The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site. 
Author Message
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

To all New or Existing QBasic Programmers.

If you are new to the Basic programming language, may I interest you in
taking a look at my web site called "The Beginners Basic Homepage".  On this
site you will find full Tutorials, FAQ's, Source Code, Downloads etc.  I
have a interesting Feature's area which is updated every month.

http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~basic/index.htm

On my web site you will also find the ZDNet 5 Star rated "The Beginners
Basic Helpfile v2.1" which is a complete offline version of the tutorials
available on the web site.

If you have any comments about the Web Site, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Kind Regards

Steven Salmon - Author



Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

On Thu, 7 May 1998 12:29:52 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

Quote:

>To all New or Existing QBasic Programmers.

...snip...

Quote:
>If you have any comments about the Web Site, please do not hesitate to
>contact me.

Uhm... like... now? <g>

Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.

How many more 3-frame homepages will be spewed onto the web before
someone says "Hey, this is OLD!" Personally, I would pay good money to
see the original inventor of the banner/index/content-frame design
given a sound thrashing. What a pestilence.

One point of contention is the very bad habit of trapping linked
webpages within the content-frame. I hate that. Everyone I know hates
that. So why does everybody do it? What sort of knuckle-head forces
you to visit a linked website within his content-frame? Unfortunately,
that is precisely what happened when I visited your website, Steve.

Okay, your homepage contained relevant material. That's good. Your
homepage used the banner/index/content-frame design. That's bad. None
of the frames were resizable. That is VERY bad. You allowed scroll
bars in the index and content frames. That is good. You forced me to
view linked websites within your content-frame. That is VERY, VERY
bad. And so on and so forth...

Oh, and I would like to commend you for soliciting criticism. Good
man. Stout fellow and all that. <g>

C'ya,
RudeJohn
"I'm rude. It's a job."



Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

Hello John.

Thank you for your comments about my Web Site, as snipped below I will try
and answer your questions:

Quote:
>Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
>I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.

I have tested the Web Site on my monitor at 640x480 and it seemed to be a
little crammed I'll agree.  However if you continue to use this low
resolution you will be left behind.  If everybody carried on creating web
site's which suit such a low resolution, nobody would progress on developing
web site's.

Quote:
>How many more 3-frame homepages will be spewed onto the web before
>someone says "Hey, this is OLD!" Personally, I would pay good money to
>see the original inventor of the banner/index/content-frame design
>given a sound thrashing. What a pestilence.

This does not apply to everybody because 3 frame web site's look the best
under the platform it was written in.  You are not included because you are
running a resolution which looks truly awful on the internet.  Don't you
agree?

Quote:
>One point of contention is the very bad habit of trapping linked
>webpages within the content-frame. I hate that. Everyone I know hates
>that. So why does everybody do it? What sort of knuckle-head forces
>you to visit a linked website within his content-frame? Unfortunately,
>that is precisely what happened when I visited your website, Steve.

Ok, this is something which I never tested but as it is a problem it can be
easily changed.  Nobody has told me that this is a problem so I will change
it.  All you need to do is change the target to = _new.  I am not a Web Site
designer,  I am a computer programmer.

Quote:
>Okay, your homepage contained relevant material. That's good. Your
>homepage used the banner/index/content-frame design. That's bad. None
>of the frames were resizable. That is VERY bad. You allowed scroll
>bars in the index and content frames. That is good. You forced me to
>view linked websites within your content-frame. That is VERY, VERY
>bad. And so on and so forth...

As mentioned before your resolution is too low.  My web site has been
designed
under 1024x768.  It looks find under 800x600 and 1280x1024.  What more can I
say.  Does anybody else have a problem with this?  The URL is:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~basic/index.htm

Thanks

Steven Salmon

Quote:

>On Thu, 7 May 1998 12:29:52 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

>>To all New or Existing QBasic Programmers.

>...snip...

>>If you have any comments about the Web Site, please do not hesitate to
>>contact me.

>Uhm... like... now? <g>

>Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
>I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.

>How many more 3-frame homepages will be spewed onto the web before
>someone says "Hey, this is OLD!" Personally, I would pay good money to
>see the original inventor of the banner/index/content-frame design
>given a sound thrashing. What a pestilence.

>One point of contention is the very bad habit of trapping linked
>webpages within the content-frame. I hate that. Everyone I know hates
>that. So why does everybody do it? What sort of knuckle-head forces
>you to visit a linked website within his content-frame? Unfortunately,
>that is precisely what happened when I visited your website, Steve.

>Okay, your homepage contained relevant material. That's good. Your
>homepage used the banner/index/content-frame design. That's bad. None
>of the frames were resizable. That is VERY bad. You allowed scroll
>bars in the index and content frames. That is good. You forced me to
>view linked websites within your content-frame. That is VERY, VERY
>bad. And so on and so forth...

>Oh, and I would like to commend you for soliciting criticism. Good
>man. Stout fellow and all that. <g>

>C'ya,
>RudeJohn
>"I'm rude. It's a job."



Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.


<snip>

Quote:
>>Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
>>I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.
>I have tested the Web Site on my monitor at 640x480 and it seemed to be a
>little crammed I'll agree.  However if you continue to use this low
>resolution you will be left behind.  If everybody carried on creating web
>site's which suit such a low resolution, nobody would progress on
>developing web site's.

Hmmmm, so all us DOS 80x25 text mode fanatics have been left
in the computing stone age then ;-)

Almost every VGA system can handle 640x480 but not all support
800x600, I would guess that you're alienating a lot of people who are
unable or unwilling to use higher resolutions.

What, exactly, has resolution got to do with creating a good web
site, I've seen plenty of {*filter*}sites that were obviously designed in
800x600 or above, they used too many different font sizes and
styles, pointless and massive graphics, lousy layout, confusing
links etc.

<snip>

Quote:
>As mentioned before your resolution is too low.  My web site has
>been designed under 1024x768.  It looks find under 800x600 and
>1280x1024.  What more can I say.  Does anybody else have a
>problem with this?  

I personally find it a PITB to scroll horizontally or read small fonts
especially when using a laptop. Bigger is not always better as
there's only so much information that a user can take in.

TTfn,

Craig___



Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

Quote:



> <snip>
> >>Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
> >>I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.
> >I have tested the Web Site on my monitor at 640x480 and it seemed to be a
> >little crammed I'll agree.  However if you continue to use this low
> >resolution you will be left behind.  If everybody carried on creating web
> >site's which suit such a low resolution, nobody would progress on
> >developing web site's.

> Hmmmm, so all us DOS 80x25 text mode fanatics have been left
> in the computing stone age then ;-)

> Almost every VGA system can handle 640x480 but not all support
> 800x600, I would guess that you're alienating a lot of people who are
> unable or unwilling to use higher resolutions.

> What, exactly, has resolution got to do with creating a good web
> site, I've seen plenty of {*filter*}sites that were obviously designed in
> 800x600 or above, they used too many different font sizes and
> styles, pointless and massive graphics, lousy layout, confusing
> links etc.

> <snip>
> >As mentioned before your resolution is too low.  My web site has
> >been designed under 1024x768.  It looks find under 800x600 and
> >1280x1024.  What more can I say.  Does anybody else have a
> >problem with this?

> I personally find it a PITB to scroll horizontally or read small fonts
> especially when using a laptop. Bigger is not always better as
> there's only so much information that a user can take in.

> TTfn,

> Craig___

Have to agree with Craig on the horizontal and small font stuff. It's
like "If there was only 2 more MM of space, I wouldn't need this bar".
Most distracting. Didn't have a problem with the view though, in fact it
looked good (frames excepted).

Frank



Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

On Fri, 8 May 1998 12:25:48 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

...snip...

Quote:
>I have tested the Web Site on my monitor at 640x480 and it seemed to be a
>little crammed I'll agree.  However if you continue to use this low
>resolution you will be left behind.  If everybody carried on creating web
>site's which suit such a low resolution, nobody would progress on developing
>web site's.

Sorry Steve, have to disagree. Big surprise, eh?

Frankly, I don't follow your logic. Bigger webpages are not
necessarily better webpages. Hypertext is about quality, not quantity.
Last time I looked, laptops don't come with a 21-inch screen. When
print shrinks below 1/8 of an inch, it's just too small for me to read
comfortably.  

...snip...

Quote:
>This does not apply to everybody because 3 frame web site's look the best
>under the platform it was written in.  You are not included because you are
>running a resolution which looks truly awful on the internet.  Don't you
>agree?

With what? That, in your opinion, antiquated 3-frame websites are
cutting-edge technology? I think they've been made obsolete by their
own obtrusiveness and _lack_ of functionality. They interfere with a
website's content rather than enhancing it. But that's just my
opinion. <shrug> Funny thing is, I think you might find that when
frames swept the web (I curse the day!), 640x480 was hardly considered
"truly awful." IMHO, the typical laptop screen is too small to support
anything much more cramped than 640x480. Unless you _enjoy_ squinting.

...snip...

Quote:
>Ok, this is something which I never tested but as it is a problem it can be
>easily changed.  Nobody has told me that this is a problem so I will change
>it.  All you need to do is change the target to = _new.  I am not a Web Site
>designer,  I am a computer programmer.

Obviously. <g>

...snip...

Quote:
>As mentioned before your resolution is too low.  My web site has been
>designed
>under 1024x768.  It looks find under 800x600 and 1280x1024.  What more can I
>say.

My resolution is just fine where it is, thanks.

C'ya,
RudeJohn
"I'm rude. It's a job."



Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

What I am trying to state is that if everybody continued to write Web Site's
targetted at users who are using 640x480, nothing would progress.  If you
did this, somebody would come along with a huge 1024x768 and it would look
awful(if you used frames).  You have to balance it out and and target
yourself for the minimum, where is my case is 800x600 - 1024 x 768.  What is
wrong with that?  If my HTML is not good then that's ok, you have to start
somewhere.

Quote:

>On Fri, 8 May 1998 12:25:48 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

>...snip...

>>I have tested the Web Site on my monitor at 640x480 and it seemed to be a
>>little crammed I'll agree.  However if you continue to use this low
>>resolution you will be left behind.  If everybody carried on creating web
>>site's which suit such a low resolution, nobody would progress on
developing
>>web site's.

>Sorry Steve, have to disagree. Big surprise, eh?

>Frankly, I don't follow your logic. Bigger webpages are not
>necessarily better webpages. Hypertext is about quality, not quantity.
>Last time I looked, laptops don't come with a 21-inch screen. When
>print shrinks below 1/8 of an inch, it's just too small for me to read
>comfortably.

>...snip...

>>This does not apply to everybody because 3 frame web site's look the best
>>under the platform it was written in.  You are not included because you
are
>>running a resolution which looks truly awful on the internet.  Don't you
>>agree?

>With what? That, in your opinion, antiquated 3-frame websites are
>cutting-edge technology? I think they've been made obsolete by their
>own obtrusiveness and _lack_ of functionality. They interfere with a
>website's content rather than enhancing it. But that's just my
>opinion. <shrug> Funny thing is, I think you might find that when
>frames swept the web (I curse the day!), 640x480 was hardly considered
>"truly awful." IMHO, the typical laptop screen is too small to support
>anything much more cramped than 640x480. Unless you _enjoy_ squinting.

>...snip...

>>Ok, this is something which I never tested but as it is a problem it can
be
>>easily changed.  Nobody has told me that this is a problem so I will
change
>>it.  All you need to do is change the target to = _new.  I am not a Web
Site
>>designer,  I am a computer programmer.

>Obviously. <g>

>...snip...

>>As mentioned before your resolution is too low.  My web site has been
>>designed
>>under 1024x768.  It looks find under 800x600 and 1280x1024.  What more can
I
>>say.

>My resolution is just fine where it is, thanks.

>C'ya,
>RudeJohn
>"I'm rude. It's a job."



Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
newsgroup.

Quote:

> On Thu, 7 May 1998 12:29:52 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

> >To all New or Existing QBasic Programmers.

> ...snip...

> >If you have any comments about the Web Site, please do not hesitate to
> >contact me.

> Uhm... like... now? <g>

> Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
> I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.

> How many more 3-frame homepages will be spewed onto the web before
> someone says "Hey, this is OLD!" Personally, I would pay good money to
> see the original inventor of the banner/index/content-frame design
> given a sound thrashing. What a pestilence.

> One point of contention is the very bad habit of trapping linked
> webpages within the content-frame. I hate that. Everyone I know hates
> that. So why does everybody do it? What sort of knuckle-head forces
> you to visit a linked website within his content-frame? Unfortunately,
> that is precisely what happened when I visited your website, Steve.

> Okay, your homepage contained relevant material. That's good. Your
> homepage used the banner/index/content-frame design. That's bad. None
> of the frames were resizable. That is VERY bad. You allowed scroll
> bars in the index and content frames. That is good. You forced me to
> view linked websites within your content-frame. That is VERY, VERY
> bad. And so on and so forth...

> Oh, and I would like to commend you for soliciting criticism. Good
> man. Stout fellow and all that. <g>

> C'ya,
> RudeJohn
> "I'm rude. It's a job."



Sat, 28 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

Quote:
> This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
> newsgroup.

'tis also not a VB-win or "World'O'spam" Group, but that doesn't stop
people posting spam or vb stuff. But I agree that just because other
people post that, it is no excuse to let it degenerate completely.

How about someone setting a filter so if a VB-Win post arrives on the
group, the post is also sent to a vb-win NG, everyone on this ng
ignores it and the person is notified by e-mail that it was not
appropriate and where to look for the reply (e.g. c.l.b.vb).

I don't mean to be a preachin', I would set it up myself if my
software supported filters, but it doesn't and I can't change it. (No
really, I can't :))

Simon.



Sat, 28 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

Daniel M. Campbell skrev i meddelelsen

Quote:
>This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
>newsgroup.

Hey, he asked for his/our oppinion, and/or comments, and he got it!! What's
the problem? I can't find any...
- Thomas Daugaard
Quote:


>> On Thu, 7 May 1998 12:29:52 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

>> >To all New or Existing QBasic Programmers.

>> ...snip...

>> >If you have any comments about the Web Site, please do not hesitate to
>> >contact me.

>> Uhm... like... now? <g>

>> Anyway, there is one little thing I'd like to say about your website:
>> I don't like it. It didn't fit my browser at 640x480.

>> How many more 3-frame homepages will be spewed onto the web before
>> someone says "Hey, this is OLD!" Personally, I would pay good money to
>> see the original inventor of the banner/index/content-frame design
>> given a sound thrashing. What a pestilence.

>> One point of contention is the very bad habit of trapping linked
>> webpages within the content-frame. I hate that. Everyone I know hates
>> that. So why does everybody do it? What sort of knuckle-head forces
>> you to visit a linked website within his content-frame? Unfortunately,
>> that is precisely what happened when I visited your website, Steve.

>> Okay, your homepage contained relevant material. That's good. Your
>> homepage used the banner/index/content-frame design. That's bad. None
>> of the frames were resizable. That is VERY bad. You allowed scroll
>> bars in the index and content frames. That is good. You forced me to
>> view linked websites within your content-frame. That is VERY, VERY
>> bad. And so on and so forth...

>> Oh, and I would like to commend you for soliciting criticism. Good
>> man. Stout fellow and all that. <g>

>> C'ya,
>> RudeJohn
>> "I'm rude. It's a job."



Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

Can't you just feel the irony?

*cough*

If you didn't like my response, then why did you post it to this
newsgroup _AGAIN_.

<whisper>
Next time you want to post to Usenet, just ask old Rude how it's done.
Don't be embarassed, we were all newbies once. 'Cept me, of course.
*heh*
</whisper>

Anyway, if English wasn't your third or fourth language (Geeze, you
must be quite the little linguist!) you'd realize that Steve was
asking for "any comments about the Web Site." Well, that's exactly
what he got. Considering that most of the BASIC websites I've seen all
look pretty much the same and offer all the same old files, I'd say my
critique was amazingly calm and rational.

And why didn't you follow up Steve's website announcement with "This
is a BASIC newsgroup, not a 'let's advertise some guy's webpage'
newsgroup"? Think about it.

C'ya,
RudeJohn
"I'm rude. It's a job."

On Tue, 12 May 1998 19:01:48 GMT, "Daniel M. Campbell"

Quote:

>This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
>newsgroup.


>> On Thu, 7 May 1998 12:29:52 +0100, "Steven Salmon"

>> >To all New or Existing QBasic Programmers.

>> ...snip...

>> >If you have any comments about the Web Site, please do not hesitate to
>> >contact me.

...snip my amazingly calm and rational critique because I think Danny
is jealous of us native English-speaking types and he just keeps
posting it to this newgroup anyway. Wanna bet he's got a copy of it
taped to the wall? Ahhhh, the irony. <g>


Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

On Tue, 12 May 1998 19:01:48 GMT, "Daniel M. Campbell"

Quote:

>This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
>newsgroup.

This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's whine about some guy's
critique of some other guy's webpage" newsgroup.

*sneeze*

C'ya,
RudeJohn
"I'm rude. It's a job."



Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.

I really don't understand what the huge fuss is about.  My web site has been
around for nearly 3 years.  I have put alot of work into it from FREE.  I
don't get paid from it.  I am doing people a favour by providing the
information.

Also your comment about the same old stuff is a load of rubbish.  YOU!!!
tell me one place on the net that provide tutorials as indepth as mine.  I
think you will not provide me or anybody with one site!!!!! Think before you
speak.

Steve.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~basic/index.htm

Quote:

>On Tue, 12 May 1998 19:01:48 GMT, "Daniel M. Campbell"

>>This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
>>newsgroup.

>This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's whine about some guy's
>critique of some other guy's webpage" newsgroup.

>*sneeze*

>C'ya,
>RudeJohn
>"I'm rude. It's a job."



Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 The Compete Beginners QBasic Web Site.


Quote:

>This is a BASIC newsgroup, not a "let's critique some guys webpage"
>newsgroup.

You're right of course but if you're going to have a go at this sort of thing
then why haven't you also pointed out to the Visual Basic posters that
visual queries are off-topic and there are 30+ visual based NGs ???

Watch, there'll be another no-brainer posting yet another DBgrid query
any minute now :(

TTfn,

Craig___



Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 19 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. New web site for beginners

2. Recommended web site for VB beginner?

3. BEGINNERS WEB SITE

4. BEGINNERS WEB SITE

5. Qbasic Web Site!

6. New Qbasic Web Site

7. FYI - New Web Site Security Issue - Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability

8. Site Maps - for web site

9. Best site for freelancer work (PHP, Web site, java, oracle sql, php, data entry)

10. Sending Web Visitors to a backup web site if main one is down

11. Detecting bad web site in web browser control

12. Looking for beginner site...

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software