Sure looks different, will u be releasing the skin?

LoL ... skin is available. It's called "nifty_corners" and ships with the 1.6 alpha release.

If you can't find it, I'll be happy to zip you one.

Thought it looked familiar :D

But his one resizes though ;)

Simple enough change ... liquid design from fixed-width.

Just change the nifty_corners styles.css page elements from fixed width to %'s like:

.wrapper { width:100%; }
.posts { width:80%; }
.bSideBar { width:19%; }

Should get you there (might want to play with the %'s, though, personally, I'd go for a fixed-width sidebar and let the body text expand, which would require some monkeying with XHTML body element positions prolly).

Hope this helps.

MarkVP ...

Nice changes to the skin, btw. I like the random photo, but (to me) it's begging a link to something (the post it came from maybe?)

I get a completely blank page. Firefox 1.5.0.1?

Just tried it then EdB, working fine. Your just wierd :P

Interesting. Found out just now that http://findingfred.com/ won't do diddly in my FF, but copying http://www.findingfred.com/b2evolution/blogs/ from IE and using that in FF shows a page. Viewing source of both URLs tells me its an issue with the "sym" javascript functions you're using in combination with the extensions and settings I'm using.

Oh well!

EdB i'm using the same version of firefox and its working fine....

You must have some whacked out extension thats interferring.....

balupton wrote:

You must have some whacked out extension thats interferring.....

What you deem 'whacked out' I deem valuable. Clearly it is a javascript issue, and I've no intention of opening my browsing up to any and all javascripts. Heck if I wanted to let anyone and everyone play with my display I'd use IE...

EdB wrote:

balupton wrote:

You must have some whacked out extension thats interferring.....

What you deem 'whacked out' I deem valuable. Clearly it is a javascript issue, and I've no intention of opening my browsing up to any and all javascripts. Heck if I wanted to let anyone and everyone play with my display I'd use IE...

So what about sites like live.com, mail.live.com, gmail, google.com/ig
All of those sites are extensive javascript and i use them constantly throughout the day...

So your telling me you don't allow any of these sites to run, or is it 'i dont allow javascript - with execeptions'

Heck if I wanted to let anyone and everyone play with my display I'd use IE...

Lol, you should be quite safe to open up FF to any and all JS, the majority of code out there only works in IE anyway :|

Your problem with the URL is the fact that it uses a javascript redirect instead of a header/meta redirect. The "sym functions" are added to pages by Norton Firewall.

As I'm sure you're aware, quite a few people on the web choose not to enable js, and an even higher percentage don't even have the choice (text/screen readers etc). Any site that relies on js for it's operation isn't just incompetent coding it's also in violation of WAI/508/WCAG which is rapidly becoming a legal requirement world wide.

¥

Any site that relies on js for it's operation isn't just incompetent coding it's also in violation of WAI/508/WCAG which is rapidly becoming a legal requirement world wide

Surely your not calling AJAX websites incompetent coding.

And these sites are definitly not incompetent http://live.com , http://mail.live.com , http://start.com , http://gmail.com , http://google.com/ig , http://blogs.balupton.nghosting.info/?skin=Lightality ;)

You may like to look up the definition of "relies"

¥

To be dependent for support, help, or supply: relies on her parents for tuition.

I'm confident that all those sites rely on javascript to function correctly, or at all.

If they rely on javascript, then I stand by my statement. Disable javascript and watch them degrade. You might be surprised. ;)

¥

Kinda ruins the point which those webpages were created for then....
(Web 2.0, Syndication, Portals, etc)

Google/IG:
You need to have JavaScript enabled to use this page.

Gmail:
JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use Gmail in standard view. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. To use standard view, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

To use Gmail's basic HTML view, which does not require JavaScript, click here.

Start.com
Just turns into just a search box

Live.com
Fails to do anything

mail.live.com
Fails to log into the .net passport because javascript is required.

Lightality
Totally dead, just a basic display.

You might like to research your governments stance regarding accessibility.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html

¥

Hi B. I think you've got a very poor idea of what the anti-javascript extension for Firefox does and doesn't do. I use gmail from time to time without issue. I have a google home page that I visit from time to time - no problem. When I visit a site that uses scripts I have the option to allow temporarily or allow permanently. In some cases I've chosen to allow temporarily, and in some of those permanently.

http://www.noscript.net/whats is what I use.

I just checked again and this particular site DOES have the icon that will allow me my three options. Didn't notice it earlier. I think it's littler than it was before is why. Anyway I've an option to enable (either temporarily or permanently) the javascript, but I have to make that decision based on an entirely blank page. Guess what I choose to do when I see nothing that makes me feel good about the page?

Much better to build a web that doesn't require javascript! Use it for little trinkety stuff, and make sure your page degrades nicely without it.

I was just going options, and unchecking 'enable javascript'.
But i guess your extension does the same thing but in a more effecient way.

But as i said before, getting rid of javascript (for all the pages besides gmail) totally ruins the reason(s) that those sites where created for, which means no point in viewing the site if u don't have javascript.

balupton wrote:

... But as i said before, getting rid of javascript (for all the pages besides gmail) totally ruins the reason(s) that those sites where created for, which means no point in viewing the site if u don't have javascript.

Exactly the reason a good page won't depend on javascript. Or anything other than good old fashioned html, and why degrading nicely should be a way of life for anyone crafting code.

EdB wrote:

balupton wrote:

... But as i said before, getting rid of javascript (for all the pages besides gmail) totally ruins the reason(s) that those sites where created for, which means no point in viewing the site if u don't have javascript.

Exactly the reason a good page won't depend on javascript. Or anything other than good old fashioned html, and why degrading nicely should be a way of life for anyone crafting code.

Extactly 'Old Fashioned HTML', those sites are the way the internet and technology are moving, syndication, all the latest news on one page (a portal)... They are not WebSites, but Online Applications.

It's the New Generation of the Web (Hence Web 2.0), simply degrading the websites is pointless.
Your saying programming in any of the .NET languages is bad because they require the .NET Framework.

In 5 Years (or at least i hope so), you will see alot, and i mean alot, more of these Online Applications on the web.

I think that if you expect websites to be downgraded for you, your really missing out on the Richness of the Web.

(I'm not flaming here, just making a point)

The downside is your web isn't seen by anyone but those who use the web in the manner you think is appropriate. Kinda like the days of "this page best viewed in IE with a 1024 by 768 monitor set to blahblah color resolution made by acme monitors with a desk top computer that has at least 2 cooling fans" eh? What's the point of having a web if not to share whatever-it-is-you-got with the world in general? Using groovy gimmicks isn't bad, but requiring them before someone can decide for themselves if they will trust your site makes no sense.

The site this thread showcases is BLANK to my browser, so it's not something I'll visit. Even if I was into the content how would I possibly know that?

I'm pretty sure gmail and the google home page made it clear I'd need javascripts enabled in order to take advantage of their stuff. I didn't get a blank or broken page - I got a properly loaded page that explained what the deal was. Twas up to me to decide after that. If I get no information, or a page so poorly rendered that it's obvious the person behind it didn't think about how their page looks to others, then I move on.

This is more of a chat thing than about findingfred.com eh?

Yer i was thinking about starting its own thread up earlier but thought it would end sooner, but it looks like we could keep argueing for days on end.

Heres the thread for us to argue about it:
http://forums.b2evolution.net//viewtopic.php?p=33071#33071