http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html

I've made a bunch of updates to the C-B page.
Check it out if you get a chance.

If you have any interesting C-B stuff I would really
appreciate some good photos to add to the page.

73,

Ron

--
-------------------------------------------------
C.R."Ron"Lawrence
Antique Radio Collector & Historian

POBox 3015
Matthews, NC 28106-3015
704-289-1166 (home)

Radio Collection Web Page,
http://www.radioheaven.homestead.com
CC-AWA Web Page,
http://www.cc-awa.org

Hi,

http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html

From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.

73, Alan

Alan Douglas wrote:
Hi,


http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html


From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.

73, Alan

Time to replace a few 01As in that old-timey browser, huh Alan?

It doesn't render all that smoothly for me but I'm not sure why not. I
think it has something to do with the large gif file being constricted
rather than resized beforehand which would speed up loading and
possibility eliminate the poor edging on the text.

-Bill M

From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

Ron

It's just fine with me once I helped get the semantics and spelling fixed.
I'm not going to nitpick about the "gap" in the box on the right side where
the background unexplainedly shows between the text panel and the border. I
think it's an interesting subject and hope you'll add to it soon. Reed Park
and I think Lou G. want to add test equipment items to it and would be happy
to talk to you. I think it has a lot of potential good use. Thanks for
pointing it out to us!
"Ron, KC4YOY" wrote in message
. com...

From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

Ron

In m "Ron, KC4YOY" writes:


From here it looks like a page cut into a dozen parts with scissors
and pasted back together in random order.


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

A good place to test your pages against the published
standards is:

http://validator.w3c.org

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------

Ron, KC4YOY wrote:


I don't understand what the problem is.
The pages look just fine and load plenty fast,
not one of them takes more than 4 or 5 seconds
to fully open.
Maybe you guys are using some non standard
browser. All of my pages are optimized
for I.E.

Ron


Here's the same image after some tinkering....50k file size instead of
298k and it looks better to me.
http://www.sparkbench.com/CBtext1revised.gif

Not a problem for me, just a point of discussion.

Two things occur to me, Ron. First, only about 50% of web subscribers
are using 'broadband' in the US, and certainly less in the rest of the
world. So it still behooves one to opt for download time preference
where it is possible and its a no-brainer if the quality can be better
in the process.

Secondly, the format you are using constricts the image into a 'frame'
and on a common 800x600 monitor thats resulting in about 50%
compression. Might not look so bad on a 1024-wide format. Things like
this always look better when blowing upwards as opposed to downwards.
800x600 still seems to be the norm these days.

"What-you-see-isnt-always-what-you-get" when it comes to folks with
different internet connections, different size monitors, etc. I looked
at the home page in both Netscape 7 (Mozilla) and IE. In my Netscape
the "From a 1941 catalog..." is spilling outside of the box. Not a
biggie but you can see the implications with some of the IE-only webpage
designs. Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might
not work with others. No need for things to be that way when a page can
be made to work correctly on all browsers.

Regards,
Bill M

Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might not work
with others.

On Homestead you either optimize for Nutscape or I.E..
I use I.E., which do you think I'm going to pick.

Ron

In Tim Mullen writes:

http://validator.w3c.org

Arrrggggh. Make that:

http://validator.w3.org

I need a URL validator. Or a brain validator. Or something.

Maybe a good, stiff drink.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------

Just finish it. If somebodies' browser ***** it up maybe they'll be smart
and read the INFORMATION instead of groaning about the format. I was pleased
to help. Nobody ever built their webpages based on anything! I have ever
said or done : )

"Ron, KC4YOY" wrote in message
. com...

Optimizing for one browser only usually implies that it might not work
with others.

On Homestead you either optimize for Nutscape or I.E..
I use I.E., which do you think I'm going to pick.

Ron