The New SP Design is Up!

Remove all ads!

Nice. GJ.

 

I like it, though the old design seemed to be more unigue.

I just noticed the changing background of the logo, nice, very nice!

[ July 21, 2004, 00:59: Message edited by: Eaglearrow ]

 

Not to be offensive, annoying, or any other word that is equivalent as such, but the site doesn't validate to the HMTL standard, so rendering bugs probably aren't due to poor standards support. However, I want to be positive about it, as I think the redesign is excellent. But I'm also a graphic designer by trade, and I specialize in web design, so it's something I'm passionate about, and certainly not ignorant about. I understand that it's not a perfect web though, and everything will iron itself out in time.

 

I like the new look...But I have one request. Tal, can you put your photo behind the sorcerer again...Just like old times?!?!? Please?!?!?

P.S. It really does look great!!!

 

@Rogue Paladin: I suppose the site isn't HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 for a reason. There are things you can do with a plain !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN", but don't work with "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd" properly added. For instance, when you add the more detailed DTD definition, you won't be able to display table cells without visible content. Without the detailed DTD definition, however, you can, and Internet Explorer, Netscape and Opera will show those empty table cells with specified background in specified width and height. Otherwise, you have to put non-breaking spaces in there. Just one example, there are more issues like that and I don't know many of them.

XML-based agents won't probably like SP because of uppercase tags in the code, but then it isn't intended to be XML-compatible. However, it wouldn't take much work. Tags of the empty type that require closing in XHTML but not in HTML 4 are already self-closed and the uppercase to lowercase change can be automated to a great extent. Only the head section needs a total remake when switching from HTML to XHTML, but head is pretty much the same in all subsites.

 

I will say this: The new version loads a LOT faster for me, and will probably save some of your bandwidth on the site.

The only real complaints I have are these:
-There's no banner!
-Most of the links open a new browser window. I do not really like this very much.

 

Generally I like it - but ... is that funky picture that was there gone entirely? That thing was funky...

 

@chevelier - I see what you are saying and agree in this context. However, with the site being in the 3-column layout with the center section being fluid, I don't know why this was done with tables, as it could have been done much more economically with CSS, saving tremendously on bandwidth costs. Of course, I am not in a position to understand all of the context behind the development decisions, but I'm curious nontheless.

 

Check that Favicon out

 

@Rogue Paladin: That's called the 3 Column Problem. Three columns will work in CSS so long as you don't want to synchronise their length.

Without the DTD definition from W3C, you can nest divs and make one column the parent of another and use the body showing from beneath as the third column. Still, the synchronisation won't be full as prolonging the body with text won't prolong the div columns and the child div won't prolong the parent div. You simply need to know beforehand which columns you need to govern the layout. Floats won't work as 100% parent height is calculated into pixels or whatever unit and used to calculate the float dimensions before showing. However, once you've put that float in there, the content has to adjust as floats take space (Archimedes Law, hehe) and it stops being 100%.

When you put that DTD in there, div nesting won't work. You have to position everything and 100% becomes 100% of the viewport and not of the body. You can position everything absolutely, but for that you would need to preset some fixed dimensions for the whole site. Even this will stop working when someone uses a bigger font setting in the browser, so one needs to be extremely careful.

With CSS, it's possible to create a scalable border table with the middle square holding content and the other squares being border so long as you don't have the DTD from W3C. With tables, it will work even in XHTML strict, so long as you put a non-breaking space in each empty cell (for example in your background containers) and specify min-height and min-width in the CSS file (or it will cut it to the space's size). Font-size works in IE, but Netscape definitely needs min-height.

It's true that not everything supports browsers, but there are more browsers that have troubles with supporting CSS than with supporting tables. And if something supports CSS, you can always toy with display:table-cell; and similar. Should work even in XML.

If a browser doesn't support tables, nor the display:table-cell and similar CSS properties, I doubt it will display any advanced CSS layout as well. Those browsers are simply not meant for CSS, nor for tables and basically are text browsers with some benefits. I don't think it's the best idea to visit a gaming portal like SP with such a browser. Nor do I believe many people would try that

 

Yea, yea; it's good and all, but when do we get the NEXT update?

[ July 21, 2004, 18:29: Message edited by: Wirhe ]

 

Wow!!

Good job, Tal!

Even though I liked the old look, you have really improved it.

 

@Tal - Of course no disrespect taken. It's a discussion, and one that I've enjoyed.

Even if I don't fully agree

@chev - I'm going to research your 3 column problem a bit more for my own reasons, because I've never had any problem with any of my 3 column layouts, and I've never heard the css gurus of the web mention it either. Maybe it's an implementation issue. Anyway, better educated than ignorant. Thanks.

I did mention that the design is nice, didn't I?

 

I must say excellent work, the only thing i would comment on is the fact that the... well symbol that was always hanging in the corner of the front page is gone and i liked it. I was wondering if it could be put back in somewhere. Anyway just a thought, but overall excellent work!

 

Only one thing to say...NICE!

 

edit: off topic, sorry :/

@ Chevalier
I have no idea what floats you are working with because I can float perfectly fine with 100% Height layouts. Including 3 collumn ones.

I'm not even going to get in to this Table/CSS issue with you again. CSS rules all you should know that by now

@ Rogue Paladin
Even though SP does not validate to the HTML or the XHTML standard, you must remember to think of your audience. If Sorcerers Place went full 1.1 Strict then many many viewers/members here would need to get a browser better than IE (unless much CSS hacking was introduced) or upgrade.

I don't think many members here are looking to browser this webstie using a PDA nor a mobile phone, text browser or a screen reader. Therefore XML usability or even web standards are not much of an issue.

True, we should all be moving toward 1.1 Strict sites, but realistically one needs to review a website's intended purpose before doing so.