The Icon Bar: Site Comments: Signature doesn't work
| |
Signature doesn't work |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #69790, posted by Frazzle at 10:00, 28/9/2005 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
Hello there,
Anyone notice that even if you enable signatures to be displayed with the post, it doesn't work? There is no facility to permenantly enable signatures. I need to display my Web site.
________
KiwiNET - unique, affordable, portable, multi-platform and personal-touch solutions in I.T., as easy for you as eating a kiwi!!!
+44 (0)7811 818756
haroonnet2002@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.geocities.com/haroonnet2002/ |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69791, posted by rich at 10:07, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69790 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Sigs do work \/
________
 Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #69796, posted by Frazzle at 11:15, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69791 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
Well, I check the Signature on the bottom of the message box and all I get is this bar at the bottom of my message like the one you see now.
What do you mean by 'V'?
________
KiwiNET - unique, affordable, portable, multi-platform and personal-touch solutions in I.T., as easy for you as eating a kiwi!!!
+44 (0)7811 818756
haroonnet2002@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.geocities.com/haroonnet2002/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #69797, posted by Frazzle at 11:24, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69796 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
OK, well I've managed to get the signature to work. That was because I hadn't put anything in there in the first place, d'oh!!! I have discovered a new bug though - when I click on the button to include me in the forum member list, it erases my signature. I need a facility though to keep my signature on every time I post a message.
Clicking 'Convert URLs into clickable links' don't do anything either...
[Edited by Frazzle at 12:25, 28/9/2005]
________
KiwiNET - unique, affordable, portable, multi-platform and personal-touch solutions in I.T., as easy for you as eating a kiwi!!!
+44 (0)7811 818756
haroonnet2002@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.geocities.com/haroonnet2002/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69801, posted by rich at 12:29, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69796 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Well, I check the Signature on the bottom of the message box and all I get is this bar at the bottom of my message like the one you see now.
What do you mean by 'V'? It means look below my posting.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69803, posted by rich at 12:36, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69797 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
OK, well I've managed to get the signature to work. That was because I hadn't put anything in there in the first place, d'oh!!! Hmm. Perhaps that was the first thing you should have checked?
I have discovered a new bug though - when I click on the button to include me in the forum member list, it erases my signature. Don't do it then!
This board is beta software, and some functions don't work. OTOH there's an automated member list that doesn't require subscription.
I need a facility though to keep my signature on every time I post a message. No, you need to click the tickbox provided.
Clicking 'Convert URLs into clickable links' don't do anything either... Yes it does. It doesn't work in *sigs* because, well, it doesn't (see below).
Look, this place isn't here just to find you work. I've been very patient up until now, trying not to point out that these forums are for non-commercial purposes, but having long multi-line sigs is just going to annoy people who want to read discussions with as little hassle as possible. That's why we don't have HTML in sigs - because of the way other boards have huge image sigs that annoy the crap out of people.
Please, rein it in a bit. Both the sig, and the shouting about your company.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #69814, posted by Frazzle at 15:24, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69803 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
No, you need to click the tickbox provided. Well I'm sorry, I don't use these forums that often and the "non-commercial" rules weren't obvious anywhere in the forums except in the Free Ads section. I want to use the forums so the first place I go to are the Forums, not Ads, and there's nowhere in here that said "non-commericial only". Now, my advert doesn't necessarily solicit a forum response - I have left personal details for people who want any work delegating, to visit my site and get in touch with me. My signature only consists of three lines, and I'm only making a suggestion as to how these boards could be improved to make it easier on those who must have signatures, who have to keep checking the box every time. I could have worded it a bit better perhaps. It's up to the user if he or she wants to visit my site but it's there for them.
If the signature is such a problem, why is it available for the boards anyway?
________
KiwiNET - unique, affordable, portable, multi-platform and personal-touch solutions in I.T., as easy for you as eating a kiwi!!!
+44 (0)7811 818756
haroonnet2002@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.geocities.com/haroonnet2002/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #69817, posted by monkeyson2 at 15:58, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69814 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Well I'm sorry, I don't use these forums that often and the "non-commercial" rules weren't obvious anywhere in the forums except in the Free Ads section. Do you see any other threads containing such advertising? You admit you don't use the forums much, so it's understandable that we get annoyed if you only turn up to post spam. Join in the discussions about RISC OS and pr0n instead! 
And admirable though your offer to support RISC OS is, there are better ways to promote it. A press release to news@iconbar.com and news@drobe.co.uk is a good idea, and to the moderators of comp.sys.acorn.announce - make it interesting and relevant and it might make part of a news item or podcast.
Also, most companies who put adverts on sites usually pay for them (eg. Google Adwords). You're using our (ie. Rich's) bandwidth and server space to promote your company. What's in it for us? 
My signature only consists of three lines I make it six, taking word wrap into account. It's considerably longer than some of your messages.
and I'm only making a suggestion as to how these boards could be improved to make it easier on those who must have signatures, who have to keep checking the box every time. That's fair enough. If we were to make signatures easier to add, I'd also want a preference to view the forums without signatures.
It's up to the user if he or she wants to visit my site but it's there for them. The url is in your profile, isn't that enough?
If the signature is such a problem, why is it available for the boards anyway? Good question. Why do we have them? (I'm not keen on signatures at all, it has to be said.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69822, posted by rich at 17:52, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69817 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Frazzle:Well I'm sorry, I don't use these forums that often and the "non-commercial" rules weren't obvious anywhere in the forums except in the Free Ads section. monkeyson2: Do you see any other threads containing such advertising?
The first rule of forum posting is: always take the time to read what's there so you can judge how to play things.
The second rule of forum posting is: no smoking.
If you were to go on to another board such as B3ta and wade in with adverts, you'd get roasted alive. Usually if you post on this board with adverts, I'll delete the thread, and your account. But as I've said, I've gone easy on you so far, mainly because you actually do seem to support RISC OS. If you'd have caught me after I'd had to delete 200 messages from some Indian spam company, I might not be so shiny.
Frazzle: and I'm only making a suggestion as to how these boards could be improved to make it easier on those who must have signatures, who have to keep checking the box every time. No, you were demanding. Twice you said that you had to have signatures, not that it might be a nice option to add. There are ways to go about things, and demanding people make changes just for you isn't the best one.
Frazzle: If the signature is such a problem, why is it available for the boards anyway? monkeyson2: Good question. Why do we have them? (I'm not keen on signatures at all, it has to be said.)
Because as with email, if you follow good netiquette it isn't much of a problem (and I don't have to type out "Cheers, Rich" all the time). But as with emails, longer sigs mean less signal and more noise.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #69823, posted by Frazzle at 17:56, 28/9/2005, in reply to message #69817 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
OK, I'll take on board sending to them e-mail address. I put my advert on the General Discussions board. Would it have been better in the Play Pen then?
I suppose the profile is enough. It can be argued that a link anywhere on this site leading to someone's commercial Web site is a form of advertising - one just has to click on the link. I tell you what's in it for ALL of us - growth in support for the Acorn/RiscOS platform and market. Any encouragement for purchase/development of a RiscOS product should be a good thing. It should be welcomed, not stifled through petty capitalism.
Is my signature really encroaching into all the messages? Just FIVE lines (actually)? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #69844, posted by ad at 08:24, 29/9/2005, in reply to message #69823 |
Posts: 3262
|
Is my signature really encroaching into all the messages? Just FIVE lines (actually)?
SIX with the wrap of the FIRST line |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #69848, posted by monkeyson2 at 08:30, 29/9/2005, in reply to message #69844 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Is my signature really encroaching into all the messages? Just FIVE lines (actually)?
SIX with the wrap of the FIRST line
And the blank line.
Pedants of the world, unite! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Matthew Somerville |
Message #69856, posted by Matthew at 16:32, 29/9/2005, in reply to message #69823 |
Posts: 520
|
Any encouragement for purchase/development of a RiscOS product should be a good thing. <chocky>It's "RISC OS", not "RiscOS" (which is something completely different).</chocky>
It should be welcomed, not stifled through petty capitalism. I think anyone who writes "Use coloured buttons to navigate site. Hold mouse over button for link info. Best viewed 800x600, font size 'Smaller'. Needs Internet Explorer 6 or Netscape 8.0 for best viewing. Older browsers might work - to an extent!! Make sure also the screen is MAXIMIZED."
deserves everything he gets. If I hold my mouse over the buttons, I get no info. Your questionnaire link does not work. Your spelling and grammar need a lot of work.
Rich, can you please implement that ignore thing you mentioned?  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #69917, posted by Frazzle at 08:02, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69856 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
I didn't know there was a difference. I'm not that much in touch with the market, but as I get into it through doing projects etc., I will.
I welcome any positive feedback on my site how I can improve it. I admit there's still much to do in terms of improving my site, I do intend on addressing the colour bar issue as I noticed first that holding the mouse over it wasn't producing information. There's no need to be so rancorous, if you find accessing my site frustrating, I will make sure it's not so... I though most modern computers can at least do 800 x 600... let me verify that about my site.
Please tell me, what browsers do you use and how do they handle my Web site? What's wrong with my spelling and grammer? What can I change to accomodate some of the RISC OS browsers? Thanks. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #69918, posted by monkeyson2 at 08:35, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69917 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
I admit there's still much to do in terms of improving my site, I do intend on addressing the colour bar issue as I noticed first that holding the mouse over it wasn't producing information. How about making the link using... drumroll ... ordinary text!
There's no need to be so rancorous, if you find accessing my site frustrating, I will make sure it's not so... I though most modern computers can at least do 800 x 600... let me verify that about my site. Matthew is keen on promoting accessible websites. 
A lot of RISC OS users are; possibly from the browser situation, possible because it's a Good Thing (TM).
Please tell me, what browsers do you use and how do they handle my Web site? What's wrong with my spelling and grammer? What can I change to accomodate some of the RISC OS browsers? Thanks. Netsurf - good CSS support, no javascript
Firefox - come on, it's Firefox! But it's only in Beta, so it's a little slow and doesn't follow many RISC OS conventions yet. You can't use it as an excuse for shoddy web design
Oregano 2 - CSS 1 support, javascript. I use it most because it does most things "not too bad", but nothing particularly well (compared to Netsurf's CSS or FF's javascript).
Oregano 1 - earlier version. Not sure about CSS. Still quite popular.
Fresco - old, javascript, no CSS. Still quite popular.
Webster XL. Don't have much experience of this one, sorry.
[Edited by monkeyson2 at 09:37, 30/9/2005] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69920, posted by rich at 09:02, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69918 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Oregano 1 - earlier version. Not sure about CSS. Still quite popular. Some simple CSS support
Fresco - old, javascript, no CSS. Still quite popular. Technically incorrect - it has ECMAScript, not full javascript. I kept pointing this out to The Vigay whenever he tried to bug report a product I was working on.
Webster XL. Don't have much experience of this one, sorry. First RISC OS browser to have CSS support IIRC. Also has Javascript. But written in BASIC so it's not fast or great with things like tables.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Challands |
Message #69923, posted by SimonC at 09:05, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69917 |
 Right on, Commander!
Posts: 398
|
I though most modern computers can at least do 800 x 600... let me verify that about my site.
All but the oldest RISC OS machines can manage 800 x 600, but that's not the point. The point is that any site that starts going on about particular sizes is probably a pretty badly designed site. "Best viewed..." is usually synonymous with "Not worth viewing".
[Edited by SimonC at 10:05, 30/9/2005] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #69927, posted by andypoole at 10:17, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69920 |
Posts: 5558
|
Webster XL. Don't have much experience of this one, sorry. First RISC OS browser to have CSS support IIRC. Also has Javascript. But written in BASIC so it's not fast or great with things like tables.
"It's not fast" being the understatement of the year? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69929, posted by rich at 11:28, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69927 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Webster XL. Don't have much experience of this one, sorry. First RISC OS browser to have CSS support IIRC. Also has Javascript. But written in BASIC so it's not fast or great with things like tables.
"It's not fast" being the understatement of the year?
Once it's cached stuff, it's OK. Or so Andrew McRComp keeps telling everyone.
It's faster than Firefox (in loading at least) and it's more capable than most of the opposition. It even does font face (because Harry Decker did some of the font definitions )
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #69930, posted by rich at 11:30, 30/9/2005, in reply to message #69923 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
I though most modern computers can at least do 800 x 600... let me verify that about my site.
All but the oldest RISC OS machines can manage 800 x 600, but that's not the point. The point is that any site that starts going on about particular sizes is probably a pretty badly designed site. "Best viewed..." is usually synonymous with "Not worth viewing".
Most sites these days stick to 1024x768. Which is annoying as, although most of my screens are 1024x768, I usually have a side bar in (Windows) Firefox: so I either have to keep closing my side bars or scroll around. It's far better to make less assumptions about size. It doesn't matter. (or at least, I've had no complaints )
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #70032, posted by Frazzle at 15:59, 1/10/2005, in reply to message #69920 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
Oregano looks pretty good, I would have thought it came with Java plug-ins, no? I know that Java plug-ins are available for Acorn browsers... I can't really do much about the JavaScript situation, as I need that to dynamically link my pages together. I also need functionality on my Web site, and with the server I'm on I can only keep it client side, and that involves JavaScript. However, as I am migrating server soon I may rewrite the site so that any client-side applications that can go server-side, will do so, it only parses HTML to clients. I cannot leave my site too basic as I want to make sure I am showing as much of my I.T. skills as possible, and there are maintenance issues. *Scrathes head* how are your browsers with things like Java and Flash? Do they handle frames OK?
Written in BASIC? I think that browser might just have bugs, 'cos table are basic HTML operation. I suppose on a fast-enough computer BASIC should be OK then, we're talking about interpreting languages here. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #70033, posted by Frazzle at 16:20, 1/10/2005, in reply to message #69930 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
I get conflicting advice on stating recommended sizes on my site, some say do so 'cos I might "get away with it" and it informs users to adjust their screen or font size to view the site. The argument as above makes sense 'cos it stop people visiting the site. Are most people using here using 800 x 600 mode then?
Well, I tested my site out in all screen resolutions. 800 x 600 seems the best for this. Doesn't mean can't access the site in lower resolution, but you'd just be able to see the site as it's meant to be in the set resolution. Plus, I don't want to keep < 800 x 600 selected on my PC all the time. I should reword so that it's more inclusive for everyone. Thanks for the tips.
[Edited by Frazzle at 17:26, 1/10/2005] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #70034, posted by Frazzle at 18:51, 1/10/2005, in reply to message #69856 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
Your questionnaire link does not work. Your spelling and grammar need a lot of work. OK, the questionnaire now works as I've re-uploaded the file. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #70035, posted by rich at 21:34, 1/10/2005, in reply to message #70032 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Oregano looks pretty good, I would have thought it came with Java plug-ins, no? No RISC OS browser (that I know of) comes "with Java plug-ins" as standard. In fact on the PC you usually download Java as an extra anyway, thanks to Microsoft's "embrace and extend" culture muddying the whole Java situation.
You might be able to use Java with a RISC OS browser, but that's a different matter, and very few people do.
I can't really do much about the JavaScript situation, as I need that to dynamically link my pages together. That's just sloppy writing. There is absolutely no need to use Javascript just for links. How will a search engine index your site? And if it can't, how are your customers going to find you - or your clients, who've paid you good money to design them a site?
While Javascript can enhance the browsing experience, you should always be able to do without it. Especially if you use the noscript tag.
I'll admit there have been times where I've had to make do with code that only works in full Javascript browsers; but that's usually a tough decision due to time or other technical reasons. And it's something like a server tool that can reconfigure a Linux computer's network settings and uses Javascript to validate the content so the server doesn't get screwed. I normally also back that up with checks in the server-side code, but people were getting it wrong so often that I had to make a tough decision. That's not something you should be coming up against on your show site - you should put the time in, and not over-complicate matters in the first place.
I cannot leave my site too basic as I want to make sure I am showing as much of my I.T. skills as possible This is a poor excuse. The best advert is a site that's clean and works well; just adding technology for the sake of it is less impressive. Handle the fundamentals properly before adding all the Christmas decorations.
There's an old tale from the Renaissance about a competition for a Prince's patronage: while lesser artists tried painting extravagant scenes, the master "simply" painted a perfect circle. Because this is so hard to do, he was deemed the most useful man to hire - precise, innovative, and intelligent.
If you can design a site that looks good, Just Works(tm), is simple to navigate and update, then you're a better designer, and can make informed decisions about the addition of extra technology.
*Scrathes head* how are your browsers with things like Java and Flash? Do they handle frames OK? Even on the PC, Java and Flash shouldn't be relied on unless there's no alternative (I turn off Java for speed, security, and to stop the memory-grabbing bastard loading; on Mozilla both have to be installed as an extra, if you're using the latest version of flash that is).
If you're doing a Flash cartoon, fine, use Flash, that's a great use of the technology; but if you have most of your site in Flash, it's hard to update, and so most people don't bother. It also means it doesn't get properly indexed in search engines because it's not textual.
Frames are in most RISC OS browsers, but are a thing of evil to be avoided. Again, think about how someone will arrive to your site via a search engine.
A final thought on Flash and other whizzy features: people tend to ignore them these days, assuming that it's advertising junk. Example: Jakob Nielsen, usability guru, designed a site for IBM. He had an animated GIF submit button for a form - and kept getting support questions about there being no submit button. People tuned it out, because they expected a "proper" button and ignored the "advert".
Written in BASIC? I think that browser might just have bugs, 'cos table are basic HTML operation. Spoken like someone who has no concept of how a browser is written. Tables are notoriously difficult to implement, and even Internet Explorer doesn't do them quite "right".
Try thinking of how you'd implement something that has to auto-resize depending on multiple items of content, while nested multiple times. They are not "basic" HTML operation, they're just heavily (mis)used. That's why CSS wonks avoid them completely.
Webster can handle tables per se, but can't quite handle the pixel-perfect nested tables I use for the calendar display on my site. I could switch to CSS, but wanted to get it working in as many browsers as possible, so in this case the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few.
As for the whole size issue - try and make your site work in 800x600 and upwards, just don't tell anyone that they need to do something in order to view your site - they'll ignore it or, if they're a techie, laugh.
Install Firefox. Install the Web Developer extension. It comes with useful things like resizing the window to fake different screen sizes. Also install a spell checker - there's a Firefox extension for that too!
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #70217, posted by Frazzle at 15:54, 6/10/2005, in reply to message #70035 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
Is my spelling really that bad? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #70218, posted by rich at 16:22, 6/10/2005, in reply to message #70217 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Is my spelling really that bad? It never hurts to give things a once-over just in case
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Matthew Somerville |
Message #70263, posted by Matthew at 23:15, 7/10/2005, in reply to message #70033 |
Posts: 520
|
I get conflicting advice on stating recommended sizes on my site, some say do so 'cos I might "get away with it" and it informs users to adjust their screen or font size to view the site. *No* user will adjust their screen size to view a site; they will simply go elsewhere. Same applies almost always for font size too. If your website is not viewable by someone, it's badly designed.
Are most people using here using 800 x 600 mode then? I'm using 1600x1200, not that it matters.
Well, I tested my site out in all screen resolutions. Really? 320x256 (PocketPC)? 2048x1536 (my friend's stupidly big monitor)? 176xN (Opera SSR on a Sony something-or-other)? I'm impressed.
you'd just be able to see the site as it's meant to be in the set resolution. Here's the real problem - there's no such thing as "meant to be", this isn't a printed document. If I want it all squashed up in a thin column, or have it so wide the lines of text are unreadable to most, that's up to me.
Thanks for the tips. No problem. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Matthew Somerville |
Message #70264, posted by Matthew at 23:17, 7/10/2005, in reply to message #70032 |
Posts: 520
|
I can't really do much about the JavaScript situation, as I need that to dynamically link my pages together. Oh god, I hadn't even noticed you were using JS and frames for navigation. Firstly, overriding all else, you do not need JavaScript to do what you're doing - look at using the bog-standard simple HTML target attribute on the <a> element.
Rich has replied to all the rest with aplomb. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
F. Haroon |
Message #70296, posted by Frazzle at 11:04, 9/10/2005, in reply to message #70264 |
Member
Posts: 21
|
I'll think about the JavaScript thing. I have to make my site somewhat attractive to all customers and it's difficult. I'll see if I can implement exactly what I have in HTML... I think it's sad that the RISC OS browser market has been slow to catch up with all the technologies.
Anyway, I have changed the text sizes on my site, I hope you find it a bit more friendly and flexible to navigate. For lower screen resolutions you should find it readable. If the text is too small make it bigger to fit the page...
[Edited by Frazzle at 12:06, 9/10/2005] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #70297, posted by andypoole at 11:28, 9/10/2005, in reply to message #70296 |
Posts: 5558
|
I have to make my site somewhat attractive to all customers and it's difficult. Uh, no it's not. It's very easy actually |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
The Icon Bar: Site Comments: Signature doesn't work |
|
