The return of Big Dai X?

[Shane]

Cheers for fixing tings.My friend has an I pod Touch, I'll have to take a look at the site with that at some point.Y'know, if it looks half way decent in Safari that's good enough for me. I could tweak the font sizes, and make gif headings instead of using chunky fonts, but it displays just the way I want it to with IE and Firefox at the moment, and they're the 2 biggies I was most concerned with. I know Safari is kinda important as well, so hopefully it's just down to how old the version of the browser you're using is when it comes to viewing problems.

[Shane]

Actually, is anyone having any problems with the interactive character profiles?They work perfectly in IE, you click on a character's head and they speak.In Firefox the flash button heads aren't triggering the full sample. On re-triggering it completes the remainder of the first sample while simulatneously playing the start of the first again???!!!!This could be just my browser/flashplugin this time, but I would be interested in some feedback.I can always try and fix it in another update. Thanks

[Crash]

Works great for me under Firefox 2.0.0.9 and Flash Player 9. It looks fine under safari - the fonts are just a little bit heavier than in Firefox and Explorer. There's not a lot we can do about that.If something else is wrong in an older Safari I wouldn't worry too much because everyone I know who uses a Mac uses Firefox instead.I think it looks good.

[Shane]

Fantastic.Good to know that it's working well on up to date browsers.That flash glitch must be something to do with my setup, shall have to upgrade Firefox.Cheers

[Crash]

Ah correction - it's temporamental in Firefox you're right. We'll find some way around it.

[Bradster]

I just now got around to looking at the new site and I must say I'm impressed! I tend to peek around the source code of new sites I encounter that have unique layouts and I was pleasantly surprised to see some intelligent CSS instead of tables.For what it's worth, everything looks good in both Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X to me. The only issue I noticed is that the "Bomber X" and "Collectables" images on the Galleries page have no links, but that seems intentional.
(Crash Override @ Nov. 08 2007,00:12)QUOTEIt looks fine under safari - the fonts are just a little bit heavier than in Firefox and Explorer. There's not a lot we can do about that.On Windows, Safari's fonts overall appear a little heavier and blurrier compared to IE and Firefox because Apple's font rendering engine aims for print-like accuracy over display-level pixel hinting. If interested, you can read a brief explanation with comparisons here. On a Mac, all fonts are rendered the same (as Safari on Windows) and a user wouldn't notice anything out of the ordinary in Safari versus Firefox.Of course, there's also the matter of the "font-weight: bold" attribute on the body tag in bigdaix's CSS, but that affects all browsers equally.
(Crash Override @ Nov. 08 2007,00:12)QUOTEIf something else is wrong in an older Safari I wouldn't worry too much because everyone I know who uses a Mac uses Firefox instead.Of course, I have the opposite experience. Google Analytics' browser report (when restricted to Mac OS) for my site shows that over 3/4 of Mac users browse with Safari.That said, yeah, I wouldn't worry about going too far to support older versions of Safari. It seems Mac users are pretty diligent about staying on top of updates, as two-thirds of my Safari users are already using Safari 3.0 and a quarter are using the latest 2.x version, leaving only a tenth using anything older.Just my two pence!

[Crash]

I opened up the Flash elements of the site but couldn't figure out worth a darn how it all worked - the program seemed to have no programming backend like I expected that I could find to control what was going on.I feel like saving the contained images as PNGs and using them to simply link to the sound files.I'm not overly keen on flash unless there's an amazing reason for it being there.I think I need to play on with the pages to make them go thru a validator. I think the introduction of some PHP to speed-up changing headers and declarations would be a good idea.That won't be for ages though as I rather have my hands full with my game at the moment.

[AndyThomas]

It would be a good time to do some phping of it - SFXB basically uses a "database" that resides in the software, because for historical reasons changing all the URLs would be a distinct pain. But as BigDaiX doesn't have that issue I'd go for it if you can. I'd never be able to maintain SFXB had I not done it like this. Also made it a little easier to redo the site into CSS. I agree on the Flash front, although I notice a lot of sites seem to use a Flash image viewer now? I'm less anti it now as it's virtually a standard unto itself. Would Flash files need extra permissions perhaps?Oh, and one of these days I'll see if I can't feed through the URL change for BigDaiX throughout SFXB - is it pretty stable at this point?

[Crash]

Those image viewers usually work with just javascript and lots of CSS.The address looks like it'll be the same for quite some time.I'll attack the PHP thing when I get a chance. Web editing is dull. I prefer working on my new steerable Napalm Cannon!!!

[Bradster]

(AndyThomas @ Nov. 28 2007,09:30)QUOTEI agree on the Flash front, although I notice a lot of sites seem to use a Flash image viewer now? I'm less anti it now as it's virtually a standard unto itself.As Crash mentioned, most of those use JavaScript (although a few do use Flash). One of the most popular implementations I've seen is Lightbox.Ironically, because of Flash's ubiquity, there's a small but growing movement of users who disable Flash in their browser to avoid the onslaught of horrible Flash-based advertisements that have proliferated in the past year or so.
(AndyThomas @ Nov. 28 2007,09:30)QUOTEWould Flash files need extra permissions perhaps?Nope. To both the web server and browser, Flash is no different than any other embedable file such as a JPEG or GIF.
(Crash Override @ Nov. 28 2007,09:51)QUOTEWeb editing is dull.Blasphemer!