/ UKClimbing: new look, new competition..

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
If you've ever visited UKClimbing before, you'll notice that this is a new look. After a lot of thought and observation of where people actually go and how they use the site, we've reorganised it into more logical (at least, as you all use them) categories. You can see them in the navigation bar above.<br>
And to celebrate, we've started a new competition: write about your best climbing experience in 500 words or less and you could win a Berghaus jacket, a rope of your choice, a Rockfax guide, or a Rockfax miniguide subscription.<br>Read all about it at the <a href="http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/competition.html">competition page</a>.

And tell us what you think of the new look....
Doug on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:
Just arrived & thought my computer had gone wrong !
what was so bad about sky blue ? although the brown is more like the skies been here of late
In reply to Doug:

Not that anything was wrong with it, but we'd had the same look for, ooh, three years or so. It's the 21st century now (and may be for a while) so we thought we'd try something different for a while. And it could be a while.

Charles
sutty on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

I logged in and reached for the shades, thought I was in rockfax till this worm thing dissipates.

Like the look, will compare it with the old one later to see if it works better or not. (Now where did I save thosw pages on toproping?)
The Lemming - on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

Cool, shiney.

Gets my vote.

Can I have the jacket now, please?
jon on 26 Jan 2003 - host81-152-44-30.range81-152.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

Looks better, but can you please explain to me why UKClimbing use fixed font sizes? The fonts are too small for me and I can't change them. Using relative rather than absolute font sizes is a basic principle of web design.
sutty on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to jon:

I have just changed mine to larger and smaller. Go to view, text size and larger. I am using IE 6 as a browser, what are you using?
In reply to jon:
> but can you please explain to me why UKClimbing use fixed font sizes? The fonts are too small for me and I can't change them. Using relative rather than absolute font sizes is a basic principle of web design.

I spent quite a while trying to use relative font sizes in the stylesheets, and the problem is cross-browser/platform compatibility. What works in one browser looks terrible in another because they don't agree on how to treat nested percentage font sizes :(

This is very annoying, but all I can suggest is that you upgrade to a better web browser. For example, Opera v6 can resize the fonts fine, even on sites that set fixed font sizes in the style sheets. I think it is 'only' MSIE that can't do it.

Regards
The Lemming - on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to sutty:

Hello chaps

I'm using IE 6 and just played around with the largest and amallest texts. All it seems to do on this Discussion Group is make the spacing larger between the lines of test. It does not actually change the size of the text.

Hey ho.
jon on 26 Jan 2003 - host81-152-44-30.range81-152.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Nick Smith:

I appreciate it can be hard to make web pages look good on all browsers, but 95% of people use Internet Explorer on Windows, so surely this should be your priority?
In reply to jon:
> I appreciate it can be hard to make web pages look good on all browsers, but 95% of people use Internet Explorer on Windows, so surely this should be your priority?

Of course we check the pages with MSIE (on Windows and on the Mac - the same version of the same browser works differently on the 2 platforms!) to ensure they work as expected, but we're not going to add a feature (such as percentage font sizes in stylesheets) which breaks all the other browsers, are we?

Have you tried the free Opera browser? http://www.opera.com/

Cheers
In reply to Nick Smith: Oh, and font size resizing works in Netscape 6 as well...
Doug on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Nick Smith:
easy to change the font size on Mozilla & Opera (both on Mac OS X) & both seem faster than IE
Timmd on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:I don't really like it,the blue was more restfull i thought.And the dark blue at the top of list on the left hand side clashes with the orangey/sandy colour.I think it's tiring to look at.Sorry.
(:-))
Cheers
Tim
Sarah G on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor
The future's orange, then.

Where's me sunglasses?
Like the new arrangement, though.
Keith_D (At large....) on 26 Jan 2003 - 193.138.49.200 whois?
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor: Horribly hung over, trying and failing to use a Slovenian keyboard, this change of image has only served to heighten my sense of paranoia and bring back that thumping pain behind my eyes.....
match on 26 Jan 2003 - mdmh2.emma.cam.ac.uk [gamma.wwwcache.cam.ac.uk]
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:
Funny, last night someone was trying to explain to me what the colour 'ovaltine' looked like...
Gotcha now!
Looks pretty, but the sky blue was more chilled I think.
Sophie Leatherbarrow on 26 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

Oh no! Change! Baaaaaaaaaaaad!

Actually, I quite like the new arangement, but I think the Ovaltine/orange colour is awful (and, like Timmd says, it clashes horribly with the remaining blue bits). Does anyone else remember OUTDOORSmagic.com changing the colour of their site from orange to blue? There was plenty of discussion about it on their "soapbox" forum, but most people preferred the new blue. I hope this Ovaltine colour scheme doesn’t last long. The blue was much nicer.
jo on 26 Jan 2003 - cache-loh-ae03.proxy.aol.com
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

I like it! Kinda snazzy and modern without being pretentious and 'designer'. Certainly better than the blue thang you had going on.

Nice one.
In reply to jo:
> I like it! Kinda snazzy and modern without being pretentious and 'designer'. Certainly better than the blue thang you had going on.
>
> Nice one.

Thank you Jo! You've made an tired old, err... young web designer happy :)
Wingnut - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to Nick Smith:
Yes, but the blue version was *much* less conspicuous at work - we've got an 'official' package that's the same colour.
In reply to Wingnut: Well I'm thinking about adding a new feature for registered users so that they can choose their own colours for this site! Don't hold your breath - might be a while before it happens.
marie - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to Nick Smith: Cool... I could have UKclimbing in my corporate 'pink'....

Yes, I am being serious!

Who the hell picks pink as their corporate colour?!?!
magic on 27 Jan 2003 - cugd-pc-286.geog.cam.ac.uk [gamma.wwwcache.cam.ac.uk]
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

Well I guess I have to agree with most others here - the new layout is great, especially the nav bar at the top of the screen, but I am unconvinced about the yellow! Maybe people were too chilled out with all that blue, and this is designed to encourage some more heated arguments on the forums ? ;)

ps. was clicking around and pictures at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/deccomprpt.html
seem to be broken, don't know if it is just me?
In reply to magic:

Sure, the page loads but the photos don't. That's because.. um, I wiped them.

Anyway, how are those competition entries coming?

Charles
O Mighty Tim on 27 Jan 2003 - 19.162.46.115 [136.8.159.11]
In reply to marie: Erm. Durex? ;^)

I've always come in from the Rockfax direction, as that's how I found this place...
It's always been yellow, over here! I always found the blue to be dull, and boring, in contrast, so I never wandered over to see what you had to say. I just might, now...

Tim, TG (I need all the colour I can get, y'know!)
Vlad - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to marie:

Preferred the blue, at least people thought I was working as its very similar to the main on-line legal database I use...

Now people KNOW I'm slacking
marie - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to O Mighty Tim:

>
> Tim, TG (I need all the colour I can get, y'know!)

Grecian 2000 ?

And no I don't know how to spell it!

;oP
Ferg - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to Nick Smith:
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
>
> Of course we check the pages with MSIE (on Windows and on the Mac - the same version of the same browser works differently on the 2 platforms!) to ensure they work as expected, but we're not going to add a feature (such as percentage font sizes in stylesheets) which breaks all the other browsers, are we?

Hear, hear! Just because MS do not stick to the proper standards, should not mean people with compliant browsers should be locked out!

Anyway where did the 95% figure come from? Out of all my friends I only know one or two who use IE. Most prefer Netscape, or Mozilla. What about large Universities and companies that do not use IE?

I found this link which says 95%:-
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1557411

Don;t know if I agree with the figure, as like the article suggests, a large amount of alterative browsers to IE, will identify themselves as IE, to avoid badly configured websites from blocking them out.

Cheers
Ferg
(who always feels frustrated, when he has to use the clunky IE!)

jon on 27 Jan 2003 - 194.133.21.129 whois?
In reply to Ferg:

Get your facts straight. Whatever you think of Microsoft I can tell you that Internet Explorer is highly standards compliant, and has been for a long time. Mozilla (Netscape) by comparison has only recently achieved a sensible compliance level. The issue Nick pointed out was that IE is the only browser that doesn't support resizing of fixed fonts - this is entirely standards-compliant. In fact Nick said he couldn't use the standards-compliant resizable fonts because the other browsers can't cope with it.

In reply to magic:

> ps. was clicking around and pictures at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/deccomprpt.html
> seem to be broken, don't know if it is just me?

OK, they're all back now, so you can see the comp that's long over.

Which is probably better than arguing about whose browser is compliant. Do they make tea? That's my measure of compliance, and so far none measure up.

Charles
jon on 27 Jan 2003 - 194.133.21.129 whois?
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

> Which is probably better than arguing about whose browser is compliant.

If you're not interested, don't read it!
Wingnut - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to Nick Smith:
Cool . . . camouflage "stealth" fora!
In reply to jon:
> Get your facts straight. Whatever you think of Microsoft I can tell you that Internet Explorer is highly standards compliant, and has been for a long time. Mozilla (Netscape) by comparison has only recently achieved a sensible compliance level. The issue Nick pointed out was that IE is the only browser that doesn't support resizing of fixed fonts - this is entirely standards-compliant. In fact Nick said he couldn't use the standards-compliant resizable fonts because the other browsers can't cope with it.

No, that isn't what I said at all, and indeed I have strong views on the subject Re: Microsoft making up their own standards and then forcing the world to adopt them as the de facto standard because of market domination.

On the subject of resizing fonts. Resizing of fixed font sizes is an excellent feature (which is not supported by IE) but has nothing to do with 'standards' - compliance or otherwise. If you need to resize fonts on all sites, then it makes a lot of sense to use a better browser that supports this feature.

It is unfortunate that browsers haven't got the nested percentage font size handling 'correct', but the truth is not that IE gets it 'right' and all the other browsers are broken: it is more that they all behave differently, even different versions of the same browser.

...

Oi! you at the back snoring! Give him a kick, will you? ;)

Cheers
Vdiff Dave - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

I like it.

I especially like the way that the links turn red on mouse-over.
Ferg - on 27 Jan 2003
In reply to jon:

I meant Mozilla, not Netscape (Mozilla is now an different browser to Netscape. When Netscape's source code was released, Netscape and Mozilla were forked).

I don;t want to get into a flame war, and I was a little provocative in my post (should have had an asbestos suit on!), but IE does support a lot of html tags that are not in the World Wide Web consortium's standards listed on their website: http://www.w3.org. e.g. <td height=foo> and <bgsound> are not listed anywhere in the standards documents, yet both are used by Microsoft.

What I actually meant, was it would be bad to just ignore other browsers just because one browser supports something that others do not!

Anyway it's not that interesting a subject!! (well to me it isn't, I'm sure website designers find it far more interesting!)

..and to be more OT, I like the new website design! It seems far more pleasing to the eye. Not yet sure whether it's easier to navigate though!

Cheers
Ferg
Anonymous on 27 Jan 2003 - host212-140-158-102.webport.bt.net
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

I like the look, but the FH filter still does not work - the little fecker is still out there, posting......
sutty on 28 Jan 2003
In reply to Charles Arthur, UKC Editor:

Just went to the home page and noticed you even tell people how many new postings are unread since they las came here. Very neat, as are a lot of the other changes.
jon on 28 Jan 2003 - 194.133.21.129 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith:

Apologies for misunderstanding you.

As for Microsoft making up their own standards - well they do, but IE is actually very standards compliant. Any valid HTML will work well with IE.
jon on 28 Jan 2003 - 194.133.21.129 whois?
In reply to Ferg:

> Mozilla is now an different browser to Netscape. When Netscape's source code was released, Netscape and Mozilla were forked

No, Netscape is based on Mozilla, with Netscape releases coming a few months after the equivalent Mozilla release.
jon on 28 Jan 2003 - 194.133.21.129 whois?
In reply to Nick Smith:

At the risk of boring everyone to death by continuing this thread, you should check out http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukclimbing.com if you're interested in standards-compliance.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.