website builders' newsgroup

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:13:58 +0200, Martin wrote:


But the website *does* work with Firefox. Chrome and Opera don't work
with it; Firefox does. So use Firefox.

You are joking aren't you?

The only browser it works with is Firefox, the slowest and most
bloated available.

I used to use Opera, until one day an upgrade refused to work with my
bank's website (and a few others apparently), so I tried Firefox and
it worked, so for a while I used Firefox just for one website. I would
have gone back to Opera once they'd sorted whatever the problem was,
but I got tired of waiting and changed over to using Firefox for
everything. It works, so I'm happy. Life's too short to worry about
it.

Rod.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:03:39 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

For much the same reasons Banks and Building Societies play games like
dropping the interest rates on existing accounts after a while - yet
offerring higher rates on 'new' accounts which otherwise are similar in all
but name.

They are still doing the former quite actively, but there doesn't seem
to be much of the latter any more. To take just one personal example,
2.3% has become 1.8% and will become 1.3% in a few weeks' time. All that
in just over 9 months, and the provider has nothing better to offer.
It's virtually not worth all the admin. hassle to bother at all.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I would
have gone back to Opera once they'd sorted whatever the problem was

I know this is of no use to you, but Opera 12.15 works fine with
Yorkshire Bank online.

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Which may not be what each reader wants... So it varies depending on
who "you" may mean. :-)

Yes, absolutely. And different readers might want different things.
To me, all that matters is that you give due consideration to your own
wants/needs *and* those of your readers. Then decide what you want to
do. For some website owners, page layout is very important, whereas
for others they are happy to let things reflow. Neither is wrong.

--
SteveT

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:45:05 -0500, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Which may not be what each reader wants... So it varies depending on
who "you" may mean. :-)

Yes, absolutely. And different readers might want different things.

Exactly. This is correct. However this ...

For some website owners, page layout is very important, whereas
for others they are happy to let things reflow. Neither is wrong.

is in direct contradiction to the above, and is wrong. Remembering
this by way of illustration ...

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:33:09 -0500, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

Also, your home page doesn't wrap to fit the available browser window
width:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/ST2.jpg

No, that's deliberate, actually. Whether or not that's a good design
decision I don't really know - I'm certainly lacking in any talent when
it comes to visual design.

Your page that you 'just knocked up', or some such expression, being
done within the last week or so, has no excuse for not looking good on
a mobile phone, but this is what it comes up like on mine:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Thackery-net.png

Note the fact that the pictures down the left-hand-side don't really
convey anything to anyone with aging sight - I would need my glasses
to make them out, but almost certainly wouldn't bother to find and don
them just to see what they are about.

Note also the acres of blank screen-space, particularly the strip down
the right-hand-side, which is especially irritating, because if the
page was expanded slightly to fill it, it might be more readable
without needing glasses. Indeed, if you had the same content flow
properly, so that there was less blank space, it should be possible to
make it entirely readable on a mobile even to someone who would
otherwise have to go and find their glasses.

By contrast pages that I wrote several years ago, to be viewed on a PC
in the days when mobile phones were firmly in the WAP era, naturally
manage to fill the available screen-width on a mobile without any
special modification.

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Macfh-co-uk.png

Now you may think that it's not really a fair comparison because my
page doesn't contain any pictures. However, it does contain
chord-charts in the form of tables, each of which, like a picture, has
to be treated as a single block, so I think the comparison is fair -
and, BTW, I thought long and hard about actually making them pictures
in the first place, but decided that this way was almost as good as a
picture in terms of instructional value, looked as good, and was a lot
quicker to produce.

Further, the page as a whole is somewhat like a table, each of which's
rows has a left column of text, and one or two right columns of chord
charts. Yet, even on a mobile, this structure is preserved.

But further, to be fair, it also isn't really readable without
glasses. If only the mobile browser programmer would think to enlarge
the font size as well, I probably wouldn't have to convert for mobile
use more than two or three of the hundred or so pages on my site. As
it is, I'm hoping that when I get around to it, a simple CSS fix will
take care of the vast majority of them.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

do. For some website owners, page layout is very important, whereas
for others they are happy to let things reflow. Neither is wrong.

Only the style sheet should determine this. If the users turns off the
style sheet (as I have to do on at least one site that can't tolerate a
slightly aged Firefox) the page should still look good and reflow. If
it doesn't it may use the HTML vocabulary, but it is not HTML.

(The latest annoyance, when doing this, is sites that include the whole
site map on every page, before any useful content.)

Jim Lesurf wrote:


That presumably uses something akin to a one time pad to garble the entered
value into one that changes 'unpredictably' in a sequence pattern the bank
can verify. How close it comes to that ideal, I have no idea. Such things
may be made simply to be "good enough to keep the customer happy to go on
using it".


I presume they work the same as the two part verification devices used
by pretty much everyone that uses two component verification, except
HSBC, in the UK. As far as I know, the device is just a terminal for
the card. It will certainly be the case that the card validates the PIN
entirely on its own. I think it probably does the rest, which for the
simple identify mode is basically to send a serial number and an
encrypted value, presumably derived from the serial number.

I guess the Dutch ones could actually take a challenge value from the
central system, rather than a sequence number, but they will only work
with devices with a USB port and the appropriate driver software.

I believe the HSBC ones work like the secureID (TM) devices often used
to log into company computer systems remotely, i.e. they generate a
sequence of cryptographically strong, pseudo random numbers, based on
the time.

Java Jive wrote:


For some website owners, page layout is very important, whereas
for others they are happy to let things reflow. Neither is wrong.

is in direct contradiction to the above, and is wrong.

Now I'm confused. The web page is one I designed, and I decided I
didn't want it to reflow. How can that be wrong? Recently I decided
to paint my garage door white, rather than the original beige. How can
that be wrong? It's just a choice - my choice. Some users of my web
page may wish it reflowed, but I don't want it to, so it's tough on
them. Same with my choice of garage door colour - if my neighbour
doesn't like it, do I care? Nope.

Your page that you 'just knocked up', or some such expression, being
done within the last week or so, has no excuse for not looking good on
a mobile phone, but this is what it comes up like on mine:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Thackery-net.png

I find this quite amusing (but no offence intended). For that
particular page, I have absolutely no interest at all in how it looks
on a mobile phone. Really! I don't care. It never even crossed my
mind when I was putting it together.

It was just a bit of fun to play around with WYSIWYG Web Builder,
producing a "place holder" page for my domain with a contact form on
it. I've already said in this topic that I have absolutely no
experience of producing pages or sites for mobile devices, and I am
obviously keen to extend my skills in this area.

But honestly, JJ, you have nothing to prove because I, also, have
nothing to prove with that site (except to show that it generates zero
errors when validated, which was the original point of it).

FWIW I would never claim that the page in question is well designed,
pleasing, or anything else. Feel free to pull it to bits, but you are
preaching to the converted here. :-)



--
SteveT

In message , Steve Thackery
writes
Java Jive wrote:


For some website owners, page layout is very important, whereas
for others they are happy to let things reflow. Neither is wrong.

is in direct contradiction to the above, and is wrong.

Now I'm confused. The web page is one I designed, and I decided I
didn't want it to reflow. How can that be wrong? Recently I decided
to paint my garage door white, rather than the original beige. How can
that be wrong? It's just a choice - my choice. Some users of my web
page may wish it reflowed, but I don't want it to, so it's tough on
them. Same with my choice of garage door colour - if my neighbour
doesn't like it, do I care? Nope.

Your page that you 'just knocked up', or some such expression, being
done within the last week or so, has no excuse for not looking good on
a mobile phone, but this is what it comes up like on mine:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Thackery-net.png

I find this quite amusing (but no offence intended). For that
particular page, I have absolutely no interest at all in how it looks
on a mobile phone. Really! I don't care. It never even crossed my
mind when I was putting it together.

It was just a bit of fun to play around with WYSIWYG Web Builder,
producing a "place holder" page for my domain with a contact form on
it. I've already said in this topic that I have absolutely no
experience of producing pages or sites for mobile devices, and I am
obviously keen to extend my skills in this area.

But honestly, JJ, you have nothing to prove because I, also, have
nothing to prove with that site (except to show that it generates zero
errors when validated, which was the original point of it).

FWIW I would never claim that the page in question is well designed,
pleasing, or anything else. Feel free to pull it to bits, but you are
preaching to the converted here. :-)



That page looks better if your phone is turned sideways, to widescreen.
--
Ian

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:59:17 +0100, David Woolley
wrote in :

I presume they work the same as the two part verification devices used
by pretty much everyone that uses two component verification, except
HSBC, in the UK. As far as I know, the device is just a terminal for
the card. It will certainly be the case that the card validates the PIN
entirely on its own. I think it probably does the rest, which for the
simple identify mode is basically to send a serial number and an
encrypted value, presumably derived from the serial number.

The device issued by Nationwide (and the device issued by Coop looks the
same except for the branding) requires the card to be inserted and the
correct pin entered but then offers a number of functions of which one
is to display an 8 digit number to be entered essentially as a password
to match the already selected card. Given various security notices I
have seen, I believe that the numer is some cryptographically strong
hash of device identity, card number and time. (Fraudsters will try to
make you resynchronise the device - never do that!)


I guess the Dutch ones could actually take a challenge value from the
central system, rather than a sequence number, but they will only work
with devices with a USB port and the appropriate driver software.

Another mode asks you to enter a serial number for the transaction and
the value (in pence) into the device using the keypad and it then
displays a number that is (I hope!) a cryptographically strong response
to that challenge - an 8 digit hash of card, device, transction number
and value. No need to connect the device to the computer (but it would
be able to use longer numbers and a more complex protocol if you did).


I believe the HSBC ones work like the secureID (TM) devices often used
to log into company computer systems remotely, i.e. they generate a
sequence of cryptographically strong, pseudo random numbers, based on
the time.

Unfortunately the root key of the RSA SecureID system was compromised if
I remember right - all devices had to be recalled. I now have a
different device that displays an 8 digit number when you press a button
rather than the 6 digit number that changes every (IIRC) minute of the
SecureID device. In a previous job I had a smartcard that was inserted
into the smartcard reader of a laptop to do the authentication to the
company VPN - you have to trust the security of the laptop keyboard and
display for that sort of device.