B5Scrolls is now running wild on the internet

[Triple F]

There you go, the last version of B5Scrolls

http://ftp.themadgoner.com/B5/B5Scrolls/B5Scrolls.htm

It's about three times bigger, should work on all browsers now, rough in places - not bad in others, the interview section has a few gems in it.

Will tidy it up at some point in the future, but not for a while I think.

Jan - it's a lot more than a site covering ships, you should find some of the interviws quite interesting, and don't skip the ship section either - it's no B5Tech.

I wonder if anyone will ever link to it though. Maybe one day someone might remember it and even think it worthy of being included to threads like the one on the top of this page. . . . . . .No, maybe not.

[babylonlurker]

I have a request :

Could you possibly use a text with more contrast - it is *very* hard to read on my screen at work. Also, on the same screen the font is rather small, and can not be enlarged (using Firefox and tried the Ctrl/+ function to no avail) - enlarging the text would help alleviate the reading difficulties.

[Garibaldi's Hair]

Have to echo that ... as someone with a (normally irrelevant) visual impairment the text is pretty well unreadable for anything more than a very short time. Greater contrast between text and background would solve that at a stroke.

Also, I think it would work much better when you click on the interviews if it took you straight to page one of the interview rather than just adding the page links below the names. The first few times I clicked I honestly thought nothing was happening until I spotted the page links ... again my vision and the text colours probably contributed to that.

I would hate to see such a well thought out and interesting site lose visitors because it just doesn't work quite the way people might expect.

[Triple F]

I here what your saying about the higher contrast. Deciding early on to go for a black background had unexpected issues with it I found out later. I spent a hell of a lot of time trying to come up with a text/background combo.

I’ll keep an eye on the comments people make about it. If it is an issue that gets mentioned a fair bit then I’ll have to do something more about it. I did try a higher contrast, but then the comments from a few others was that it was starting to burn their eyes out. It would be less of an issue with a grey or off white background but with the black, the varying monitor setups that different folks have means it’s always going to be bad for someone.

Text size, again I here you. But that’s why a while back I spent some time going round forums asking people what resolution they were viewing on – variants of 1024 x 768 was by far the biggest, so I formatted the (single page approach) to more or less fit around that. Personally I’m on a LCD widescreen with a native resolution of 1440 x 900 and it reads really well. But everyone is different again of course. Don't know how the firefox text enlarger works to be honest (don't use FF), I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work other than than whole thing is one page calling in multiple others into a defined window size.

Something that might help though – just in case you don’t know about it. If you right click on your desktop (windows XP) and go into Properties then Appearance then Effects. You’ll see an option to change the smoothness of text – Choose CLEAR TYPE.

It’s an anti-aliasing algorithm that works wonders on text ESPECIALLY if your using a laptop or a lcd/plasma screen. In fact that's why it's there as an option.

That’s useful way beyond just viewing this site by the way.

[glindros]

One heck of a site! Thanks for all that hard work. You have one happy B5 fan here.

The legibility isn't bad on the 1024 x 768 lcd I'm using at the moment. Some of the selection issues that Garibaldi's hair has mentioned do make initially navigating the sight a bit of a puzzle. (Hmm, what do I have to click to get things going?)

The information you have acquired is staggering. I wish it was a published book. I know I would buy one. I didn't see any property or release mentions on this material. I would suggest addressing this before someone scoops all this up.

[Triple F]

Not an issue.

A while back someone (actually a couple of folks-not on here) accused me of attention seeking and looking for kudos in creating something like this. That couldnÆt be further from the truth.

I little while ago (on here) I was taking a huffy in a debate about the cost and availability of things like the script books and I wasnÆt kidding.

ThereÆs no copyright notices on the site (from me) deliberately. ItÆs a reference site. The information on it is whatÆs of interest and importance not me. IÆm not Brandon over at B5Tech. So if anyone wants to take the contents wholesale and replicate it somewhere I have no problem in the slightest. Unless of course they try to sell it or claim the research as thereÆs.

ThatÆs also why you wont see my name on it real or virtual. Truth is, now that itÆs done. IÆll smooth off some of the rough edges some time in the future, may add a couple of things. But in the next couple of weeks IÆll be wandering back off the internet. ItÆs a medium I feel very clumsy and uncomfortable in. ThereÆs a couple of things I want to do with regards to wikipedia (re-write some of the articles) in order to promote the site (or to be more accurate the contents).

But apart from that it will be down to word of mouth if the thing lives or dies so at the end of the day itÆs up to the fan community as a whole to either use/reference/enjoy it or not û and IÆm fine with whatever happens either way. It was a bit of fun to do. To fill in some in-betweens as it where.

It really was just an exercise to learn a bit about web design, and IÆm of the mindset that if your going to produce something then go for something different.

[babylonlurker]

I am reading the site from home now (Linux and Firefox) and it works better (screen is a bit brighter and magnification works)

I would still like to have more contrast in the text, though. I know you have to strike a balance.

I have not yet have time to dive more into the material, but it looks like a solid source, information wise. Thanks for setting this up Triple-F

[Triple F]

It works on Linux with Firefox!!? Sweet.

I was a bit hesitant in using the approach I ended up with û using a thing called iframe to call pages into a static window, but it seemed the most stable way to get round this multiple flash loading problem I had as I always wanted the site to be a single page that fitted on a screen with little (or no) scrolling needed û thatÆs why some of the screens can look a bit crushed, I got the idea into my head to do it that way, and it wouldnÆt leave û what can I say.

I tested it in Opera (but not Safari - so if there's any Safari users out there let me know if I have to download a copy because of any issues/bugs) then got the bloody thing to finally work in Netscape just to find out that theyÆre no longer supporting the browser anymore û that was fun.

[babylonlurker]

There *is* a "funny" effect when viewing the interviews.

Sometimes not all of the text is displayed in the window - *and* it is a different amount of text shown with different magnifications - looks a bit strange to me - and I do not know how to solve it.

will have to check with Windows/Firefox as well.

BTW, in the Copeland interview he mentioned that only 2 shows have received the Hugo Award in two consecutive years. I have to assume that the interview is made more than a year ago (can you confirm this?) , since there is now another show with that track record : Doctor Who received the Hugo Award for best short form dramatic presentation in in 2006 and 2007. Not a big deal, though, but maybe an editorial remark is in order ?

Hope this helps you...

[Triple F]

No the interview, that feels weird to say for some reason, was only a couple weeks ago. In fact IÆm just off from talking with him about ten minutes ago.

IÆm guessing that heÆs not staying completely abreast of things like that right now or just forgot û but that is a guess. So Dr who has been winning HugoÆs?? Got to admit IÆve never even considered that non US shows were eligible. Which is a bit of a stupid thing to have in my head given the nature of the award and past recipients in other categories that I know of.



With regards to bit's of the text disappearing when magnified. That might have something to do with the way the individual pages of interviews are retrieved and then displayed.

The site is essentially a standard web page with a fixed sized window in the middle of the screen. When you make a selection, a second web page is loaded and then displayed inside that window. As it is a fixed size. The magnification system your using might magnify the text by a certain percentage but may magnify the window dimension slightly differently. The result being the text will be proportionally bigger to the window than intended, so will disappear of the edges as it were. But thatÆs only a guess.

Jesus, I think IÆve solved the problems and another one pops up. IÆve also no idea (naturally enough) if that will be a browser specific thing or a functional shortfall of the Iframe command used in the coding of the web page.

[babylonlurker]

No the interview, that feels weird to say for some reason, was only a couple weeks ago. In fact IÆm just off from talking with him about ten minutes ago.

IÆm guessing that heÆs not staying completely abreast of things like that right now or just forgot û but that is a guess. So Dr who has been winning HugoÆs?? Got to admit IÆve never even considered that non US shows were eligible. Which is a bit of a stupid thing to have in my head given the nature of the award and past recipients in other categories that I know of.

I only noticed because it was the same writer (Steven Moffat) responsible for the two winning episodes, so Copeland is quite forgiven for not being completely up to date. I found it quite interesting that a show - not really taking itself *too* seriously - could come up with Hugo winners. I will be following what Moffat does in the future , it looks like he is a very good writer.

With regards to bit's of the text disappearing when magnified. That might have something to do with the way the individual pages of interviews are retrieved and then displayed.

The site is essentially a standard web page with a fixed sized window in the middle of the screen. When you make a selection, a second web page is loaded and then displayed inside that window. As it is a fixed size. The magnification system your using might magnify the text by a certain percentage but may magnify the window dimension slightly differently. The result being the text will be proportionally bigger to the window than intended, so will disappear of the edges as it were. But thatÆs only a guess.

Jesus, I think IÆve solved the problems and another one pops up. IÆve also no idea (naturally enough) if that will be a browser specific thing or a functional shortfall of the Iframe command used in the coding of the web page.

Yes , Web design can be hairy sometimes , with (possibly) browser specific problems.
I try to keep my pages simple myself. ( http://www.babylonlurker.net/ ). Actuallly, in one case the page showed *more* text when magnified (go figure) - I may have to look into the behaviour again - that might give you a clue to what is happening.

[babylonlurker]

One more comment :

It looks like the browser Firefox 3 (beta) is to blame for the strange behaviour , I have seen a similar behaviour on other websites . So , for the moment, stop worrying about that,Triple-F

[Triple F]

ThatÆs a good point you bring up there. You actually taking the time to do a bit of finding out is a pretty unusual thing, and thanks for doing it.

I know that the version of Opera I was testing on (for example) has a known bug in it surrounding transparency of these Iframes (IÆll not go into it) but if I hadnÆt stumbled over a list of bugs IÆd have coded that page with ONE parameter on one command differently and IÆd have ended up with every OPERA user telling me itÆs atrocious IÆm not coding it properly for that browser. û it doesnÆt do something that it is meant to.

But yeah, what was it that Scotty said about the more complex the plumbing the easier it is block the drains. ItÆs a lot less complex than it once was, and that aspect of that, and any other site, is it ultimately down to the person who codes it. So you take you life into your hands whenever moving away from a more standard, basic safe layout.

I mean, with the first version I hadnÆt even heard of things like firefox or any of the other browsers and coded the thing full of IE specific commands. Very very pretty but I got the shit royally kicked out of me by everyone for doing it û which I can see why of course now. But no sod believed me when I said I never even knew other browsers existed.

IE and their support of Vbscript is a sod of a trap for the unwary, as is browser specific functions/constructs whatever the correct term for them is.

[babylonlurker]

Had a short test with Firefox2.0.0.11/W2000 and that seems to work fine - just to let you know .

Looks like a bug in FF3

[Triple F]

Thanks for the heads up.


On a related topic to the thread title (no point starting another thread),
IÆve amended the wikipedia article for the the Omega Class Destroyer. Actually IÆve completely re-written it as what was there previously was nothing but fan based speculations. And I know from reading discussions on the subject regular posters at wikipedia were generally unhappy with this fan based angle to things. û Though itÆs understandable considering the lack of any (real) details for the models on the net.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_class_destroyer

Anyway, IÆve never written anything on Wiki before. If thereÆs anyone on here that has, it would be cool to hear where IÆve went wrong. I know I must have û probably all over the place.