PDA

View Full Version : Opening page



nebularain
2003-Mar-15, 07:48 PM
Has anyone seen the I-am-assuming-it-is-new opening page for the NASA web site? I think it is pretty neat!

http://www.nasa.gov

kucharek
2003-Mar-15, 08:37 PM
And it seems they call bytes kilobytes. Or do they mean kilobits...?

Harald

Nanoda
2003-Mar-16, 12:45 AM
??? I don't see any mention of either of those. Where's that?

1 byte = 8 bits
2^10 bits = 1 Kilobit = 1024 bits
2^10 bytes = 1 Kilobyte = 8192 bits

My machine isn't the fastest, so the intro comes off looking kinda cheap (perhaps they shoulda thought of that), but at least the message is clear, that they're still doing what they do.
(Not that any here had doubts, but others might need it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

kilopi
2003-Mar-16, 02:38 AM
On 2003-03-15 15:37, kucharek wrote:
And it seems they call bytes kilobytes. Or do they mean kilobits...?
Where?

beskeptical
2003-Mar-16, 09:15 AM
OK you DSLers. Don't rub it in.

I like the intro, once anyway. I do hate when all that nice stuff slows down the loading time.

I hope GW puts our money where his mouth is when it comes to funding NASA. Do you think they put him on there to gain favor? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

ToSeek
2003-Mar-16, 02:51 PM
I'm not usually a fan of Flash introductions, but this one is well done. That and the home page are both very nice.

g99
2003-Mar-16, 08:06 PM
loved it. The sound worked with the images very nicely and i love the score. great job.

David Hall
2003-Mar-16, 09:44 PM
I think it's a pretty good opening. not too flashy or tacky. Just a few simple images and quotes.

[Begin rant]

On a larger note, I don't mind flash introductions really, as long as there's a way to bypass them, they aren't a problem. But I simply can't stand sites that use flash for navigation menus, or even worse, the entire content. Movie sites are excellent examples of this; see The Core's (http://www.thecoremovie.com/) site for one. I hate them because they take control away from the user. You can't copy links, or cut n' paste, or save images, or anything. It's annoying and unnecessary, and tends to waste bandwith. Except for animations and games, there's nothing flash can do that regular HTML (or javascript at worst) can't. It's just poor web building, IMO.

[end rant]

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Argos
2003-Mar-17, 03:44 PM
As a Flash fan, Im glad to see it is spreading to the .org sites. It used to be a pure commercial tool.

The page opened very fast in my machine, even using a dial-up connection.

Argos
2003-Mar-17, 03:55 PM
On 2003-03-16 16:44, David Hall wrote:

But I simply can't stand sites that use flash for navigation menus, or even worse, the entire content.


Nice "The Core", David. For a moment it made me remind a a short-story by Clarke called, if I remember the English title, "The Pressure Within".

As to Flash in navigation menus I think they are great, especially when coupled with XML. See this sample Im workin on (a scratch indeed) that blends Flash/XML and ordinary HTML. Its the home page of the Engeneering School I studied at.

http://planeta.terra.com.br/informatica/ebm/feb/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2003-03-17 10:56 ]</font>

ToSeek
2003-Mar-17, 05:34 PM
On 2003-03-16 16:44, David Hall wrote:
On a larger note, I don't mind flash introductions really, as long as there's a way to bypass them, they aren't a problem. But I simply can't stand sites that use flash for navigation menus, or even worse, the entire content.


Yes, that's the sort of thing I object to, or in fact any site where it's obvious that the designer didn't test it on anything slower than a T1 line, if at all.

g99
2003-Mar-17, 05:34 PM
I love flash menues and graphics. Adds flavor to the page without bogging it down like javascrypt does.

I hate pages that use lots of javascrypt because my browser has to pause while it waits to load if they coded it poorly. (Netscape, Newest version)

While i would agree that Flash sites do not let you copy text or pics, they do add alot of stuff that regular html can.

Just remember to use it in moderation. I still would like the option for a html page. But i can't have my cake and eat it too all the time.

SiriMurthy
2003-Mar-17, 06:18 PM
On 2003-03-15 14:48, nebularain wrote:
Has anyone seen the I-am-assuming-it-is-new opening page for the NASA web site? I think it is pretty neat!

http://www.nasa.gov




And it still says "One small step for man one gaint leap for mankind" (emphasis mine) instead of "One small step for a man one gaint leap for mankind" (again, emphasis mine).

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

heliopause
2003-Mar-17, 08:08 PM
On 2003-03-17 13:18, SiriMurthy wrote:
[quote]
And it still says "One small step for man one gaint leap for mankind" (emphasis mine) instead of "One small step for a man one gaint leap for mankind" (again, emphasis mine).

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif


There seems to be some doubt about the "a." According to this excerpt from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal Armstrong intended to add the "a" and forgot to spit it out.

109:24:48 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)
[As Andrew Chaikin details in A Man on the Moon, after the flight Neil said that he had intended to say "one small step for a man". Andy and I agree that the flow of the dialog at this point in the tape suggests that Neil forgot to say the "a" and that there is little likelihood that the "a" was lost in transmission.]

I only know this because I lost a bet on it...

[edited bad grammar]
_____________________________________________
"I believe what I said yesterday-I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, uh, I assume it's what I said."
-SecDef Donald "Eeeeeevil" Rumsfeld

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heliopause on 2003-03-17 15:10 ]</font>

David Hall
2003-Mar-17, 08:56 PM
Whatever Neil's intention was, and whatever he actually said, the fact of the matter is that the "a" is not evident in the recording. Either it's not there, or it's so blurred in with the word "man" that it's unrecognizable as a separate word.

Listen to it here:
Armstrong sets foot on the Moon (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ktclips/ap11_17_One_Small_Step.rm)

You could also check out this version, but I recommend not taking it at face value: /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

"One small step for a man" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11-astep-fun.wav)

So I don't think the NASA intro is wrong in it's transcription, since that's what it sounds like.

-----

Argos, that's a nice site, but that's exactly the type of navigation I can't stand. I have no control over any of the links. I can't mouse over them to see the link address, or copy and paste them, or make the link open in a new window, or highlight them for easier reading, or anything. I'm totally at the mercy of the webdesigner, and I don't like it.

The truth is, there's nothing on that site that can't be done with regular HTML, so why bother with something different?

g99, I agree that flash menus are more flexible and smaller than javascript, but HTML is smaller than either, and cleaner in presentation. The only purpose for the others is to add bells and whistles to a page, while removing control from the end user. It's becoming impossible anymore to surf without having flash installed or javascript enabled (which is a security risk, if nothing else).

IIRC, even the BA had a fancy animated menubar at one time, but he eventually took it off again because of complaints and higher bandwidth. I for one don't miss it in the least.

I say, leave flash to standalone applications, minimize javascript to only what's absolutely necessary, and keep site navigation simple. The more basic it is, the less you have to irritate end users. If you simply can't live without it, at the very least, provide a non flash/non-java/non frames version for those unwilling or unable to use the fancy stuff.

Remember, KISS.

_________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<font size="-1">(made some minor changes and corrections)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2003-03-17 16:07 ]</font>

g99
2003-Mar-17, 09:38 PM
Oy! Don't get me going on frames... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

For my website (which i am switching over to a more browser freindly verson for both IE and netscape) i only use HTML. That is mainly because i don't know how to code in Javascrypt of Flash. If i did use flash it would be for something stupid like a game or a intro that someone can skip. I personally like the html navigation. But i am still woowed and mystified by lost of flash stuff.

SiriMurthy
2003-Mar-17, 11:27 PM
On 2003-03-17 15:56, David Hall wrote:
...So I don't think the NASA intro is wrong in it's transcription, since that's what it sounds like...


It sure sounds like Neil left out saying out "a", but I sort of remember that he mentioned later that he did say the letter "a". Hence the whole controversy surrounding this.

I also remember reading long time ago that they rehearsed this transcript several times over and Neil was supposed to say "a". From that point of view NASA transcript on their home page should include "a".

Argos
2003-Mar-18, 12:33 AM
On 2003-03-17 15:56, David Hall wrote:

I say, leave flash to standalone applications, minimize javascript to only what's absolutely necessary, and keep site navigation simple. The more basic it is, the less you have to irritate end users. If you simply can't live without it, at the very least, provide a non flash/non-java/non frames version for those unwilling or unable to use the fancy stuff.

Remember, KISS.



To be honest David, I share most of your objections. But many times I had troubles trying to explain these things to potential clients. The problem is that people tend to believe that pure HTML is for amateurs. They want their websites to be, well...Flashy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

But I have committed myself in being very careful in using Flash and Javascript. The world would be perfect if everybody understood that content is what matters.

CJSF
2003-Mar-18, 11:58 AM
Actually, when used properly, Flash sites can use much less bandwidth than non-Flash sites. I agree somewhat with the "control" issues, though. I am a rabid copy-paste URL person too.

CJSF