The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://lewq.2y.net/turbonutter/
Tell me if my favicon works. It should appear to Moz/NS users, probably with IE6 and notsosure about IE 5.5.
Well?
Tell me if my favicon works. It should appear to Moz/NS users, probably with IE6 and notsosure about IE 5.5.
Well?
Page:
Ah-ha!
Have changed the logo to a .png. This will show it properly until the background loads, at which point it overlays on top nicely.
Plus points:
Smaller filesize
Looks nice
Downsides:
Reduced compatability with non-png browsers, so you just don't get the logo. (Possible workaround - the image won't be displayed, so setting the correct version as a bg to the cell will show it in this situation. Bit dodgy obviously).
Larger CPU usage for the pages. Unnoticable on this 333mhz.
Opinions?
Have changed the logo to a .png. This will show it properly until the background loads, at which point it overlays on top nicely.
Plus points:
Smaller filesize
Looks nice
Downsides:
Reduced compatability with non-png browsers, so you just don't get the logo. (Possible workaround - the image won't be displayed, so setting the correct version as a bg to the cell will show it in this situation. Bit dodgy obviously).
Larger CPU usage for the pages. Unnoticable on this 333mhz.
Opinions?
your going to eat it? cut it into little pieces and send it round the world? ..... erm
Oh, I just realised something. The 88k version was at 90%, which looked crap. The current one is 120k.
Although, I have a very cunning plan...
Although, I have a very cunning plan...
I didn't think the background was too bad, you don't know it's there really, he content actually loads pretty quick, then you get the weird very out of place logo with the background behind it (which is a shame)
everything seem fine, maybe you could have the plain page as the standard and the background on the switch?
anyway, the sites nice, i'd like to see more images though :)
everything seem fine, maybe you could have the plain page as the standard and the background on the switch?
anyway, the sites nice, i'd like to see more images though :)
Uh, http://io.mine.nu/turbonutter/images/background.png
Re. The background:
Facts - it's an 600x600 non-contigious texture with 95% JPEG compression at 88k, and it was generated specifically for the website, not involving my current background
1. This only reason why it's there is because it's a *nice* background. It's superb randomness is cool. Therefore, having it any smaller would detract from its randomness because the tiling would be obvious.
2. 88k is absolutely the smallest I can get it without it looking crap. JPEG compression slaughters it, GIFs need to run at a tiny index to get it below 88k and because it's non-contigious, it doesn't PNG well.
As I type I'm uploading a perfect PNG copy, if anyone wants to have a stab at getting it below 88k while looking nice. Also, you can go to http://io.mine.nu/turbonutter/snakeskin.php for instructions on doing it in the GIMP.
Have fun!
Facts - it's an 600x600 non-contigious texture with 95% JPEG compression at 88k, and it was generated specifically for the website, not involving my current background
1. This only reason why it's there is because it's a *nice* background. It's superb randomness is cool. Therefore, having it any smaller would detract from its randomness because the tiling would be obvious.
2. 88k is absolutely the smallest I can get it without it looking crap. JPEG compression slaughters it, GIFs need to run at a tiny index to get it below 88k and because it's non-contigious, it doesn't PNG well.
As I type I'm uploading a perfect PNG copy, if anyone wants to have a stab at getting it below 88k while looking nice. Also, you can go to http://io.mine.nu/turbonutter/snakeskin.php for instructions on doing it in the GIMP.
Have fun!
Fogmaster wrote:
> hey Tyla, it just didn't seem to repeat, it's better that way though I
> think, makes it look...more original, if it repeated it would be the
> same as all those really horrible backgrounds around the web
> *shudders*
Backgrounds are cool if they dont sacrifice DL time... whats the point in hanging around for a *nice* bkgnd
> hey Tyla, it just didn't seem to repeat, it's better that way though I
> think, makes it look...more original, if it repeated it would be the
> same as all those really horrible backgrounds around the web
> *shudders*
Backgrounds are cool if they dont sacrifice DL time... whats the point in hanging around for a *nice* bkgnd
hey Tyla, it just didn't seem to repeat, it's better that way though I think, makes it look...more original, if it repeated it would be the same as all those really horrible backgrounds around the web *shudders*
Fogmaster wrote:
> :d php does look class, loads very quickly, shame your background
> takes a while, (even with broadband) :D did you have to make the whole
> image, e.g. 1300x1000 or something?
Ah Robs Bkgnd! It's huge, it's somthing like 800/600... it's takinf far to long to DL and doesn't need to be that big, but he lacks the talent to make it smaller;-) Nice to see someone else has noticed...
> :d php does look class, loads very quickly, shame your background
> takes a while, (even with broadband) :D did you have to make the whole
> image, e.g. 1300x1000 or something?
Ah Robs Bkgnd! It's huge, it's somthing like 800/600... it's takinf far to long to DL and doesn't need to be that big, but he lacks the talent to make it smaller;-) Nice to see someone else has noticed...
:d php does look class, loads very quickly, shame your background takes a while, (even with broadband) :D did you have to make the whole image, e.g. 1300x1000 or something?
Page: