|
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Like Coolpage But Better Kaisa 01-07-2003, 05:07 PM I need a reply really fast because i am using coolpage but i was toll that its not really that good so can someone tell me where to get another website maker program thats like coolpage but for free without limitions but also easyer to use then NetObject fusion pyro 01-07-2003, 05:19 PM What is Coolpage? Maybe you could provide a link... Kaisa 01-07-2003, 06:51 PM http://www.coolpage.com its a website maker program for free but after 30 days a pop-up pops up on your website and says to buy Coolpage which is really annoying pyro 01-07-2003, 07:45 PM Sorry, I can't really help you. I either us Dreamweaver, or hard code my sites. If you can get you hands on an old version of NN (vr. 4) it comes with a program called Composer, which might help you out... Kaisa 01-07-2003, 08:28 PM Then do you know how to adjust where the images and text go like on my website that was made with coolpage at http://www.freewebs.com/dreamerworlds and if that doesn't work try http://www.freewebz.com/dreamerworlds ????? pyro 01-07-2003, 08:37 PM ...huh?? I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. Sorry... spufi 01-07-2003, 10:32 PM If you are a newbie, and you are, learn how to type in your own code yourself instead of using a program to just drag and drop info for you. If you did this you probably won't be asking us this question. Also learn what a Doctype is and how to validate a page. Check out your site in different resolutions. I use 1400X1280 and your page is a shade bigger than that. Most people use 800X600. That means a lot of scrolling to just see all of your page. Kaisa 01-08-2003, 06:36 PM Well to tell you the truth its best view in 1100X1100 in 24Bits of color but i say its best recommend in 800X600 in 24Bits of colors since most people do use that but i could make in 800X600 where its only can be viewed in 800X600 but that would be too small for my site !!! spufi 01-09-2003, 01:21 PM Well you hit upon one of my newbie web page makers pet peeves. You make a site that looks good for you and you don't take into account somebody not being able to reproduce what you can even when their choices are the most common. You even admit to deceiveing the user by saying it looks best in one resolution when it doesn't. Even if I wanted to use your site, I wouldn't hang around long. By the way, neither 1100X100 resolution, or 24-Bit color are options for me. Kaisa 01-09-2003, 03:38 PM well i was talking to my one friend and he agreed that it would be better in 800X600 so what i am going to do is try to make it 800X600 with 24 bits of color and use the html script for background image for the page so it will look nice without having to put all that code in so you can one image for the background etc. but of course i will not be stupid i will make a backup of the image so it will have the menu and everything but the background part will be white so i can add a image where that white part is with Paint Shop Pro but theres one more thing i forgot how to do the script in html for a background image i think its <body Background Image=""> but i might be wrong and another thing i did have a site that only used tables and was really sweet but i had to go and let people from go.to/rm2k make me thing it suck but really didn't when i deleted it and i will have scripts like doctype later on but only after i get my site done and i know this is pointless to ask but who keeps trying to make a unsolicited connection to my computer i mean i just got that from this user IP address "67.243.224.182" and i also was using NeoWatch but at even one time someone keep trying to connect to port 5475 on my computer ! pyro 01-09-2003, 03:52 PM It's <body background="yourimg.gif"> :) thejoker101 01-09-2003, 04:41 PM Just an opinion, but there is no reason that page should be that big. rustler2001 01-10-2003, 08:38 AM The page should be 800 x 600 for the wider market of people trying to view your site. Also I agree with other posts here in saying that you are better off hard coding, r just use something like dreamweaver or frontpage to help yo along your way! jpmoriarty 01-10-2003, 08:59 AM i'm gonna agree with what people have said on here, and also request that when posting if you could take the time to put in a little bit of punctuation it would make things much easier for the rest of us - i gave up reading that paragraph because i got tired by it... On the subject of your page though, you've got to get away from thinking that making a web page is like drawing a picture on a piece of paper - everyone has differnet resolutions, different colour depths, different browsers etc. It's a huge mistake to think "it looks okay on mine, therefore it's great". You must at least try it in different resolutions on your computer to see how it looks, and you'll see pretty quick that it doesnt work well at 1024x768. However, and i dont need to be mean by saying this, your site even when viewed at the "optimal" resolution is nothing special - there's nothing there (really) that cant be achieved by normal methods (certainly nothing that you should want to achieve anyway). It seems a bit odd to have probably the largest website I've ever seen, and then to have nothing in it - the "links" arent even links! I'd suggest you head over to the W3C place that so many people link to, and probably get your self a book on how to code in HTML. That's the great thing about HTML is that you ask in your first post for a web page maker for free, and i think people will agree with me when i say that the most powerful HTML maker without question, is notepad. also, standard resolutions (for normal sized monitors) are in the ratio 4:3 - if you had a resolution of 1100x1100 then you would have a square screen, which isnt very common at all (possibly doesnt exist?) - so if that's what it looks best at, then you're off to a really bad start. Kaisa 01-10-2003, 04:00 PM Well if i put all the stuff thats on my site right now into one picture it would be 1100X1100 and thats why i say its really best at 1100X1100 without scrolling or 800X600 with scrolling pyro 01-10-2003, 04:03 PM If you have to vertically scroll (except in rare cases) it means your site isn't best viewed at that resolution. There is no such thing as best viewed in 800x600 with scrolling. Best viewed at means what resolution does you site look best at. For you that would be 1100x1100 (which I've never even heard of). Kaisa 01-10-2003, 05:41 PM well i went back and edited it and now its 950X1100 but of course that only if you like scrolling up and down and if i made it any smaller so you don't have to scroll it would look stupid all i need to do right now is make a graphic for the bottom and i am done i just hope you people won't mind scroll left and right with a res. of 950X1100 since thats the best i could and it would be smaller like 950X950 based on my image size in MSPaint but there would be no bottom graphics and if i didn't say it before it was only best viewed in 800X600 if you like scrolling but best in 1100X1100 if you don't Kaisa 01-10-2003, 05:52 PM Originally posted by pyro Sorry, I can't really help you. I either us Dreamweaver, or hard code my sites. If you can get you hands on an old version of NN (vr. 4) it comes with a program called Composer, which might help you out... Well if you buy the Pokemon SoundTrack from the movie it has a old version of netscape on it spufi 01-11-2003, 03:38 PM I believe Netscape 4 and above have Composer, but it includes an incomplete Doctype because it doesn't point to the DTD which gives the rules that your code is suppose to follow. The Doctype given is a common used one even thought it technically doesn't work. In terms of text editors, I suggest either Text Pad, or Edit Plus. Edit Plus is the one I use. One can abuse Text Pad's trial period a lot more though. If your site doesn't look good any smaller than what you have it now, then you need to change the design so it does. Again, having to scroll right and left is flat out annoying and a sign of a unskilled web designer. I would suggest using something else besides the image you have on the right. Kaisa 01-12-2003, 04:03 PM Well i don't mean that my site has been updated yet with the new image but i will update it next weekend with it but i mean come on when i viewed my website in 800X600 when the image was 950X1100 it worked fine i mean there was only a little scroll from left to right but it was so fast with my 300Mhz computer that i didn't mind but it might get reduced to 950X1000 since the bottom graphic might not take a lot of space and also i did edit the right graphic so that it will be smaller jpmoriarty 01-14-2003, 08:59 AM i think that you're missing the point (just as you're still missing punctuation). You cant design a site with a specific size in mind because it's not a piece of paper, it's a web site. You've asked for comments and people are here telling you that it doesnt look good on their computers. you're relying on a rather flawed argument of "well it looks okay on mine", which rather defies the purpose of you asking for people's comments or suggestions. Even the bad HTML decoders like IE are designed so that you dont have to scroll across most of the time - it automatically buts carriage returns in so that there's no need. It does that for a reason - noone likes doing it and it's not natural! can you imagine reading a book where every now and again you have to lift up a flap on the right hand side that revealed the end of the sentence you were reading?? of course not, it would be stupid and annoying! Also, what happens as your site grows? If you add too much info onto it then eventually the text is going to be bigger than your graphic - at which point it will start tiling, and then it's going to look even worse. The reason that you dont see many sites with graphics in the location that yours is is cos it's nigh on impossible to do well, as you've shown - dont take it personally, it's hard (if not impossible). But i would heed the views of people here, since they are effectively your first visitors, and so far the view seems to be that they aren't going to be going back in a hurry... btw, i've just checked you site again and there's a big white bar down the right hand side and it's taken about 5 minutes to download what is in effect a hugely repetitive backdrop. spufi 01-14-2003, 09:41 AM Taken from your website... "Well my old website look and feel was alright but it made peoples browser run crappy so i had to reduce my image size so the browser would run faster but of course i am not going to reduce this image size any smaller since it looks the best right now i mean i know some people only have 800X600 res. but if they don't like scrolling a website like scrolling left to right , top to bottom etc. then they shouldn't get a computer !" Your arrogance will be the death of your website. Also, get rid of that annoying JavaScript which tells me about Cool Page when I click on just about any area on your site. Better yet, get rid of Cool Page and use a real text editor. Even using Notepad would do you wonders. Since you already have changed your code around, add a Doctype as the first line in your code, add a meta tag with a charset, and then go validate your page so you can see the 39 errors your page contains validating against 4.01 Strict. I'm going to make this real simple. Rule one is don't annoy the user. Not only does your site annoy, but it also offends. How do you expect to keep people viewing your site with that going for you? HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> Charset: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> spufi 01-14-2003, 10:05 AM Haha! Ok, now that I actually read the annoy pop up. The reason it comes up is because you are using Cool Page after a 30 day trial period. Why should the user be annoyed because you can't afford a registered version? Kaisa 01-14-2003, 09:05 PM well i take that back i am going to convert into a table website without any help from programs so now its really going to be 800X600 but untill i upload it with the graphics within the tables it will like real stupid i mean i could upload now without the graphics but it will look really stupid ! [Sorry Had To Fix The Typos] pyro 01-14-2003, 10:18 PM Your 504,144 KB background took me a long time to load with DSL. I don't think anyone will repetedly tolerate that by coming back to your site... swon 01-15-2003, 12:29 PM :D No words needed, just to say I saw the funny threads! Kaisa 01-15-2003, 05:40 PM Originally posted by pyro Your 504,144 KB background took me a long time to load with DSL. I don't think anyone will repetedly tolerate that by coming back to your site... well after the first time it shouldn't try to download it again since it already download it but now you don't have to worry since its all going to be made in html table with low sized graphics jpmoriarty 01-16-2003, 05:52 AM out of the frying pan... i sure hope you're not going to start using tables for layout! STEFFANNNNNNNN - get over here!! Oh, and please, please, PLEASE start using punctuation! Charles 01-16-2003, 06:00 AM There's no sense in Stefan wasting his time with this one. Kaisa 01-16-2003, 03:08 PM Originally posted by jpmoriarty out of the frying pan... i sure hope you're not going to start using tables for layout! STEFFANNNNNNNN - get over here!! Oh, and please, please, PLEASE start using punctuation! Well does it matter i mean there are other sites made completey out of tables and i don't think people mind i mean why shouldn't i (Point to site example at http://www.rpg2knet.com) and also i would make a website with images but if i try to script it it would have border around it if anyone can tell me what HTML script i need to take out those white space around my image then maybe i can make a website with a image of 800X600 without no troble spufi 01-16-2003, 04:38 PM As long as the page looks nice, the user doesn't care what code is used. Even using a table isn't really wrong. One of the CSS gurus does a book showing CSS mixed with a table. However, from the programmer's stand point, once a person tries to code nested tables for layout, droping tables and using CSS with <div> tags and such makes it much easier to code, and to maintain the code. Trust me, I used to code with nested tables. Once I switched over, I'm not going back. The link you pointed to uses numerous nested tables and is not valid. If you want to give yourself a headache weeding through it all, knock yourself out. Kaisa 01-16-2003, 10:30 PM Well then can you tell a good place to learn CSS then i had a book but it just didn't seem to help pyro 01-16-2003, 10:42 PM This might interest you... http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/ jpmoriarty 01-17-2003, 03:34 AM sorry charles, didnt mean to overlook you, it's just he's the one that pointed me off in the right direction. I have comments to make now, but feel sure that someone else will make them more elloquently than me, and am also refusing to comment based on my objections to the lack of punctuation. Suffice to say that someone will have something to say to both spufi and kasia! spufi 01-17-2003, 11:33 AM I learned by reading post on what was HTML Goodies message board and looking through my "HTML 4.01 Programmer's Reference" book. The link posted to the CCS2 Specs is going to be the best place to learn the rules of CSS. I would also suggest hanging out in the CSS forum here and asking plenty of questions. webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved. |
|