administrator

Indeed. If the iPad started to gain momentum (which I doubt BTW) along with the iPhone ... we could have trouble. Stefan

Good point, not really. Stefan

I'm not sure if we would .. how many of us use Fireworks? Stefan

Hi, Welcome to the forum. First, we have an image slicing tutorial that might help. ... After reading the tutorial, please come back to this thread with any questions you may have. Stefan

Well since they spread love across the Internet, shouldn't we support them too? Yes, and wasn't that what the whole web standards movement was fighting against? Creating new versions of websites for different browsers (hardware or software) can quickly become a nightmare. That said, there are plenty of frameworks out there that can change things on the fly for you ... problem is that they don't work so well at times. This yet ANOTHER example of why building static sites is old-school - you need to leverage the power of a CMS that can more easily have modules built-in, to reconfigure on the fly. Yes, cell phones have been doing there own thing for years. But the iPod and iPad are not cell phones ... they are partly sold as being viable tools for browsing the Web is a complete way - unlike tiny cell phones. Steve Jobs keeps repeating in his presentation: " ... the entire Internet in the palm of your hand." ... Not entirely complete. Stefan

I read the piece and I don't buy his arguments (they are academic and dogmatic - not reality based.) ... they are reminiscent of the the ones used by Microsoft and Netscape in the 1990's - all crap. I was there and had to deal first hand with divergent standards. From what I gather from his article, he thinks we should all just wait for HTML 5 video support to come out (how many years will that take?) or use Quicktime embeds. What nonsense! Quicktime has what ... 40% penetration? What do I do now with the other 60% who don't have QT? So now if I want to support iPhones and iPads I have to deliver media via Quicktime. And if I want to reach the majority of the Web, I have to use Flash. This sucks. The facts are simple: 1. Millions of web pages with Flash content will break in iPhones and iPads. 2. Like it or not Flash is ubiquitous. 3. Flash is controlled by Adobe but free to anyone to write code against. 4. Apple is doing this to try and control content distribution - IMHO. 5. HTML 5's video support is years away from being an option to use on commercial web sites. 6. Java was controlled by Sun for most of it's life and it didn't seem to have a major negative affect on developers. So now all our videos (which are delivered via Flash) will break on iPhones and iPods. Buddy who wrote that piece, failed to mention in all of Apple's purity, they do support Youtube video (via a special app) which BTW, uses Flash. Stefan

I am a big fan of Apple (I use them along with PC) but this is not a mistake - this a deliberate on their part to corner some aspect of the market. ... They don't allow Flash on the iPhone either. This might get bad, because all the accomplishments of the Web Standards movement could get hurt by this. Think about it, if iPhone and iPad capture a siginifant market share, and we want to display video in our pages ... we can't use Flash because Apple doesn't like it. ... So what do we use - Quicktime? Maybe, but the problem is: - Flash is superior for Web video and audio. - Quicktime may have a 40% penetration rate whereas Flash has 99%. It's IE vs Netscape all over again. Apple has the iPod, iPhone, iPad ...and now they are the iJerks. Stefan

Cool. I appreciate it. Stefan

@Testy Tim, I appreciate the ideas/suggestions and the kind remarks. I will definitely take it into consideration moving forward - we have a lot more to do with regards to the University. For instance, this is what is being worked on now: - videos series on MySQL. - video and article series on design principles and the web. - video series on advanced CSS and web design. - video series on Flash character animation. .... And that is just the beginning. Thanks again. Stefan

It is indeed. And strangely, I don't think anyone else has spotted this danger to the Web. This can potentially be really bad for web designers/developers who have multimedia content on their sites (which 99% of the time is Flash) if the iPad and iPhone really become significant. ... It's the browser wars all over again.

Well, start with the basics .. learn about variables, functions etc. And more importantly, start using PHP in your pages today! For instance, start using the very powerful PHP includes. What you will find is that the more PHP code you write, the easier it will be for your brain to understand it. It's really like jogging, where the first time you run a mile ... it practically kills you. But if you keep running every other day, you quickly find a mile run fairly easy. Stefan

[edited by me to keep politics out of it ... even if it's tongue-and-cheek.] Stefan

With iPad, Apple has started a new browser war! It seems that Apple wants to start a new 1990?s style browser war ? this really sucks! Instead of the war being centered around HTML and the DOM, Apple has decided to make it about rich media delivery ? Apple does not like Adobe Flash and they are not supporting it on iPad and iPhone. I wrote a quick article about the Apple iPad Flash war today. Stefan

Hi, Just curious, how many of you use twitter? Stefan

Ah ... I hear you. Javascript is cool but it should never be used for mission-critical applications because it can be easily defeated. With PHP, because it is a server side language, can be used with confidence regardless of the application. ... Each has their role to play. Stefan

I disagree, PHP is easy to learn with the right teacher. Stefan

OK, are you guys now running your own web server? If not .. don't do it, it is easier just to use a host. I ran my own server in office for years and I had to worry about: - crashes - software updates - power backup - backups - hardware failures ... Etc. Get a hosting account and all your problems are solved. They will have PHP, MySQL ready to go. And in the end, it will probably be much cheaper. Stefan

Man, I remember those days. What a nightmare the browser wars were! :mad: We had to write browser sniffing code to filter for IE4 or Netscrap. Stefan

Hi, Some of you might know that KillerSites.com was first founded (in 1995) to support the best selling book on web design: 'Creating Killer Web Sites' by David Siegel. Anyway, I wanted to post the book's cover as the first image in this forum, as a sort of homage ... I'm cheesy that way sometimes! The book:

I just reread the first post; if your server is an XP box, then you must be running a limited version of IIS (if it is IIS) ... I think it can handle only 5 simultaneous request ... it is not designed for real use, just for testing. Unless you have some IIS specific stuff you are doing, you might be better off just replacing it with a Wamp install ... wamp just installs and configures Apache, PHP and MySQL for you. Stefan

Ah ... the answer is maybe. If you already have a web server going on the network, and then trying to run another (wamp will try to run Apache) ... this will cause a conflict because both web servers will be trying to use port 80 - the default web server port. So, if you already have another web server, you can just get wamp going on another port (say 8080) .. the problem is that then everyone would have to manually append that port number to the URL. So for instance, if your server was running on the following internal IP: 127.0.0.5, you would have to have people use the following: 127.0.0.5:8080 ... and then the Wamp installed Apache would respond. That said, all this is not really required 99% of the time; just install PHP in your current web server and then you can run your CMS there. ... I am making A LOT of assumptions here, so my suggestions may not apply. For instance, I am assuming: 1. you are already running a Windows based web server - IIS 2. you are running this server for an intranet only. 3. your web server doesn't have php installed. Stefan

I am not sure what you mean by that question? Stefan

It would probably (I'm being polite) be much better! If your guy was using Frontpage to create things, I have a feeling that the quality of the work is probably less than perfect. Anyway, don't forget the first three rules of programming: 1. Reuse 2. Reuse 3. Reuse .. Never, build anything from scratch unless you are doing something truly unique - this is rare. I've been at web design and programming for 15 years and through that time, I've noticed that the more experienced the programmer, the less likely they would try to write code from scratch. Only greenhorn junior's are that arrogant. To use a CMS? Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla and any other established CMS' will be a much better because there has been thousands of man hours already put into these things. This means: 1. They all have lots of refined capability. 2. They probably will have far more solid (less buggy) code than anything you could build. The trick to modern web programming and design, is to leverage what is out there. Stefan

I've heard different things lately about meta data ... some have said that Google does look at it a little. :/ ... Only Google really knows for sure. Since meta data can be used to cheat, there will never be that much weight put into meta information. I think thought, the description meta data can be used for display in the engine results - at least this is what I've seen in the past. As others have said, the key is in page titles and page content. Stefan

Does this database need to operate on the Web, or is this something you want for your own record keeping? ... When need more details as to what you need to do specifically? Stefan