www.dirty.org/underworld/ [Archive]

Yannick

07-01-2005, 03:14 AM

a basic version of the site is now online..

there's no real design or anything.. but you can get the information.
as i'm working on the database and all.. you may experience trouble

at the moment i'm messing with the little discography db.. it's a charm to work with database as I don't have to update 400 page of html. i'm learning as i'm doing this.. so please don't be too hard on me. yes I have a design in the work.. at the moment I keep the code as simple as possible. I want the thing to look nice and all, but right now getting the info out is the most important thing.

if you have suggestion for stuff that you would like to be added on the site let me know..

ps. there will be a whole media section.. the disco is up there but not linked yet.

dirtyshirt propaganda

lets talk ;)

Dirty0900

07-01-2005, 04:02 AM

Do you have all of the UW webcasts track listings? Theres still some stuff that was played that i need to get hold off.

big screen satellite

07-01-2005, 04:04 AM

keep up the good work Yannick...

any news from the guys let us know somewhere will you...;)

Leon

07-01-2005, 04:27 AM

Dirtyshirt WOOH!

goldfish

07-01-2005, 04:58 AM

Now is the time to build in standards compliance; get rid of all those font tags, fixed font sizes, background colours, tables for layout etc. Make your site accessible to all, not just people like you.

www.w3c.org/wai (http://www.w3c.org/wai)
www.alistapart.com (http://www.alistapart.com)
www.zeldman.com (http://www.zeldman.com)

Simon

patrick

07-01-2005, 05:32 AM

looking good to me and i am usign safari... standards compliance is alwaysa good thing, but i think it is good right now?

Eikman

07-01-2005, 06:04 AM

yeah, why not make it textbased only :rolleyes:

lloyd

07-01-2005, 06:18 AM

Or trade in your monochrome monitor for a new one. There's full colour ones now!

goldfish

07-01-2005, 07:03 AM

yeah, why not make it textbased only :rolleyes:

Or trade in your monochrome monitor for a new one. There's full colour ones now!

You need to join the 21st century kids.

Even the art wank "design" so popular here can be standards compliant. It'll look better, be easier to manage and give users control where they need it.

Of course, if you want dirty to be inaccesible to the visually impaired (presumably noone here is colour blind or has vision defects) feel free to remain stuck yourselves in the late 90's, when Underworld were better but web design was much worse.

Simon

King of Snake

07-01-2005, 07:44 AM

I think Yannick has been clear enough about the fact that none of the current designs on dirty (or the forum for that matter) are permanent or final versions.

oh yeah, that's real cool by the way how you put "design" in quotation marks. Care to elaborate on the difference between "real" design and art wank "design"?

lloyd

07-01-2005, 09:01 AM

Wank design = pr0n
But ok, people who have less/poor sight will have problems with some designs etc. Perhaps a 'printable version' button of the news and some other items is a solution there.

Rusty Shackleford

07-01-2005, 09:09 AM

yeah, why not make it textbased only :rolleyes:Told you so! (http://www.dirty.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17&page=3)

Yannick

07-01-2005, 01:22 PM

goldfish

07-02-2005, 02:19 AM

I think Yannick has been clear enough about the fact that none of the current designs on dirty (or the forum for that matter) are permanent or final versions.

Surely this then is the best time to highlight the need to do things properly. It's not difficult to achieve, and can still incorporate arrays of coloured blobs and grainy photos, but you do need to do it now rather than leave it until later.

We're not in the dark ages of Frontpage-designed IE-only 1024x768 full of <marquee> tags and flashing gifs any more. We know how to do things better, so that everyone can use them, and they can be used from anywhere; the information and expertise is all around us.

oh yeah, that's real cool by the way how you put "design" in quotation marks. Care to elaborate on the difference between "real" design and art wank "design"?

Good design looks good, is functional and inclusive. It doesn't restrict itself or fail to do the job it's designed to do purely in order to look good. And it brings everyone to the party.

Bad "design" is a beautiful spiral staircase, all steel wire, back lit glass steps and brushed aluminium bannisters that doesn't reach from the ground floor to the 1st.

That's a physical equivalent of the photoshop-wankery that gets passed off as design here. It may be art, but it isn't design.

Simon

goldfish

07-02-2005, 02:20 AM

But ok, people who have less/poor sight will have problems with some designs etc. Perhaps a 'printable version' button of the news and some other items is a solution there.

FFS :rolleyes:

stimpee

07-04-2005, 10:18 AM

Hey Yan, im using top internet browser Lynx. your site looks rubbish mate. sort it out! ascii is where its at!

goldfish

07-04-2005, 10:39 AM

Hey Yan, im using top internet browser Lynx. your site looks rubbish mate. sort it out! ascii is where its at!

Hey Yannick,

I'm using my PDA your site looks like rubbish mate. Sort it out! Small is where it's at!

I'm using my phone your site looks like rubbish mate. Sort it out! Tiny is where it's at!

I'm colourblind and can't read any of the text on your site. Sort it out! High contrast style sheets is where it's at!

I'm blind and use a spoken word browser and your site works like shit. Sort it out! Structured HTML is where it's at!

I have mobility problems and can't use my mouse so your site works like shit. Sort it out! Structured HTML with accesskeys is where it's at!

I use a proper browser that your non-standards compliant HTML doesn't seem to like, so I can't read your site. Sort it out! Anything but IE is where it's at!

Et cetera

Try reading, Stimp. Standards-compliance isn't about preventing you from polluting the interweb with sub-graffitti 'art', it's about making sure that those who don't want it, don't need it, can't use it, etc. can still get the information they want from your site. Sure you can stick with half-arsed 1990's table-based layouts, full of sliced images from Photoshop or Fireworks. But most people are more interested in passing information to their users/customers, rather than tossing off in HTML.

Quick check with aDesigner yielded almost 200 accessibility problems with the news page, all of them easily avoidable. If you think accessibility isn't important, feel free to let me stab you in both eyes with a compass and then we'll see how much you enjoy finding out information about your favourite bands on teh interweb.

Simon

edit BTW Yannick, I'm not having a go at you, just the pricks telling you that doing the job properly isn't worthwhile.

stimpee

07-04-2005, 01:12 PM

Simon, sort it out mate, realising that i was joking is where its at ;)

I highly doubt that anyone uses Lynx to visit Dirty, but if youre interested, you can read about it here (http://home.pacific.net.sg/~kennethkwok/lynx/).

Lighten up :)

Forgotten Sanity

07-04-2005, 01:15 PM

Personally, I don't really care if the site is pretty or not, functional should be your main focus. The only thing that I can tell you about compliance is, please don't use Times New Roman. I always have an easier time reading sans-serif text.

Hey Yannick,

I'm using my PDA your site looks like rubbish mate. Sort it out! Small is where it's at!

I'm using my phone your site looks like rubbish mate. Sort it out! Tiny is where it's at!

I'm colourblind and can't read any of the text on your site. Sort it out! High contrast style sheets is where it's at!

I'm blind and use a spoken word browser and your site works like shit. Sort it out! Structured HTML is where it's at!

I have mobility problems and can't use my mouse so your site works like shit. Sort it out! Structured HTML with accesskeys is where it's at!

I use a proper browser that your non-standards compliant HTML doesn't seem to like, so I can't read your site. Sort it out! Anything but IE is where it's at!

You're a real piece of work aren't you Goldfish?

goldfish

07-04-2005, 01:49 PM

You're a real piece of work aren't you Goldfish?

Errr. a) we seem to agree on this issue, b) having politely pointed it out, we've had a stream of 'text-browser' piss-taking from people who demonstrably don't know what they're talking about. I replied in kind.

Whatever.

Simon

goldfish

07-04-2005, 01:53 PM

Simon, sort it out mate, realising that i was joking is where its at ;)

Almost 1 in 6 people in the UK is affected by one form of disability or another. You can choose to laugh with them or take the piss out of them. You should concentrate on the former, because the latter ain't terribly amusing.

I highly doubt that anyone uses Lynx to visit Dirty, but if youre interested, you can read about it here.

FFS. I don't care what browsers people are using. This isn't a browser issue. It's about ensuring accessibility however people choose to access the site. That means it shouldn't matter whether they're using IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Browsealoud, JAWS, Lynx, OSX spoken word, PDA, WAP etc. etc. they'll still get a decent user experience and access to the information they want.

It's not hard to achieve and it doesn't compromise the look/feel/style of the website whatever tosh people try and put into it. If you design it properly everyone can use it. If you take this half-arsed backwards design design design standards-compliance=boring and ugly perspective that everyone (except Forgotten Sanity, to his credit) seems so keen on here then you risk excluding people, which doesn't seem very 'dirty'. Or didn't anyway.

Simon

King of Snake

07-04-2005, 02:16 PM

Hey I'm all for well-designed and easily accessible websites. I absolutely hate it when all kinds of pretty pictures and flashy animation and "clever" navigation gets in the way of me getting to the information. If I, as a non-visually impaired person, can't even get to the info I want someone isn't doing his job properly. And yes they should be (obviously) viewable in every browser.
That being said, being a dick about it isn't going to make it any better. Maybe wait until we actually have some final designs may be a good idea. I haven't really seen ayone here argue against good and accessible design so I don't really get what you're getting so worked up about.

btw let's also realise that most people are not webdesigners and don't know all the technicalities of standards compliance. Also, as you said probably most (all?) people here don't have visual defects so if you say that the news page has 200 problems I'm sure you're right, but to me (and others) it looks fine so I can't really criticise it.

goldfish

07-04-2005, 02:54 PM

You've seen a bundle of people argue that standards-compliant = text, or boring, or monochrome, or for lynx only, and dirty has traditionally put visual "design" (there's those quotes again) way above accessibility as a priority.

If people are ignorant about standards compliance and the benefits of accessibility, as most here appear to be, and the users who most benefit from it considered as a joke, it doesn't bode well, does it?

As before, I gently pointed out the benefits of standards-compliance, and some tips on how to achieve it; I wasn't the one who over-reacted, but will always respond to ignorance and short-sightedness.

Simon

goldfish

07-04-2005, 03:02 PM

btw let's also realise that most people are not webdesigners and don't know all the technicalities of standards compliance.

Which is why I provided links to useful information. :rolleyes:

Also, as you said probably most (all?) people here don't have visual defects

I said that 1 in 6 in the UK have some form of disability; that might be a vision-impairment or it might be motor difficulties. Either way, that's over 16% of the potential audience for dirty. Quite a chunk.

Put it this way; if you came to a site and you couldn't read the text, or it didn't work with your preferred browser technology would you stay and use it? Of course you wouldn't, so why should someone who's colour blind be any different?

Simon

patrick

07-04-2005, 03:34 PM

i meant it looked like it was standard compliant right now. if yannick keeps on expanding from what he has right now to incorporate his design then everything should be okay. i think most major problems come around when people use front page for the CSS and then it ends up being coded improperly on purpose (cause M$ are arses)...

anyhow. compliant web sites are becoming more and more necessary. i think simon is getting taken wrong. i think he thinks exterior design is good, but will not work properly if it isn't designed properly on the inside via. CSS

goldfish

07-04-2005, 03:37 PM

anyhow. compliant web sites are becoming more and more necessary. i think simon is getting taken wrong. i think he thinks exterior design is good, but will not work properly if it isn't designed properly on the inside via. CSS

Spot on.

Simon

stimpee

07-04-2005, 04:31 PM

oh ffs goldfish. i make a joke about the website looking rubbish on a text based browser and you take it way too seriously. dont try and make out that im laughing at disabled people either and try to take some moral ground that isnt even there.

to take the subject of the website seriously i too favour content and accessibility over style and this is the last comment i will be making, especially if youre gonna jump on any eroneous comments i might make on the subject.

Forgotten Sanity

07-04-2005, 05:16 PM

As before, I gently pointed out the benefits of standards-compliance, and some tips on how to achieve it; I wasn't the one who over-reacted, but will always respond to ignorance and short-sightedness.

Simon

Goldfish, if you want to preach, go get a fucking pulpit and a bible. It's a website for chrissakes, and calling people pricks, ignorant and short-sighted isn't going to get you anywhere because all its going to do is damage your credibility amongst the more civil people around here. It doesn't matter that we agreed on your point, what matters is that you can't walk into this or any forum and start lighting people up, and expect whatever respect you believe in your own eyes is due to you.

If I was you, I'd try curtailing the explicit arrogance you parade around with, lest some of your better points down the road fall on deaf ears...

goldfish

07-05-2005, 12:23 AM

Goldfish, if you want to preach, go get a fucking pulpit and a bible. It's a website for chrissakes, and calling people pricks, ignorant and short-sighted isn't going to get you anywhere because all its going to do is damage your credibility amongst the more civil people around here. It doesn't matter that we agreed on your point, what matters is that you can't walk into this or any forum and start lighting people up, and expect whatever respect you believe in your own eyes is due to you.

Who gives a fuck about credibility? The people here who know me, know me, and the people who don't, don't. Likewise the people I respect, get respect (and let's hope a few more of 'em find their way back here soon), and the rest I won't lose any sleep over.

Bizarre as this may seem to a n00b (and it's slightly out of context in this discussion), I actually care about dirty and its community. However, over the last year or so (breaks notwithstanding) it seems to be slowly being sacrificed to the egos of a small minority, and left to them and the fanboys, at the expense of the philosophy and the people that made dirty.org an interesting place to be.

If I was you, I'd try curtailing the explicit arrogance you parade around with, lest some of your better points down the road fall on deaf ears...

Gee thanks, I'll try to bear that in mind.

Simon

dubman

07-05-2005, 12:38 AM

i think the issues that you're having with the site and the issues on the site itself are disproportionate.

b.miller

07-05-2005, 01:02 AM

just to throw a few words into the rumble...

1. it's so much easier to design with accessibility in mind than to go back and retrofit stuff. This doesn't mean you should design boring or plain websites, just that putting all those alt tags and class= spans and divs in when you first put the design together is much less of a pain in the ass, it's actually not a real pain in the ass at all.

2. there's no downside to making a site accessible, especially if the design's not done yet. Whether you personally care about it or not, there's no extra bother to design the site with the W3C in mind and it's not like it will diminish your work in any way or inhibit anyone from seeing it. And if you're not familiar with all the accessibility guidelines, reading about them might actually spurn an idea or two. Plus if you want to be "known" as a web designer, it's a good idea to know that stuff anyway.

3. anyone that's ever done any sort of multi-browser javascript will tell you that accessibility is the opposite of bad. It's so refreshing to finally be able to put together a site using firm standards and say "well, if it doesn't look right it's because of your browser, not my code."

Also, I'm not meaning any offense toward anyone specific here but the points that simon brought up were pretty web-designer-specific so for those that don't know what accessibility means or don't consider themselves technically proficient in this stuff shouldn't criticize it. I don't presume to know how to make circuitboards so telling someone who does not to use so many of those big round things seems a bit ridiculous.

Of course this only pertains to the web design half of this thread and not the design vs. "design" stuff. i'm not even trying to get into that one :)

rayray

07-05-2005, 05:07 AM

it's back! man I missed you, it, everything everything....
thanks dirtiest for bringing the forum back to life again

Forgotten Sanity

07-05-2005, 05:25 AM

Also, I'm not meaning any offense toward anyone specific here but the points that simon brought up were pretty web-designer-specific so for those that don't know what accessibility means or don't consider themselves technically proficient in this stuff shouldn't criticize it. I don't presume to know how to make circuitboards so telling someone who does not to use so many of those big round things seems a bit ridiculous.

Yeah, but harp on people as deep as its gone? I mean, I'm perfectly aware that spending all kinds of time on internet forums pretty much makes you a card-carrying member of Beta Sigma Nerdus, but JEE-SUS...

Ally

07-05-2005, 08:54 AM

Is this a common problem among websites? I always thought that dirty was one of the better sites out there..

macth

12-12-2005, 12:58 PM

Hi,
Anyone know when the discography section will be working again?

Thanks.

froopy seal

12-13-2005, 01:08 AM

Don't know what's going on there but in the meantime you might try Matt's site http://www.bigscreensatellite.co.uk/ --> discography, --> Underworld,. It's quite thorough, I guess.

big screen satellite

12-13-2005, 01:41 AM

Don't know what's going on there but in the meantime you might try Matt's site http://www.bigscreensatellite.co.uk/ --> discography, --> Underworld,. It's quite thorough, I guess.

its not bad i suppose - if i say so myself, it does need updating a bit but you should find it more than adequete - and more comprehensive than anything else around...

full link:

http://www.bigscreensatellite.co.uk/discog.htm