yann_r. Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 "this member has an extended biography"<br>That's we can read now on each page where a member did a "custom" workto enhance it.<p>Being formated looks strange for me on a website about a kind of art.<br>Why this has been done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Because the Community Member page is just supposed to be the page on photo.net with each member's posting history and other basic facts about them, such as a short biography. The fact that it displays the person's Biography and that the biography can contain some fairly unrestricted HTML has lead some people to try to turn their Community Member page into a kind of "home page". I am trying to figure out how to give people the ability to customize their portfolios and have a personalized presence on the site. But hacking the biography does not result in very nice-looking Community Member pages, even assuming that the Community Member page was the right one to customize. There are too many constraints and there is not enough latitude and flexibility for the Community Member page to be turned into a nice "It's all about Me, me, me" page through biography-hacking. And some of them look terrible and make the posting histories very hard to read. So I retained the customized biographies, but separated them from the posting histories. If people don't have "naughty HTML" in their biographies, then the biographies are still displayed with the rest of the information on the Community Member page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 What's "Naughty" in terms of HTML in this context? Is any HTML allowed at all (e.g. <b></b> or <em></em> tags) or it the restriction only on more "advanced" HTML such as style declarations, font tags and javascript! I think the idea of a pretty uniform layout for "official" photo.net pages is a good one. Some people clearly took the ability to customize the page to extremes and I saw a few that were essentially unreadable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Anything other than the list of tags above is accepted. The list of "naughty" tags is the same list that is blocked completely from the forums, photo comments, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Where is the list of "naughty" html tags? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Oh, sorry, it was in the other thread: applet area base body button div embed fieldset font form frame frameset head html iframe ilayer input layer link marquee meta object pre script span style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 The place for extensively personalized webpage content is outside of Photo.net. Many internet service providers (ISP's) offer free webpages and hosting. It would probably better for members to link out of their biography pages to their own websites if they wish to publish additional content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjords Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 The member white page is a glaring >>>> distraction.<p> The critique forum has a grey back ground.<p> port folios have grey back grounds.<p> So why can't the members page be grey, as mine was!<p> Photo exposure is based on the grey card. etc....<p> So is a grey page naughty<p> HTML? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 No a grey background isn't naughty, but to get it you probably stuck a <STYLE> tag, or maybe even <BODY> tag, into your biography, and these are naughty. This means your bio is now being displayed separately from the rest of your Community Member page. In your case, since your bio consists of HTML, which is trying to restyle your Community Member page, but has no other content, the page with your customized bio looks daft. Sorry. Might want to change your bio, so that it doesn't contain any naughty HTML and is displayed with your Community Member page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 it's really looks like quite MESSY now. Not a single member with the same page: one have bio, one have extented bio, one have pic, one have not, for one you directly access to extended page, for another you don't, for some you have all details, for some others you dont have... I just wonder if site managers want people to leave the site creating their own webpage or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paula grenside Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I have realized it just today ( and noticed it on many pages I clicked on). It seems I have a customized page and so there is a link to redirect. When I click there, though, the black background I put about two weeks ago has disappeared. Did I use naughty HTML? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liuyuan Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Ditto for the grey background. Generally speaking I think photos look better with a darker background. Also, a photo with a white frame doesn't look good at all, coz the frame will vanish. One of my photos with white frame prompted me to start using a grey background. And yes, I stuck a body tag (oddly enough not a pair, but it worked). If this is considered naughty, could you consider applying a homogenous grey background, thanks a bunch. BTW, Brian, I noticed a cute script with which you can insert a button on the page and when viewers click on it, a color photo can be immidiately turned into b&w. With that, we'll stop seeing comments like "I wonder how this photo looks in b&w", not to mention the hassles of photoshopping, then uploading etc (thus saving your server space). I can send you the scripts or the link if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Paula, the tags that cause your bio to be displayed separately are the <marquee> tag, the <body> tag, and the <font> tag. The marquee tag does not work in many browsers. It is a Microsoft extension, which some other browsers like Firefox happen to support in "quirks" mode. As for the body tag, that is totally non-standard, since there is supposed to be one and only one body tag for the entire HTML document, and of course the photo.net server is already generating one. If you write HTML that causes a second body tag on the same page, it is completely unpredictable how a browser will handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Yuan, normally on the Community Member page, there aren't many photos: the member's portrait, and up to three thumbnails of recently uploaded photos. This page is supposed to be basically a Member Posting History page. It isn't intended to be a Portfolio page or anything like a member "home page". There are other pages for displaying Portfolios, Folders, Presentations, and Photos, and these have grey backgrounds for the photos and thumbnails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liuyuan Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 <p>Hi Brian, I was hesitating but your putting the three latest photos back (they disappeared for a little while) prompted me to make the above comment. I'm one of the persons who are determined to just showcase a few photos here on PN and my recent three pics will stay really long. If you use the same grey as you're using on other pages on the Community Member page, that will make many people happy. See how <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3255660-sm.jpg">this</a> thumbnail of a photo with thick white frame look against a white background. It looks even more teeny-weeny and awkward when sitting side by side with another two photos.</p> <p>I admit I shouldn't have asked "if this is considered naughty". When I viewed the source codes to figure out how other members have changed their background etc, I was shocked to see the body tag there. Since I do this for a living, I certainly can't say this is not naughty. But I was amazed it actually works :o)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paula grenside Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Gotcha, Brian. It's the marquee then. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyo__ Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 If you're going to force everyone to use a standard font, how about choosing one specifically designed for online use, not print.<p> A quote taken from <a href="A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best?">The Utility News</a>:</p><p> Overall, Verdana was the most preferred font, while Times was the least preferred. Thus it seems that the Georgia and Times serif fonts are considered more attractive, but they are generally less preferred. Of the fonts studied, Verdana appears to be the best overall font choice. Besides being the most preferred, it was read fairly quickly and was perceived as being legible.</p><p> Since this is an online community this seems to make sense. Maybe if the bio pages were easier to read we'd have less people customizing them. Just a thought.</p><p>Onyo-</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Actually, the photo.net style does not specify a font at all in most situations. It defaults to whatever the visitor has as his/her browser default. If you like Verdana, you can have Verdana by picking it in your Browser preferences. If someone else likes Times New Roman, he can have it. When we do specify a font, we generally just specify "sans-serif" or "serif", and then the user's browser selection takes over. The site has a consistent font look because people don't generally change their browser fonts as they navigate around the site. But it might not look the same to you as it does to me. One reason for not allowing people to use the "font" tag is that we don't want them to change this policy and force a particular font face or font-size on viewers. (The other reason is that people use the font tag to make the fonts too big, or too small for some monitors or viewers, or red, or who knows what, and it looks dumb.) I haven't seen a single customized biography whose intent seemed to be to make the Community Member page "easier to read". By the way, Verdana is a Microsoft font and isn't available on most platforms other than Microsoft Windows. So if we specified Verdana, it would probably only be users of Internet Explorer who would see Verdana. Everybody else would see some random font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyo__ Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Brian, Thanks for the tip. I had no idea I could do that. I did have my font green at one point because my son goes to MSU, their colors are green and white, but I understand why you don't want to allow this.</p><p> I'm just as happy with changing the font in the brower. Onyo- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now