PDA

View Full Version : "program Manager"



Batty
11-06-2002, 02:54 PM
I think it would be a neat effect if you let people "play around" with the Program Manager window interface on your website. Let it be utilized similar to the way the it is/was in Win3.1 (as your interface reflects. See DHTML Central (http://www.dhtmlcentral.com/).)

That way, you allow scrolling as your list of programs is becoming lenghty (Good job guys :D ) ! Not to mention, you can have fun minimizing it, moving it around, etc (I need to get out more . ;) )

Guest
11-10-2002, 05:35 PM
Lets hope if they do something like that they use ECMAScript and it works correctly.
Much of the DHTML posted out there is really outdated, we're at Javascript 1.5 now people.

Actually an easy way to do that which works in the good browsers doesn't even require Javascript at all.
CSS2 allows:
position: fixed; overflow: scroll

That would at least fix its position in the window allow it to scroll just like a Win 3.1 window. However Win3.1 windows used Icons also.
--
| Ric

igor
11-12-2002, 04:35 PM
Those are excellent ideas. We have thought about doing something like that. However, there are several problems associated with that. Unless you have the latest browser, it will not display properly or display at all. We like the site to be compatible with old versions.

- Igor

Ric Gates
11-13-2002, 12:22 AM
That why I posted what I did.
You can however "eat your cake and have it too". When I have some time I'll make a sample page and let you know. I always write "degradable" html, there are a significant number of people still using Lynx and other "dhtml impaired" browsers.
Most of the ready made scripts out there do absolutely nothing when Javascript is off, which makes them impractical for menus. As you, igor, mentioned, may not display at all.
<_<

Ric Gates
11-13-2002, 12:34 AM
I just noticed this board uses a poor method of linking to the page top:
<a href=&#39;javascript:scroll(0,0);&#39;>
when it should be:
<a href="#top" onClick="scrollTo(0,0);return false;">

I know it&#39;s not your fault, it just illustrates my point perfectly.
:rolleyes:
--
| Ric

Teddy
11-17-2002, 06:21 PM
Actually, the invision board people did that on purpose. There was a good reason for it, I just don&#39;t remember what it was :)

Ric Gates
11-18-2002, 10:09 PM
The reason is because they didn&#39;t know how to do it right. Believe me, I know.
If they&#39;re concerned about Javascript 1.0 errors you simply create a function.

--
| Ric

igor
11-24-2002, 05:31 PM
We did not create the board ourselves. We are just using Invision Board. Since the discussion board is an add-on to the web site and not the main part, we figured that this was the best way to go. To strip down a completed script is a hassle, but to create your own discussion board is a huge task.

Someday we would like to have the discussion board and the main web site be more in sync with each other. For now, the existing system is probably sufficient. I hope you agree.

- Igor

lightsup55
11-25-2002, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by igor@Nov 24 2002, 05:31 PM
For now, the existing system is probably sufficient. I hope you agree.

- Igor
I agree.

Ric Gates
11-26-2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by igor@Nov 24 2002, 05:31 PM
We did not create the board ourselves. We are just using Invision Board.
I did say "I know it&#39;s not your fault".
I actually like this Invision Board, and the hot keys are cool.
Ultimate BB is pretty good, but I don&#39;t like it&#39;s default icons: too XP-like and hard to decipher.

I don&#39;t get what :ph34r: is supposed to mean, a title attribute would be helpful - but now that&#39;s really off topic.

--
| Ric

Ric Gates
11-28-2002, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Ric Gates@Nov 26 2002, 11:06 PM
Ultimate BB is pretty good, but I don&#39;t like it&#39;s default icons: too XP-like and hard to decipher.

Oops, I meant phpBB 2.0.3, though UBB is good too.


--
| Ric

OldVersion.com Admin
11-28-2002, 12:21 AM
We tried phpBB at first but there were some bugs we encountered and after two reinstallations of it we decided it would be better to use Invision Board which I find great, except for a couple bugs as well - but that should all be well in 1.1 (they are in Beta 4 waiting for Final release). UBB doesn&#39;t use PHP which would kill the server.

collie
12-04-2002, 10:13 PM
why does ubb kill the server by not using php?

what does it use instead?

OldVersion.com Admin
12-05-2002, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by collie@Dec 4 2002, 10:13 PM
why does ubb kill the server by not using php?

what does it use instead?
It uses Perl and the posts are not stored in a mySQL database. The server that this is hosted on does not have an SCSI hard drive, but rather a 7200RPM. The amount of write data would be too much as the posts would be stored in some protected file instead of a database. The server would end up being so slow or going down every so often.

SSS
12-07-2002, 11:14 AM
I think that <a href="#top" onClick="scrollTo(0,0);return false;"> is a better code because you can specify where you want it to go.

epp_b
12-28-2002, 11:05 PM
How did we get to how PHPBB would bog your server from this thread????

Usually, when you create DHTML menus, you can create a "buffer" for javascript-behind browsers (ironically, Netscape is one of them).

SSS
01-07-2003, 06:01 PM
I don&#39;t get what :ph34r: is supposed to mean, a title attribute would be helpful - but now that&#39;s really off topic.
:ph34r: is sorta like a ninja. :blink: