Full Version: The New CLUE Files
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Mar 27 2007, 04:04 PM) |
| I think a good story has as at least as much, if not more, to do with who's telling the story than the actual content. A good storyteller can make a trip to buy bread sound exciting. A poor storyteller can make anything dull. |
So I went down to the supermarket to get some bread... and that's when the ninjas attacked!
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| Might I recommend some good editing. In the first story alone I've found: |
My apologies, those are my fault. I hadn't really thought about clarity at the time, just blathering out a story really. I suppose my way of thinking was more like relating an old game story to a group of buddies while hang out rather than acutally submitting something. I didn't bother to spell check, or even read it over. Laziness on my part.
So don't slam knasser. I'll take some time to go back over my own submissions and try to clarify and clean up a bit of the mess.
After reading over those, it almost makes me want to submit one about myself and my own group. I swear to god we do the most retarded crap and manage to survive.
We badly injured (and possibly killed) an Insect Spirit queen while in close proximity to the rest of the hive. Does that count as CLUE-worthy?
~J
~J
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) | ||
My apologies, those are my fault. I hadn't really thought about clarity at the time, just blathering out a story really. I suppose my way of thinking was more like relating an old game story to a group of buddies while hang out rather than acutally submitting something. I didn't bother to spell check, or even read it over. Laziness on my part. So don't slam knasser. I'll take some time to go back over my own submissions and try to clarify and clean up a bit of the mess. |
You mean I have to go through and put in all those HTML tags AGAIN?
@X-Kalibur: So go ahead and write it up! Confession is good for the soul.
Up to you man. I can go over my stories and clean them up, or if you want just leave 'em as they are. Don't want to make more work for you.
You can always grab the source and edit that. Make sure you fix incorrect use of the <b> and <i> tags, as well
~J, intarwebs national socialist
Edit: looks like the only transgression on that page isn't yours, so you're in the clear.
~J, intarwebs national socialist
Edit: looks like the only transgression on that page isn't yours, so you're in the clear.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| You can always grab the source and edit that. Make sure you fix incorrect use of the <b> and <i> tags, as well ~J, intarwebs national socialist Edit: looks like the only transgression on that page isn't yours, so you're in the clear. |
Well, I hope you noticed all the XHTML valid <br /> tags, Herr Kagetenshi.
Now where is this incorrect <b> tag you claim?(Actually, it's very probably there are HTML errors. I'm not a web designer or programmer, just a quick learner. I pretty much taught myself it as I went along when I was putting the site together).
It was actually an <i>: "if your GM or players are this bad…". It's not invalid, but it's semantically incorrect—you should be using <em>, or <strong> if you want even more emphasis. For validity, this could help.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| It was actually an <i>: "if your GM or players are this bad…". It's not invalid, but it's semantically incorrect—you should be using <em>, or <strong> if you want even more emphasis. For validity, this could help. ~J |
Wow! Eight errors! When they call it strict XHTML, they mean strict!
You'll be glad to no that the CLUE page is now 100% valid. I couldn't see why the <i> tags are incorrectly used though. I wanted italic text, and I got italic text. What is the advantage of the <em> tags?
Because you didn't want italic text, you wanted text with emphasis. A screenreader, for example, will know that it should pronounce that with emphasis. Italics? No semantic meaning. Same reason we have a <cite> tag—so that you don't need a human with real intelligence to figure out that that's a citation and not just some random italicized text.
More nonvalidation:
Clue #2
Clue #3
Clue #4… I'm starting to see a pattern here, I suspect you've just got an element that got forgotten on a template somewhere. Clue 6 validates, by the way.
Clue 7 has a different pair of errors, one of which is the result of a deprecated tag—you'll probably want to do that text decoration in css, or better yet use a different form of emphasis (maybe <em>? ). The fact that underlining is so common for hyperlinks makes its use in ordinary text a bad idea, IMO.
8 validates, 9 has an issue with HTML entities. You want & , not a plain ole' &.
The good news is that attempting to access a nonexistent CLUE gets, if not the best failure page, a fully valid one.
~J
More nonvalidation:
Clue #2
Clue #3
Clue #4… I'm starting to see a pattern here, I suspect you've just got an element that got forgotten on a template somewhere. Clue 6 validates, by the way.
Clue 7 has a different pair of errors, one of which is the result of a deprecated tag—you'll probably want to do that text decoration in css, or better yet use a different form of emphasis (maybe <em>?
). The fact that underlining is so common for hyperlinks makes its use in ordinary text a bad idea, IMO.8 validates, 9 has an issue with HTML entities. You want & , not a plain ole' &.
The good news is that attempting to access a nonexistent CLUE gets, if not the best failure page, a fully valid one.
~J
Are you bringing knasser into 508 compliance (a government regulation requiring that all websites be legible to screen readers and the like for blind people, and other tools for other handicaps)?
More into line with the WCAG 1.0, but yeah, that's the idea.
~J
~J
Well thank you for that, Kagetenshi. I've learnt something and that's always valuable. Be warned though, I learn very quickly. 
Incidentally, fixed the error page for any perverse sorts that like to type in random garbage parameters in the URL to see if there are any secret clue files that I haven't posted links to yet and then have the cheek to complain that the result isn't valid XHTML. I mean, hypothetically, that is.
Incidentally, fixed the error page for any perverse sorts that like to type in random garbage parameters in the URL to see if there are any secret clue files that I haven't posted links to yet and then have the cheek to complain that the result isn't valid XHTML. I mean, hypothetically, that is.
I could have sworn I'd fixed that years ago. Someday I'll make it proper, but since I mostly ignore the front page in favour of the fora…
(Irony is, the markup that wasn't validating in all but one of those four errors didn't actually do anything. I commented it out, uploaded, reloaded, no change. No idea what I was thinking when I wrote that, it's been over four years now.)
Edit: not that I consider it incorrect as such, but do note that the old, ugly error message still shows up when a negative number is used as the clue number.
~J
(Irony is, the markup that wasn't validating in all but one of those four errors didn't actually do anything. I commented it out, uploaded, reloaded, no change. No idea what I was thinking when I wrote that, it's been over four years now.)
Edit: not that I consider it incorrect as such, but do note that the old, ugly error message still shows up when a negative number is used as the clue number.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Edit: not that I consider it incorrect as such, but do note that the old, ugly error message still shows up when a negative number is used as the clue number. ~J |
You bastard.
Okay, it now validates not only whether the parameter is numeric but also whether it is less than the number of available clue files and if it is equal to or more than zero. Do you have anything else up your sleeve or am I done, now?| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Mar 28 2007, 08:54 PM) |
| Close, very close. Your last challenge: you must take the margin and padding from my hand. ~J |
Done!
Will do the rest of the site soon. But I think that's good for now. More clues on the way, by the way. Not that anyone cares about the actual content.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.