Looky — me & PHP . . .

[ktinkel]

I have been trying to set up a web site for republishing some of my old type and typography articles (the ones I retained rights to, anyway) and for some new work. I feel as if I have dithered over every approach, from plain old HTML (while “they” kept changing the standards and rules) to blogs (ick) and CMS programs (drove me nuts; too technie tricky for me).

Finally I decided to see what I could do by taming blogging software. So on April 10 I downloaded WordPress, signed up for a GoDaddy site (a trip in and of itself!) and set out to customize the software.

Today I have the shadow of a site to show you: Using Type (http://usingtype.com/utwp/) (which was the name of my column in Personal Publishing magazine in the 1980s and 90s, and I always liked its no-nonsense style). No, David — so far no name and address. It will come; promise.

I really have excised a lot of PHP, nervously, but the site has not crashed and burned (though there are only two small placeholder articles so far, so it has hardly been stress-tested).

It has a serious semantic flaw that I will fix as soon as I figure out how. Because blogs are date-oriented, the date-line is styled H2 and the story title is H3; this is the opposite of my way of thinking.

It passes validation (both XHTML and CSS). The stylesheet is weird (everything just about backwards of my normal working style), but making radical changes did break stuff, so I decided to hold off. I did fix some validation problems, however.

I may get back to some of the more promising CMS software: TextPattern, Big Medium, even Joomla. But now I just want to be able to work on content.

Take a look if you can. Thanks.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Today I have the shadow of a site to show you:

Go on, finish the site, and bugger CSS! We need snippets like your bit on hyphens, though probably modern book designers won't take a blind bit of notice. Cite the seven consecutive lines ending in hyphens; I'd only draw the line at hyphenating on title pages, particularly when the following line is set in smaller type.

[terrie]

I think it looks quite fab...I think it would be interesting if you had the original date of publication for each article...

Terrie

[Kelvyn]

Good use of Wordpress - it really is easy, isn't it. If you are the only blogger (author) then I would remove the Blogroll from the template. Using someone else's template is sometimes quite difficult. You can, of course, create your own from scratch, and style it how you prefer.

I must get back to sorting out my own blog (http://blog.jenkinhill.net/).....

[ktinkel]

I think it looks quite fab...I think it would be interesting if you had the original date of publication for each article...Thank you!!

Not sure about the dates. Maybe I will try to post something along those lines, but as I go through old articles, I rarely find any that are completely relevant today, so they become a rewritten piece. (I was looking at one article that went on and on about the LaserWriter fonts; who cares about those today? But it was a big deal at one point.)

Mainly, I am happy to have tamed the beast (somewhat). I am tired of messing with technology!

[ktinkel]

Good use of Wordpress - it really is easy, isn't it. If you are the only blogger (author) then I would remove the Blogroll from the template.I thought I had! Are you still seeing the Blogroll?

I must say: WordPress is miles ahead of most of the others I tried.

Using someone else's template is sometimes quite difficult. You can, of course, create your own from scratch, and style it how you prefer.I’ll say it is difficult! But when I tried some radical changes, it all fell apart.

This is based on Classic. I wish I could just somehow convert my old static HTML pages to WordPress (and suspect I can) — but it is more than two days’ work, right?

I must get back to sorting out my own blog (http://blog.jenkinhill.net/).....

[Kelvyn]

I thought I had! Are you still seeing the Blogroll?It is only commented out in the page code. You can delete the links from the admin backend. Blogroll is the default links category.

This is based on Classic. I wish I could just somehow convert my old static HTML pages to WordPress (and suspect I can) — but it is more than two days’ work, right?It shouldn't take that long. See this template primer. (http://codex.wordpress.org/Stepping_Into_Templates)

There is nothing to say that you have to change the template yet. You can do this at any time, as the content remains in the database. Just remember to backup the db periodically.:)

[iamback]

Today I have the shadow of a site to show you: Using Type (http://usingtype.com/utwp/) (which was the name of my column in Personal Publishing magazine in the 1980s and 90s, and I always liked its no-nonsense style).Looks good to me.

One usability quibble, though: only by taking a wild guess did I find out that an article's title actually is its permanent link: it doesn't look like a link, and even if you hover over it (and the cursor changes) it doesn't tell you that it is a permanent link: you need at least a title attribute there, and preferably a different color that at least suggests it's a link!

Looking forward to more content! (And I don't care about your address. ;))

[ktinkel]

One usability quibble, though: only by taking a wild guess did I find out that an article's title actually is its permanent link: it doesn't look like a link, and even if you hover over it (and the cursor changes) it doesn't tell you that it is a permanent link: you need at least a title attribute there, and preferably a different color that at least suggests it's a link!That’s on my list of problems to solve. The CSS confuses me — not written the way I do it — but I agree that the title must look link-like.

I also think it ought to be H2 (not H3), but am trying not to break things before I understand them!

[ktinkel]

It is only commented out in the page code. You can delete the links from the admin backend. Blogroll is the default links category.Ahh — thanks. Got it.

Just remember to backup the db periodically.:)Good idea! Is there some better method than another? (Guess I should just look it up — I must say: the documentation is very good.)

[ElyseC]

Very nice, KT! Clean, simple, elegant, very easy to read. (Like the favicon, too. :))

Now you have me thinking about doing that with an old article of mine, maybe two.

You know...I wonder if that would be a reasonable, simple way to make a clean and simple portfolio site. I don't like what I created (first site ever in my life) several years ago and am way way overdue for redoing the whole thing from scratch.

[Daudio]

Kathleen,

The stylesheet is weird
But you made it look good anyway. I like the off white background and the green works very well with it. Very pleasant and low-key, enhancing the content.

All I could suggest is, perhaps, a bit of a brighter color, like a gold or orange, say, in a few rare places to add a little sparkle. But very nice still !

[ktinkel]

You know...I wonder if that would be a reasonable, simple way to make a clean and simple portfolio site. I don't like what I created (first site ever in my life) several years ago and am way way overdue for redoing the whole thing from scratch.I think some WordPress users have portfolio sites. It is not a natural thing to do with a blog, but this is a nicely customizable program.

Take a look at this search results page (http://wordpress.org/search/wp+portfolio?documentation=1&forums=1); and then you can search on “gallery,” see what that turns up.

[ktinkel]

All I could suggest is, perhaps, a bit of a brighter color, like a gold or orange, say, in a few rare places to add a little sparkle.Glad you like it. For now, I am content to have tamed a blog!

And am amusing myself by rummaging through old articles. Need to see how it acts with longer pieces, more images, etc.

[terrie]

kt: so they become a rewritten pieceAhhhh...ok...I thought you were dup'ing the old articles not creating new ones...nevermind then...'-}}

Terrie

[Franca]

Ooh, it looks even nicer today than it did yesterday. :) Can't give you any useful technical comments as I'm ignorant of such things but it's certainly easy on the eyes and the content is interesting!

[ktinkel]

Ahhhh...ok...I thought you were dup'ing the old articles not creating new ones...nevermind then...'-}}When I started thinking about doing this, I did intend just to put old articles up, splat, as they were.

But so much has changed in some of them, it seemed silly. (What’s the sense of talking about 300 dpi laser printers or the LaserWriter 35 fonts as if they still mattered, for example?)

And then sometimes my prose was truly cringe-worthy; unless it seems important to preserve it for some reason, I usually fix it.

But I will indicate the original publication date and whether I have altered the text. Fair’s fair.

[Kelvyn]

Good idea! Is there some better method than another? (Guess I should just look it up — I must say: the documentation is very good.)

I run a MySQL dump weekly, through a cron job on the server. If you can't do that then a manual export via phpMyAdmin would be just fine. A lot depends on how much access you have to the database server.

[ElyseC]

I think some WordPress users have portfolio sites. It is not a natural thing to do with a blog, but this is a nicely customizable program.

Take a look at this search results page (http://wordpress.org/search/wp+portfolio?documentation=1&forums=1); and then you can search on “gallery,” see what that turns up.Cool. Thanks!

[fhaber]

This is a "squint review." Pardon, but I didn't actually read all the text - just admired the color and beauty of it. Very elegant, very calming. What's the Sans? Verdana? Rag right, lots o' room, relaxing para length - what could be better. You sold me. Now where are the ads (r,d,etc.)?

So, teach me about text background color on the Mac (Camino 1). I have my usual beige set. On the iBook, your page has a beige bg. On all the PCs, it's the ?intented light green, in all browsers. Does the app/browser page background color override the system one, ever?

PS, the page is readable, though spindly, on the offending Win2000 machine mentioned previously.

[ktinkel]

What's the Sans? Verdana?

So, teach me about text background color on the Mac (Camino 1). I have my usual beige set. On the iBook, your page has a beige bg. On all the PCs, it's the ?intented light green, in all browsers. Does the app/browser page background color override the system one, ever?

PS, the page is readable, though spindly, on the offending Win2000 machine mentioned previously.Hmmm. The background color is R246 | G246 | B239 — not green. On my big LCD it looks almost white, and that is regardless of browser. I know that Windows is supposed to be a bit darker, so maybe that is what you are seeing.

I always understood that platforms differ by default gamma, with Windows a bit darker than Macs. And then that monitors have their color biases, created by their technology and materials. Then we come along and specify colors, and they should be consistent for a platform on a particular monitor. But that pretty much exhausts my knowledge of monitor color issues, and I could be all wet.

The type is indeed Verdana, and I am having problems with the range of sizes. I found out that most people (around here, anyway) keep their default font size at 16. Mine had been set at 12. So I bumped it up while working out the WordPress CSS, and now when I look at it with browser set to 12 px, the text is miniscule. The stuff in the sidebar is unreadable.

Have to find the balance point. When I work with my default at 16 px I feel as if I have a lot of leeway, so go too far with size ranges and make the text illegibly small too quickly. So back to the drawing board.

I cannot bear having my computer set to 16px — so much text everywhere is just mammoth! (On the other hand, I can read Google lists without bumping up the size.)

Very vexing issue, font size on screens.

[Franca]

Hmmm. The background color is R246 | G246 | B239 — not green. On my big LCD it looks almost white, and that is regardless of browser. I know that Windows is supposed to be a bit darker, so maybe that is what you are seeing. It looks light grey here, but perhaps the eye is tricked into giving the grey a greenish cast by the sidebar color. ?

I always understood that platforms differ by default gamma, with Windows a bit darker than Macs. And then that monitors have their color biases, created by their technology and materials. Then we come along and specify colors, and they should be consistent for a platform on a particular monitor. But that pretty much exhausts my knowledge of monitor color issues, and I could be all wet.All I know is that the two monitors in my own office don't agree about what color web pages are. The two monitors could hardly be more different, though, as one is LCD and one is older CRT. I don't even like to look at the CRT any more - am spoiled by my flat LCD now.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

On my big LCD it looks almost white, and that is regardless of browser. I know that Windows is supposed to be a bit darker, so maybe that is what you are seeing.

On my Windows-driven CRT, the background isn't white (which I don't suppose it's supposed to be) but a pale parchment; the heading is a whited-down sage: very nice. The text is easy to read (except the passages in italic) and not at all 'thin'; I wonder whether F. Haber's LCD screen is reproducing text as it should. The one criticism I have is that the text lines are much too long; I think you should recognize that many people view site at full screen width.

[Franca]

Michael,

The text is easy to read (except the passages in italic) and not at all 'thin'; I wonder whether F. Haber's LCD screen is reproducing text as it should. The one criticism I have is that the text lines are much too long; I think you should recognize that many people view site at full screen width.I also find the text easy to read and not "thin" on my LCD screen. When I first started using an LCD monitor all text looked a bit odd to me but now I've adjusted to the slight difference and don't find it bothersome at all.

It's interesting that you view sites at full-screen width. While I do usually set my browser window quite wide I almost never maximize my browser window. Not only does it create considerable "empty real estate" on many sites and extra-long line widths on others, but when I am browsing I am frequently multi-tasking and like to be able to access the icons on the outer edges of my desktop without having to minimize the browser window. Perhaps a little idiosyncrasy peculiar only to me, but there it is. ;) If I used a laptop or had a smaller monitor I might do things differently, but as I recall last time I used a laptop I still kept my browser window a couple of inches smaller than full screen width.

[Michael Rowley]

Franca:

It's interesting that you view sites at full-screen width.

Probably a male characteristic: doing one thing at a time! I realize that women are much better at 'multitasking' than men; I only suspect that they're not so good at pressing Alt+Tab.

I've never used an LCD; when I got this 19-inch CRT, LCDs were still expensive. But a CRT has the advantage that it has a proven long life without much deterioration; I'm not so sure about LCDs (anyone been using an LCD screen for more than five years yet?).

[ktinkel]

The one criticism I have is that the text lines are much too long; I think you should recognize that many people view site at full screen width.That is a problem that only be solved by inconveniencing many people. That is, I like to make pages that flex — if you widen or narrow the screen, the page does not break.

But it presupposes a reasonable range of widths. I tend to look at screens in the approximate aspect ratio of letter (or A4) pages. Some people prefer a horizontal window, somewhat like TV. If others look at a panoramic view, I cannot think what I could possibly do about that without making the vast majority uncomfortable. (To test this, I stretched my page across my 23-inch monitor; it was indeed too wide to read.)

Surely my page is not the only problem page for you? Unless you mostly encounter fixed-width pages? Those are annoying for the rest of us, who must adjust our browser windows to suit.

Tell me what ought to be done about this. I am at a loss.

[Kelvyn]

Surely my page is not the only problem page for you? Unless you mostly encounter fixed-width pages? Those are annoying for the rest of us, who must adjust our browser windows to suit.

Tell me what ought to be done about this. I am at a loss.

You can define max-width (http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_dim_max-width.asp) which is not supported by old browsers like IE6, but is supported in IE7. Since I bought a widescreen format laptop I have been looking at the problem of long text lines for those who still insist on browsing full screen. I have decided to use max-width for the page width - but have not yet worked out what to set it at. I guess it will be pixels (possibly 1100) as that means it will be ignored by those still using low screen widths.

[dthomsen8]

You can define max-width (http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_dim_max-width.asp) which is not supported by old browsers like IE6, but is supported in IE7. Since I bought a widescreen format laptop I have been looking at the problem of long text lines for those who still insist on browsing full screen. I have decided to use max-width for the page width - but have not yet worked out what to set it at. I guess it will be pixels (possibly 1100) as that means it will be ignored by those still using low screen widths.

Are those who still insist on browsing full screen instead of a window not doing the right thing? I was browsing full screen, but on my new LCD I have some truncation on the left (or right, my choice) and I browse in a window and not full screen.

I understand the discussion about max-width, though.

[ktinkel]

While I do usually set my browser window quite wide I almost never maximize my browser window. Not only does it create considerable "empty real estate" on many sites and extra-long line widths on others, but when I am browsing I am frequently multi-tasking and like to be able to access the icons on the outer edges of my desktop without having to minimize the browser window. Perhaps a little idiosyncrasy peculiar only to me, but there it is. Maybe peculiar to you, but not unique — count me in as well.

I often have two windows open at once and play back and forth between them — two different browsers, commonly; or Photoshop and a browser; or whatever. And I have a long line of icons in the dock of programs or files that are just a click away. And I keep the chat window at least slightly open up in the right-hand corner. And my iData (digital Rolodex thingy) is usually open in the lower left-hand corner.

Full screen for one greedy app? No way. ;)

[ktinkel]

You can define max-width (http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_dim_max-width.asp) which is not supported by old browsers like IE6, but is supported in IE7. Since I bought a widescreen format laptop I have been looking at the problem of long text lines for those who still insist on browsing full screen. I have decided to use max-width for the page width - but have not yet worked out what to set it at. I guess it will be pixels (possibly 1100) as that means it will be ignored by those still using low screen widths.I haven’t considered max-width (and min-width) since I first tried to use them about 3 years ago. Nothing supported them.

Guess I should look into it with Safari et al; assume the Mozilla crowd recognizes it?

On the other hand, I philosophically resist trying to control too much of the reading experience. As we see here, there are many ways, and none of them really wrong or right (assuming the page content doesn’t have some inherent limitation). I really hate it when a web site tries to take control of my browser.

What we need is optimum-width; then the site creator could make a recommendation that would show itself once and, if rejected, quietly go away! ;)

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Surely my page is not the only problem page for you?

No, of course not. But my reading habits have been formed by printed material: I wouldn't buy a book or magazine that made me read much more than about twelve words to a line, so why should I have to put up with it when I'm looking at monitor? Of course, a monitor does have the advantage over the printed page that you can, if necesary, adjust the width; but again, why should I be forced to do that? Perhaps the ability to view one page, a two-page spread, or even more pages (as in Adobe Reader) would be useful, but I understand site construction hasn't got that far.

[fhaber]

There's a lot to reply to here.

First, the general style of the page. If that's supposed to be "you," it's perfect. It has elegance, utility, and, well, class. Please do not touch. Exercise your edgy side on another page (g). I *love* rag-right and flexible.

Browser size - I have a couple of monitors that pivot (on PCs). I've given up bothering, mostly, to flip, unless I have a layout job of several hours or more. (I'm a putz, but I have to do this sort of thing occasionally.) No monitor here is bigger than 19", and all are 4:3, which I prefer. I do narrow browser windows selectively when I have to do heavy reading on HTML1-ish pages.

For years, I've run all app windows at slightly less than full-screen, and ringed my screen with icons, upon which I dragondrop regularly. My PC buddies exclaim, "How Mac-like! Was your mother scared by a IIci?" Well, so be it. My only excuse is that most of these icons are medium-geekish things, like text strippers, line-ending changers, compendium viewers, and redirects to favorite directories^H^H folders. I almost never use the Start Menu on Win, and yes, my desktop is fairly cluttered, but in cluttered groups, if you know what I mean.

On the Mac, I also instinctively set up "bin folders" on the desktop (right-edge, Mac style). Two of these contain only aliases, Classic style. Somehow I prefer this to using the Dock. I have favorites duped in several bins. I just love cmd-opt-drag. I'm also using a graphite-and-dun look, with as little animation as I can get. Long live System 7.

============

Background color: It's distinctively ultra-pale pea green on all my PCs, with three versions of Windows, two brands of flat screen, and three of CRTs.

Gamma: I run the room and my screens stygian-dark, only selecting a "full-on" semi-calibrated profile when I work with photos. Even full-bore, the PC background is still vaguely pea green.

BTW, I run about a 1.8 gamma on all my PCs, except when Photoshopping. I like gloomy. I hate glare. And didn't I read something somewhere about Apple compromising on gamma on recent machines, in the PC direction?

(Remember, my only Mac standard (unless I hook up to an external CRT) is the iBook 12 screen, which you wouldn't write home to mother about. It ain't bright; its gamut is kinda lame; it's fussy about screen angle. Your background here is a nice very light beige. I like that, too.)

Spindly on Win2000: Don't worry about it. There's some artifact, apparently, in all Mr. Gates's recent fonts that makes "browser default" sizes all rasterize as single-pixel or worse on older LCD machines. As Groucho says, Georgia looks as though his dog had been gnawing on the letters. I've used the term, "motheaten." Verdana survives, but with zero character.

Color temp: I'd guess the PCs here run at 5500-6000, somewhat warmer than "out of the box." The Mac's currently a bit warmer, maybe 4500. That's for the set. The current vogue is for screens to look a bit blue on (3200K) film. Wait a minute, let me flip to Apple's "Standard LCD." Nope, lots brighter, less beige, but still beige.

Boy, web design still contains a large component of "throw it at the wall and hope it sticks," no? Imagine if a book designer had to contend with half his readers viewing through greenish glass, or under water?

[Michael Rowley]

[Afterthought]

The solution for those that have to view more than one window at a time might be to adopt the system widely used by Microsoft (including Mr Gates) at Redmond, viz to use three monitors, but perfectly ordinary computers from Dell.

[ktinkel]

But my reading habits have been formed by printed material: I wouldn't buy a book or magazine that made me read much more than about twelve words to a line, so why should I have to put up with it when I'm looking at monitor? Same for me. That is why my browser window is set more or less in the proportion of a printed page, 800 or so pixels wide and 1000 or a bit more high.

And that is more of less what I am thinking of when I design a page.

[ktinkel]

The solution for those that have to view more than one window at a time might be to adopt the system widely used by Microsoft (including Mr Gates) at Redmond, viz to use three monitors, but perfectly ordinary computers from Dell.Well, they got that from Apple. I had a two-monitor setup back in Mac SE days (late 1980s, at a guess).

I hated it, and wouldn’t dream of volunteering for such an irritating setup. My monitor lets me arrange things nicely enough; a slightly larger one (the 30-inch) would be even better.

[ktinkel]

First, the general style of the page. If that's supposed to be "you," it's perfect. It has elegance, utility, and, well, class. Please do not touch. Exercise your edgy side on another page (g). I *love* rag-right and flexible.I hate justified type on the screen (horrible spacing is inevitable). So no fear on that score. But I must restore my old standard so that the type looks right to me; the rest of you can twiddle your mouse wheels! <g>

For years, I've run all app windows at slightly less than full-screen, and ringed my screen with icons, upon which I dragondrop regularly. My PC buddies exclaim, "How Mac-like! Was your mother scared by a IIci?" Makes sense to me. My clutter is sort of grouped too. Most of the time.

Background color: It's distinctively ultra-pale pea green on all my PCs, with three versions of Windows, two brands of flat screen, and three of CRTs.Actually, now that the sun has come back (only sort of, today), the color is looking greener to me, too. I want the blue with a hint of green of the river outside my windows, so will tweak it a bit more.[/quote][

BTW, I run about a 1.8 gamma on all my PCs, except when Photoshopping. I like gloomy. I hate glare. And didn't I read something somewhere about Apple compromising on gamma on recent machines, in the PC direction?I believe so.

Boy, web design still contains a large component of "throw it at the wall and hope it sticks," no? Imagine if a book designer had to contend with half his readers viewing through greenish glass, or under water?Yep. I do not believe there is a perfect solution, given the variability in the view on all these monitors and with all these points of view. So I will go back to suiting myself (within reason, of course).

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

I hated it, and wouldn’t dream of volunteering for such an irritating setup. My monitor lets me arrange things nicely enough; a slightly larger one (the 30-inch) would be even better.

It wouldn't irritate me, but the main idea is that two or three 19-inch screens are at present very much cheaper than 57-inch or even 30-inch screens. Mr Gates likes to spare his pennies, and doesn't mind if the chip manufacturers for Apple already had the idea in the eighties (really?).

[annc]

Maybe peculiar to you, but not unique — count me in as well.

I often have two windows open at once and play back and forth between them — two different browsers, commonly; or Photoshop and a browser; or whatever. And I have a long line of icons in the dock of programs or files that are just a click away. And I keep the chat window at least slightly open up in the right-hand corner. And my iData (digital Rolodex thingy) is usually open in the lower left-hand corner.

Full screen for one greedy app? No way. ;)Count me in, too. I usually have many, many windows open in each of up to 15 applications. It takes me at least 10 minutes to close the machine down when I need to reboot.

[Bo Aakerstrom]

Regarding the length of the lines of text; I went the other way and made the lines shorter on the web page for my site, which would of course irritate those who doesn't use full screen for their browser window.

Which just proves that you can't please everybody!

I am in the habit of using full screen width for whatever I'm working on - I do switch between open applications though (usually several..) using the taskbar.

[terrie]

kt: But I will indicate the original publication date and whether I have altered the text.I saw that when I checked the page the other day...I think it's interesting...

Terrie