| This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. |
Flash! (Score:1)
by DavidpFitz (ten.mocrie@ztifpd) on Friday March 03, @11:00AM EST (#3)
(User Info) http://studentweb.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dpf/
|
Heheh... I bet you could get quite a nifty page using Macromedia Flash!
|
| |
Re:Flash! (Score:1)
by kootch on Friday March 03, @11:04AM EST (#11)
(User Info) http://students.hamilton.edu/1999/dkutcher
|
yes, you could make quite the nifty page using Macromedia Flash... and the code of the page would be 3k for all of the detection javascript, and the flash file would most definitely be over the 5k limit.
|
Re:Flash! (Score:1)
by DavidpFitz (ten.mocrie@ztifpd) on Friday March 03, @11:09AM EST (#21)
(User Info) http://studentweb.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dpf/
|
Maybe, but have you ever just tried knocking something like foo.swf on whatever site straight into the address bar... surprise, surprise, it works. No HTML required. And if you do want to put it into HTML, you don't have to check for the plug-in. If you're a little daring, and assume it's there, you can do away with a hell of a lot of code - no more than enbedding an image. And, if the plug-in isn't there, well it doesn't work. but, hey, with only 5k you can't be too careful!
|
Re:Flash! (Score:1)
by kootch on Friday March 03, @11:26AM EST (#38)
(User Info) http://students.hamilton.edu/1999/dkutcher
|
gotta love descrimination of browsers and plug-ins.
when the judge doesn't have the plug-in, you lost.
|
Re:Flash! (Score:1)
by DavidpFitz (ten.mocrie@ztifpd) on Friday March 03, @11:50AM EST (#59)
(User Info) http://studentweb.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dpf/
|
Sure, but almost everyone does have it. And since the judges are "IT professionals" the chances are they have it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Playing safe never won anything. Okay, maybe something, but it's not going to win this!
|
Re:Flash! (Score:2, Insightful)
by _Swank on Friday March 03, @02:04PM EST (#117)
(User Info) |
| According to statmarket about 67% of web users have the Flash plugin. 2 out of 3 ain't bad for some things, but in normal, everyday web usage alienating 1/3 of potential customers/viewers is pretty dumb. But as you say they are "IT professionals" which would surely increase the chances they have it. In my mind the fact that they are "IT professionals" will only decrease the chance that whatever they decide to test it with will actually have Flash installed. I know I wouldn't have it in there to judge this contest. This contest should be about simplicity and elegance to a given solution. Assuming Flash is present has NO elegance.
|
easy winner (Score:4, Funny)
by trotsky on Friday March 03, @11:00AM EST (#4)
(User Info) |
Give the prize to: 404 File Not Found The requested URL (foobar.htm) is not found. Possibly the most popular web page in the world
|
My entry (Score:1)
by Bio on Friday March 03, @11:03AM EST (#8)
(User Info) http://www.bios.ch/
|
<html></html>
|
| |
Re:My entry (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @02:10PM EST (#118)
|
<html></html> Hmmm. You might get docked points for illegal HTML. But on the other hand, here's mine: <TITLE>_</TITLE>
|
Re:Question of proper code (Score:1)
by biohazard99 (jdholl1'you_can't_spam_me'@hotmail.com) on Friday March 03, @04:32PM EST (#156)
(User Info) http://sac.cc.uky.edu/~jdholl1/welcome.html
|
The question of validated HTML syntax is very important when containing to under 5K, things like alt text for images, dtd's, and closing tags become very important,, I'm intrigued though, so I'll give it a shot, check out my project \\SWEB/~jdholl1/index.html
These are the teachings of sadistic yoda and may be copied freely under the perl artistic license. |
Use scripts (Score:3, Interesting)
by Ed Avis (epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk) on Friday March 03, @11:03AM EST (#9)
(User Info) |
Couldn't you just use a small bit of JavaScript to pull the whole page from somewhere else? Alternatively, you could use PerlScript and write the whole page in obfuscated Perl. Now all we need is a web browser in under 5Kbyte.
-- Ed Avis |
| |
Re:Use scripts (Score:1)
by kootch on Friday March 03, @11:07AM EST (#14)
(User Info) http://students.hamilton.edu/1999/dkutcher
|
I think they had a rule against pulling from other pages... all had to be self-contained.
you could make a javascript that writes more tables and code... through in some kewl color cell stuff, refresh codes... make it really dynamic.
but what about CONTENT (something most of the web is lacking)?
|
Re:Use scripts (Score:2)
by PurpleBob (e.clapjig@tosbeke.pybz) on Friday March 03, @10:28PM EST (#182)
(User Info) http://jump.to/takeneggs
|
I've never programmed in JavaScript, so I wouldn't know, but... would it be possible to have JavaScript generate the content too? Like those sites that generate nonsense words or rock band names or something...
--
Reverse the characters between the first 2 E's, remove the letters 'sticky', and rot13 it to e-mail me... if only to let me know that you've done it. |
Re:Use scripts (Score:1)
by benjamin_scarlet on Friday March 03, @11:08AM EST (#18)
(User Info) |
No, the entry must be self-contained.
|
Re:Use scripts (Score:1)
by stx23 on Friday March 03, @11:21AM EST (#30)
(User Info) |
Alternatively, you could use PerlScript and write the whole page in obfuscated Perl. And which browser is it that supports PerlScript out of the box?
bet it ain't one that any of the judges will be using.
'save keys to open doors' - From the book of Videogame Koans. |
Re:Use scripts (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @07:28PM EST (#176)
|
Videogame Koans? This sounds like a cool book; what's it called, exactly? I don't see it on (blech) Amazon.
|
Re:Use scripts (Score:1)
by BorgDrone on Friday March 03, @11:46AM EST (#55)
(User Info) http://linuxhome.n3.net
|
what about writing a small piece of javascript that would decompress the page ??
something like this:
String thePage="-lots of crap-";
{small decompression algorithm here}
document.write(decodedString);
since plain text can be compress fairly well it would be possible to use more than 5K of HTML and then compress it this way.
---
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean THEY are not out to get you |
server side--no, client side--maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
by G27 Radio on Friday March 03, @11:54AM EST (#62)
(User Info) http://g27.org
|
from their FAQ:
How about client-side processing? Can I use JavaScript? What if the page shows up as larger than 5k in the browser as a result of the scripting?
Client-side scripting, including the use of scripts which write out additional HTML (i.e., by using JavaScript's "document.write()" function) are permitted. The size component of the judging will be done by examining the files which sit on the server, not the browser's rendering of those files. The normal caveats apply however (see the next question); make sure you are confident about your scripts running in the judges' browsers. Also, please note that gratuituous exploitation of this provision may cause low marks by some judges in the concept & originality category.
The server side question is answered elsewhere in the FAQ--clearly not allowed. What's interesting is that client side scripting could be used to generate much more than 5k worth of HTML, as long as the original page on the server is less than 5k. Of course, you'll want to read the entire FAQ for any caveats.
FAQ available at http://www.sylloge.com/5k/faq.html.
numb
Take music out of the hands of the RIAA -- Here's how |
Gzip-like Javascript Routine? (Score:1)
by DataGrok on Saturday March 04, @12:00AM EST (#186)
(User Info) http://home.twcny.rr.com/datagrok
|
Hmm. So you can use javascript and writeln().
I wonder how possible it would be to develop a rudamentary javascript compression function which maps extended ascii characters to repeated chunks of HTML code... or better yet, maps ascii to formulas which could generate changing content.
Pipe dream: Implementing wavelet compression using javascript and ascii. Whoo.
|
Re:Gzip-like Javascript Routine? Look Here! (Score:1)
by falser on Saturday March 04, @03:59PM EST (#202)
(User Info) |
http://siams.com/root/products/ahp/packer.htm
"I can only show you Linux... you're the one who has to read the man pages."
falser |
Re:5k web-browser (Score:1)
by bnolan (bnolan0x40zensearch0x2Enet) on Friday March 03, @04:54PM EST (#160)
(User Info) |
I would be keen to write this - but what would be the limites. Render html from stdin in less than 5kb of perl script? In less than 5kb of realmode dos-code. In less than 5kb of uncompiled C code using a standard library?
$sincelastsaturday=~s/ben/legend!/g |
Re:5k web-browser (Score:1)
by Ed Avis (epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk) on Sunday March 05, @10:29AM EST (#207)
(User Info) |
For a _real_ challenge you could try writing an OS, TCP/IP stack, HTTP client and HTML renderer all in 5Kbyte...
-- Ed Avis |
Re: compression (was: Use scripts) (Score:1)
by chasec (chasecatpacbelldotnet) on Friday March 03, @11:30PM EST (#184)
(User Info) http://covello.cjb.net/
|
Ok, how about a simple javascript compression algorithm? Certainly "original", as I haven't seen anything like that before. It's possible that you could have 10k or more of just text, but under 5k of javascript and compressed data.
-- Don't Panic! |
Interestin (Score:4, Insightful)
by summdood on Friday March 03, @11:03AM EST (#10)
(User Info) |
Sounds like the demo scene of years ago. With the availability of higher bandwidth connections web designers have often have forgotten about the people with the 14" monitors and the slower modems. I personally (due to a move) have stepped back from a cable modem to a 56k connection and the multimedia rich enviorment is a beast and a burden because of it. I have actually had to change my surfing habits. I hope to be out of the land of the 'bandwidth impaired' very soon though. The outcome of the contest should prove to be interestig
|
| |
Re:Interestin (Score:2, Interesting)
by Xenu on Friday March 03, @11:24AM EST (#33)
(User Info) |
| I agree. I don't know anyone who has ADSL or a cable modem. They all use 28.8 or 56K modems with 14-17" monitors. The old rule of thumb used to be a one second response time to user input. That is 3600 bytes at 28.8 kbps. I feel like slapping the web designer every time I see another insanely bloated web page that takes a minute to load.
|
Re:Interestin (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @02:56PM EST (#128)
|
I agree. My company can't seem to make a page less than 50KB these days, which is rather sad. Sure, they're beautiful, stunning, OTOH they take forever to load. Give me speed or give me death :-)
|
Re:Interestin--I just moved and downgraded too (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:28AM EST (#41)
|
I just moved also, I live in utah and basically I cant get any kind of a high speed connection,
when I moved it downgraded me from a 51K connection to a 26.4K connection.
so basically I cant do anything!!!! well actually I do alot still amazenly.
I chat, in a multitude of ways, I download stuff with my shell and then drive to my isp and fetch it.
I setup squid on my local linux box, so it is fast to load slashdot
|
Immediately disqualified.. (Score:5, Funny)
by BilldaCat on Friday March 03, @11:05AM EST (#12)
(User Info) http://www.frungy.com
|
.. is any article by one Jon Katz. :)
BilldaCat - http://www.frungy.com |
Except (Score:1)
by jawad (jawad(at)nycap.rr.com) on Friday March 03, @11:07AM EST (#13)
(User Info) http://jawad.org/
|
Except, Rob, you can't use SSI. sorry! you'd be disqualified.
sid=moderation |
I nominate... (Score:4, Funny)
by jabber on Friday March 03, @11:07AM EST (#15)
(User Info) |
The 'pre-announcement' (date 1/19/00) Transmeta site.
It attracted a HUGE amount of attention, and weighed in at what??? 100 bytes?
Just how big is "This page is not here yet." wrapped in the minimal obligatory HTML tags?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life. |
| |
Re:I nominate... Transmeta (Score:1)
by teus on Friday March 03, @12:29PM EST (#91)
(User Info) |
I would definitely agree that the pre-announcement Transmeta page had to set some sort of record in the "bang for the buck" category, but ...
I seem to remember that there was a full screen image. Or is my memory failing?
Can anyone confirm, either way?
If there wasn't a graphic, I think who ever wrote it/owns the copyright (probably the corporation) SHOULD submit it, it is a classic.
|
Re:I nominate... Transmeta (Score:2)
by Anomalous Canard on Friday March 03, @12:46PM EST (#96)
(User Info) |
A month or two before the January annuncement, the Transmeta page switched to the Crusoe image with the real message about the January announcement in the HTML source.
Prior to that the page was the minimal one that the post above refers to. It too had HTML comments that said, in effect, there aren't any secrets in the comments either.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded report or story |
There were 2 pre-announcment TM pages (Score:2, Informative)
by SeanNi (seanni@canada.SPAM.B.GONE.com) on Friday March 03, @12:50PM EST (#97)
(User Info) |
There were 2 different pre-announcement Transmeta pages. For about a month or so before the Jan 19th (?) launch, they had one with a couple of nice graphics and so on.
But for years before that one came out (early Dec 99), they had a very very simple page. It basically ran something along the lines of:
<HTML>
This page is not here yet.
<!-- There are no hidden messages in this webpage.-->
<!-- There are no tyops in this webpage.-->
</HTML>
The original poster seems to be a bit confused as to which was which. The second was -- as you can see -- definitely under 5k. The former (with the images) would have been a lot closer to that limit. I'm not sure which generated more discussion.
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
|
You can do neat stuff with just text... (Score:1)
by C@ptCaveman on Friday March 03, @11:08AM EST (#17)
(User Info) http://sparkstuff.virtualave.net
|
Well, you CAN.... look at http://www.dvorak.org/home.htm for an example. (I have NOT checked the size on it, but he did it all with text and tables, and it's quite useful. I imagine it shouldn't be TOO difficult to make something like that (or better) in 5k. Of course, this assumes that you have any skils at HTML and the like :) ...anybody know how big that stupid "hamster dance" page is? (heh heh)
Sig? Isn't that the guy who works with Roy? |
| |
Re:You can do neat stuff with just text... (Score:1)
by stx23 on Friday March 03, @11:38AM EST (#48)
(User Info) |
Well, you CAN.... look at http://www.dvorak.org/home.htm for an example.
It's 17.5Kb
Mind you, I'm not surprised it's fat and bloated, nor am I surprised his page is...
'save keys to open doors' - From the book of Videogame Koans. |
The page isn't really all that bad. (Score:1)
by SeanNi (seanni@canada.SPAM.B.GONE.com) on Friday March 03, @05:09PM EST (#161)
(User Info) |
> It's 17.5Kb
True, but that's mostly just due to poor HTML (good design, but poor code). I think he must have used some sort of generator to do it. Not a WYSIWYG editor, but at least some code-generation scripts.
After simply removing whitespace, comments, unnecessary tags (such as </P>) and some unnecessary table structures, I was able to take it down to 14k.
Then, I noticed he used <FONT> tags poorly; basically repeated them for each of the COLOR, FACE and SIZE attributes. Re-arragning these got me down to just under 9k.
Finally, I didn't do this, but I suspect that if you got rid of the <FONT> tags altogether, in favour of CSS, he could have pared it down to the 5k limit. And, as someone else mentioned, the thing about CSS is that if a browser doesn't recognize it, it'll just ignore it, and the page will still display, just not quite as the author intended.
So the design is still valid, it's just a poor implementation.
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
|
5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
by Julius X (cpalmer@nospam.vt.edu) on Friday March 03, @11:09AM EST (#20)
(User Info) http://www.cponline.org/
|
5k is not a lot of space to do anything useful in....for any amount of text, it usually comes out more than that.
But....it can be done. My home page weighs in at 3199 bytes, and that's with graphics! The only thing is, they propose that most web pages should be small, similar to this, but most useful pages that have more than two or three paragraphs on them will swell to 10 or 20k, and that's without using any kinds of graphics.
50k for a web page is great, and having alternate slimmed-down versions for new wireless and lo-bandwidth devices is a good thing, but not all web pages should be 10-20k. You'd never get any useful information(above all--you would NEVER get to read Slashdot--the lite page was 40+kb!).
But in any case, looks like a good thing to try, similar to the 4096kb democompos that I think they still have at the demo parties in Europe.
-Julius X
I am he who has absolutely nothing useful to say. |
| |
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:2, Insightful)
by Kyrrin (alanna@genius-devices.net) on Friday March 03, @11:55AM EST (#63)
(User Info) http://www.cybernothing.org/~alanna
|
> 5k is not a lot of space to do anything useful in....for any amount of text,
> it usually comes out more than that.
That's my thought exactly. I'm pondering entering this contest, but they're judging on content as well (as well they should be!) and I'm having a hard time coming up with something that will still ring in at under 5K with text and images and still be interesting.
It's interesting that this happens to come along now. I spent a good half an hour last night trying (mostly) patiently to educate a cow-orker of mine as to just, precisely, /why/ one should design pages that would be viewable in any browser. He proposed something to go onto a page that we both work on, I vetoed it because it relied solely on color changes to convey content, thus excluding Lynx users. His response -- and it floored me -- was 'Well, who uses that old sort of stuff these days anyway?'
Uh. Me. And everyone else who, like me, is still stuck on a dialup POTS line, lucky to even get 28.8 with a 56K modem due to the quality of said POS phone lines, browsing on a six-year-old slow-as-shit computer, and who doesn't want to sit around and wait 30 minutes for /. to load.
I don't really know when this turned into a browser accessability rant. *grin* It's certainly possible to design a page in less than 5K that looks like shit in, say, lynx. It's also possible to design a page that looks beautiful in any browser you view it in, but happens to take six years to load. I think what my point is, is that this contest -- while pretty awesome, and definately something that I'm going to be pondering my entry for -- misses the point to some extent. It shouldn't /just/ be attacking bloat; it should also be attacking broswer-specific, non-standards-compliant HTML.
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by Julius X (cpalmer@nospam.vt.edu) on Friday March 03, @12:11PM EST (#82)
(User Info) http://www.cponline.org/
|
This exactly what I mean. I can't vouch with you on the POS line, I have ethernet here, but I know that people do, and I respect that.
My current homepage, at http://www.activewin.com/cponline/ was purposely done in almost no graphic or design elements, because that way anyone can view it. Some of the more content-oriented pages end up over 5k, but it's all in text, no flash, graphics, or javascript code... and it works on any
browser. (I happen to use IE5 when I'm on Windows, but my reasoning for that is that IE is a hell of a lot more standards-compliant than Netscape 4.xx ever has been--I'm looking forward to Mozilla).
Now most websites look nice on a graphical browser, but almost none of them give the option for a low-bandwidth version. I think that even if a site wants to pile on the DHTML, Images, and whatever else could be added to make the site look nice, they should still be giving a nice, clean, simple, 100% compatible, text-based alternative.
(Considering most of my web-related work is graphic design......this probably sounds a little ironic comng from me )
-Julius X
I am he who has absolutely nothing useful to say. |
This comment is under 5k (Score:1)
by hikari on Friday March 03, @01:07PM EST (#99)
(User Info) http://www.azoth.cjb.net
|
Maybe a haiku?
:)
--Hikari
"Long distance information/ Disconnect me if you can/ On Detonation Boulevard..." |
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:2)
by gorilla on Friday March 03, @04:03PM EST (#149)
(User Info) |
| Relying on colour to convey information is generally a bad idea, not only in the HTML world, but also in the real world. Around 10% of males of european genetic background are colour blind, with slightly lower percentages of males of other backgrounds. Women are much less prone to being colour blind, but still around 0.5% of women are. While some combinations of colours are unambigious, eg blue/white, some are terrible, eg red/green.
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by Narcischizm on Friday March 03, @04:29PM EST (#155)
(User Info) |
This contest does address <i>browser-specific, non-standards-compliant HTML</i> in that the contestants do not know which browsers the Judges will use to determine a winner.
I would use Lynx just to be a jerk.
"damn knee..." -me this morning |
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by QuMa (fvw+slashdot@var.cx) on Friday March 03, @11:55AM EST (#64)
(User Info) http://www.var.cx
|
I went to your homepage, and one of the images alone is nearly 30kb, so I doubt it's 3199 bytes...
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by Julius X (cpalmer@nospam.vt.edu) on Friday March 03, @12:03PM EST (#72)
(User Info) http://www.cponline.org/
|
The page it links to,
http://www.activewin.com/cponline/inde x.html
was the one I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.
-Julius X
I am he who has absolutely nothing useful to say. |
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by QuMa (fvw+slashdot@var.cx) on Friday March 03, @07:21PM EST (#175)
(User Info) http://www.var.cx
|
Yup, that would qualify nicely. As long as you only take the one page, and not the entire thing with rants/about me section. It just depends on your definition of 'site'. (Mind you, there's still a high content/size ratio).
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by 8Complex (8Complex@TheVortex.com) on Friday March 03, @02:11PM EST (#119)
(User Info) |
I think most of the pages I've ever designed have easily weighed in under 5k, even with graphics. Normally when I do something that looks clean, it will be made up of a few gif's and html, thats it.
But didn't this community give up on gif, though since it was patented or something? Too bad, I like it's size :-)
- 8Complex
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by Arcanix on Friday March 03, @06:19PM EST (#170)
(User Info) |
Yeah, I seem to recall the company that designed the GIF format mentioned a few years ago that it was demanding royalties for using the format. I remember commercial services like AOL had to switch to all JPG to avoid paying but I haven't heard of anyone ever being sued about it....
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:2)
by costas (costas@nospam.malamas.com) on Friday March 03, @02:54PM EST (#127)
(User Info) http://malamas.com/
|
Hmmm... all I could come up with in a moment's notice was this. A Unit converter that can do about 50 units or so in 5 different categories...
(OK, so I had this to work from, but it was too big at 20k :-).
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
AegeanTimes: Greek and Turkish News |
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by TyFoN on Friday March 03, @06:29PM EST (#172)
(User Info) |
Here in norway there is a demoparty each easter in the viking ship. Look at it at www.gathering.org. Last year there were between 4000 and 5000 nerds attending.
|
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by Julius X (cpalmer@nospam.vt.edu) on Friday March 03, @11:58PM EST (#185)
(User Info) http://www.cponline.org/
|
I've always wanted to go to a demoparty....just don't exactly have the $$$$ to get there..... Maybe someday....
-Julius X
I am he who has absolutely nothing useful to say. |
Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (Score:1)
by Kanasta on Saturday March 04, @05:31AM EST (#195)
(User Info) |
You're right. I don't mind even 100KB pages, but the only problem is, most 100KB pages (other than stuff like slashdot), are a small page full of 10 level deep nested tables which shows about 2k of actual text in side.
Why do these 'professional' web designers need to add all this fancy 'tables' (oh wow) to feel useful? a tag would have worked just as well.
|
No.1 reason not to use frontpage (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:09AM EST (#23)
|
| Sorry to post as AC but i have forgotten my passwd It is amazing what you can do with pure html and highly compressed gifs/jpegs nowdays. Who needs to use Frontpage or dreamweaver just to convey information.... Oh yeah - page crashes Mozilla on win32 -doug
|
5K... (Score:2, Insightful)
by Cyn on Friday March 03, @11:12AM EST (#25)
(User Info) |
I think the point of the contest is that if you were to view this from your home, you would *ONLY* download 5K - no more. So meta reloads, java scripts, etc. that pull from elsewhere, the content that is elsewhere would be considered part of your submission - hence you'd be over.
On a side note - the formula allows you to have up to 20K and still be in the positive, if it's a *REALLY* good page - but personally i won't be going over 5K.
Cyn, Linux Enthusiast and temporary Windows Slave |
| |
Re:5K... (Score:1)
by mlc (nospam-mlc67@columbia.nospam.edu) on Friday March 03, @02:53PM EST (#126)
(User Info) http://www.mlc.nu/
|
| On a side note - the formula allows you to have up to 20K and still be in the positive, if it's a *REALLY* good page - but personally i won't be going over 5K. Just because the formula would return a valid result doesn't mean it's allowed. If one wished to be precise, you could state the formula as:
score(size,rating) } = ((1/1024)(5120-size)) + (rating) if 0<=size<=5120
} = 0 otherwise
The rules fairly clearly state that pages must be under 5k to be considered.
El pueblo, unido, jamás será vencido. |
Done (Score:2, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:17AM EST (#26)
|
Here it is. thank you
|
| |
Re:Done (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:39AM EST (#50)
|
You rock.
|
Re:Done (Score:1)
by ZikZak (zikzakATioDOTcom) on Friday March 03, @11:48AM EST (#56)
(User Info) http://www.io.com/~zikzak/
|
Deserves a 4.5 rating (lost .5 for being way over 5k).
|
Re:Done (Score:2)
by 348 (threeforeight@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) on Friday March 03, @11:55AM EST (#65)
(User Info) |
| Very well Done! Bravo Bravo! +5 Funny!
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence. |
Re:Done (Score:4, Funny)
by locutus074 on Friday March 03, @12:00PM EST (#69)
(User Info) |
| If you liked that, you ought to check out ApostropheColon. Yet Another Slashdot Parody, but it's damn funny. You might not like it though; it does not contain grits.
-- We have fought the AC's, and they have won. |
Excellent Jon Katz parody (Score:2)
by spiralx (spiralx@removethis.anti-social.com) on Friday March 03, @12:14PM EST (#84)
(User Info) |
This is what the internet is all about: making people dizzy, so dizzy that they fall off of their high pedestals and fall into the muck of the real world, the real world portrayed by the internet, the internet that is a big revolutionary revolution that's revolving so quickly that people get dizzy. And the internet revoluiton, led by revolting geeks, is a geekfest among revolutions. That's what I meme. Now that is fucking excellent. A truly marvellous parody of Jon Katz :)
"An intellectual is someone who has been moderated beyond their intelligence." |
Re:ApostropheColon. (Score:1)
by unitron (unitron@tacc.net) on Friday March 03, @01:58PM EST (#115)
(User Info) |
ApostropheColon is humourous and intelligent. All the grits stuff is just sophmoric.
proudly boycotting Slashdot's ``high-priority'' submission queue--at least 'til I find it |
Re:ApostropheColon. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @09:24PM EST (#179)
|
ApostropheColon sucks.
Mmm.
|
That made MY day (Score:2)
by ch-chuck (uce@ftc.gov) on Friday March 03, @02:17PM EST (#121)
(User Info) |
Anonymous FraidyCat
Here comes the plug:
If your're so rich, why aren't you smart? |
Re:Done (Score:1)
by PureFiction (coderman@mindspring.com.nospamplease) on Saturday March 04, @11:30AM EST (#199)
(User Info) http://CubicMeterCrystal.com
|
We need to clone you and keep a few dozen instances onhand to fight the degredation of intelligent subvertification via parodization!
P.S Your parody rox, as does most of your comic.
99.44% "You are the product of a mutational union of ~640Mbytes of genetic information." |
Re:Done (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @12:09PM EST (#79)
|
+5 Funny! Great job Grits guy!
|
hahaha! (Score:1)
by RatBastard (rrward@gci.KILL.ALL.SPAMMERS.NOW.net) on Friday March 03, @01:25PM EST (#106)
(User Info) http://www.trilobite.org/
|
No THAT was damned funny!
-- "I'm too sexy for my code." - Awk Sed Fred. |
Re:Done (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @01:37PM EST (#109)
|
Do you Realize this was posted parody was posted quite a while ago, right? at it recieved a +5 then, right? How many times to I bloddy hae to look at it?
|
A Masterpiece! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @01:57PM EST (#114)
|
Absolutely brilliant!
The only thing you left out is that guy who constantly posts links to www.goatse.cx...
(Trust me, if you don't already know what's there, you don't want to know... consider this your warning!)
|
Re:Done (Score:1, Offtopic)
by moonboy (armstrong.spamsux.99@yahoo.com) on Friday March 03, @03:46PM EST (#138)
(User Info) |
Damn! I wish I were cool enough to get into the Slashgrits poll like Signal 11. He's even leading the poll and beating Grits guy out with an astounding 25% of the votes. I love the title of the page: "Slashgrits: News for Gritlovers. Steaming bowls that matter." This site made my day.
kuro5hin.org
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-Albert Einstein |
The contest rules don't make sense !!! (Score:1)
by loom on Friday March 03, @11:18AM EST (#27)
(User Info) |
The rules don't make sense.. How can a page be fully contained and use images ? An image is included by the client and therefore is "external" to the HTML file.
Maybe they'd like to clarify the rules on this point...
|
| |
Re:The contest rules don't make sense !!! (Score:1)
by Enoch Root (elijah[at]hushmail[dot]com) on Friday March 03, @11:28AM EST (#40)
(User Info) |
| The point is, the whole of the website should weight in at less than 5K. That includes all images. You should be able to download everything, not amount to more than 5K, and be able to work offline with it. That's why pulling images from somewhere else through scripts, for instance, doesn't cut it. It's 5K, HTML + images.
"Science is magic that works." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle |
Re:The contest rules don't make sense !!! (Score:1)
by ZikZak (zikzakATioDOTcom) on Friday March 03, @11:44AM EST (#53)
(User Info) http://www.io.com/~zikzak/
|
I'm assuming you're being a bonehead and not facetious. Everything required for the page to display in your browser must be less than a 5k download. No SSI, php, perl, asp, etc.
|
Re:The contest rules don't make sense !!! (Score:1)
by loom on Friday March 03, @03:52PM EST (#144)
(User Info) |
Actually what I meant by that is that I'm not sure the use of image should be allowed. I think you can do some quite nice looking pages without them...
|
Reminds me... (Score:2, Interesting)
by Yaruar on Friday March 03, @11:19AM EST (#28)
(User Info) http://www.yaruar.dircon.co.uk
|
| Back in my youth there was a competition for the most inventive program to be written in one line on a BBC B. From what I remember the winner was a Mandlebrot generator which stunned me totally. No program could ever suppass the elegance of that line.
|
| |
elegant equations (Score:1)
by peter303 on Friday March 03, @01:14PM EST (#102)
(User Info) |
And consider terse equations in math and physics
with lots of meaning, e.g.
E = m c c,
-1 = exp (i pi),
Maxwell's equations.
***original Homebrew Computer Club member*** |
Re:Reminds me... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:34PM EST (#134)
|
There was a one-liner contest held by the TRS-80 color computer magazine (the rainbow) each month back when I was a kid. My entry was a 1-line prime factorization program. It didn't win though :( The neat thing about this was that you were limited to how much you could fit in a line of TRS-80 BASIC (255 chars? I don't remember)
|
Link to the actual contest (Score:5, Informative)
by Otto on Friday March 03, @11:20AM EST (#29)
(User Info) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=Otto
|
Here's a link to the actual contest rules and so forth. http://www.sylloge.com/5k/
---
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Lazarus Long |
Tight coding contests in history (Score:5, Interesting)
by swordgeek (spamlist@um......go.com) on Friday March 03, @11:23AM EST (#32)
(User Info) |
Ah, this sort of thing takes me back.
I remember the days of Byte (when it was a real magazine), Compute!, et al. The magazines were full of code back then, pages and pages and pages of typing that you'd laboriously enter by hand, and then debug. A few of 'em had 1k programming contests monthly, which (along with typing in the loooong programs) really gave you an appreciation for style, efficiency, and elegance in coding. Atari Basic (this was on the 400/800 machines) also allowed you to enter more than one statement on a logical line (which was something like 107 or 112 characters), so they also had 'one liners' every month. They were usually cute little graphics demos, since easy graphics programming was Atari's forte'.
Now we're doing it in HTML instead of BASIC, and with a 5kB limit instead of 1kB. What goes around, comes around, eh?
Cool stuff.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban |
| |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by kenh on Friday March 03, @11:49AM EST (#57)
(User Info) |
| These programs were allowed/able to be up to 240+ characters. The real perversions started when people started using "puctuation equivalents" for BASIC keywords and encoding assembler subroutines!
Note: The contest web page fits in 2940 bytes...
not bad.
Ken
Ken |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by swordgeek (spamlist@um......go.com) on Friday March 03, @12:06PM EST (#75)
(User Info) |
Hm. Not the Atari ones, I think. The Atari physical line size was forty characters, and a logical line was slightly less than three lines.
Or am I misremembering?
Time to dust off (and restore!) the old Atari 400, I think.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by RAruler (cannabis at home dot com) on Friday March 03, @12:09PM EST (#80)
(User Info) |
This page weighs 3.51K and validates to 4.0 Transitional.
This post uses only 100% recycled electrons. |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:51AM EST (#60)
|
Not quite. HTML is a markup language. Like RTF or a StarOffice document. Unless you mean that nasty beast javascript or VBscript.
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:2)
by swordgeek (spamlist@um......go.com) on Friday March 03, @12:03PM EST (#73)
(User Info) |
Oh, I realise that. Fundamentally though, HTML is similar to BASIC in that it's an interpreted language (whether markup or programming), and thus your source code is your executable. (Note to the pedants: I know this isn't strictly true, but for byte-counting, it's a fair approximation)
And the idea is the same in both cases: Write tightly. Write elegantly. Write concisely. Do what you have to do with a minimum of fluff. It's a Good Thing.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by WD on Friday March 03, @11:58AM EST (#67)
(User Info) http://come.to/dormcam
|
One of my favorite old demos is from a 64k contest. It's called Stash
Anyone still owning a Gravis Ultrasound will enjoy this one! (no ultrasound = no sound, but still amazing)
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by neonstz on Saturday March 04, @08:26PM EST (#203)
(User Info) |
On TBL's homepage you can download Stash and other demos by TBL using the iXalance demo system. TBL has made an iXalance-loader for Win32 and Sahara Surfers has made a linux version.
|
I had 120 digits of code on one 80 column card (Score:3, Interesting)
by A nonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @12:08PM EST (#78)
(User Info) |
Friend and I had a contest on an IBM 1620 Mod I, who could get the fanciest program on one card. I overlapped instructions and data. 120 or so digits (decimal machine), self loading of course. It typed "THIMK" over and over again. The M was because that was the halt instuction; N was useless. One sense switch made it go faster, one made it stop.
--
Don't give your right name, no no no --- Fats Waller |
Remember the Beagle Bros.? (Score:1)
by mmaddox on Friday March 03, @12:26PM EST (#89)
(User Info) http://www.alnitak.org
|
...that old Apple II company that sold utils and whatnot used to have the BEST catalogs. They came out monthly with tons of neat one liners in Apple Basic. They even sold a compilation floppy with all their one-liner contest winners.
Sigh. The good ol' days, no?
Me::Sign(name) |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:3, Interesting)
by phrawzty on Friday March 03, @12:28PM EST (#90)
(User Info) http://www.tbp.mb.ca/~frosty/
|
My favourite bite-sized (haha) challenge would have to be the "chip tune" competitions. The idea was simple - create a ".mod" (.s3m, .it, etc..) song under 4k, including samples, pattern lists, etc..
Perhaps even more amazing, from a technical standpoint, were the 4k "demo" competitions. Apparently, these are still reasonably popular. The idea here is to create a graphically pleasing demo in 4k or less (go asm!).
The 64k limit was (is) a popular barrier for graphical demos too, with an absolutly incredible amount of power crammed into each and every byte.
For fun, check out the following URLs:
The Hornet Archive - While no longer "active", there are still a lot of resources available. Search for "64k" (while you still can!).
Future Crew's "Second Reality" - One of the definitive demos of all time.
Distance'99 - a recent competition covering many types of demos. Both amiga and PC 4k and 64k bundles of joy are available. :)
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
|
OT: I want to see classic demos! (Score:1)
by Serf (matthews@softhome.net) on Friday March 03, @01:21PM EST (#105)
(User Info) http://serf.cjb.net/
|
But all I have here is a Linux box, and not a single copy of DOS to put on it (even if I had space available for a partition) - and that's not even considering Amiga / C64 /other? demos. Are there any emulators or anything else that could help me out here?
linuxUsersWhoWantProfessionalAudio++; |
Re:OT: I want to see classic demos! (Score:1)
by pb (pdbaylie@eos.ncsu.edu) on Friday March 03, @03:40PM EST (#136)
(User Info) http://www4.ncsu.edu/~pdbaylie
|
Yep. There are a lot of them out there, actually.
MESS actually does all three, but it's still a bit of a hassle getting it all to work.
DOSEmu runs some DOS stuff, (doesn't run Second Reality right, I can't get sound, freezes up or runs slow in places) whereas VMWare should run most/all of it (but you still have to pay for the real version, of course)...
Frodo and VICE are C64 emulators, I use VICE, it's sweet. (It ran the C64 version of Second Reality flawlessly, too)
I haven't messed with Amiga emulators for a while, but I think UAE is pretty good.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
1020 Signal is better than noise. |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @01:13PM EST (#100)
|
How about this for tight code? It is my favorite as it is the smallest I've ever seen.
N BEEP.COM
E 0100 B8 07 0E CD 10 C3
RCX
0006
W
Q
Enter the above in DEBUG on a DOS/WinDoze PC, and you end up with a six byte executable.
It makes your speaker beep once.
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @02:21PM EST (#122)
|
I "wrote" a shorter one. A two byte DOS utility called REBOOT.COM CD 19 I'm not sure if it still works on a pentium, but it worked fine on my 486. A cute way to screw up somebody's computer was to change the first two bytes of COMMAND.COM to CD 19. Hee hee. Perpetual reboot (kinda like Windows only faster).
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:53PM EST (#145)
|
The tight coding that most impressed me is the QNX demo disk. You download it from their web site and it fits on a floppy disk. It contains the QNX kernel, a webserver, a Java enabled web browser, a file manager, a Towers of Hanoi game made in java, 3Com network drivers so you can serf the web if you are connected to a lan, and a full gui similar to Win95. It is the kind of efficiency I will try to attain. (Ya right)
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by seizer (slashdot@SPAMgherkin.ukshells.co.uk) on Friday March 03, @04:05PM EST (#150)
(User Info) http://www.gherkin.ukshells.co.uk
|
Also a 5 byte program to reboot the computer:
N BOOT.COM
A 0100
jmp f000:fff0
<carriage return>
RCX
5
W
Q
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
--Remove SPAM from my world, it'd be a better place |
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:4, Interesting)
by Skinka (mikko.kinnunen@cs.helsinki.fi?Subject=Slashdot) on Friday March 03, @02:39PM EST (#123)
(User Info) |
If people want see tight code in action, I'd recommend a 4k PC intro called mesha. It really is excatly 4096 bytes, but is has something like two minutes of 3D graphics, textures and everything. I'm not a big follower of the demoscene, so there might be stuff that is better than this one, but this really blew me away when I saw it. It runs in DOS. The 10KB zip actually has two versions of the same program!
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:1)
by neonstz on Saturday March 04, @08:41AM EST (#196)
(User Info) |
You should check out the 4k-intro 'void3' by shiva and franky from mekka symposium 2k-1 (http://ms.demo.org). It got a 303-emulator, vocoder and a 3d-engine. (I've written a 4k raytracer called Hooray. You can download the full source from http://home.haugan.net/geir/download.html .)
|
Re:Tight coding contests in history (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16, @01:04AM EST (#210)
|
There's one thing many people forget, there's one notch *BELOW* the 4k demo/intro competitions. The 256-byte competitions. (Which, as a side-note, the PIC-based WWW server would qualify for. :-) Anyways, the most popular 256-byte competitions were themed ones, such as fire, or 3D, or similair. Yes, people made things like full-screen 3D randomly on-the-fly-generated voxel landscapes in 256 bytes. As one can imagine, they ran rather speedy. :-)
|
it's a great idea (Score:1)
by kootch on Friday March 03, @11:24AM EST (#34)
(User Info) http://students.hamilton.edu/1999/dkutcher
|
I try to challenge myself sometimes as a web developer to actually make pages with one table, no embeded tables, or find kewl ways to make 3 color pages (black, white, color)...
I think my personal site is a total of 30k... with about 10 pages under it... but that has frames.
it's great to have this as a contest, and i hope that a lot of design houses see this contest, see some great results, and maybe start considering this as a design MOVEMENT instead of as a trivialty. It would be nice to have a corporate website load in under 5 seconds no matter what modem you're on, and if it can look good in under 20k, that says something.
|
| |
Re:it's a great idea (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:01PM EST (#129)
|
True. That's why I sent the link around at work. One person complained the prize wasn't worth the effort, but geez, if you want work the web, why are you in the biz to begin with?
|
Re:it's a great idea (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @04:42PM EST (#158)
|
Re MOVEMENT: Kind of like Dogma '95 that those Danish filmmakers have.
|
Cunning Plan (Score:3, Interesting)
by stab (anil at recoil.org) on Friday March 03, @11:25AM EST (#37)
(User Info) http://www.recoil.org/
|
Heh, why not try to use one of the HTML compression tools which have a short javascript header which unpacks html on the fly? Problem is finding a small enough bit of "header JS", but it might be a cool way to get around the 5k limit while sticking to it.
Look at this freshmeat entry for AlgART HTML Picker to see what I mean :)
|
Excess font tags - inquiry (Score:2)
by British on Friday March 03, @11:30AM EST (#42)
(User Info) http://british.nerp.net
|
I do many of my web pages in just the Arial font. Looking at what NEtscape Composer and FrontPage 2000 do, they put font tags for EVERY line and paragraph/cell seperation,etc. Is this really needed?
If I just had a 1-font web page, wouldn't I only need one tag at the beginning and end? Looking at some of my other pages, they have font tags within font tags. Wonder how much I can slim down.
Kids love the rich taste of web content! http://british.nerp.net |
| |
Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (Score:2)
by stab (anil at recoil.org) on Friday March 03, @11:42AM EST (#52)
(User Info) http://www.recoil.org/
|
First of all, you should investigate using Cascading Style Sheets instead of tag for modern browsers. They are one simple tag and also degenerate gracefully for older browsers (which ignore them).
E.g., if I remember right, you'd use
BODY: { font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif }
And that overrides the body tag with the font you picked.
There are lots of cross-browser problems with using these unfortunately, but check out some decent sites like WebReference for info on them.
Incidentally, you often have to use lots of font tags if you use tables. A font tag will apply to multiple paragraphs, but not to the cell contents inside tables! You need extra font tags in there for that.
HTH
|
Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (Score:1)
by G-funk (josh@isa.net.au) on Friday March 03, @05:57PM EST (#165)
(User Info) http://g-funk.isa.net.au/
|
BODY: { font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif } Aaaah, if only. That's great for IE, but in NS you need also need style tags for: - <p>
- <td>
- <h?>
- (and probably> <a>,<b>,<big>, and <small>
Aaaaaand, you will still not have arial on text not inside <p></p> tags on netscape, unless it's in a table :-( Ain't NS grand????
|
Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:50AM EST (#58)
|
Learn to use style sheets. The font tag should never be used as it is horrible. Look at [the HTML 4.01 spec] and [the CSS-1 spec]. Look at [my site] for an example - no font tags at all. This is in pure XHTML 1.0, which is an XML extension of HTML 4.01. Sorry about the image borders - the border parameter of the img tag isn't allowed in XHTML 1.0, and yet Netscape seems not to understand the style sheet line that removes it. Works in IE 5.0 though... ac.uk
|
You shouldn't be using font tags anyway... (Score:3, Informative)
by MenTaLguY (mental@rydia.net.nospam) on Friday March 03, @11:51AM EST (#61)
(User Info) http://lunar8.rydia.net/mental
|
CSS allows you to specify all of the font styles for the elements of the document in ONE place. Want your H1s to be in "BastardWeird"? <STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
H1 { font-family: BastardWeird; }
// -->
</STYLE>
... this once, at the top of the file (the HTML comments are optional -- just there to prevent the CSS code from showing up in non-CSS browsers), instead of having: <FONT FACE="BastardWeird">...</FONT> ... around every single H1 in the document. That's a savings of about 39 bytes PER H1, after an initial cost of about 70 bytes. Maybe H1 is a bad example (it doesn't get used more than once or twice in a document usually), but this extends to other tags too, and not just to fonts. CSS also replaces FONT COLOR and a lot of other things that before needed to be coded multiple times into the same HTML document. This is an even bigger win when you use a single, central css file (referenced via LINK REL=stylesheet), rather than coding CSS into every document. Maintainence also magically becomes easier. Want to change your whole site's look? Edit one file.
|
Re:You shouldn't be using font tags anyway... (Score:1)
by funcused (mlindner@mail.com) on Friday March 03, @03:43PM EST (#137)
(User Info) http://funcused.virtualave.net/
|
Now if only Netscape Navigator had decent CSS support. It doesn't matter how theorectically useful CSS is if it isn't supported by browsers. This is why I use IE5 when in windows, I like things to look the way they should and it does a better job at that. IMHO, the biggest limiting factor to creativity involved with this contest is browser compatibility, not the 5k size limit.
|
You should if NS3 is your audience (Score:1)
by Spiff28 (spiff@icdc.com) on Friday March 03, @03:59PM EST (#147)
(User Info) http://www.fep2.org/~spiff/
|
| Netscape 3 has the worst CSS support. People still use Netscape 3 believe it or not. Just think who you're catering to before you depend on CSS to layout your site. No, I'm not saying ignore it. I'm seriously saying think who you want your site to cater to, what they'll most likely be using, etc. etc. I was shocked and appalled that my school was still using Netscape 3 three months ago, but there you have it. I still had to design for it. The day when CSS, XML and the like can be used without even blinking is a long ways off, and that's just a damn shame.
-- Computers do stupid things really fast. I'm not as fast. |
Re:You should if NS3 is your audience (Score:2)
by extrasolar (klh@sedonaSPAM_TRAP.net) on Friday March 03, @06:19PM EST (#169)
(User Info) |
Well, Netscape 3 will render pages based on CSS just fine. It just won't get all of the fancy formatting. Which is just fine. That is what they mean when they say that CSS enabled pages degrade well. If you use the standard HTML tags, all browsers should be able to render your page. Just that the more advanced browsers will look better.
The time for CSS is here (and passing).
--- Infinite loops in 5 seconds? Is that like that infinte monkeys shakespeare thing? |
Re:You should if NS3 is your audience (Score:2, Informative)
by ChristTrekker on Friday March 03, @06:41PM EST (#174)
(User Info) |
Netscape 3 handles CSS better than IE 3-5 or Netscape 4 -- it ignores it. This is a 100% perfectly valid way of interpreting CSS. It's better for browsers to ignore what they don't understand than to try to do something that ends up being wrong. I haven't used FONT tags on a page I've written in two years, since I discovered style sheets. Except stuff at work, where I cut-and-paste other people's templates, but that doesn't count.
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but rather so that through him, the world might be saved. (John 3:17) |
Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (Score:2)
by TrentC (trentc@dev.null) on Friday March 03, @03:39PM EST (#135)
(User Info) http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/trentc/index.html
|
If I just had a 1-font web page, wouldn't I only need one tag at the beginning and end? Looking at some of my other pages, they have font tags within font tags. Wonder how much I can slim down.
If you do, be warned: your document isn't valid HTML.
According to the Transitional HTML 4.0 DTD, FONT is an inline tag, and must be contained in a block-level element. (That is, if I'm reading the DTD right...)
If you want to set the base font for your page, use the BASEFONT tag. It's an empty tag that you can use to set the base size, face, etc. for your document.
Or, as countless others have said, move over to cascading style sheets.
Jay (=
|
Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (Score:1)
by Greg Titus (greg@omnigroup.com) on Friday March 03, @03:46PM EST (#142)
(User Info) http://www.omnigroup.com/~toon/
|
I don't think they actually need to repeat the font tag in every paragraph, but they certainly do need to do it in every single table cell.
Silly, but true. Someone was not thinking a whole lot when they came up with the spec for font tags.
|
Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pages (Score:4, Insightful)
by phoneboy on Friday March 03, @11:34AM EST (#43)
(User Info) http://www.phoneboy.com
|
I remember how people used to write really small, really fast assembly code because, quite frankly, the hardware didn't allow for you to be wasteful. Memory and processing power was a precious resource. Programmers tried to squeeze every last ounce of memory and processing power out of a computer. And we *liked* it, damn it! ;-)
Obviously, in the days of cheap memory, processing power, and Microsoft, bloatware is the norm instead of the exception.
I pretty much stay away from just about every advancement that has taken place in HTML and it's bretheren since the IMG tag and tables. The reason: I want the most number of people to be able to make use of my web pages. Just by leaving out a lot of the advanced features, you can reduce the web page to little more than the actual text. Okay, it's not "pretty," but it loads really fast even over a modem connection (actual text compresses on modem connections).
I may have "big" pages but that's because they are heavy on actual content and light on fluff.
-- PhoneBoy
|
| |
Re:Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pag (Score:2)
by Cycon on Friday March 03, @01:46PM EST (#112)
(User Info) http://cogengine.linuxbox.com
|
| I pretty much stay away from just about every advancement that has taken place in HTML and it's bretheren since the IMG tag and tables. The reason: I want the most number of people to be able to make use of my web pages. I find it ironic to hear you say that, and then to follow your homepage link here on slashdot (in order to see an example of the lean html formatting of which you speak) only to find that you are using not only frames, but JavaScript on your home page... generated by Netscape under Windows 95! (c:
|
Re:Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pag (Score:1)
by phoneboy on Friday March 03, @04:20PM EST (#153)
(User Info) http://www.phoneboy.com
|
Okay, so I use Winblows. It's hard not to. ;-)
My biggest problem with using "new" features in web pages is that without a significant amount of work, it's difficult to make it so those with older browsers can use the page. With frames, it's possible to gracefully handle non frame-capable browsers. As such, I can make the site slightly easier to use for people with frames support without sacrificing anything.
With JavaScript, Java, and other assorted plugins, it's not possible without a significant amount of work, which is probably why some sites aren't accomidating to many older browsers. The only thing I do in JavaScript is escape someone else's frames. If it doesn't work, it's not a big deal.
-- PhoneBoy
|
Re:Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pag (Score:1)
by jslag on Saturday March 04, @12:14AM EST (#189)
(User Info) http://www.citilink.com/~slagj
|
Okay, so I use Winblows. It's hard not to.;-)
I don't know, people keep on telling me that the Corel installation process not only lets you point and click, but it even provides Tetris to play while things are loading... shouldn't get much easier than that.
|
Re:Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pag (Score:1)
by phoneboy on Saturday March 04, @01:54AM EST (#192)
(User Info) http://www.phoneboy.com
|
I actually am quite a big Linux fan. I just can't use it for most of my day-to-day work because I have to use applications I can't run in anything but Windows. As soon as Check Point ports Secure Client to Linux, you can bet I'll be dumping Windows in a flash.
-- PhoneBoy
|
Re:Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pag (Score:1)
by Gregoyle on Saturday March 04, @12:09PM EST (#200)
(User Info) |
| Actually, if you go through the compression algorithm and the way the data is transmitted, you'll find that *everything* actually compresses. It just compresses much better when it's in a language which has definite patterns in character frequency. In english, the characters that are easiest to compress are and 'e', among others, but with pages containing a lot of images, that character may become the equivalent of ALT + 154xxx. It will still compress, you are just likely to see better results when it is natural language that is being compressed (look at pkzip; it works better when it's all just text, but it will still compress things like images and executable files).
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil." -Obi Wan Kenobi
|
5K, no problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
by kenh on Friday March 03, @11:34AM EST (#44)
(User Info) |
| In my graduate web design class we were given the challenge to develop an interesting/useful web page in one file. Compared to that exercise, this seems easy. I made an ASCII art car that raced from side to side (in less than 512 bytes, IIRC)! This will be interesting to watch...
Ken |
| |
Let me guess... (Score:1)
by Derek Pomery (dpomery@cuc.removethissection.edu) on Friday March 03, @03:55PM EST (#146)
(User Info) http://www.cs.cuc.edu/~removethissection.dpomery
|
You used the non-standard marquee tag?
-- I wonder if junk bots search for bolded REMOVE THIS or NO SPAM in addresses? (Obfuscated address a result of increased spam since open use on slashdot) |
Happy memories... (Score:2)
by slim (slim@ladle.demon.co.uk) on Friday March 03, @11:36AM EST (#45)
(User Info) http://www.ladle.demon.co.uk
|
Aaaah, I remember the days: NCSA Mosaic. We'd spend hours in XV, trying to reduce the colour depth to 4 bits, or 3...
And the hours we spent finding the perfect Mosaic Grey (in the absence of transparent GIFs) (192R,192G,192B, in case you're interested: but not on Macs)
--
Look out! A revised meme virus is loose. |
| |
Not that anyone cares, but (Score:2, Interesting)
by DonkPunch on Friday March 03, @11:45AM EST (#54)
(User Info) |
192R, 192G, 192B also matches the default grey in Windows.
In hex, it translates to C0C0C0. "#C0C0C0" if you're trying to set the color in HTML.
I only mention it because, at one point, I also had to figure it out. Of course, being a young-un, I just sampled it into one of them fancy newfangled graphics programs. Didn't have to walk 5 miles uphill to code on a 50-pound keyboard missing a few keycaps or any of that stuff. Yep, we sure have it easy these days. :)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs. |
Re:Happy memories... (Score:1)
by Evangelion on Friday March 03, @11:56AM EST (#66)
(User Info) |
It took you hours to find the Mosaic Grey with XV?
- Hit grab
- Grab a section of the mosaic window (or the whole thing, if you're lazy)
- Once the screenshot has loaded, then hold the middle button down on some grey, and the color codes appear at the bottom.
Takes me like 3 seconds...
And what does #c3c3c3 translate to? I remember that that was the 'perfect' Netscape grey under X11, so I imagine that translates to 192,192,192, as both Netscape & Mosaic use Motif...
Ahh, the memories.
Now, if can only get strn set so it doesn't puke on @Home's news servers, I can go back there... large white xterms with the fixed and trn... those were the days...
eris:~$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=1 count=120
|
Re:Happy memories... (Score:1)
by SeanNi (seanni@canada.SPAM.B.GONE.com) on Friday March 03, @02:02PM EST (#116)
(User Info) |
> And what does #c3c3c3 translate to? I remember that that was the 'perfect' Netscape grey under X11, so I imagine that translates to 192,192,192, as both Netscape & Mosaic use Motif...
Nope. #C3C3C3 is (195,195,195). (192,192,192) is #C0C0C0.
Simple calculator operations :-)
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
|
5K - C'mon..... (Score:1)
by tubs (craig@tubbyc.freeserve.couk) on Friday March 03, @11:36AM EST (#46)
(User Info) |
| It shouldn't be that difficult The first webpage I ever wrote was designed using LYNX, I thought it was easy to navigate and actually looked quite good....this was before tables and frames though. When I mangaged to get access to a graphical browser the only thing that changed for me was I put GIFS for buttons and line breaks 5000 characters can get you quite a lot of text, who needs GIFS and JPEGS, as long as what you design is clear, neat and does the job.
Doesn't have a point of view, doesn't know where hes going to, isn't he a bit like you and me.
|
| |
Re:5K - C'mon..... (Score:2, Funny)
by ZikZak (zikzakATioDOTcom) on Friday March 03, @12:02PM EST (#71)
(User Info) http://www.io.com/~zikzak/
|
Because implicit in the contest is the idea that you are to create something visually appealing (ie: artistic). A well written recipe for a bundt cake ain't gonna cut it.
|
Re:5K - C'mon..... (Score:1)
by tlhIngan on Friday March 03, @12:10PM EST (#81)
(User Info) |
Heheh. I seem to recall that on M$' homepage, there was the logo - it weighed in at 666 bytes!
So, perhaps now we see the return of web pages with actual content, and smallish GIFs.
I'd love to see the results of this contest (I have a 56k modem, and have access to a LAN connection [LAN is more troublesome, having to lug laptop around]).
|
Small programs (Score:2)
by ucblockhead (sburnapSPAMSUXlinux@attSPAMSUX.net) on Friday March 03, @11:38AM EST (#47)
(User Info) |
One of the first machines I ever programmed on was a 4k TRS-80.
The first machine I did substantial programming (an Apple ][+) had only about 16k for BASIC programs before you ran into the video buffer. I still remember hitting that limit and getting all sorts of gibberish (my code) as graphics on the screen.
Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. -George Gordon Noel Byron (1788-1824), [Lord Byron] |
| |
Re:Small programs (Score:3, Interesting)
by Pope (eqoq@metajoke.net) on Friday March 03, @12:13PM EST (#83)
(User Info) http://www.metajoke.net/
|
One of the best tricks on the VIC-20 and C-64 (and I assume any other CBM BASIC machine) was that to save memory when typing in your programs you could use the Tokenized equivalents. eg. for GOTO you typed "G shift-O" which resulted in one of the keyboard graphics shapes, but when LISTed transformed into GOTO.
You could save memory and more importantly keystrokes doing this! G shift-O took 2 bytes where GOTO takes 4, etc.
I had a blackjack program in BASIC that was around 3.5K. if you tried to modify it using straight BASIC commands, you got "Out Of Memory" errors, but if you used the Tokenized shorthand, you could debug and change the code.
Pretty cool!
Pope
"Remember, your body is a temple; however, it's also your dancehall and bowling alley" - Dharma Montgomery |
Re:Small programs (Score:1)
by B1 (earthlink.net@debrcmj) on Friday March 03, @12:43PM EST (#95)
(User Info) |
Actually, the CBM BASIC interpreter would store your program in a tokenized form, regardless of whether you entered 'G shift-O' or GOTO. Every BASIC command was represented by an integer token, and converted to text on the fly when you type 'LIST'. This was to save on memory (why store the text 'GOTO' when you can store a one-byte token to mean the same thing?) This may have even sped up the interpreter a little bit, by simplifying the run-time parser.
I remember some interesting one-liners where they used the short-forms liberally to squeeze more statements into one program line (limited to 80 characters total). When you listed the program, the lines would expand past 80 characters on the display, so you couldn't go back and edit them.
I remember another neat program called "list-me", which was a whole bunch of REM statements containing cursor control keystrokes and graphics. When you typed 'LIST', you'd get a short animation of a flying saucer destroying a city.
|
CBM token (Score:2)
by Pope (eqoq@metajoke.net) on Friday March 03, @01:44PM EST (#111)
(User Info) http://www.metajoke.net/
|
another use of REM'd cursor controls was to prevent anyone from stealing you code when they LISTed it, or even better, tagging your files! Lotsa CLEAR/HOME or DOWN statements... ah them's were the days.
Pope
"Remember, your body is a temple; however, it's also your dancehall and bowling alley" - Dharma Montgomery |
Re:Small programs (Score:2)
by SoftwareJanitor (SoftwareJanitor@yahoo.com) on Friday March 03, @02:48PM EST (#125)
(User Info) |
Actually, by default it was less than 6k, as the first graphics page started at 8192 ($2000) (and took up 8k), and the beginning of memory for a BASIC program started at 2048 ($800). That was for both the tokenized program store and the variable space, which was put by default immediately following the end of the code. What you were probably seeing on your graphics screen was your variables.
If you wanted to write big programs that used graphics or if you wanted to write programs that used lots of variables and graphics, you either had to use the second hires page (which started at 16384 ($4000), but didn't allow split screen text/graphics), or you had to do some twiddling with memory mapping to relocate either the variables and/or program storage above the graphics buffers.
Back in those days you really had to be a lot more careful about memory usage than you do today.
|
Get hired! (Score:2, Interesting)
by ahaning on Friday March 03, @11:38AM EST (#49)
(User Info) |
This could be a really interesting scenerio(sp?). They could pick, say, the top 30 people and announce their names. Then, say some company is looking for a web designer. So, they say "hey, these people know what they are doing and can save us bandwidth money! hire 'em!" Imagine how wonderful the web would be if there weren't so much useless crap being sent around.
On a slightly related note (in that BBSs were really cool-looking despite the constraints) I wish BBSs would come back. Sometimes, the web just seems too big for me. I know they won't. (At least, not like they were when I was in to them (right before they all started to die ): ))
Welcome to Slashdot. Please do not feed the trolls.
Thanks to whomever gave me the idea for this sig.... |
| |
Re:Get hired! (Score:1)
by QuMa (fvw+slashdot@var.cx) on Friday March 03, @01:14PM EST (#101)
(User Info) http://www.var.cx
|
try telnet bbs.ufies.org
|
Maybe you should join The Well... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:13PM EST (#132)
|
It's still around!
|
Re:Get hired! (Score:1)
by ahaning on Friday March 03, @04:02PM EST (#148)
(User Info) |
Telnet? Blech! You can't download anything. I kind of miss watching the CPS go around 1000 to 2000 CPS or more (I'm still on a modem...but it's not the same).
What I'm talking about is a real dialup BBS. The coolest thing about those was that most of those people lived right in your area. For all I know, the webservers I download from could be on the other side of the planet (that might explain some terrible download speeds). Also, no matter how cheezy the ANSI graphics looked at the time, they still required some really good skills. Now, just download Photoshop from warez.slashdot.org (Pater/Potter/CowboyNeal said it existed in one episode of GiS), and you can make all the nifty title grapgics you can. Blah, boring.
[Going off on a tangent]
In a way, I feel like I missed out on a lot of the BBS stuff. Just when I was really getting in to it, some of the boards I used were starting to become parttime ISPs. CompuServe was SOO cool because you could search an encyclopedia (WOW. find ANYTHING you WANT!). Then C$ gave everyone 5 hours of all services p/month. So we got on the web. Wow! We can download pictures and see them at the same time....woooaahhhh! Now, it's all glitzy. I want to go back to my roots.
Welcome to Slashdot. Please do not feed the trolls.
Thanks to whomever gave me the idea for this sig.... |
Re:Get hired! (Score:1)
by jagne on Friday March 03, @05:57PM EST (#164)
(User Info) http://www.jag.f2s.com/
|
So, they say "hey, these people know what they are doing and can save us bandwidth money! hire 'em!" Imagine how wonderful the web would be if there weren't so much useless crap being sent around.
actually, it's a dream. let's be realistic, companies won't go catching 5k designers to save bandwidth. they care about content and design. about making people come back to the sites. too bad not everybody follows nielsen's reputation article. and sure, the web would be wonderful without so much "useless crap".
jaime g. wong
the Guidelight Project
|
What about a "Readable Websites"-contest? (Score:1)
by Mekanix on Friday March 03, @11:42AM EST (#51)
(User Info) |
It's getting harder and harder to find to find websites where you can navigate and read the contenst.
Whatever happened to to make links?
Today it's just bloated, buggy M$-java all over the place. It seems like no webdesigner knows a single word of HTML.
Bjare
|
don't use frontpage (Score:2, Funny)
by xDroid on Friday March 03, @11:58AM EST (#68)
(User Info) http://www.creativepage.com/droid/index.htm
|
use Word . . . 2k
no, use fp . . . 2k
no, use notepad . . . 1k
submission. . .
<html>
<body>
I win!!
</body>
</html>
* "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker |
| |
Word? (Score:2)
by Pope (eqoq@metajoke.net) on Friday March 03, @01:41PM EST (#110)
(User Info) http://www.metajoke.net/
|
try 28k :P
Word 2000 uses XML for everything, and I constantly get file in MS-HTML that I have to strip down and redo.
Pope
"Remember, your body is a temple; however, it's also your dancehall and bowling alley" - Dharma Montgomery |
A Place For Inspiration (Score:1)
by benenglish (nospam.please@evenifyoufindme.com) on Friday March 03, @12:05PM EST (#74)
(User Info) |
I'm not kidding, here. For inspiration that applies to this contest, check /. for the Beacon School piece that was posted a couple of stories back. I went to their site and opened a whole bunch of the student home pages. Some of them seem to have just discovered frames, some have blown off the whole idea, and some of them include so many animations they make hamsterdance.com look dignified. BUT - Some of them have small, simple pages that communicate elegantly without being simplistic. I will definitely rip off...er...derive inspiration from some of those pages for my on-the-job html.
|
Flexing my brain (Score:4, Interesting)
by CodeShark (listener@kcinter.net) on Friday March 03, @12:07PM EST (#77)
(User Info) |
| 'Bout time somebody did this. Be warned -- I plan on winning --not because I'll get picked as the best entry, but because it will give my design skills a challenge. So if I don't get the $50 bucks, why do I consider this a win? Well, once a person catches on to some of the better techniques, it's relatively easy to write complex, data driven sites -- you develop a good site plan, work with folks until all of the pieces have been agreed on, test the functionality, then make it pretty. Of course, if you work develop high end web sites like I used to, we're talking about billing $100K+ to the client for the whole process, at a bare minimum. But it's not pushing my skills much any more -- I can do roughly the same things in Perl, PHP, Python, TCL, SSJS, etc., the same things and a few more fun by throwing in Java and Javascript. Flash is cool, but not web-wide, so it's not gonna pay my rent for a while yet. But proving that 5K is enough to do something useful/pretty, etc. -- that's a challenge. See ya there!!
Just my 2 cents worth. Commentary encouraged. |
| |
Re:Flexing my brain (Score:1)
by Jeff DeMaagd (jeffdemaagd@yahoo.freaky.com) on Saturday March 04, @12:11AM EST (#188)
(User Info) http://www.iserv.net/~strdream/jeff
|
So, you like being an @$$ in public? I wish I could moderate you down as it seems like either vacuous bragging or an attempt to show yourself off as someone you aren't. You claim to be such a great designer, but your slashdot user ID doesn't even have a link to a web page of any kind.
Jeff DeMaagd - newly declared enemy of reality. |
Re:Flexing my brain (Score:1)
by CodeShark (listener@kcinter.net) on Saturday March 04, @01:42AM EST (#191)
(User Info) |
- I never claimed to be a good designer -- I claim to be a good data base driven site developer. If you don't understand the difference, I don't think that you are qualified to call me an a$$.
- Any good developer (and there are tons better than me) can do high end web sites given the criteria I mentioned.
- Most of my high end web sites belong to clients that are not geek sites. So why would I post their URLs unless I was trying to brag.. (see next item)
- My purpose for posting on /. is not to toot my own HTML horn, get it? I know alot about a lot of things, but I just want to share perspectives, sometimes a funny, ask questions -- you know, the type of stuff most /. posters (excluding the less talented trolls) like to do.
- The reason there is no URL in my /. profile is that I prefer a little bit of anonymity, and the main site I will sign my name to isn't completed yet.
So if you have nothing better to do than slam other people's posts, go ahead. It's no skin off my teeth. I have better things to do -- like improving my design skills for that contest. See ya there, maybe?
Just my 2 cents worth. Commentary encouraged. |
Re:Flexing my brain (Score:1)
by PureFiction (coderman@mindspring.com.nospamplease) on Saturday March 04, @11:14AM EST (#198)
(User Info) http://CubicMeterCrystal.com
|
Requirements for obtaining the status 'Good' as a database driven developer.
Candidate must have experience designing, implementing, and extending the following features:
- Oracle 8i server extensions (XML focus).
- Multi value database searches based on associations of meta level relationships with database information.
- Creation of dynamic interfaces based on unique process associations retrieved from above. Not simple substitution but analysis of meta data (structure, relationships, similiar content) to develop individually unique interfaces optimal for a given view into database information.
- Scalability and efficiency of database information via multi tiered database instances based upon multiple shared storage subsystems using a C++ CORBA framework.
- Site analysis processes using the above CORBA framework and stored database packages to dynamically reassign database and CORBA resources for optimal efficiency. All transparent to higher level CGI/DB/XML processes generating web content.
And some others, but my fingers are getting tired. So, are you a good database driven site coder?
99.44% "You are the product of a mutational union of ~640Mbytes of genetic information." |
Re:Flexing my brain (Score:1)
by CodeShark (listener@kcinter.net) on Monday March 06, @10:31AM EST (#209)
(User Info) |
| Hey, great post!! Those are some great technologies, but I would argue with your definition that all of those are required to be a "good" data-driven web site developer. Here's my point: it's like calling an Olympic athlete "good" only when they are medal contenders. The fact is, an Olympic athlete is better than 99.9% of the rest of the world in their chosen sport, and a coder who can do all of those things is better than 99.9% of the rest of the coding world. For example Oracle 8i plus extensions is great -- and I would unhesitatingly recommend it for certain clients requiring high transaction volumes, high availability plus, etc. Similarly XML, style sheets, etc. are wonderful when needed - but overkill at times. Or this one: "Multi value database searches based on associations of meta level relationships with database information. [Boy, try reading that sentence out loud, three times quickly without getting your brain in a fog. ;-)] Important yes. Secondary to clean, well designed tables that from the get-go to support dimensional data analysis -- i.e., the data is designed to answer non-obvious questions (queries) as easily and with as high performance as the obvious ones. And the "Creation of dynamic interfaces based on unique process associations..." etc. is secondary to "the ability to communicate with clients of varying technical ability to enable development of the optimal interfaces and views of information in the database." Finally, scalability and efficiency is always important, but "multi tiered database instances based upon multiple shared storage subsystems using a C++ CORBA framework" might be important for maybe .1 percent of the data driven sites out there, and I'm being generous with that percentage. (BTW, I've done C++, Corba driven systems, etc. and even EDI-INT, but they've never been needed on the same platform -- even though I've done work for several different Fortune 500 systems requiring huge transaction volumes, etc.) What I'm saying is that all of these techniques and technologies can be important and should be used when appropriate, but look at it in a more practical light: what if my client is a small non-profit with limited requirements and budget? A good data driven web developer will recommend the best solution for the client , beginning with a good assessment of needs and how to meet them within budgetary constraints. Yes, I define myself as "good". Am I equally good if I recommend the Linux/PHP/MySql solution and develop it accordingly, or just if I recommend and use only the big-ticket, high powered technology like those on your list?
Just my 2 cents worth. Commentary encouraged. |
Hmmn.. (Score:1)
by jallen02 on Friday March 03, @12:18PM EST (#86)
(User Info) http://gdev.net/~jallen
|
My site is 500K gzipped with max compression (Doh) lol. Of course I have some 100K jpegs.. :-) hehe. 1024x768 jpgs. Hmmn. Without images its *very* lightweight and acehives a lot of those simplicity goals without being *TO* ugly. ( i was being lazy to.. soo :-) Anyways. it weighs in at like 15K total without images. I could condense it even more if I made more of it php3. Do loops for my table rows and just do a big case/if elif el structure to stick the images.. thatd cut down the site by prolly 1K right there. But if you cant hang with 15K or so im sorry :-)
|
| |
Re:Hmmn.. (Score:1)
by jallen02 on Friday March 03, @12:39PM EST (#94)
(User Info) http://gdev.net/~jallen
|
lol I just realized how silly my comment was.. The actual html it generates would be just about as large. lol. sorry. My page is zero fluff.. only pictures are pictures of me being silly and all. :-) You can do some pretty awesome stuff with style sheets.. I dont think you need anything but very small pictures to achieve awesome site design :-) If clients want fluff.. its even easier to do :p
|
Too Bad About Server-Side (Score:2)
by waldoj (waldo@waldo.net) on Friday March 03, @12:23PM EST (#87)
(User Info) http://www.waldo.net
|
It would be nice if there were a contest like this that permitted server-specific entries. I can appreciate the value of this contest as it exists, but I'd have a lot more fun (see my business partner's page -- yes, it's supposed to look like that) if I could enjoy the wonders of PHP and MySQL.
Anybody wanna start a contest? :)
|
The next step... (Score:1)
by MasterMnd on Friday March 03, @12:24PM EST (#88)
(User Info) |
...a usable webbrowser in under a meg? :)
|
| |
Re:The next step... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:46PM EST (#140)
|
Teh current version of iCab for the Mac (not available for anything else) downloads in a 1.058MB Stuff-It archive.. It doesn't have full JavaScript support yet, but it has plug-in support for all netscape plug-ins, and allows me to filter images by URL or Size (no more banners!)...
|
Re:The next step... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:46PM EST (#141)
|
The current version of iCab for the Mac (not available for anything else) downloads in a 1.058MB Stuff-It archive.. It doesn't have full JavaScript support yet, but it has plug-in support for all netscape plug-ins, and allows me to filter images by URL or Size (no more banners!)...
|
Do WAP pages count? (Score:2, Funny)
by K. on Friday March 03, @12:30PM EST (#92)
(User Info) http://www.stunbunny.org/
|
Try designing for the the 1397-byte buffer on the
Nokia 7110. Now that's fun.
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders. |
Small Demos! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @12:38PM EST (#93)
|
I remember a few years back an IRC channel (#asm I think) held a 256-byte fire compo. The winning entries were packaged in a zipfile, but I forgot the filename! It was really great--there was even a 3D fire in there! None of them had sound, though.
|
Slash Dot Light Rules! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @12:58PM EST (#98)
|
can we make this a permament thing? Its much faster than the usual graphics.
|
| |
try /. in lynx! (Score:1)
by anonymous cowerd (WKiernan@concentric.net) on Friday March 03, @06:40PM EST (#173)
(User Info) http://www.concentric.net/~Wkiernan/index.html
|
Slashdot light is great, I remember when I first found out how to make /. come up in the fast mode. But if you really want to enjoy the /. experience the best possible way, get yourself a free copy of Lynx. It loads up fast even on a slow machine, and in terms of downloading pages, it's so fast it makes your eyes pop. If you're running Linux your distro probably has Lynx already, or if you're on a Win9x or NT box, you can even get a version for Win32, and it's really great. I mean, it's not ideal for every web page; it isn't what I'd use to browse Playboy.com, but for a text-based site like this one, you just can't beat Lynx. Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
|
Re:try /. in lynx! (Score:1)
by Alkivar (/dev/null) on Saturday March 04, @03:34AM EST (#193)
(User Info) |
actually no ... try it in w3m it actually gets the frames and colors as well :)
|
I think this is great (Score:2)
by trance9 (trance9 account at semiotek dot com) on Friday March 03, @01:16PM EST (#104)
(User Info) http://www.webmacro.org
|
My whole site is only 18k, with each page weighing in at around 2-3k. I don't think you need any graphics to make a useful website. Of course I'm not a designer so my pages are just plain and simple--but I like that.
www.semiotek.com: just plain text with some tables and some fonts and colours.
|
include directives (Score:1)
by Dios (j_kirby@removethis.wfec.com) on Friday March 03, @01:25PM EST (#107)
(User Info) http://www.usao.edu/~jdkirby
|
You could include all of your menus/etc in include directives.. tables for shading.. hell, including the menus with include directives would allow quite a savings across a lot...with only 5k should be able to do quite a bit...
|
A sure winner (Score:2)
by chazR (chaz.randles@ukgateway.net) on Friday March 03, @01:28PM EST (#108)
(User Info) |
This from the Gnu web site should be a candidate. You'd need to take a few links out to get it under the limit, but it shows what can be done in limited space.
Share and Enjoy.
|
| |
GNU still stuck on jpegs? (Score:1)
by gruntvald on Friday March 03, @04:13PM EST (#152)
(User Info) |
When will the GNU site get switched to png for graphics? (or even /. for that matter?)
|
Re:GNU still stuck on jpegs? (Score:2)
by extrasolar (klh@sedonaSPAM_TRAP.net) on Friday March 03, @06:29PM EST (#171)
(User Info) |
I kinda wonder that also.
But what I want to know more is why the pngs they provide don't use transparency? Is it my browser?
Maybe they are waiting on a stable version of Mozilla?
--- Infinite loops in 5 seconds? Is that like that infinte monkeys shakespeare thing? |
I'm down at the 2.5 K mark (Score:2)
by Chas (punf@rivyarg.arg (ROT13 Me Baby!)) on Friday March 03, @01:57PM EST (#113)
(User Info) http://www.evilnet.net
|
I put together a fully functional 2-page site, with two small images. The total weight of all 4 files is 2045 bytes, 3 bytes short 2K. Total downloadable weight (how much transfer you use to pull both pages of the site, assuming you load each of the images twice) is 2523 bytes (2.46K) Technically it's not fully compliant due to it's lack of the DTD statement in the HTML tag. But I've tested the site with every browser I have access to: - Lynx
- Mozilla
- Netscape 4.7
- Netscape 3.0
- NS 2.0
- NS 1.2
- NS 0.9
- IE2
- IE3
- IE4
- IE5
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
chas@evilnet.net |
Validation a big problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
by Sick Boy (sickboy@BOYDOIHATESPICEDHAM.protobofh.net) on Friday March 03, @02:12PM EST (#120)
(User Info) http://www.protobofh.net
|
| Something that may get overlooked is that many of these pages won't come anywhere near validation. Who's going to waste precious space on DTD statements and alt=""? We shouldn't assume that small pages are valid simply because they probably don't use a ton of tags. We definately shouldn't convey that attitude to the children. Won't somebody please think about the children? Show me a page under 5k that validates, and I'll be impressed. Of course, I won't make any outward indication that I'm impressed, probably a contemptious "but it's supposed to validate ANYWAY" snort, but that's the way I am.
--
Hear that sucking sound? That's my will to live. |
| |
Re:Validation a big problem here (Score:1)
by ottffssent on Friday March 03, @05:22PM EST (#162)
(User Info) |
DTD and alt= statements?
Nobody said you had to write in html 4.0 here. Yes, the newer spec requires certain things like that. HTML 1.0 on the other hand, had lots less to worry about.
|
Re:Validation a small problem here (Score:1)
by SkulkCU (custudent at a free email service owned by bill) on Friday March 03, @06:13PM EST (#167)
(User Info) http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jjm39/
|
I assume that any winning page /will/ validate to some w3 standard. The contest page is under 5k, and they say it validates.
My entry (which is lookin' pretty good right now, imnsho) will use alt on every image tag, but I won't have too many images at 5k anyway... At 7/5120 of the total entry for every [ alt=""] it will take up a large chunk of space...
Hm. Maybe I don't need alt after all. <g>
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000 |
A tight JavaScript Page (Score:1)
by Skim123 (mitchell@4guysfromrolla.com) on Friday March 03, @03:02PM EST (#130)
(User Info) http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/
|
Use a fractal-like approach, where you have one JavaScript function that recurses, generating the next line of output based upon the last line of output. With some tweaking, one could make a nifty looking page with just a few lines of JavaScript code.
No one wants to email you, so don't waste bandwidth telling people how to. |
Useful text-search of usenet (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:16PM EST (#133)
|
Well, when Deja destroyed their interface I made my own (geared towards Lynx, which is what I use) and some people have found it useful. It doesn't qualify for the contest (since it uses Deja's server-side scripts) but it is portable, i.e. you can just save it on any machine and use it from there. It's the Text-friendly search of Usenet (5118 bytes)
|
| |
Re:Useful text-search of usenet (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:26PM EST (#183)
|
That's pretty cool. I'm stealing it :)
|
Compressed HTML (Score:3, Interesting)
by jonathanclark on Friday March 03, @03:46PM EST (#139)
(User Info) http://jonathanclark.com
|
Most HTML can be compressed pretty well by removing comments, unneeded meta tags, and spaces/new lines that have no contribution to the final page. This program will automatically compress html files for you. When I ran it on /. I can sometimes get a 50% compresssion ratio (not including graphics).
jonathanclark.com |
Nice idea..but not first to advocate (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @03:50PM EST (#143)
|
If memory serves me correct, photo.net, ala Phil Greenspun, has always advocated non-bloated web pages, just look at his entire site! Now if someone could convince him to use apache instead of aolserver/tcl..yech
|
Offtopic but funny (Score:1)
by gruntvald on Friday March 03, @04:10PM EST (#151)
(User Info) |
I just noticed that searching for "What's that site running?" on Google used to take you to Netcraft's "What's that site running?" page, now it just dumps you straight into www.apache.org....
|
My Page... (Score:1)
by pseudo674 (SlickWilly@whitehouse.gov) on Friday March 03, @04:27PM EST (#154)
(User Info) http://linuxsoft.cjb.net/
|
http://linuxsoft.cjb.net/5k.html weighs in at 4.06K... I wrote it pretty fast so I'm sure it's got a lot of useless tags in it. It's quite lame... I really like those recursive javascript ideas so maybe I'll try something like that. I think google.[com][net][org] should win (all they have to do is remove that large gif...
|
M$ Plans own contest (Score:2, Funny)
by sandidge on Friday March 03, @04:33PM EST (#157)
(User Info) |
| Microsoft is planning a contest kinda like this. Anyone who can design and operating system that uses less than 50% of a computer's resources. They don't even have to put the disclaimer that employees of the company can't compete in the contest since it'd be redundant.
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
|
Why not... (Score:1)
by TrevorB on Friday March 03, @04:53PM EST (#159)
(User Info) http://www.arbutus.cx/
|
Why not just code about 4k of javascript that continuously spits out digits of Pi or e... The page is infinite in size, but only takes up a little HD space!
|
| |
Re:Why not... (Score:1)
by PureFiction (coderman@mindspring.com.nospamplease) on Saturday March 04, @10:43AM EST (#197)
(User Info) http://CubicMeterCrystal.com
|
Then a judge pulls up your page in lynx / amaya / etc... Ooops.
99.44% "You are the product of a mutational union of ~640Mbytes of genetic information." |
Code Contest (Score:1)
by Spider-X on Friday March 03, @05:38PM EST (#163)
(User Info) |
Coders have contests like this all the time, especially in Finland where they have 4k and I've even seen 256 byte competitions. They turn out some amazing stuff, but these competitions have been going on for a very long time, and I suspect the first of such competition in this new field will suck. Check out Scene.Org for these 4k demos.
You could be a computer geek if: You have a PGP key. |
A long time ago... (Score:1)
by Dinosaur Neil (ksavage@ix.netcom.no.spam.i.com) on Friday March 03, @06:08PM EST (#166)
(User Info) |
Back when I was learning to drive my Apple ][+, one of the Apple-oriented magazines (can't remember which one) ran a regular contest called "one-liners" where the object was to write the most clever Apple BASIC program possible in the 256 byte clause limit. Part of me wants to whine, "5K!?! When I was your age...", but mostly, I think this is pretty cool and (if the one-liner contest was any indicator) there should be some pretty clever designs; I'm looking forward to seeing the results...
"That which we win cheaply, we esteem lightly." - Thomas Paine |
My submission for the contest (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @06:16PM EST (#168)
|
CLICK HERE
|
Optimization Article (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @08:59PM EST (#177)
|
great contest idea. see an article i wrote re html optimization at: http://webref.com/authoring/languages/html/optimize/
|
Proposal (Score:1)
by Craig Davison on Friday March 03, @10:07PM EST (#180)
(User Info) |
Zip a huge document, put it in a javascript string and package it with some javascript code to parse it and write() a document. Kind of like a shar script. You could even do wacky things like make images out of huge tables with coloured cells.
|
My entry (Score:2)
by Money__ (hallada at Netscape dot net) on Friday March 03, @10:10PM EST (#181)
(User Info) file:///C|/Windows/Exit%20To%20DOS.pif
|
1) Site design matches the product (black boxes).
2) An animated opening splash screen.
3) Informative product information.
4) Animated menu navigation bar.
5) Product ordering means a complete e-comerce solution.
6) Not one line of script.
7) {blink} tags added for your nestalgic pleasure.
8) Only 4.73k (27 bytes to spare!)
here it is
_________________________
These comments powered by Printf |
| |
Re:My entry (Score:2)
by swordgeek (spamlist@um......go.com) on Saturday March 04, @12:05AM EST (#187)
(User Info) |
No offense here, but so what?
Anyone can write a blank, ugly (sorry but it's true), useless page in under 5kB. The point, and the unwritten intent of such a contest is to do the _best_ possible in the limit.
I mean honestly, what's the point of writing a web page in under 5kB that no one is going to want to read? I'm not just looking at yours here--there are a LOT of (serious) suggestions in this discussion about ways to get around the rules, or the easiest (but most useless) way to achieve the stated goal. Why bother?
As an aside, 5093 bytes is 4.97kB. 4.73kB gives you 276 bytes to play with.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban |
whitespace (Score:1)
by GerritHoll (gerrit@nl.linux.org) on Saturday March 04, @04:28AM EST (#194)
(User Info) http://www.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
|
| Now I have a page with 4.1 KB, but with MUCH whitespace between the tags. It sure can be trimmed to 3.0 KB, but how? How do I trim all optional whitespace from an HTML file? Any hints? My Entry
|
webpage LZ compression with JavaScript (Score:1)
by falser on Saturday March 04, @03:55PM EST (#201)
(User Info) |
This company made a very simple LZ routine for Javascript:
http://siams.com/root/products/ahp/packer.htm
The source page looks like ascii (like when you view a zip file in a text editor). And there is one self running JavaScript function which decompresses the source and write's it to the document.
It's commercial software, but extremely impressive. The only thing that's better is using JAR files to store JavaScript files.
If anyone knows an open source equivalent of this I would certainly appreciate a url cause I might just have to write something like on my own in order to use it the way I waant.
"I can only show you Linux... you're the one who has to read the man pages."
falser |
Well it's pretty damn easy then... (Score:1)
by The OPTiCIAN (a m i e n @ b e m a i l . o r g) on Sunday March 05, @12:50AM EST (#204)
(User Info) |
>The size component of the judging will be done by examining
>the files which sit on the server, not the browser's rendering of
>those files.
Just do it in asp and use a database. My syntax is completely wrong but you can get the idea (I've used [{}] instead of greater than/lessthans)
{% option explicit
dim page = request(page)
adodb.open(databasename)
adodb.command = "select source from database where page = " + page
%}
{html}
{% response.write(adodb.execute) %}
{/html}
{% delete adodb %}
Easy. Like I say, my syntax is completely wrong (I ad a beer at breakfast and it's screwing with me and I can'tbe bothererd looking it up - I've even used a response.write - naughty, naughty) but you get the idea. You can do an entire website like this. Then you can pass the value of the page in from a hidden form in each page's source. (treat each link button as a submit)
Believe with me, my saplings. |
I was thnking about something along these lines... (Score:1)
by The OPTiCIAN (a m i e n @ b e m a i l . o r g) on Sunday March 05, @01:07AM EST (#205)
(User Info) |
Write javascript to take the original premises of the universe, and then calculate them out again. It could prbably be brought down into quite a small recursive algorithm. Get it to reintrerpret the universe, etc.
I'm not sure if that wuold be browser compliant though. I'm predicting a few memory problems with this.
Believe with me, my saplings. |
Of course if I'd read the rules... (Score:1)
by The OPTiCIAN (a m i e n @ b e m a i l . o r g) on Sunday March 05, @01:08AM EST (#206)
(User Info) |
...I'd have knoen that there was no server side scripting allowed.
Believe with me, my saplings. |
contest is going to show cellular phones can make (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05, @01:26PM EST (#208)
|
With cellular phones coming around this can illustrate how the internet can function with minimal functioning web pages but with enough info to get what you want from it
|
Re:Praise Jefus (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:07AM EST (#16)
|
Now you've done it. He'll post one just for spite, now. :-/
|
Re:yakada yakada (Score:1)
by summdood on Friday March 03, @11:09AM EST (#19)
(User Info) |
apparently you can not count to one, and you spelt 'looser' incorrectly.
|
| |
Re:yakada yakada (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @11:24AM EST (#35)
|
and you cant spell the word "jackass"
|
Re:OPEN SOUCE WEB PAGE DESIGN (Score:2)
by FauxPasIII (fauxpas@cc.gatech.dont.spam.me.edu) on Friday March 03, @11:27AM EST (#39)
(User Info) |
Whomever you are, it's you and those like you who give me reason to browse at -1. Thank you.
|
Re:OPEN SOUCE WEB PAGE DESIGN (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @12:16PM EST (#85)
|
Why? Look in the dictionary under the definition of "off topic", and you will find a picture of that post.
|
Re:Mitnicks only failure (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03, @01:16PM EST (#103)
|
Offtopic, but very interesting nonetheless. I had heard there was one machine he couldn't crack, but I didn't know what it was. Thanks for the link
|
Re:Thats easy (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04, @12:33AM EST (#190)
|
hey gimp suck my dick and leave slashdot NOW!!!
|
Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday March 03, @10:56AM
Design a Web Page in Under 5k
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.