BLUEMOMENT

ubergeekian wrote: . . . that's why I think Nick should care what websites look like when adblockers are used. I think it's in his interests, his clients' interests and his clients' clients' interests to do so.

Indeed. Which is why SailArgyll looks just fine to everyone with vanilla Adblock+ installed.

Nick wrote:

ubergeekian wrote: . . . that's why I think Nick should care what websites look like when adblockers are used. I think it's in his interests, his clients' interests and his clients' clients' interests to do so.

SailArgyll looks just fine to everyone with plain vanilla Adblock+ installed.

Anyone who wants to elimninate the right hand ads as well and screw up the layout in the process can contact SteveN, who I am sure will be happy to provide the necessary code and instructions.

Hopefully we are now all clear about this.

Nick wrote:

ubergeekian wrote: . . . that's why I think Nick should care what websites look like when adblockers are used. I think it's in his interests, his clients' interests and his clients' clients' interests to do so.

Indeed. Which is why SailArgyll looks just fine to everyone with vanilla Adblock+ installed.

"The thing is, you tell me my motivation for catering for people who choose to run Adblocker in Firefox and are too lazy to either whitelist sites they might want to visit or to fire up Chrome or any other browser they have not installed an adblocker in."

ubergeekian wrote:

Nick wrote:

ubergeekian wrote: . . . that's why I think Nick should care what websites look like when adblockers are used. I think it's in his interests, his clients' interests and his clients' clients' interests to do so.

Indeed. Which is why SailArgyll looks just fine to everyone with vanilla Adblock+ installed.

"The thing is, you tell me my motivation for catering for people who choose to run Adblocker in Firefox and are too lazy to either whitelist sites they might want to visit or to fire up Chrome or any other browser they have not installed an adblocker in."

Talk about a dog with a bone Ian - can you never leave anything alone? I guess that apology stuck in your craw.

I am afraid none of the arguments you provide motivates me even slightly. If everyone installs Adblock indiscriminately the current internet business model collapses and much of the free content you like to gorge on disappears.

The truth is I changed the site so it looked OK with Adblock installed for Shard, not for anyone else. He is a thoroughly nice guy and merely reported that it didn't look right to him. He probably didn't even realised it was because he had Adblock installed. He certainly would never have resorted to smearing my business ethics as you did.

Now ffs leave it alone before I get annoyed.

"So that's why I think Nick should care what websites look like when adblockers are used. I think it's in his interests, his clients' interests and his clients' clients' interests to do so."

I disagree
You choose to install adblockers and presumably, part of that choice is understanding the impact that these have on websites. You can also choose to turn adblockers off.

Nick does a great job for all of us in setting up and hosting this site. Nick: thanks

It was great to see voluntary assistance to Nick in editing the sail Argyll site, but I was disappointed at the quick descent into acrimony. No credit to any of you.

Chentlemen (and ladies) Let me remind you all, this is not the lounge......

Nick wrote:I am afraid none of the arguments you provide motivates me even slightly. If everyone installs Adblock indiscriminately the current internet business model collapses and much of the free content you like to gorge on disappears.

I very much doubt that. Sure, one internet business model, that of websites which rely on third party advertising to support content which users are unwilling to pay for directly, will have problems. It won't have any effect on those websites which generate business themselves (Amazon) or those which people are willing to pay for (The Economist) or those which sufficient people are willing to donate for (Wikipedia) or those which are paid for as part of a larger purchase (the Westerly Owner's Association) or those which enthusiasts run and pay for (Vyv Cox's pages). I agree that the early model of the net, Everything Should Be Free For Ever, was unsustainable, but I don't think that Google WIll Pay For Everything For Ever is sustainable either. There's no point in the web industry getting all snooty about adblockers. The things exist, so work round them.

At the very least I would have thought designers would want sites they designed to look as good as possible to as many potential clients as possible.

Meanwhile, and back to your request for feedback, something is a bit off with the individual page headings here. It's a bit difficult to describe, so here's a picture



See the way that "Sailing in Argyll - Marine Business Directory and Guide" starts on two lines to the left before jumping down above the content? All the pages I've tried do that. I'm using Chrome 21.0.1180.75 under Ubuntu. I have Adblock and Flashblock installed, but the screenshot was taken with both turned off and after a reload. Something very similar happens under Firefox 14.0.1, again with Adblock deactivated. I hope this helps.

[quote="Gardenshed"]
You choose to install adblockers and presumably, part of that choice is understanding the impact that these have on websites. You can also choose to turn adblockers off.
[quote]
Thanks, that is my POV entirely.

It is a matter of moments to turn off Adblock for an individual site if you feel it is adversely affecting your experience of a particular site. It will stil be in place for all the other sites. It is YOUR CHOICE.

The really irritating thing of course is that I HAVE - by request - configured this particular site to look OK with adblock enabled and have STILL suffered a barrage of abuse and nonsensical comments.

- W

Gardenshed wrote: You choose to install adblockers and presumably, part of that choice is understanding the impact that these have on websites. You can also choose to turn adblockers off.

I agree completely.

What I think is unwise is to have websites look crap when popular adblockers are installed without explaining that that is why they look crap. If I know that I need to disable Adblock to see a website properly, and if the website is sufficiently attractive and useful then I will disable Adblock, no problem. If I visit a website and it looks crap with no explanation, though, I may just think it's a crap website, and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing for anyone concerned. Exactly the same goes for flash and flashblock, by the way, so it's not just a grudge against adverts.

Nick does a great job for all of us in setting up and hosting this site.

I agree. Apart from the snowflakes.

Nick wrote: It is a matter of moments to turn off Adblock for an individual site if you feel it is adversely affecting your experience of a particular site.

Indeed. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with that. All I add is the thought that it might be worth making it clear that adblocking will adversely affect the experience. I really don't think that should be contentious. It's the equivalent of those notes on the back of old stereo LPs saying "This album can be played on mono equipment, but the full stereo effect requires a stereo record player."

ubergeekian wrote:

Nick wrote: See the way that "Sailing in Argyll - Marine Business Directory and Guide" starts on two lines to the left before jumping down above the content? All the pages I've tried do that. I'm using Chrome 21.0.1180.75 under Ubuntu. I have Adblock and Flashblock installed, but the screenshot was taken with both turned off and after a reload. Something very similar happens under Firefox 14.0.1, again with Adblock deactivated. I hope this helps.

With Safari Version 6.0 (7536.25) running on Mac OSX 10.7.4 the image noted on ubergeekian's post above doesnt appear. It loads correctly. No anti add stuff except "block pop up windows" is activated.

ubergeekian wrote:
Meanwhile, and back to your request for feedback, something is a bit off with the individual page headings here . . . . I'm using Chrome 21.0.1180.75 under Ubuntu.

I hope this helps.

Well no Ian, actually it does not help at all. No-one running Windows or a recent Mac OS with Safari (thanks Blowing Old Boots) has reported this problem.

I don't have a machine with Ubuntu on it. I realise that obviously according to you I should, plus one with Red Hat and a dozen more with every other Linux distribution installed, just to be on the safe side - but I don't. Neither do I care what the site looks like on the raspberry pi or on an Amstrad word processor or on your toaster.

Sorry.

Nick wrote: Well no Ian, actually it does not help at all. No-one running Windows or a recent Mac OS with Safari (thanks Blowing Old Boots) has reported this problem.

OK, If you don't want to cater to the Linux market, that's absolutely fine. Your choice.

I don't have a machine with Ubuntu on it.

Well, that's why I thought you might be interested in knowing how it renders under Ubuntu. Don't clients care how their websites look under Linux? I'd have thought the proportion of penguin aficionados in the web serving world was rather higher than in the population at large, what with LAMP and all.

I realise that obviously according to you I should, plus one with Red Hat and a dozen more with every other Linux distribution installed, just to be on the safe side - but In don't. Neither do I care what the site looks like on the raspberry pi or on an Amstrad word processor or on your toaster.

Maybe worth trying on just one Linux distribution, though? In which case, the most popular desktop one seems like an obvious choice.

Have you tested the site under Android? I've just opened the site on my Galaxy Tab 10.1 and all I get is the header picture (which vanishes after a second or so), the Home ... Everything Else menubar and a cottages4you advert down the right hand side. That's a completely stock Android 3.2 browser with no extensions and default settings.

On an even older Galaxy S phone it renders fine, except that a tall Gill advert displaces all the other content downwards, leaving a large vertical gap between the menu bar and the sub heading.

.

Nick wrote:.

Are you sure you want an unbalanced number of <div> and </div> tags? I'd be having a look at lines 295 and 296 if I were you.

PS It works fine with the Epiphany browser

Jings - whit a stramash!
I am so glad I know absolutely Jackshit in terms of technical issues, how uncomplicated my life feels when I read some of the Serbo-Croat the Geek describes.

Sail Argyll looks pretty much OK and as with the snowflakes, I find Nick is usually pretty good at sorting glitches and irritants. I found the snowflakes rather pleasant and seasonal at first - ok I do think its time they stopped now, is there a vanilla flavoured android I could use to exterminate them?

Great Site Nick, which provided a deal of fun and pleasure for many - pity we sometimes lose sight of that