Jump to content

photo Net Community Page Layout

ivar olsen

By ivar olsen
in PhotoNet Site Help

 Share

Recommended Posts

ivar olsen

ivar olsen

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Seven!

 

Think you got the wrong idea... I would never "copy/paste" a code. :-))

Just really like the idea that it looks cool, and would really like to have

somthing which seperates a bit from the crowd....

 

Thanks for quick and honest answer! :-))

 

See you around mate!

 

Ivar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jreades

jreades

Posted
Posted

<p>This is the line that's allowing Dave to change everything:</p>

 

<p>

<body style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204); background-color: rgb(50, 50, 50);"

link="#3366ff" alink="#990000" vlink="#FEcc95">

</p>

 

<p>This is actually not terribly friendly from a coding point of view because it's creating a

nested body elemnet -- most browsers will do the 'right thing' and render the colours and

so on, but a few will probably barf on this.</p>

 

<p>A better way (note, I haven't tested this) would be:</p>

 

<p>

<style type="text/css"><br>

BODY {<br>

    color: rgb(204, 204, 204);<br>

    background-color: rgb(50, 50, 50);<br>

}<br>

A:link {<br>

    color: #3366ff;<br>

}<br>

A:active {<br>

    color: #990000;<br>

}<br>

A:visited {<br>

    color: #FEcc95;<br>

}<br>

</style><br>

</p>

 

<p>If that doesn't work, let me know and I'll see if I can figure it out for real.</p>

 

<p>The only tricky thing is that I'm not sure you're allowed to submit CSS style tags (the

rules might be different for your own portfolio page) because I had to jump through some

hoops to get this to display at all.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mottershead

mottershead

Posted
Posted

The comment about the <body> tag is correct. It doesn't affect my Firefox V1.0 browser to have nested body tags, but I know it will break some browsers because I've introduced bugs before that had the effect of nesting body tags which did cause the page rendering in some browsers to become very strange.

 

Also, I'm steadily finding the places in the code where people can write HTML rather than plain text. As regards the bio on the Community Member page, which the member enters, the code assumes that it is HTML, although this may not be apparent to someone entering his bio. As I find the places where people can enter text that goes directly onto the pages as HTML, and as I have time, I put in checks to limit the set of HTML tags that can be used, because this capability has been abused, both deliberately and accidentally, in the past. The set of tags I allow does not include <style> and <body>. So people won't be able to do Dave's technique with the bio much longer. I also have to decide what to do about the cases that have already slipped through.

 

I've thought before about giving people the ability to put their own style sheets on "their" pages within the site. I'm of mixed minds about this. On the plus side, it allows people to personalize "their" pages, and would be regarded as a positive feature by many people who want to do this. On the negative side, it reduces the unity and consistency of the site, and creates the distinct possibilty that people will break the navigation within the site, such as removing or hiding the photo.net logo, the breadcrumbs, or the menu bar, or interfering with the ads.

 

When museums and galleries mount exhibitions, each artist doesn't get to paint the wall behind his painting, although no doubt some artists might consider that cool. The works are exhibited within a unified space that is controlled by the gallery, not a confusing, kaleidoscopic space where each little section is controlled by one of the artists. This puts the focus on the works.

 

Also, I'm afraid some people would use the flexibility to style "their" pages to shoot themselves in the foot, detracting from the impact of the photos (such as by having bright orange and blue text on a dark grey background -- sheesh).

 

Maybe we should do it, and let visitors rate web design skills instead of photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jreades

jreades

Posted
Posted

*I* don't mind, but see Brian's response and recognise that you could lose this ability at any time.

 

Brian -- perhaps this could be a subscriber/non-subscriber thing: if I've ponied up the subscriber fee then I have the ability to add some more tags to my home page than if I'm 'freeloading' (or broke, to be fair) so to speak. I tend to agree with you about the detrimental impact of poor colour choices and inconsistent appearance, but allowing a bit of creativity isn't necessarily a bad thing and it gives people with a real 'vision' for their portfolio a way to present it the way that they want... if they're willing to contribute.

 

Thoughts?

 

jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cfimages

cfimages

Posted
Posted

Oops, looks like I did something naughty.

 

When I read this, Brian had yet to respond. So I played a little in another tab (Firefox), then posted my reply, without refreshing, or I'd have seen Brian's comment.

 

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

Brian - it's up to you, it's your site. Leave it up or take it down? You say you're of mixed minds, so I'll leave mine as is until you tell me different, if that's ok. And as soon as you say "get rid of it" I will (although it's 11pm here, so if you reply in the next hour I may be asleep - if so, I'll change it in the morning).

 

Cheers,

 

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mottershead

mottershead

Posted
Posted

Well, I like the idea of giving subscribers the ability to make their portfolio within photo.net be styled according to their personal concept. However, I think I would still like to maintain a unified appearance for "photo.net".

 

So, what I'm thinking is that subscribers might have the ability to associate their portfolio with a domain name, such as "example.com". They could purchase the domain from a registrar in the usual way, such as register.com, godaddy.com, etc. Most registrars provide "web forwarding", and people would be able to set up forwarding of their domain to photo.net. Our server is capable of virtual hosting and when it received a request for "http://example.com/", it would figure out that this domain belongs to such and such member, for example Dave N. And it would display a customized version of Dave's portfolio page, with his stylesheet, no photo.net logo, or navigation. From there people could click on photos, folders, presentations, etc, and these would also be displayed with Dave's stylesheet and no photo.net "branding". There might be a discrete reference to photo.net and a backlink to the site on each page. This would permit a photo.net subscriber to make his photo.net portfolio into a his own mini-site. People could give out their personal URL to this mini-site.

 

However, when people came from photo.net pages, such as the TRP pages, photo.net home page, etc, then they would see the portfolio as part of photo.net with "photo.net" styling and branding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobatkins

bobatkins

Posted
Posted

Though I'm probably the very last person to support faming of sites and I fully realize all the negative aspects of framing, this seems like one application where framing might (emphasize might) actually have some utility, i.e. displaying a members page within a frame, with a photo.net frame on top.

 

At least this would potentially allow freedom in page design, but retain the photo.net "branding", advertising and menu structure in a top frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...