Author Topic: Please help me understand this source code (Read 2566 times)

kimmer · « **on:** September 25, 2007, 08:00:14 PM »

Web site in question

Okay, I have some friends who are crazy nuts over this actor.

They are frustrated because they can't get this latest edition of his web page to load. Some can see the image, some can't, some can see the image the first time but not on subsequent vists. They asked me for help.

I can get the background to load in FF, but not the graphic.
I can get the entire page to load in Safari.
I can't "save image" to get them the graphic (don't ask me, they have scrapbooks of his stuff on their HD's - go figure).

I finally looked at the source code and literally wound up

.

I was able to dig around enough to find the disappearing graphic, and was shocked to discover the dang thing is 737x1303 and 748KB -- which the browser has to reduce to 488x868! It's just a PNG (or is it a gif?), so I guess the reason it "disappears" is the page code?

Anyhow, the page source is most mystifying and I'd like to get a small grasp on what was done.

It starts out:

CODE

and then there are miles and miles of what look to be comments and styles?

Anyhow, if anyone has time and understands this and is willing to teach me in real plain English what is going on, I'd appreciate it.

Paddy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 25, 2007, 11:33:45 PM »

Kimmer, that site is a complete mess. From what I can find, it would appear that MS Word may have been the culprit in creating the wonky doctype and all the rest of the nasty, nasty code. It doesn't validate, that's for sure! In FF, all I see are the two links on the page and the purple background. Word is probably one of THE worst apps to use to create a web site - it's a little like editing a picture in KidPix or writing an essay in Excel. I wouldn't waste any time in trying to figure out the code that Word generates - it's utterly pointless. Use the time to write dear Keith an email and suggest that he find himself a competent web site designer!

I've seen bad, but that site takes the cake!!

chriskleeman · « **Reply #2 on:** September 26, 2007, 01:41:36 AM »

Thank God, a site worse than mine!!!

Chris K

zampom · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2007, 04:34:58 AM »

QUOTE(kimmer @ Sep 25 2007, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Web site in question

Okay, I have some friends who are crazy nuts over this actor.

They are frustrated because they can't get this latest edition of his web page to load. Some can see the image, some can't, some can see the image the first time but not on subsequent vists. They asked me for help.

I can get the background to load in FF, but not the graphic.
I can get the entire page to load in Safari.
I can't "save image" to get them the graphic (don't ask me, they have scrapbooks of his stuff on their HD's - go figure).

Kimmer -

There is not a day that goes by that I am not sending an email to the contact persons of Web site to "beg" that they make their site(s) universally accessible. That's besides the point ....! If it is just the graphic you want for your friend's scrapbook, you can always load (so to speak) the page in Firefox and then, right (ctl) click and, instead of choosing "view page source," choose "view page info." When this window loads, go to the media tab and you will find the direct link to the graphic you seek (image003.gif). Select it, then you can use the "save as" button to download it to your computer. Or, you can just go directly to the graphic in your browser window using THIS LINK.

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #4 on:** September 26, 2007, 09:36:20 AM »

Makes one wonder why anyone would attempt to build something for use in a non-platform specific media (the Internet) in such a platform specific manner.

It's like building a car that uses metal tires! Paper that disintegrates when exposed to light! Sinks that are water soluble!

Where do these people live? How did they get hold of a computer? And why are they allowed to continue using it?!

90% of the 'code' is designed to see what form of Windows the user has. And if it's not Windows, it just doesn't work. Even some of the font choices will not be seen by many Windows users! Almost all the CSS uses Windows only declarations. And then includes even more "style" definitions in every line of html.

Displaying a large image by specifying smaller dimensions is a waste of the viewers bandwidth. Why not edit the image to the correct size to begin with. But including the dimensions allows the browser to set aside the needed space in the view port ahead of displaying it.

But I doubt that writing to the "designer" will have much effect. IMHO, if he wanted to make a usable page the only thing stopping him is laziness.

kimmer · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2007, 12:07:07 PM »

Thanks, folks. I found the graphic - 2 versions of no less, so that's covered and my pals are happy.

QUOTE(Paddy @ Sep 25 2007, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kimmer, that site is a complete mess. From what I can find, it would appear that MS Word may have been the culprit in creating the wonky doctype and all the rest of the nasty, nasty code.

Complete mess - yeah, them's the words.

M$Word - okay, that explains a LOT! My understanding is that the actor himself likely created the web page.

QUOTE

I've seen bad, but that site takes the cake!!

I've been trying to figure out how to use this as an example when I teach that little class.

QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Sep 25 2007, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank God, a site worse than mine!!!

LOL! Poor Chris.

QUOTE(zampom @ Sep 26 2007, 02:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is not a day that goes by that I am not sending an email to the contact persons of Web site to "beg" that they make their site(s) universally accessible. That's besides the point ....!

Can't write to this person. Can't explain - or maybe I can. He has email blocked because too many fans write, or try to, and so ... no email until he gets a web person.

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Sep 26 2007, 07:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes one wonder why anyone would attempt to build something for use in a non-platform specific media (the Internet) in such a platform specific manner.

It's like building a car that uses metal tires! Paper that disintegrates when exposed to light! Sinks that are water soluble!

I agree with all you said, except the laziness. I think it's a matter of not knowing and trying to get by. It is annoying to see this kind of stuff on the web.

I may not know a lot about web design, but I can do the basics: I know how to build a page that validates; I know better than to use fonts that others don't have, and I know to adjust my graphics and all that stuff. Maybe it is laziness -- anyone can take a quicky online course and get the rudimentary information.

Thanks, everyone, for the help.

Paddy · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2007, 02:53:34 PM »

Lots of people make the mistake of believing that if MS Word has a way of creating HTML, then MS Word must be an ok way of creating web content. It's a complete lack of knowledge on the part of the user, plus he'd never see the code unless he looked at the source in a browser, and no doubt wouldn't know what he was looking at even if he did see it! There are ways to create a reasonably standards-compliant, straightforward web site with no real knowledge of HTML. Using MS Word ain't one of 'em.

tacit · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2007, 04:22:58 PM »

QUOTE(kimmer @ Sep 26 2007, 01:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Web site in question

Okay, I have some friends who are crazy nuts over this actor.

They are frustrated because they can't get this latest edition of his web page to load. Some can see the image, some can't, some can see the image the first time but not on subsequent vists. They asked me for help.

I can get the background to load in FF, but not the graphic.
I can get the entire page to load in Safari.
I can't "save image" to get them the graphic (don't ask me, they have scrapbooks of his stuff on their HD's - go figure).

I finally looked at the source code and literally wound up

.

This is the HTML source code generated by Microsoft Word.

Word can save a file as HTML, but it does this in a brute-force way. First, it embeds every single Microsoft style sheet for every possible text style that Word understands, even if those text styles aren't in use; then, it writes (hopelessly broken) HTML for the contents of the Word file. The result is such a mess that, as you discovered, it won't render in many browsers.

kimmer · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2007, 06:17:04 PM »

QUOTE(Paddy @ Sep 26 2007, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are ways to create a reasonably standards-compliant, straightforward web site with no real knowledge of HTML. Using MS Word ain't one of 'em.

ROFL! Yeah. I just had someone drop me a note and tell me the page did too validate. She said she ran it through Dreamweaver and it was fine. HUH?

QUOTE(tacit @ Sep 26 2007, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The result is such a mess that, as you discovered, it won't render in many browsers.

Yeah, it's a mess alright. But I'm learning from his goofy mistakes. So I guess that's a good thing.

News:

Author Topic: Please help me understand this source code (Read 2566 times)