New Pandora Website!


marshal said:
The logo itself is nice and all but I don't really really like the text "ultra portability without sacrificing capability"
I know it was already present on the old website. However, IMO the text is just a bit too long and doesn't add much.

How about: "Pandora, no corners cut" ;)

No really, I think the current one mostly a good slogan. Maybe a bit of a mouthful, but not too much.

EDIT: I meant that the current one is good, not the one in this post :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Jefe said:
How about making it with some awesome 3d css effects
like
This
or this
or this
or this
or this
PROTIP:
these wont work unless you are running safari 4
PROTIP 2:
Use Webkit nightly instead of safari 4, it does javascript faster, its open source, and it still does these effects.
Noooooooooooooooooooooo please no... :p

I use Firefox, IE for backup. I avoid Safari, Chrome, and others. Personal preference, Firefox simply does what I need. Fancy effects are great and all, but I'd prefer to just see a page that works in most/all browsers than a page that only works in one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EvilDragon said:
Then I checked some major newssites in Germany [...] and NONE of them reformats. They all have a fixed size which stays that big regardless of what size your browser is.
I think it depends largely on who the design company was, and whether the person calling the shots at the client company understands the web. Most designers don't cope well with the concept of dynamic designs. They make something look good when rendered in a highly-specific way, and then the web developers have to implement that design at that size. Combined with the fact that clients often don't understand the flaws in that approach, it's not surprising that many big sites are unnecessarily constrained.

A problem with dynamic sites is that to make them LOOK GOOD, the whole content has to be zoomed (pictures, text, etc.).
That's not really true. Sure, to make it look *exactly* the way you intended, you need full control over the display. But you don't ever have that on the web. And in any case, something that looks good but is unreadable is completely useless.

A good design generally has some flexibility built in, and can adapt to at least a few of the variables that are out there, without looking horrid.

But you really only need to make it look the way you want for whatever you believe the set of 'typical' browser configurations would be. Then you just need to make sure that you don't get silly broken behaviour like over-lapping text if people have significantly different set-ups -- the people with those set-ups typically won't give a damn how the site looks, just so long as the information is readable.

Hopefully that sounds like a no-brainer, but it's depressing to see the number of sites which do stupid things like putting text into fixed pixel-dimension boxes, without any apparent comprehension that larger fonts will cause it to overflow.

I'm not saying I think you should re-do the site, btw. Just discussing the topic at hand. (I would very definitely like that font fix I mentioned earlier though, please!)

Remember that you can always implement alternate style sheets if you really need to (it's really trivial to do), and the viewer can choose the one that works best for them.

It would only work with flash - and I don't want to have any flash on the site.
Thank goodness. Excluding the millions of embedded FLVs out there, I doubt that any more than 5% of Flash on the web is remotely appropriate. Mostly it's just a pain in the arse (not to mention an accessibility nightmare).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EvilDragon said:
Huh? I designed it partly on a 1024 wide Laptop - and that one works fine without scroll bar...? :eek:
Here's your culprit:
(after loading that page, you may need to click the image, or 'View Image' with your browser, to see it full-size.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Jefe said:
How about making it with some awesome 3d css effects
like
This
or this
or this
or this
or this
PROTIP:
these wont work unless you are running safari 4
PROTIP 2:
Use Webkit nightly instead of safari 4, it does javascript faster, its open source, and it still does these effects.

None of those pages do anything in Firefox 3.5.4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enverex said:
El Jefe said:
How about making it with some awesome 3d css effects
like
This
or this
or this
or this
or this
PROTIP:
these wont work unless you are running safari 4
PROTIP 2:
Use Webkit nightly instead of safari 4, it does javascript faster, its open source, and it still does these effects.

None of those pages do anything in Firefox 3.5.4.
Those pages *do* actually do something in Chromium 4.0.219.3 (27164). Please, get a better browser with WebKit, preferably with a nightly build :p (And I choose Chrome or Chromium over Safari any day, partly because there's no Safari on Linux)

Screenshot of the first link (and it's actually animated but w/e:


Those pages use WebKit-specific APIs so they're not portable, *however*, it IS possible to achieve the same effects using SVG, and it'll work in all XHTML-compatible browsers (meaning everything except IE)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dflemstr said:
Enverex said:
El Jefe said:
How about making it with some awesome 3d css effects
like
This
or this
or this
or this
or this
PROTIP:
these wont work unless you are running safari 4
PROTIP 2:
Use Webkit nightly instead of safari 4, it does javascript faster, its open source, and it still does these effects.

None of those pages do anything in Firefox 3.5.4.
Those pages *do* actually do something in Chromium 4.0.219.3 (27164). Please, get a better browser with WebKit, preferably with a nightly build :p (And I choose Chrome or Chromium over Safari any day, partly because there's no Safari on Linux)

Screenshot of the first link (and it's actually animated but w/e:


Those pages use WebKit-specific APIs so they're not portable, *however*, it IS possible to achieve the same effects using SVG, and it'll work in all XHTML-compatible browsers (meaning everything except IE)

Riiiight, so I should use a specific, no-portable browser. That makes sense for the internet which was designed as portable in itself....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enverex said:
Riiiight, so I should use a specific, no-portable browser. That makes sense for the internet which was designed as portable in itself....
A more valid reason would be that Chrome is about 2 or 3 times faster than Firefox when it comes to all-round speed (I even did some benchmarks, note that Shiretoko is the Firefox version I used)

The ability to run 3D demos is a neat extra :p

Also, as I said, it's possible to create 3D effects using SVG, which is portable among all browsers, so if we want 3D on a site, compatibility shouldn't be a show stopper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dflemstr said:
Those pages use WebKit-specific APIs so they're not portable, *however*, it IS possible to achieve the same effects using SVG, and it'll work in all XHTML-compatible browsers (meaning everything except IE)
So, to repeat what I think your saying, using different words (and tell me if I'm way off here), it goes something like this
Microsoft: look at all these great features we've added that only work in our browser! Use our browser and get awesome web content!
WWW: look what you've done! Broken compatibility and now people don't have a choice of browser, or we're stuck developing two sets of pages. Shame on you!
Webkit: Look at all these great features we've added that only work in our browser (or browsers based off our API)! Use our browser and get awesome web content!
WWW: That sounds quite sensible. I will switch immediately for you are wise and know all!

:p
Tongue-in-cheek humour, but that is kind of what it sounds like you're saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WizardStan said:
(and tell me if I'm way off here)
You're way off there ;)
I think that demos that show what a browser can do are cool, but that's not a reason why I would recommend that browser. Read my previous response for details.

And IE is different because Microsoft *avoided* the standard and implemented features that *replaced* the standard features, so that's not cool in any way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dflemstr said:
You're way off there ;)
I think that demos that show what a browser can do are cool, but that's not a reason why I would recommend that browser. Read my previous response for details.

And IE is different because Microsoft *avoided* the standard and implemented features that *replaced* the standard features, so that's not cool in any way.
That may be true, but you're still advocating it at least partially because of features which break the standard. I still maintain that any website that does something (noticeable) for a specific browser because it wants to (and not because it has to due to flaws in the browser, ie IE) should be considered a blight on the universe and purged or ignored entirely. Suggesting that one of the features of a browser, even in passing, is that it does things outside of spec and encourages people to adopt those out of spec features on their web pages so that they only function on this specific browser (or others that choose to implement the out of spec features) is a sure way to make me not want to try that browser. It may have features that truly do make the browsing experience better that are within spec, but I'd be a hypocrite if I used it knowing that it encourages non-standard web pages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, OK, the WebKit developers might have been better of with adding a big popup that says "DANGER: you're entering a web page that uses non-standard content. Proceed?" before they decided to have some fun with 3D.

lulzfish said:
I refuse to use Google Chrome on the basis that it has no capacity to block that god-forsaken cow-thing on this site.
Well, if that's the only issue, then please, take this chrome extension that blocks the cow:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zzzttmck5ot

(EDIT: I wrote it in like 30 seconds. GreaseMonkey, take that! :p)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lulzfish said:
I refuse to use Google Chrome on the basis that it has no capacity to block that god-forsaken cow-thing on this site.

Just click the < button to the top right of said picture, Just above the large paypal (Donate) button.

I refuse to use Chrome because it has a crap interface, Much like Firefox, And Safari, 28 Meg for a web browser
icon5.gif
. Yep, An Opera fanboi here.

Trooper
 
Last edited by a moderator:
trooper said:
lulzfish said:
I refuse to use Google Chrome on the basis that it has no capacity to block that god-forsaken cow-thing on this site.
I refuse to use Chrome because it has a crap interface, Much like Firefox, And Safari, 28 Meg for a web browser
icon5.gif
. Yep, An Opera fanboi here.

Trooper

what cow thing?
and webkit nightly is actually 150 mb unpacked, but really, like missing a GB here or there is going to matter with hdd the size we have today.
at least on my mac, webkit starts about 3 times faster than firefox...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
-Tj- said:
El Jefe said:
what cow thing?
dziewczyna-z-kartka.jpg
The one that used to be an attractive young lady before someone was all "ZOMG! Gurlz on teh intertube! pixplzkthxbai!"
This is why we can't have nice things. For at least 2 more months.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top