redbullmarky

[!--quoteo(post=365160:date=Apr 15 2006, 10:06 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 15 2006, 10:06 PM) [snapback]365160[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Howza bout it now? [/quote] now we're talking! although the designs of your other templates (including your actual main site) are vastly different to the leafy design, the principles and stages you've followed to turn what was frankly nasty into something that's looking pretty good are exactly the same. keep it up! Mark

[!--quoteo(post=365129:date=Apr 15 2006, 07:11 PM:name=SemiApocalyptic)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SemiApocalyptic @ Apr 15 2006, 07:11 PM) [snapback]365129[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] [a href=\"http://www.trampoline.com/\" target=\"_blank\"]Trampoline?[/a] [/quote] rofl :D there's always [a href=\"http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/dunking.asp\" target=\"_blank\"]The Science of Dunking[/a] or (what has the world come to...) [a href=\"http://www.biscuit.org.uk/dunk/index.html\" target=\"_blank\"]The Biscuit Dunking Appreciation Society[/a] I'm sure the same principles can be applied to doing it backwards, although you must be careful as Tea & Coffee can be very hot and hurt you if you're not watching what you're doing.

[!--quoteo(post=365116:date=Apr 15 2006, 06:03 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 15 2006, 06:03 PM) [snapback]365116[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Okay, made some changes, iz better? [/quote] now we're talking! (i'm guessing you are only referring to just the leafy design?). 1, make the text on the right hand side the same size as your main content (or just a little smaller than it is now). 2, sitemap/other links text is black, and blends into the background. why don't you 'write' the nav and the titles to a 'plank of wood'/'sheet of paper' and hang it from the tree with a nail? good job for goin in the right direction. apply the same priciples to the rest and you may actually have some good stuff for people.

hi seems there are a handful of php functions to run programs you have on your server [a href=\"http://uk.php.net/exec\" target=\"_blank\"]http://uk.php.net/exec[/a] Cheers Mark

you could have an array of IP's/images. so: [code] <?php // extend this array for all your ip's+corresponding images. $ip2img = array("123.456.789.012"=>"an_image.jpg", "200.123.150.234"=>"another_image.jpg"); $ip = $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR']; $file = $ip2img[$ip]; $img_number = imagecreatefromjpeg($file); $number = " Your IP is $_SERVER[REMOTE_ADDR]"; Imagestring($img_number,10,5,5,$number,$textcolor); header("Content-type: image/jpeg"); imagejpeg($img_number); ?> [/code] obviously this is not exactly how you want the code, as i'm not 100% sure what you need, but it should get you started. cheers Mark

[!--quoteo(post=365057:date=Apr 15 2006, 01:39 PM:name=neewah)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(neewah @ Apr 15 2006, 01:39 PM) 365057[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Sorry i'm being picky - FrontPage is one word and you're definitely not the first to say that FrontPage doesn't deserve the space...

[!--quoteo(post=365096:date=Apr 15 2006, 04:49 PM:name=birdie)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(birdie @ Apr 15 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]365096[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] hi, i have a mysql database and a very large sql file (backup file). this file is around 226mb and i only need specific tables to be added again. i could edit the file using notepad but that takes far too long as it freezes almost every time i press the enter key. is there any easier methods and how would i then be able to upload the sql backup file quickly? Ever tryed uploading 220mb through a php upload system? not good. thanks for any help :-) [/quote] hmm not really had much experience with files so large, but you could probably achieve it by using the fopen, fread, fgets, etc functions to seek out the lines specifically to to with the tables you want and executing the queries one by one.

[!--quoteo(post=365085:date=Apr 15 2006, 03:41 PM:name=Henrik Steen)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Henrik Steen @ Apr 15 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]365085[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Hello. Pardon my english, it's bad (i'm a norwegian) and my PHP-skills are even worse, and I admit that i have not read every 7614 topics to see if this already is covered somewhere, but I got this idea/thought/question (when I started reading PHP this holiday!) of a solution I think very many would love. So, maybe this is a challenge for you clever PHP-freaks or maybe it's elementary for all I would know; is there a simple code/script/solution for this scenario: In the web there is a "sidebar"-folder that holds a collection of small "includes", sidebar1.inc sidebar2.inc sidebar3.inc etc. etc., each one are simple text/markup of two, five or ten lines, maybe a small picture. If the web-page called for is very short, the page/code will include one or two elements (sidebar1.inc, sidebar2.inc..). If the web-page is a longer article, the code would somehow "see" the length and add more sidebar-elements (...sidebar3 .. " 4 " 5 - .. sidebar7.inc etc.) as long as it's space in the sidebar...!? Of course, not 100% precise. But you grasp the idea? Well, I go back to page 44 in the PHP-bible and read on (I'm slow, but I try!), and then I return here with great excitement in a couple of days... Sincerely, Henrik, Oslo, Norway [/quote] hmmm. apart from using php to 'guess' based on a function that could count the approx number of lines in an article, the only way to get this accurate is via javascript (as you can read table/div heights after they have been drawn/show all the sitebars and hide the unncessary ones, etc). the easiest way IMO would be to have a function to make an estimate of how many lines an article takes, and then go from there.

[!--quoteo(post=365040:date=Apr 15 2006, 12:23 PM:name=bmbc)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(bmbc @ Apr 15 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]365040[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] ...cant do a backwards dunk please help [/quote] is that a kind of bowel movement? here, this may help: [a href=\"http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&q=laxatives&btnG=Search\" target=\"_blank\"]Laxatives[/a] good luck.

[!--quoteo(post=365006:date=Apr 15 2006, 08:30 AM:name=nabeelkhan)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(nabeelkhan @ Apr 15 2006, 08:30 AM) [snapback]365006[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] @AndyB Don't be so smart. Google did not help me in figuring some code to make thses things in PHP so that I asked for help here. I found 1 or 2 pages which describe PHP code but not enough helpful. [/quote] with all due respect, the reason why AndyB is a respected moderator around here is because his help holds more relevence than you seem to appreciate. if the code/examples you find isn't enough for you, then maybe it's not the code you're looking at that's at fault, but the level of knowledge you have. but the link that AndyB provided was not being smart - it was simply providing you the information you required, short of writing the entire code for you.

[!--quoteo(post=364974:date=Apr 15 2006, 03:29 AM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 15 2006, 03:29 AM) [snapback]364974[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] For some odd reason your loud colors don't bother me. I have no clue why not. [/quote] lol thats what i thought about another site when i got the idea for it :) but it's just because it 'fits' with eachother. it's simple and neat, and the colours are almost 'childish'. it gets my point home about all the elements fitting together nicely though. [!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Well, between an afternoon of webhost technical difficulties and an evening of tornado warnings, I managed to tweak [a href=\"http://www.test.fether.net/index.php\" target=\"_blank\"]The Leafy Site[/a] somewhat. Would you consider it a step up or down? Tried to do something, anything with the edges, made the body text and h1 smaller. And it even runs okay on IE (pronounced aaaaaaiiiiiiiieeeeee!!!). [/quote] ok yes it is an improvement, quite alot actually - so i wouldnt stop there. 1, give the text on the right hand side the same treatment. 2, you've blurred/faded the edges between the leaf and white content panel. i reckon that it'd look good if you didn't do this and just left the natural edges of the leaves almost haphazardly 'hanging' a little onto the content page. 3, pick a different colour than dark blue for the 'Welcome' text. and as with number 1 above, give it the same sizing treatment. 4, give the nav and right hand stuff a container of some form so it's not just sitting amongst the leaves. even a mild opaque backdrop would be good (however, be careful with opacity - it'll render your CSS invalid as it's a CSS3 thing ATM. you could use a semi opaque PNG/GIF tho...). 5, it's great that your site validates to W3C standards, but i'm sure you can make the icons a little smaller. only 'webbies' notice or care what they are really, which is not going to be your average customer. but you're getting it, and it's definitely so far a few steps in the right direction. keep at it and you'll have some smart templates without having to scrap your "ugly" designs at all. Cheers Mark

[!--quoteo(post=364893:date=Apr 14 2006, 09:55 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 14 2006, 09:55 PM) [snapback]364893[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] According to all I've read about good web functionality, the navbar should be where people expect it to be, either on the top or the side, not somewhere in the middle or down far enough you have to scroll. People with less than perfect vision, like me, don't want to do the "increase text size" thing too much either. Small text may be more artistic but it still has to be legible. Most site visitors are either hooked or turned off in about 15 seconds, so if I can't easily find the nav bar or figure out what the site is about I will move on. [/quote]very true. but as for text size - 11 or 12px is fine for most viewers - and considering you're into your standards, maybe you should leave 508/accessibility to deal with those with impaired vision. i know a few people with vision impairment that have no problem getting round a site that has smaller text, as long as it complys with 508/accessibility standards. some more food for thought i guess. as for css zengarden site, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples on there of all sorts of design - floral, contrasting, futuristic, metallic, etc. research on good design takes hours and days, not a few minutes. if youre adament and committed enough to get your project off the ground, then spend some serious time lookin through sites like that. they will only help you more in the long run as well as now. [b]edit:[/b]loud primary colours can work too, but as with my previous comments, it has to fit in with what you're trying to do and all the elements need to belong together. here's my site i'm currently working on, with overly loud colours: [a href=\"http://www.crashandburn.co.uk\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.crashandburn.co.uk[/a] good luck, Mark

[!--quoteo(post=364867:date=Apr 14 2006, 08:03 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 14 2006, 08:03 PM) [snapback]364867[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Yes, thanks. I get much more out of a detailed comment on exactly why a design is bad, than just being told "it's yesterday". I wasn't online "yesterday" so I have no idea. I'll keep the "ugly" skins just because if I didn't know they were bad, then someone else might like them too. But I'll also try and develope other styles as well so I can appeal to more tastes. [/quote] youre right. even the ones that you may feel arent up to scratch will be of use to someone, i guess. otherwise, you'll actually find it an excellent 'guage' to how youre progressing. in terms of 'yesterday', it's a figure of speech but holds some weight in it. if you're really curious to see what i mean, then take a look for yourself: [a href=\"http://www.archive.org/\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.archive.org/[/a] . the site serves not much more purpose than to see what sites looked like 'yesterday' and you'll see the way things have changed dramatically. look at 'google' and 'friendsreunited.co.uk' at archive.org to really see what i mean.

the easiest way - stristr: [code] if (stristr($email_address, '@')) {    echo 'found the @ symbol'; } [/code]

[!--quoteo(post=364837:date=Apr 14 2006, 06:07 PM:name=Angel Amanda)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Angel Amanda @ Apr 14 2006, 06:07 PM) [snapback]364837[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Does this site seem like it belongs to an established company? Does it inspire confidence? [/quote] yes, and partially. your logo (the 'computer' font) is the only thing that i don't really like. seems well laid out, concise and generally easy to use. but your logo just seems a bit cartoony compared to the rest of the site. also, make the logo clickable to go back to the homepage. lazy surfers like me don't like clicking on the 'home' button to go home - i just often expect to be able to get home by clicking on the main logo. otherwise, i reckon it's a job well done. Cheers Mark

[!--quoteo(post=364819:date=Apr 14 2006, 05:22 PM:name=businessman332211)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(businessman332211 @ Apr 14 2006, 05:22 PM) [snapback]364819[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] [a href=\"http://www.freelancebusinessman.com\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.freelancebusinessman.com[/a] I will overhaul it with php, in a few weeks. [/quote] where do i start....i'm not gonna pull punches here as i think it's best to be critical.... everything that AndyB said is spot on: 1, your header is ugly, well drawn and frankly belongs in 'yesterday' 2, the term 'freelance businessman' itself immediately gives me an image of you as a fly-by-night insurance salesman, interested in nothing but taking cash and delivering not much in return. 'businessman' is a word that should be saved for boardrooms and for others to refer to you as, rather than as a self-promotional statement. 3, all these skills you say you have - xhtml, css, etc - where is there any examples of CSS jumping at me? your navigation is awful. blue (unvisited) and purple (visited) links are really something that should never happen anymore apart from on pure text sites. if CSS, etc are skills, why not have a rollover nav? 4, you say you used javascript in your site. if so, where? in fact, looking through it, why? nowhere seems to justify its use. 5, are you promoting you or your services? 6, [!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]promotion and hosting that surpasses that of most people that have been doing it for 40 or more years[/quote]proof? 7, the only hint of colour on your page is the W3C xhtml/css logos. 8, [!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]In about 2 weeks I will be taking the time to put 2 forms on this web page that are going to allow you to fill out a form and automatically send me project description information, and give me feedback on my website. Those will be added here in about 2 weeks after I sort through my current projects.[/quote]this is a 5 minute job, regardless of how busy you are. in the time you put together your justification in not having a contact form, you could have made one which a) would have looked better and b) wouldn't mean you need to excuse yourself from something you havent done on your site. i could go on, but i think you get the gist. you really need to look at it yourself and think 'would i pay this guy 300 dollars to do MY site?' sorry if that all sounds a little harsh, but there's only one way to help these days if makin money is what your aim is...

dreamweaver is the 'jacuzzi' of web design. not entirely necessary to get by, but ultimately luxurious and makes life that little bit easier and sweeter. micro$oft frontpage is the toilet that's just been used by the county curry club, complete with ringlets of runny bowel movements smeared up the back, front and sides, that has had no effort to be cleaned up whatsoever. i could go on, but i'm sure i've made my point clear.

once again, posting exactly the same topic across two closely nit forums is really gonna start grinding people, and is against the forum rules. it also shows that you didnt read my post the last time i mentioned exactly the same thing to you. and if you don't read your post replies, what's the point in giving you help? ;)

apache's mod_rewrite is the best for this. the last topic i remember is here, worth a read: [a href=\"http://www.phpfreaks.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89102\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.phpfreaks.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89102[/a]

[!--quoteo(post=364763:date=Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]364763[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] I need lots of examples of good graphic sites. [/quote]check out ober's pinned topic at the top of website critique: 'Resources'. Even consider CSS for many of your elements. It will take you a little longer than drawing it up in photoshop, but it will force you to ask the question of whether each element belongs on the page. [!--quoteo(post=364763:date=Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]364763[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] I'm trying to see the difference between a graphic look that's clean and planned and those that aren't. Kinda liike why your post seemed much less hostile and bashing than the others :-) [/quote]one word - containment. the difference between everything looking like it complements everything else and looking like things are thrown together. my interpretation of moberemk's first post about being "90's" is that that's exactly what people did then. threw as many bells and whistles onto the same page. on a sideline, but relevent, i write and produce my own music. one of the best tips i ever learnt was that 'less is more'. if a guitar part is good, but doesnt fit in with the rest of the song, then unfortunately it must go. the hard part is letting go of something you've put your time into for the sake of the bigger picture. it's tempting to add as many heavy guitars to a song to make it sound 'very heavy', but all it does is make it sound muddy and confused. no different with designing visuals. [!--quoteo(post=364763:date=Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]364763[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] So you're saying a graphic page needs to be more 3D looking? That the difference is in the amount of detail? What I hear everyone saying is that a good design is either light and minimal or extremely detailed like the one I linked to, is that accurate? [/quote]nope. what i'm saying is it just has to be all relevent to eachother. i like jack daniels, beer, chocolate and chips, very much so. but imagine thowing it all together into one concoction....no thanks. the site you gave as an example is extremely detailed as you point out, but everything can breath. the font is smaller and doesn't clash with its background, there's CSS on there and not just graphics (look at the nav on the right hand side), and the effects he/she's used on the top right (the reflection of the sun i think) just looks bloody good. [!--quoteo(post=364763:date=Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 14 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]364763[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] BTW, just curious: what about the "plant/leafy" template on my site, is that acceptable? [/quote]not really, but for exactly the same reasons. i don't dispute that you've grasped the hang of photoshop well, but adding content is another story. for example - look at the text on the right. it has no 'home' and just sits on the background. look at your nav. just kinda floats and is clinging on to the left hand border for dear life. i think you may just need to plan the end result before you even fire up photoshop and your web editor. a good example of some cracking layouts: [a href=\"http://www.csszengarden.com\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.csszengarden.com[/a] (taken from the afformentioned 'Resources' topic). you have shown all the attributes you need to get what you need done, now you just have to practice a little with how the pieces fit together. hope that helps some more

[!--quoteo(post=364595:date=Apr 13 2006, 11:09 PM:name=webhead)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(webhead @ Apr 13 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]364595[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] So GUIs are out then? People just want light text on barely visible photo backgrounds, no depth and almost no color? Would [a href=\"http://www.absolutecross.com/tutorials/photoshop/\" target=\"_blank\"]This Site[/a] be considered bad design? [/quote] my two cents: i hate flash (yes i know your site don't have any), and really dislike overly graphic intense sites. there are ways of doing a site that look 'graphically heavy' without drawing every last element in photoshop or whatever. to be honest, the more the web moves towards flash, etc, the more i move back to basics. it just makes me stretch imagination a bit more. for example - one of the most all round smartest sites out there uses a bit of graphics, DHTML and a bit of imagination: [a href=\"http://www.panic.com\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.panic.com[/a] . more is less :) with all due respect to your last question, the site you presented asking if it was bad design is in a different league to yours at the moment. it's clean and well planned out, and everything is well contained and has a 'home'. it doesnt feel like a showcase, it feels like an operational website. like mober said - people come to see the content, so the content must be as clear as possible in amongst the graphics jungle. your first three words: 'It's nothing fancy' sum it up - a) yes youre right, it's nothing fancy b) if you wanna sell these things, you should be a bit more confident about MAKING it fancy. otherwise it's nothing more than a photoshop messaround you've definitely got something - but simply throwing as many curves, gradients, metallic effects etc onto a page doesn't mean it'll turn out great. keep plugging away and hopefully you'll end up with something that could take off. in some ways, thanks to search engine optimization and a bit of creativity, it's easy to get on within a saturated market on the internet. all you need to do is make sure your site is the best example of what you're trying to achieve, and that your site is placed at the forefront when people are querying google or whatever.

[!--quoteo(post=364533:date=Apr 13 2006, 08:39 PM:name=AV1611)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(AV1611 @ Apr 13 2006, 08:39 PM) [snapback]364533[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] I am usually a good judge of ugly, they just don't seem ugly to me... is it the color contrast? [/quote] i wouldnt say ugly. more 'confused'. on one hand, they're nearly simple, on the other hand they're nearly 'polished'. but because they're neither one nor the other, it just dont look right. either polish them up (cleaner 3D effect) or strip them right back to nice, simple and clean CSS rollovers.

[!--quoteo(post=364408:date=Apr 13 2006, 02:48 PM:name=ober)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(ober @ Apr 13 2006, 02:48 PM) [snapback]364408[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] As far as your site, I guess I'm not sure where you're using the Opacity. [/quote] just where the colours overlap at the edges (topleft, bottomleft). but if the css play one works, that's where i learnt about opacity anyway so even better! cheers

[!--quoteo(post=364364:date=Apr 13 2006, 01:10 PM:name=ober)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(ober @ Apr 13 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]364364[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Are you saying you don't like the site, or are you referring to the NSFW material he blogs about? ;-) EDIT: BTW, does anyone know of a site that uses opacity so I can test it on the latest version of Opera (Preview 2, some weekly version) [/quote] i was greeted by some rather nice pictures.... :) you can try the opacity checks out against mine if you like: [a href=\"http://www.crashandburn.co.uk\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.crashandburn.co.uk[/a] and there are some examples here: [a href=\"http://cssplay.co.uk/opacity/index.html\" target=\"_blank\"]http://cssplay.co.uk/opacity/index.html[/a] cheers Mark

[!--quoteo(post=364211:date=Apr 12 2006, 10:52 PM:name=moberemk)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(moberemk @ Apr 12 2006, 10:52 PM) [snapback]364211[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Ober, just have this to say: you are the only person I know who actually uses Opera. [/quote] make that two then. ober, opera really kicks ass and is possibly as fast as you'd like a browser to be for now, so i thank your constant 'opera this opera that' for converting me, both on my mac and pc. lack of opacity and a few other things really suck, but hey i've only ever used opacity once before anyway, and it's rare. as for the original point from titangf - look outside the box. most people i see with good sites tend not to work within the 'constraints/restrictions' of the web, but seem to look beyond that at general good design. ie, if it can be drawn on paper and you want it to work, then put a bit of effort and it's not massively hard to turn an idea into a web page. dont just look at other websites for inspiration. look in magazines and books, on the TV, etc. there's my quid's worth. [b]edit:[/b] one more thing - ober - any particular 'other' reasons why [a href=\"http://www.forgetfoo.com/\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.forgetfoo.com/[/a] is appealing to you? lol