For the project's that I have been cooking up lately, It is IMPERATIVE THAT WIKIDOT USERS GET control over the…<div id="idname">, I will then be able to create custom javascript and more without using the HTML block that harldy works right.
For example I would like to add or remove some pictures lets say from Wikidot's JQuery lightbox's Javascript. I would make my own javascript for the lightbox, then I'll be able to make my own Images used. I REALLY DISLIKE THE CLOSE BUTTON! I would just like to design my own, so instead of having to change the javascript I would like control over the div ID's.
Lastly this is exactly why I DISLIKE the [[HTML]] block… In this link click my "ADD THIS" share stack, then click view more services, you can clearly see that the HTML block doesn't act like it should. I had to seriously customise it to get the pop up window to look like that and it still doesn't look good because of the HTML block.
…Here is the link… http://www.icondeposit.com/start it will be in the bottom right corner of the screen.
Neither your site nor your request are RFC1925.2.3 compliant.
Code is not art. Code is craft.
I could explain further, but after being subjected to an incoherent rant, assaulted by your site, jumping through hoops to see your problem, and finally finding nothing wrong that I could identify, I really don't feel like doing any more work.
Seems to be working fine to me, using Google Chrome 10.0.648.82 beta.
Could you explain what part isn't working as you'd expect it to? :S Then I can see what the problem is.
Cheers,
Shane
~ Leiger - Wikidot Community Admin - Volunteer
Wikidot: Official Documentation | Wikidot Discord server | NEW: Wikiroo, backup tool (in development)
I should have posted a comment after saying how I fixed this problem further.
- Agreed however, with the project that I'm working on, I feel it's appropriate for my site.
- Also how has my site… "Assaulted You?"
- And If you cannot view certain things on my site or have trouble loading certain things… this is why I have it posted on the start page as well as other pages, that "This site should only be viewed in the Google Chrome Browser".
- So if this is some of the problems you are having, I'd strongly recommend using the Chrome browser - I don't understand why people use Firefox or Internet Explorer.
- My site is only meant for the new browsers, and the people that I usually deal with on that site or anyone who has contacted me about it seems to like it very much. But if you look at my site in other browsers besides Google Chrome… IT will not look correct!
Edit: This wish should still be a "must" with all Wikidot users regardless of what my site looks like.
CEO of Icon Deposit
Take a look at me via Twitter, Dribbble, and Google +
Maybe I over-stated.
And that's just usability issues on the first page. Don't get me started on the spinning titles or the weak site branding.
(edit: found another two mouse-overs)
font. The cute spinny button changes to look like a close button, but it doesn't close the panel. In fact it has no function at all.
Ok… first who else feels the same way about my site?
Second, My site is not even released yet.
May I also ask rurwin, what browser are you viewing my site on?
- Animation is one of the key ingredients for any website.
- This site is also similar to "the PS3 Index" that I created. And that site as well you should only view in Google chrome.
Lastly, I don't find this as my site "Attacking you" I think these are only problems that you and very few people who used my site encounter.
Unless everyone is encountering the same problems, I'm glad the way the site looks (As a Graphic Designer). And not just a Graphic designer, but a person who grew up around art my entire life. I'm not the only person who enjoy's looking at this site.
- And the Qlassik font will stay, because it is a beautiful font (Not just used by me)
- As for the site branding…. It's fantastic, but on Icondeposit.com it's still a work in progress!
My sites design is Artistic and Simple
- And I used photoshop for a lot of the work.
- The Theme chooser is being deleted after the site is released because it was only for me to choose a theme for our site's launch.
- The Animations will stay… Google Chrome makes the experience better.
CEO of Icon Deposit
Take a look at me via Twitter, Dribbble, and Google +
FF 3.6 and Chrome 9.0, but in my view, using Chrome just makes the site more annoying.
I did admit that maybe I over-stated in saying it attacked me. I was not in a good mood last night.
I think everyone encounters the same things. The question is, who objects to them.
I know your site isn't open, but you did ask people to go there. Consider this pre-release feedback.
Edit: PS3Index is much cleaner. If IconDeposit turns out like that then you will have pulled out most of the animations. That is good. Qlassik is fine for titles, but not for block text.
It might be, but I don't think anyone understands what you are complaining about. Please, can you tell us:
It would help if you told us what you want to achieve, not how you want to do it.
I kind of figured you were in a bad mood lol (Dont take some things that I say the wrong way please)
- My wish isn't a complaint, it's simply a request for an upgrade to wikidot.
- I'm only wishing for access to the div id's for my site only, or if others want as well for their wikidot site too because this can make it a whole lot easier for deeper customization. Like I said, I would love to have full access or at lease some access for especially Wikidot's JQuery.
- My "Add This" Share stack seem's to be fine now after extreme customization, and as for the HTML blocks… Look at one of my pages that has any custom javascript on it, and then zoom out of the page, you will notice how the length of the site automatically grows. That's what I meant that it doesn't work right.
- And also like I said, as a Professional Graphic Desinger, This is the way designs for websites should look or be similar to (but everyone has different opinions). This site is only displaying my website abilities as a Graphic artist (not a programmer), also I'm really trying to deplay my CSS3 Abilities. However, I am removing the small annoying animations that make the browser load slower.
- Lastly, Bcammo creator of BMC Web Design, really know's what he's doing when it comes to themes, so when he made the width fixed, I'm sure it was so that it fit's on any computer screen on purpose. This way my site is viewable on a mobile site as well such as the iPad or a large computer screen. And it's fixed to 960px in width. 960px for a site will fit on almost any computer or mobile screen.
- Also I have been getting very positive feedback on twitter about the Icon Deposit (from even better professional graphic designers than myself). This way I know my site is compatible with almost everyones Computer screen, or Google Chrome browser.
- To me, it looks like a site that was desined with a Wordpress style to it. Which is the design i'm going for. So like I said, as a professional graphic designer, the design is fine :)
CEO of Icon Deposit
Take a look at me via Twitter, Dribbble, and Google +
This is how the site is supposed to look… (IN GOOGLE CHROME)
Image #1 (welcome page)… http://feedback.wikidot.com/local--files/wish:524/icondeposit.png
Image #2 (start page top)… http://feedback.wikidot.com/local--files/wish:524/Icondeposit%202.png
Image #3 (start page bottom)… http://feedback.wikidot.com/local--files/wish:524/Icondeposit%203.png
So as you can see, this is how most people view my site. My site is intended for all users, not just wikidot's.
CEO of Icon Deposit
Take a look at me via Twitter, Dribbble, and Google +
An interesting discussion. I'm pleased the theme changer is going: if it doesn't carry through to the rest of the site it is pointless.
I have to say I quite like the design but hate a) the marquee b) when you hover over "Welcome to the Icon Deposit" the text jumps right (in FF anyway, I don't have Google on this machine) c) generally too many hover-over effects like the poor text flying out of the twitter/facebook butons (an FF issue?).
I really like implementing jquery slideshows so am a supporter of that in general.
On what basis do you consider that Firefox 3.6.xx isn't? I agree with rurwin that just designing for one browser is a bad idea. A good rule of thumb is to make sure it works properly in a range of the most common browsers. I don't mean design for the lowest common denominator; far from it, if that was the case every site would have to work in IE6 which would be a very very bad thing. I mean design for the best browsers but make sure those on other (not necessarily older) browsers are able to use the site effectively even if some of the features are not there. Apart from the oddities I mentioned above the site seems to work ok on my current FF machine. I will see what the diferences are a bit later when I have some access to Chrome (and a bottle of wine).
I have never yet known Wikidot implement a feature for one user only. If it is a wish that will have general application then maybe it will get implemented, but even then it often won't. As an example see http://feedback.wikidot.com/wish:197 for an image/attachment search facility which would make a lot of people's lives a whole heap easier and help Wikidot catch up with some competitors but, sigh, it was rejected without a single word of explanation from Wikidot!
Chrome still only has 10.7% market share and the majority of browser use is with IE and FF. Most general users won't care what their browser is and won't bother to change it, or even necessarily update it to the newest version. I use all these plus safari, at least for testing how sites look and work but my default is FF, mainly because of Firebug.
Really? I thought it was content. If you haven't got content that people want to read and engage with then having a wizzy bit of animation will only hold them for a nano-second.
Sorry, that was a longer ramble than I'd intended. I'm off to find that bottle of wine.
Rob Elliott - Strathpeffer, Scotland - Wikidot first line support & community admin team.
- Firefox beta 11 works ok but still, very little animations, I need google chrome and safari specifically so people can see the sites full effects. Basically I wouldn't use this on any browser but Chrome, but if you need to I would seriously consider downloading FF Beta 11, it uses more animations. I need to take an on screen video of what my site interaction should look like.
- Animation is only 1 (one) of the key ingredients, not (the) ingredient ;)
- The Key ingredient is the content :)
Enjoy that bottle with some Google Chrome :)
CEO of Icon Deposit
Take a look at me via Twitter, Dribbble, and Google +
I've had beta 4 version 11 since it was released earlier this month. I always have the most recent beta to hand but for actual work I also keep the current stable version, as I mentioned above this is primarily to make sure I have a working version of Firebug. At the moment I'm not fired up about CSS3 animations, compared to gradients for example, but that might come.
Rob Elliott - Strathpeffer, Scotland - Wikidot first line support & community admin team.
We'll have to disagree on the animation point. Even the moving tabs on the PS3 site annoyed me after a minute.
id's have been requested before and didn't get anywhere. 99% of the need for ids is answered by classes. I still don't see why you need ids. What can you do with ids in JS that you cannot do with classes?
Edit: Here is the history:
Note especially Bryce's tutorial linked to in wish 430 which includes one way to get around not having ids.