No new logos?
category: general [glöplog]
makc: don't get me wrong though, IE or Mozilla I really don't care. I just think it's too bad some people don't have their logo displayed properly because of some browser zealotry ;) (blablabla sux blablabla rulez)
Trying to have fully compatible logos is still the best option imo, especially if they don't need transparency or 32 bits.
Gargaj: indeed it's still better to miss the trumped using a blue background for the logo than having a fucked up transparency with a white background :)
A lot of old logos do that and one can barely notice it.
Trying to have fully compatible logos is still the best option imo, especially if they don't need transparency or 32 bits.
Gargaj: indeed it's still better to miss the trumped using a blue background for the logo than having a fucked up transparency with a white background :)
A lot of old logos do that and one can barely notice it.
my point is that you can have fucked up transparency with BLUE background and be perfectly ok with it since with IE its hardly noticable and with FF/Opera everything is peachy :)
gargaj, you really should try using CAB on a standard config falcon for some weeks before you ridiculize my choice in this respect any further...
using myIE2/maxthon falls under IE in the stats.. it rox :P
Quote:
Please get some c\~/. The png graphics standard is about 10 years old, there's no reason why IE shouldn't display it correctly. There shouldn't be a reason why _demosceners_ shouldn't use given features.Gargaj: indeed it's still better to miss the trumped using a blue background for the logo than having a fucked up transparency with a white background :)
havoc: oh yeah? NETSCAPE 4.22 FOR MACOSX 8!!!! top that!
MadenMann: your post is typically what my post was all about: narrow-minded technology zealots arguing about implementations and browser wars instead of trying to find compromises to have a nice layout for pouet.
42% of pouet visitors use IE, we are not here to judge them or their choices, we are here to provide them with a good looking website. As a gloperator you should understand this very basic thing instead of throwing all that nerdish shit here...
42% of pouet visitors use IE, we are not here to judge them or their choices, we are here to provide them with a good looking website. As a gloperator you should understand this very basic thing instead of throwing all that nerdish shit here...
gargaj, "MACOSX 8"..? :)
anyhow, Netscape4 vs. CAB is like Fiat Panda vs. a bicycle... --> both options suck hard, but the choice is still easy.
anyhow, Netscape4 vs. CAB is like Fiat Panda vs. a bicycle... --> both options suck hard, but the choice is still easy.
havoc: i weep for irony lost :D but i assume at least CAB was at least stable?
gargaj, the thing with CAB is, it tends to crash users before it finds the time to crash itself. it's the "tea and biscuits while the game is loading from tape" from the 8bit era all over again... but worse, since you do not get to play a cool game after teatime ;(
makc: having the script as an option in the cookie could be an idea...
keops: i agree with you.
gargaj: nice idea (pouet-blue instead of white can effectively work very well) uff...
keops: i agree with you.
gargaj: nice idea (pouet-blue instead of white can effectively work very well) uff...
broderick: *no* we won't put any dirty IE-only JS crap ou pouet only to fix it, even as an option. In 2006, MS will release IE7 which will fix the PNG problem, until then, deal with it. Pouet isn't a win32 application, it's a website trying to stick to standards.
Logos makers have the choice to use what they want, but if they want their logo to be displayed, they should please the larger crowd, it's up to them.
256 colors should be enough for anyone!
Logos makers have the choice to use what they want, but if they want their logo to be displayed, they should please the larger crowd, it's up to them.
256 colors should be enough for anyone!
No js crap, that's plainly right (as I've said I fully agree with last keops' post).
broderick: setting a flag in the cookie would make even more js mess then :)
keops: no, i don't get you wrong. finally yes, the better option now is probably having the blue backgrounds. I suppose there won't be a flood of png-with-alpha logos until the problem is fixed in the browser :D
keops: no, i don't get you wrong. finally yes, the better option now is probably having the blue backgrounds. I suppose there won't be a flood of png-with-alpha logos until the problem is fixed in the browser :D
i wonder if the png alpha problem in ie is just a bug or an intentional feature...
Stop arguing and make more logos, damnit!
i can't
i have no clue with ART!
i have no clue with ART!
rmeht: Considering the spec has been out there since dinosaurs roamed the earth, it's pretty easy to put on a tinfoil hat and start screaming obscene things about some guy named Bill.
Who cares, as long as they finally fix it in IE7 :)
Who cares, as long as they finally fix it in IE7 :)
Elend: please fix your logo. kthx dude.
This SX64 logo is really awesome !
MadenMann: Yeah, I'll upload a better version soon. :( I am so lame.
200 image height is a bitt small for my logo, tho :(
200 image height is a bitt small for my logo, tho :(
Quote:
200 image height is a bitt small for my logo, tho :(
It's already too big for me, but because of some really cool old logos, I went from 150px to 200px.
Who comes to pouet to see some logo ? Nobody, it shouldn't waste too much space, it's just an optional enhancement.
I really suggest logomakers to work on wide small logos.
Yeah, stop arguing about standards and make some logos that will look nice already :)
Broderick's logo is much better with a blue background, did you change it Analogue?
Broderick's logo is much better with a blue background, did you change it Analogue?
legos <3
Quote:
200 image height is a bitt small for my logo, tho :)
Who are you to talk. I just had a 1600x1400 work (improperly) rescaled to 128x110.