers on!<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Ed Mullen<br />
http://edmullen.net<br />
http://mozilla.edmullen.net<br />
http://abington.edmullen.net<br />
You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 03:50:34 von Bone Ur</span>
<p>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:47:50<br />
GMT Mika scribed: <br />
<br />
> "Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:Xns99F794483B759boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...<br />
>><br />
>> Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it<br />
>> against every possibly condition under which it should work as it<br />
>> supposedly does?<br />
> <br />
> Yes.<br />
> <br />
>> Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too.<br />
>> I will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with<br />
>> certain <br />
> <br />
> No, they all function perfectly in all supported browsers now.<br />
> <br />
>> invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that<br />
>> doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a<br />
>> page, and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on<br />
>> empirical conditions.<br />
> <br />
> Why? That is just unnecessary work and expense to fix something that<br />
> isn't broken. If it works, don't mend it.<br />
> <br />
>>> Long live the Queen!<br />
>><br />
>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a<br />
>> King.<br />
> <br />
> I don't think you've actually agreed with a single point I've ever<br />
> raised here.<br />
<br />
So? I usually don't agree with these other jamokes here, either.<br />
<br />
> If I said black was white, you'd probably try to explain<br />
> that it is grey.<br />
<br />
Phhfft! Salt-and-pepper, obviously...<br />
<br />
> Shall we leave it alone now lol?! <br />
<br />
Yeah. Since your sense of humor has been so radically diminished by <br />
guilt over your website, that's probably the best course of action for a <br />
culpable prudish prune of a Brit to follow, anyway.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Bone Ur<br />
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 03:52:33 von Bone Ur</span>
<p>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:35:21 GMT <br />
Blinky the Shark scribed:<br />
<br />
> Bone Ur wrote:<br />
> <br />
>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
>> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
>> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
>> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
>> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
> <br />
> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
<br />
Ooey gooey - boogars and white gloves! Now I know what they mean by <br />
decadence.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Bone Ur<br />
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 04:16:19 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Ed Mullen wrote:<br />
> Blinky the Shark wrote:<br />
>> Bone Ur wrote:<br />
>> <br />
>>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
>>> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
>>> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
>>> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
>>> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
>> <br />
>> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
><br />
> I am SO glad that wasn't a pic of the queen running around the palace <br />
> without her bloomers on!<br />
<br />
I do have a heart.<br />
<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 04:17:23 von Blinky the Shark</span>
<p>Bone Ur wrote:<br />
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:35:21 GMT <br />
> Blinky the Shark scribed:<br />
><br />
>> Bone Ur wrote:<br />
>> <br />
>>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
>>> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
>>> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
>>> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
>>> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
>> <br />
>> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
> <br />
> Ooey gooey - boogars and white gloves! Now I know what they mean by <br />
> decadence.<br />
<br />
And surely not as good at chiseling out the stubborn ones with The Royal<br />
Fingernail.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Blinky<br />
Killing all posts from Google Groups<br />
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 04:33:13 von rf</span>
<p>"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message <br />
news:z5SdnQTRXYRf69LanZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com...<br />
> Blinky the Shark wrote:<br />
<br />
>> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
><br />
> I am SO glad that wasn't a pic of the queen running around the palace <br />
> without her bloomers on!<br />
<br />
or off!<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 04:54:25 von Ed Mullen</span>
<p>Blinky the Shark wrote:<br />
> Bone Ur wrote:<br />
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:35:21 GMT <br />
>> Blinky the Shark scribed:<br />
>><br />
>>> Bone Ur wrote:<br />
>>> <br />
>>>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a <br />
>>>> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your <br />
>>>> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie <br />
>>>> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that <br />
>>>> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.<br />
>>> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebrities/queen_elizabeth.jpg<br />
>> <br />
>> Ooey gooey - boogars and white gloves! Now I know what they mean by <br />
>> decadence.<br />
> <br />
> And surely not as good at chiseling out the stubborn ones with The Royal<br />
> Fingernail.<br />
> <br />
<br />
Surely, at some point, Monty Python must have done a routine titled: <br />
"The Royal Booger."<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Ed Mullen<br />
http://edmullen.net<br />
http://mozilla.edmullen.net<br />
http://abington.edmullen.net<br />
Why isn't the word phonetic spelled the way is sounds?</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 08:59:42 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>><br />
>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
>>> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way <br />
>>> to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
>>><br />
>>> Norm<br />
>><br />
>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.<br />
><br />
> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px for <br />
> the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does not <br />
> exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.<br />
<br />
Thanks for confirming what we said. We have notified the developers of <br />
Opera so hope they will remove this unnecessary limit. After all, as you <br />
say they don't have it on height.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 10:14:07 von Andy Dingley</span>
<p>On 29 Nov, 17:44, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> > I'm in the UK.<br />
><br />
> > It's still shit.<br />
><br />
> That is perhaps the most unhelpful info anyone has given to date, and from a<br />
> fellow Brit no less.<br />
<br />
Thankyou. Your mistake is to assume that I _intended_ it to be<br />
helpful. The insult was no less deliberate for that.<br />
<br />
You're very clearly beyond help. You've receieved a vast amount of it<br />
already, ignored all and ridiculed most of it. Your self-fixated ways<br />
have convinced you that you're already perfectly correct, even in the<br />
face of vast evidence to the contrary. No matter that anyone quite<br />
reasonably tells you is wrong with your horrible behemoth of a site,<br />
you refuse to listen to a word of it. You even ridicule the far more<br />
skilled members of this ng. who've bothered to try and help you.<br />
<br />
You're clearly either an idiot, or at least so impervious to advice,<br />
that it's a waste of time to comment further. There will be a gradual<br />
silence descending around you as more and more people drop you quietly<br />
into their killfiles. Why should anyone waste time arguing with a<br />
dullard? We do this a lot, but usually only when there's some<br />
interesting side debate - an idiot failing to understand trivia can<br />
still be informative, if it also causes Jukka to post a little aside<br />
illustrating some obscure point of DTD interpretation.<br />
<br />
As posters cease to pay attention to you, you'll no doubt interpret<br />
this as validation of the perfection of your site, when in fact it's<br />
anything but. My posting is merely intended as a codicil to this:<br />
don't assume that an end to debate means that we now agree your site<br />
is wonderful, because it surely isn't. Your site is, and is likely to<br />
remain, shit. I'd hate you to mistakenly think otherwise.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 10:51:08 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message <br />
news:cc74fc5c-ca93-46ab-aa6a-efb6dfb4c2a0@b40g2000prf.google groups.com...<br />
> On 29 Nov, 17:44, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
>> > I'm in the UK.<br />
>><br />
>> > It's still shit.<br />
>><br />
>> That is perhaps the most unhelpful info anyone has given to date, and <br />
>> from a<br />
>> fellow Brit no less.<br />
><br />
> Thankyou. Your mistake is to assume that I _intended_ it to be<br />
> helpful. The insult was no less deliberate for that.<br />
><br />
> You're very clearly beyond help. You've receieved a vast amount of it<br />
> already, ignored all and ridiculed most of it. Your self-fixated ways<br />
> have convinced you that you're already perfectly correct, even in the<br />
> face of vast evidence to the contrary. No matter that anyone quite<br />
> reasonably tells you is wrong with your horrible behemoth of a site,<br />
> you refuse to listen to a word of it. You even ridicule the far more<br />
> skilled members of this ng. who've bothered to try and help you.<br />
><br />
> You're clearly either an idiot, or at least so impervious to advice,<br />
> that it's a waste of time to comment further. There will be a gradual<br />
> silence descending around you as more and more people drop you quietly<br />
> into their killfiles. Why should anyone waste time arguing with a<br />
> dullard? We do this a lot, but usually only when there's some<br />
> interesting side debate - an idiot failing to understand trivia can<br />
> still be informative, if it also causes Jukka to post a little aside<br />
> illustrating some obscure point of DTD interpretation.<br />
><br />
> As posters cease to pay attention to you, you'll no doubt interpret<br />
> this as validation of the perfection of your site, when in fact it's<br />
> anything but. My posting is merely intended as a codicil to this:<br />
> don't assume that an end to debate means that we now agree your site<br />
> is wonderful, because it surely isn't. Your site is, and is likely to<br />
> remain, shit. I'd hate you to mistakenly think otherwise.<br />
<br />
How mature.<br />
<br />
We accept that the site may not be perceived as good when accessed from <br />
abroad, but if you try it when you are in the UK, you will see why it has <br />
been voted website of the day in a number of places including by the BBC. <br />
Here many people love the experience it brings, which is why we have 100s of <br />
repeat daily visitors.<br />
<br />
So yes, use it in the USA, and you may perceive it as "s**t", if that is the <br />
extent of your vocabulary.<br />
<br />
Use it in the UK as intended, and it is a far better experience - one you <br />
have not been able to recreate.<br />
<br />
So what really are you commenting on? Like I said, if that is your opinion <br />
of logic, go and complain to Google China that you can't understand the font <br />
they use.<br />
<br />
We will launch a USA portal, on USA servers, when we get there, but this is <br />
for now a UK startup. Surely that is not so very hard to comprehend.<br />
<br />
The huge mistake we made when posting here was forgetting that you are <br />
mostly from the USA.<br />
<br />
And as for your continued projection onto us that we have ignored and <br />
ridiculed the comments made here, you are completely ignorant to the fact we <br />
have changed *several* things based purely on the feedback here, and have <br />
said so over and over, and users here have reported since doing so that the <br />
site is "a lot faster", and we have now done as much as time and cost will <br />
allow. You will of course continue to believe that cannot be true, because <br />
that is the limit of your understanding. Because you know you cannot <br />
change, you project it onto someone you have no knowledge of and have never <br />
met, that in fact it is they who cannot change. This flies in the face of <br />
the hours of work we have done to change the very things fed back to us <br />
here.<br />
<br />
Please, continue to enjoy USA websites that do not try to do something <br />
interesting, innovative, or original. We are doing our best as a very small <br />
operation, and being bullied and berated by narrow-minded people who have <br />
not even had the intended experience the website gives to its target <br />
audience, is frankly a waste of both our time.<br />
<br />
It is I who will be drifting away from this group, I assure you, as it <br />
serves no purpose to ask for feedback from people who are incapable of <br />
giving it for a number of reasons, geographical and otherwise.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 10:52:22 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>><br />
>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
>>> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way <br />
>>> to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
>>><br />
>>> Norm<br />
>><br />
>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.<br />
><br />
> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px for <br />
> the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does not <br />
> exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.<br />
><br />
> Norm<br />
<br />
PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved it <br />
for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction <br />
(around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off it <br />
altogether.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 11:02:06 von Andy Dingley</span>
<p>On 30 Nov, 09:51, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> We accept that the site may not be perceived as good when accessed from<br />
> abroad, but if you try it when you are in the UK,<br />
<br />
I'm in the UK and I have 8M broadband.<br />
<br />
It's _still_ shit.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 11:39:25 von rf</span>
<p>"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message <br />
news:26aef9b6-cfff-4fbc-8df5-5fd6325c4fbe@j20g2000hsi.google groups.com...<br />
> On 30 Nov, 09:51, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
>> We accept that the site may not be perceived as good when accessed from<br />
>> abroad, but if you try it when you are in the UK,<br />
><br />
> I'm in the UK and I have 8M broadband.<br />
<br />
Har har har. How about *that* Mika?<br />
<br />
> It's _still_ shit.<br />
<br />
Agreed.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard.</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 13:15:29 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
news:xLR3j.18784$CN4.7119@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
><br />
> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:26aef9b6-cfff-4fbc-8df5-5fd6325c4fbe@j20g2000hsi.google groups.com...<br />
>> On 30 Nov, 09:51, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
>><br />
>>> We accept that the site may not be perceived as good when accessed from<br />
>>> abroad, but if you try it when you are in the UK,<br />
>><br />
>> I'm in the UK and I have 8M broadband.<br />
><br />
> Har har har. How about *that* Mika?<br />
><br />
>> It's _still_ shit.<br />
><br />
> Agreed.<br />
<br />
Nice gang bully mentality there. What's that on your nose Andy? :P<br />
<br />
(We notice you didn't comment or go 'har har' about my proving you wrong <br />
saying we had ignored the feedback here, when in fact we have acted on <br />
dozens of things mentioned here. Funny how you omit that isn't it. Har har <br />
har, what about *that*. Har har har zzzzzzz.)<br />
<br />
If what you say is true rf, and you find the page does not load in ~5 <br />
seconds, then there is something seriously wrong. You are the _only_ one in <br />
the UK.<br />
<br />
However we both know that is not the case, and your comment of it being <br />
"****" relates to your personal opinion of the site and concept, rather than <br />
the speed, which has been the complaint from the Americans, to which I <br />
refered to above.<br />
<br />
We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no <br />
unrealistic expectations to do so. Your thuggish comment is therefore <br />
completely irrelevant, especially to the subject of this thread. All you <br />
are saying by your comment rf, is "some people like some things, other <br />
people like other things". No kidding Shelock. Although we suspect you <br />
hate most things the amount of spite you seem to come on line to vent.<br />
<br />
Would be interested to see what innovative websites you have been working <br />
on, and we can let you know whether we think they are "neat" (as others have <br />
said in this group about ours), or "****", although we will choose more <br />
intelligent wording. ;)<br />
<br />
Good luck with that attitude,<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 13:39:26 von rf</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
news:B9T3j.55490$c_1.9372@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
><br />
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:xLR3j.18784$CN4.7119@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
>><br />
>> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:26aef9b6-cfff-4fbc-8df5-5fd6325c4fbe@j20g2000hsi.google groups.com...<br />
>>> On 30 Nov, 09:51, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
>>><br />
>>>> We accept that the site may not be perceived as good when accessed from<br />
>>>> abroad, but if you try it when you are in the UK,<br />
>>><br />
>>> I'm in the UK and I have 8M broadband.<br />
>><br />
>> Har har har. How about *that* Mika?<br />
>><br />
>>> It's _still_ shit.<br />
>><br />
>> Agreed.<br />
><br />
> Nice gang bully mentality there. What's that on your nose Andy? :P<br />
<br />
> (We notice you didn't comment or go 'har har' about my proving you wrong <br />
> saying we had ignored the feedback here, when in fact we have acted on <br />
> dozens of things mentioned here. Funny how you omit that isn't it. Har <br />
> har har, what about *that*. Har har har zzzzzzz.)<br />
<br />
Are you talking to Andy or me here. It's hard to tell.<br />
<br />
> If what you say is true rf, and you find the page does not load in ~5 <br />
> seconds, then there is something seriously wrong. You are the _only_ one <br />
> in the UK.<br />
<br />
You have seriously lost the plot here Mika. It is Andy that is in the UK. <br />
You know, and I know that you know, that I am in Australia. It's also right <br />
up there, at the top of your post. The bit that says: <br />
news-server.bigpond.net.au. You do know what the .au bit means?<br />
<br />
> However we both know that is not the case, and your comment of it being <br />
> "****" relates to your personal opinion of the site and concept,<br />
<br />
Yes, correct. Now that I am asked specifically, I think the site is actually <br />
shit. This is, as well as being a term that Andy uses, a term in common <br />
usage here in Australia. It can mean many things, as in, "Wow, that is some <br />
good shit", "O shit, I've dropped my beer", "This web site is shit". Take <br />
your pick.<br />
<br />
> rather than the speed, which has been the complaint from the Americans, to <br />
> which I refered to above.<br />
<br />
And the Australians.<br />
<br />
> We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no <br />
> unrealistic expectations to do so.<br />
<br />
You don't seem to have pleased many of the people here in these newsgroups <br />
at all.<br />
<br />
> Your thuggish comment is therefore<br />
<br />
Thuggish? Hmmm. Welcome to usenet. If I think a site is shit I will say it <br />
is shit. That is not thuggish. That is my opinion. And I am entitled to it.<br />
<br />
What gets right up my arse is heros like you who simply cannot understand <br />
that somebody else may think your pride and joy is just shit.<br />
<br />
> completely irrelevant, especially to the subject of this thread.<br />
<br />
Bullshit. The subject of this thread is "Does this page work in your <br />
Firefox?".<br />
<br />
I am here to tell you again that no, this page does *NOT* work in my <br />
Firefox. It also does not work in my IE5.5, IE6, IE7. It does not work in my <br />
Opera nor my Safari. It does not work, for me, in any browser you care to <br />
specify.<br />
<br />
I don't like the site.<br />
<br />
> Good luck with that attitude,<br />
<br />
And good luck with yours, Mika :-)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Richard</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 14:40:51 von Norman Peelman</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>><br />
>>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
>>>> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way <br />
>>>> to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Norm<br />
>>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.<br />
>> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px for <br />
>> the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does not <br />
>> exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.<br />
>><br />
>> Norm<br />
> <br />
> PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved it <br />
> for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction <br />
> (around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off it <br />
> altogether.<br />
> <br />
> Mika <br />
> <br />
> <br />
<br />
It appears to impact other elements as well, I tried a TABLE too. <br />
Funny thing is the height works up to 134217728px.The limit in FireFox <br />
appears to be 9999990px (for height or width). Any higher and FF still <br />
reports the value at that number, 10000000px causes the value to enter <br />
scientific notation (1e+7px).<br />
<br />
Norm</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 15:36:06 von lws4art</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>><br />
>>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk <br />
>>>> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way <br />
>>>> to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Norm<br />
>>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.<br />
>> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px for <br />
>> the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does not <br />
>> exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.<br />
>><br />
>> Norm<br />
> <br />
> PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved it <br />
> for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction <br />
> (around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off it <br />
> altogether<br />
<br />
See, this is where the "regulars" have been trying to explain the <br />
"wrongheadedness" of your design. The Web is not a media of vast <br />
horizontal content. It is a "web", the interconnection, the network, of <br />
smaller discreet bits of information that creates the synergy that is <br />
the Internet. What you are trying to make is a platform scroller game <br />
more suited for Nintendo.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Take care,<br />
<br />
Jonathan<br />
-------------------<br />
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO<br />
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 16:36:49 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
news:2wT3j.18819$CN4.3284@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
><br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message <br />
> news:B9T3j.55490$c_1.9372@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...<br />
>><br />
>> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:xLR3j.18784$CN4.7119@news-server.bigpond.net.au...<br />
>>><br />
>>> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:26aef9b6-cfff-4fbc-8df5-5fd6325c4fbe@j20g2000hsi.google groups.com...<br />
>>>> On 30 Nov, 09:51, "Mika" <a...@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
>> If what you say is true rf, and you find the page does not load in ~5 <br />
>> seconds, then there is something seriously wrong. You are the _only_ one <br />
>> in the UK.<br />
><br />
> You have seriously lost the plot here Mika. It is Andy that is in the UK.<br />
<br />
I am sorry you are right, I mixed you up because you were so far up each <br />
others... ;) Hehe. No wonder you say 'sh*t' a lot :P I would like to <br />
apologise for any distress caused to you or your loved ones for type the <br />
wrong letters on my keyboard. It's terrible, isn't it?<br />
<br />
> You know, and I know that you know, that I am in Australia. It's also <br />
> right up there, at the top of your post. The bit that says: <br />
> news-server.bigpond.net.au. You do know what the .au bit means?<br />
<br />
You obviously think I have far more time on my hands to read every <br />
character, unlike you.<br />
<br />
>> We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no <br />
>> unrealistic expectations to do so.<br />
><br />
> You don't seem to have pleased many of the people here in these newsgroups <br />
> at all.<br />
<br />
Welcome to usenet! No change there then.<br />
<br />
>> Your thuggish comment is therefore<br />
><br />
> Thuggish? Hmmm. Welcome to usenet. If I think a site is shit I will say it <br />
> is shit. That is not thuggish. That is my opinion. And I am entitled to <br />
> it.<br />
<br />
It is a thuggish opinion. A refined character would say, "it's not to my <br />
taste but good luck to you". A thug would say, "It's sh*t!", as that is the <br />
limit of their verbal expression.<br />
<br />
> What gets right up my arse is heros like you who simply cannot understand <br />
> that somebody else may think your pride and joy is just shit.<br />
<br />
It's spelt "heroes"'. Hmm with all your free time you missed the bit where <br />
I typed, "We know we cannot please all the people all the time, and have no <br />
unrealistic expectations to do so." How is that 'not understanding that <br />
somebody else may think your pride and joy is sh*t'? :-S I think you'll <br />
find it is not I who has lost the plot.<br />
<br />
You're clearly having a conversation with yourself at some projected target <br />
who is not me, as you don't digest or comprehend what I type before replying <br />
a complete contradiciton. Have you thought of therapy? Maybe there is <br />
someone in your life you need to address this anger to? Mean that <br />
constructively BTW not sarcastically.<br />
<br />
>> completely irrelevant, especially to the subject of this thread.<br />
><br />
> Bullshit. The subject of this thread is "Does this page work in your <br />
> Firefox?".<br />
<br />
Ooh a bull now too! What a long word! :P ;)<br />
<br />
> I am here to tell you again that no, this page does *NOT* work in my <br />
> Firefox. It also does not work in my IE5.5, IE6, IE7. It does not work in <br />
> my Opera nor my Safari. It does not work, for me, in any browser you care <br />
> to specify.<br />
<br />
You are either lying or have JS disabled, either of which will result in <br />
that answer.<br />
<br />
> I don't like the site.<br />
<br />
We compeltely and wholeheartedly respect your opinion and do not expect <br />
everybody on the planet to agree with the BBC Website of the Day, Personal <br />
Computer World magazine, Capital Radio Website of the Day, PC Magazine, <br />
About.com London Blog, Google Maps Mania, Pocket-lint Website of the Day, or <br />
the hundreds of repeat visitors we get. You are entitled to like or dislike <br />
anything you choose and I have and will never argue with that point. This <br />
thread was about Firefox.<br />
<br />
>> Good luck with that attitude,<br />
><br />
> And good luck with yours, Mika :-)<br />
<br />
No luck needed here as I won't be hanging around. I have been shocked to <br />
the very core of what human beings come out with in this group, hiding <br />
behind the excuse of 'welcome to Usenet'. It did cross my mind to report <br />
the racial abuse in writing from certain members to Google for removal, but <br />
frankly it is just too sad and laughable to even bother. Still, a shame. <br />
Imagine if their parents read the way they spoke to others. Whatever makes <br />
those people feel big I guess!<br />
<br />
Thanks for the stimulating dialogue :|<br />
<br />
Mika, Great Britain</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 16:40:54 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message <br />
news:93a60$47501fd3$40cba7ad$25160@NAXS.COM...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>>>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>>><br />
>>>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to <br />
>>>>> walk (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all <br />
>>>>> the way to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The <br />
>>>>> Quadrant.<br />
>>>>><br />
>>>>> Norm<br />
>>>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>>>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>>>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>>>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as <br />
>>>> far.<br />
>>> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px <br />
>>> for the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does <br />
>>> not exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with <br />
>>> javascript.<br />
>>><br />
>>> Norm<br />
>><br />
>> PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved <br />
>> it for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction <br />
>> (around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off <br />
>> it altogether<br />
><br />
> See, this is where the "regulars" have been trying to explain the <br />
> "wrongheadedness" of your design. The Web is not a media of vast <br />
> horizontal content. It is a "web", the interconnection, the network, of <br />
> smaller discreet bits of information that creates the synergy that is the <br />
> Internet. What you are trying to make is a platform scroller game more <br />
> suited for Nintendo.<br />
<br />
Jonathan, if a website works perfectly with IE, FF, Safari, Netscape... yet <br />
Opera has a limitation that they have admitted and are in the beta phase of <br />
fixing, let me get this straight, you are saying it is Superhighstreet that <br />
is 'wrong', not Opera? ...Who have admitted their bug.<br />
<br />
I'm pleased at least to see that you've changed your previous opinion where <br />
you stated Opera has no such limitation (search back in this thread), along <br />
with some insulting words thrown in to illustrate your 'point'. 'Short <br />
bloke' syndrome Mr Little? :P<br />
<br />
Have just had a look at your website. Hahahha! Very innovative. At least <br />
it loads fast I guess ;) Might want to get your own house up to an <br />
impressive level before pointing fingers at other people's.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 16:41:50 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
news:475012df$0$2552$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>> news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>>>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>>><br />
>>>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to <br />
>>>>> walk (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all <br />
>>>>> the way to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The <br />
>>>>> Quadrant.<br />
>>>>><br />
>>>>> Norm<br />
>>>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>>>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>>>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>>>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as <br />
>>>> far.<br />
>>> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px <br />
>>> for the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does <br />
>>> not exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with <br />
>>> javascript.<br />
>>><br />
>>> Norm<br />
>><br />
>> PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved <br />
>> it for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction <br />
>> (around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off <br />
>> it altogether.<br />
>><br />
>> Mika<br />
><br />
> It appears to impact other elements as well, I tried a TABLE too. Funny <br />
> thing is the height works up to 134217728px.The limit in FireFox appears <br />
> to be 9999990px (for height or width). Any higher and FF still reports the <br />
> value at that number, 10000000px causes the value to enter scientific <br />
> notation (1e+7px).<br />
<br />
Can't think why they did it but thanks, will feed that info back to them.<br />
<br />
I'm pleased to see there are some people here interested in actually holding <br />
a constructive discussion of specifics without feeling the need to resort to <br />
foul language and personal attacks.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 18:03:00 von Sherm Pendley</span>
<p>"Mika" <anon@anon.com> writes:<br />
<br />
> I am sorry you are right, I mixed you up because you were so far up each <br />
> others... ;) Hehe. No wonder you say 'sh*t' a lot :P I would like to <br />
> apologise for any distress caused to you or your loved ones for type the <br />
> wrong letters on my keyboard. It's terrible, isn't it?<br />
<br />
I could sort of understand your earlier stubbornness. You put a lot of work<br />
into your site, and you had a natural reluctance to believe in the flaws<br />
the rest of us see in it. I don't agree with that attitude, but I've seen<br />
it in action many times. It's a natural reaction to defend one's work.<br />
<br />
But now you're just behaving like a child, and I'm done with you.<br />
<br />
*plonk*<br />
<br />
sherm--<br />
<br />
-- <br />
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com<br />
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 18:16:19 von lws4art</span>
<p>Mika wrote:<br />
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message <br />
> news:93a60$47501fd3$40cba7ad$25160@NAXS.COM...<br />
>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>>> news:474f55b1$0$24310$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>>> Mika wrote:<br />
>>>>> "Norman Peelman" <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message <br />
>>>>> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...<br />
>>>>><br />
>>>>>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to <br />
>>>>>> walk (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all <br />
>>>>>> the way to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The <br />
>>>>>> Quadrant.<br />
>>>>>><br />
>>>>>> Norm<br />
>>>>> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does <br />
>>>>> Portobello Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work <br />
>>>>> correctly in Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. <br />
>>>>> In any other browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as <br />
>>>>> far.<br />
>>>> Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px <br />
>>>> for the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does <br />
>>>> not exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with <br />
>>>> javascript.<br />
>>>><br />
>>>> Norm<br />
>>> PS: Opera have been in touch and accepted the issue. They have improved <br />
>>> it for the 9.5 beta and tested our site, but there is still a restriction <br />
>>> (around 60000px now). We are working with them to take the ceiling off <br />
>>> it altogether<br />
>> See, this is where the "regulars" have been trying to explain the <br />
>> "wrongheadedness" of your design. The Web is not a media of vast <br />
>> horizontal content. It is a "web", the interconnection, the network, of <br />
>> smaller discreet bits of information that creates the synergy that is the <br />
>> Internet. What you are trying to make is a platform scroller game more <br />
>> suited for Nintendo.<br />
> <br />
> Jonathan, if a website works perfectly with IE, FF, Safari, Netscape... yet <br />
> Opera has a limitation that they have admitted and are in the beta phase of <br />
> fixing, let me get this straight, you are saying it is Superhighstreet that <br />
> is 'wrong', not Opera? ...Who have admitted their bug.<br />
<br />
No I am saying but your are not hearing that your design concept does <br />
not really fit the strengths of the media!<br />
<br />
> <br />
> I'm pleased at least to see that you've changed your previous opinion where <br />
> you stated Opera has no such limitation (search back in this thread), along <br />
> with some insulting words thrown in to illustrate your 'point'. 'Short <br />
> bloke' syndrome Mr Little? :P<br />
<br />
I never said any such thing with respect to the Opera browser. Maybe you <br />
better search back in this thread.<br />
<br />
> <br />
> Have just had a look at your website. Hahahha! Very innovative. <br />
<br />
Er, thanks.<br />
<br />
> At least <br />
> it loads fast I guess ;) <br />
<br />
That it does.<br />
<br />
> Might want to get your own house up to an <br />
> impressive level before pointing fingers at other people's.<br />
> <br />
<br />
I'll take that for what it is...<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Take care,<br />
<br />
Jonathan<br />
-------------------<br />
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO<br />
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 18:37:49 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"Sherman Pendley" <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote in message <br />
news:m1zlwv7jjv.fsf@dot-app.org...<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> writes:<br />
><br />
>> I am sorry you are right, I mixed you up because you were so far up each<br />
>> others... ;) Hehe. No wonder you say 'sh*t' a lot :P I would like to<br />
>> apologise for any distress caused to you or your loved ones for type the<br />
>> wrong letters on my keyboard. It's terrible, isn't it?<br />
><br />
> I could sort of understand your earlier stubbornness. You put a lot of <br />
> work<br />
> into your site, and you had a natural reluctance to believe in the flaws<br />
> the rest of us see in it. I don't agree with that attitude, but I've seen<br />
> it in action many times. It's a natural reaction to defend one's work.<br />
><br />
> But now you're just behaving like a child, and I'm done with you.<br />
><br />
> *plonk*<br />
<br />
Dear plonk<br />
<br />
That message was not to you. Your replies have always been constructive <br />
Sherman. It was to the people who can only manage to string a sentence like <br />
'it's sh*t' together. Have to talk to them on their level, y' know. You <br />
needn't have replied.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 18:51:16 von lws4art</span>
<p>Jonathan N. Little wrote:<br />
> Mika wrote:<br />
<br />
>> Might want to get your own house up to an impressive level before <br />
>> pointing fingers at other people's.<br />
>><br />
> <br />
> I'll take that for what it is...<br />
> <br />
<br />
Hmm, now that I think about it and that you have brought my site into <br />
the discussion, let's see about the issues. Firstly, I was not asking <br />
for help on my site so where could the problems be?<br />
<br />
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .littleworksstudio.com%2Fstudio.php<br />
[Valid] Markup Validation of http://www.littleworksstudio.com/studio.php <br />
- W3C Markup Validator<br />
<br />
Hmm, valid markup could be the issue....<br />
<br />
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .littleworksstudio.com%2Fstudio.php<br />
[Valid] Markup Validation of http://www.littleworksstudio.com/studio.php <br />
- W3C Markup Validator<br />
<br />
Or valid CSS...<br />
<br />
Or that it is optimized to loads quickly on dialup as well as broadband <br />
might be a problem...<br />
<br />
Or that the design is not fixed to a specific viewport, that has to be bad.<br />
<br />
Or does not rely on JavaScript to function, but instead only uses <br />
JavaScript to augment the user experience, but the site will still work <br />
with it disabled.<br />
<br />
Or that it works with or without cookies enabled. It does require a <br />
cookie for the session variable if you wish to shop. I did once allow <br />
session ids in the URL but stopped because the "messy" URLs have <br />
indexing issues with search engines and possible security issues...<br />
<br />
Or even though this design has a 7-year legacy still employs modern <br />
practices and works in modern browser, falls back gracefully on legacy <br />
browsers...<br />
<br />
And still as some styling, without looking like the cookie-cutter <br />
templates about...<br />
<br />
Is it perfect? Hell no! Could it be better? Yep. I am currently working <br />
on a new version...but I don't kid myself when I evaluate my designs. <br />
One of my earlier versions *required* JavaScript to create and manage <br />
the site menu. I got lambasted here for it. And rightly so.<br />
<br />
-- <br />
Take care,<br />
<br />
Jonathan<br />
-------------------<br />
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO<br />
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 22:46:55 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <l6W3j.55587$c_1.31640@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,<br />
"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> We ... do not expect <br />
> everybody on the planet to agree with the BBC Website of the Day, Personal <br />
> Computer World magazine, Capital Radio Website of the Day, PC Magazine, <br />
> About.com London Blog, Google Maps Mania, Pocket-lint Website of the Day, or <br />
> the hundreds of repeat visitors we get. You are entitled to like or dislike <br />
> anything you choose and I have and will never argue with that point. This <br />
> thread was about Firefox.<br />
<br />
Laura Porter (on her "London Travel Blog") says on About.com:<br />
<br />
"I've recently heard about this new web site that allows you to <br />
look at a streetscape of Oxford Street..." <br />
<br />
and not much else beyond that she "has heard about a new website" <br />
and that readers "can check it out". Their is a facility for <br />
people to "comment" and the comment count is zero.<br />
<br />
I have not been able to locate quickly any of your other <br />
references.<br />
<br />
It may well be that you are enjoying various kinds of success. <br />
Being one of those refined types you mentioned in one of your <br />
posts (you know, someone from Enga and other cultured lands stuck <br />
in a hot unforgiving country with white barbarian footy sexist <br />
sporty rednecks and drunks), I do wish you luck. <br />
<br />
You will need it because, as I have said before, there is much <br />
about your site that just does not work. It is simply not a <br />
shopping experience in any real sense of the word and I have gone <br />
into *some* of the details on this before. Others have criticised <br />
the bandwidth aspects and the slowness (even in UK). But my <br />
objection is simply that you are stuck in delivering a product <br />
that is neither one thing, (an efficient fast uncluttered way of <br />
finding info on what shops are in a street and what you can buy <br />
online from some of them) or the other (a virtual reality <br />
experience of high quality).<br />
<br />
Frankly, I think you should bite the bullet one way or the other. <br />
Either go representative (low bandwidth, not photo-realistic) or <br />
very photo/auralistic for which you would need orders of <br />
magnitude more bandwidth. There is nothing wrong at all with <br />
either of these options. If I really could get a more realistic <br />
experience, see in shop windows etc etc and hear better sounds, <br />
and wanted it, it would be nothing to wait minutes to download <br />
the materials needed (I do it with trailers and movies and have <br />
done it with dialup too. No I don't sit around watching it load. <br />
I work on other things while it happens, I go make a cup of tea).<br />
<br />
Are you getting any of this? Stand tall and do one or other of <br />
these things and not something that is neither here nor there. If <br />
you say again how great the UK user experience is, I will know <br />
you are simply not cottoning on to what I am trying to get across <br />
to you. <br />
<br />
My point is about value for bandwidth. I am not saying you need <br />
to reduce the load time. Either reduce it or increase the goddamn <br />
thing. But don't leave it where it is for what it is. (Yes, I <br />
know, you have made many changes, but if you think the changes <br />
you have made are any answer to this criticism, you are simply <br />
not understanding it)<br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 30.11.2007 23:39:38 von dorayme</span>
<p>In article <br />
<doraymeRidThis-768DF1.08465501122007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,<br />
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:<br />
<br />
> Their is a facility <br />
<br />
There is a facility<br />
<br />
-- <br />
dorayme</p>
</article>
<article>
<h2>Re: Does this page work in your Firefox?</h2><span>am 01.12.2007 01:08:37 von Todd_Calhoun</span>
<p>"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message <br />
news:doraymeRidThis-768DF1.08465501122007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...<br />
> In article <l6W3j.55587$c_1.31640@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,<br />
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
>> We ... do not expect<br />
>> everybody on the planet to agree with the BBC Website of the Day, <br />
>> Personal<br />
>> Computer World magazine, Capital Radio Website of the Day, PC Magazine,<br />
>> About.com London Blog, Google Maps Mania, Pocket-lint Website of the Day, <br />
>> or<br />
>> the hundreds of repeat visitors we get. You are entitled to like or <br />
>> dislike<br />
>> anything you choose and I have and will never argue with that point. <br />
>> This<br />
>> thread was about Firefox.<br />
><br />
> Laura Porter (on her "London Travel Blog") says on About.com:<br />
><br />
> "I've recently heard about this new web site that allows you to<br />
> look at a streetscape of Oxford Street..."<br />
><br />
> and not much else beyond that she "has heard about a new website"<br />
> and that readers "can check it out". Their is a facility for<br />
> people to "comment" and the comment count is zero.<br />
><br />
> I have not been able to locate quickly any of your other<br />
> references.<br />
><br />
> It may well be that you are enjoying various kinds of success.<br />
> Being one of those refined types you mentioned in one of your<br />
> posts (you know, someone from Enga and other cultured lands stuck<br />
> in a hot unforgiving country with white barbarian footy sexist<br />
> sporty rednecks and drunks), I do wish you luck.<br />
><br />
> You will need it because, as I have said before, there is much<br />
> about your site that just does not work. It is simply not a<br />
> shopping experience in any real sense of the word and I have gone<br />
> into *some* of the details on this before. Others have criticised<br />
> the bandwidth aspects and the slowness (even in UK). But my<br />
> objection is simply that you are stuck in delivering a product<br />
> that is neither one thing, (an efficient fast uncluttered way of<br />
> finding info on what shops are in a street and what you can buy<br />
> online from some of them) or the other (a virtual reality<br />
> experience of high quality).<br />
><br />
> Frankly, I think you should bite the bullet one way or the other.<br />
> Either go representative (low bandwidth, not photo-realistic) or<br />
> very photo/auralistic for which you would need orders of<br />
> magnitude more bandwidth. There is nothing wrong at all with<br />
> either of these options. If I really could get a more realistic<br />
> experience, see in shop windows etc etc and hear better sounds,<br />
> and wanted it, it would be nothing to wait minutes to download<br />
> the materials needed (I do it with trailers and movies and have<br />
> done it with dialup too. No I don't sit around watching it load.<br />
> I work on other things while it happens, I go make a cup of tea).<br />
><br />
> Are you getting any of this? Stand tall and do one or other of<br />
> these things and not something that is neither here nor there. If<br />
> you say again how great the UK user experience is, I will know<br />
> you are simply not cottoning on to what I am trying to get across<br />
> to you.<br />
><br />
> My point is about value for bandwidth. I am not saying you need<br />
> to reduce the load time. Either reduce it or increase the goddamn<br />
> thing. But don't leave it where it is for what it is. (Yes, I<br />
> know, you have made many changes, but if you think the changes<br />
> you have made are any answer to this criticism, you are simply<br />
> not understanding it)<br />
<br />
Thanks, that has been a topic of discussion for many a month (we are quite <br />
good at thinking of obvious steps by ourselves amazingly enough), but until <br />
time and money allow, we have what we have. It's not that we don't want to <br />
change it - so you understand fully. But for what it is, used as designed, <br />
it is intriguing people.<br />
<br />
Here are just some of the other reviews you were looking for:<br />
<br />
"this cool online shopping experience"<br />
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2006/10/shop-oxford-stre et-in-london-england.html<br />
<br />
"Why not take a virtual stroll down famous shopping spots"<br />
http://www.pcw.co.uk/computeractive/news/2164471/beat-shoppi ng-crowds<br />
<br />
"Heavenly
This site is the answer."<br />
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/5837/6861/super -highstreet-virtual-shopping-online.phtml<br />
"In future, theres sure to be a wider geographical spread, but to be honest <br />
it doesnt really matter. It really is a great idea"<br />
<br />
I should add 2 of those 3 were experiencing it with UK hop times as <br />
designed.<br />
<br />
It's all just a matter of opinion, and we respect either.<br />
<br />
Anyway, thanks for the input, and for remaining so civil where others have <br />
failed.<br />
<br />
Mika</p>
</article>
<footer>
<a href="/">Index</a> |
<a href="/impressum.php">Impressum</a> |
<a href="/datenschutz.php">Datenschutz</a> |
<a href="https://www.xodox.de/">XODOX</a>
</footer>
</main>
</body>
</html>