*new* Netscape Browser Archive

Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Camino, Mozilla, Netscape 6/7/8/9, and all Gecko-based browsers discussion and support forum. (MozInfo701, Netscape Browser Archive)

*new* Netscape Browser Archive

Postby Antony » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 7:58 am

EDITED, the new Netscape Browser Archive is now available.

Hello all,
I'd like to announce that the newly re-designed Netscape Browser Archive is now open for testing.

The current one is located in the same old URL.
The new Netscape Browser Archive is available here. (temporary location)
Image
The new designed Netscape Browser Archive will incorporate the new SillyDog701's layout with easy navigation, and larger fonts.

Please provide your comments, feedback and any problems.
Last edited by Antony on Thu 29 Aug, 2002 5:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mr. Tinkles » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 9:34 am

Looking good! I particularly like the new look of the top header area.

One question right off the bat. In the help section near the bottom, there is a blurb about download managers which contains the following...

like for Windows 9x/NT, Monica for Macintosh, Caitoo for Linux.

Monica and Caitoo are links, but what is the 'like for Windows 9x/NT' supposed to be?
I was born by God's dear grace in extraordinary place
Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle flies.
User avatar
Mr. Tinkles
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri 26 Jul, 2002 3:06 pm
Location: Felisopolis

Oh! yeah

Postby Antony » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 9:49 am

Sorry, I forgot to fix that part.
It used to be "Go!Zilla" for Windows. (an affiliated link) Now I make it open for recommendation.
Any suggestions?
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mr. Tinkles » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 10:07 am

Personally I don't typically use a special download manager, but when the need arises, I just use RealDownload. However, I don't think it is even available for download from Real anymore. Here are a few links to download manager lists.

http://www.tucows.com/manager95.html
http://cws.internet.com/ftp.html
http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3150-2071-0.html?tag=dir

A lot of folks in the netscape user groups mention one called Download accelerator plus, but I've never used it.
I was born by God's dear grace in extraordinary place
Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle flies.
User avatar
Mr. Tinkles
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri 26 Jul, 2002 3:06 pm
Location: Felisopolis

Postby Shark Daddy » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 11:47 am

Both of the DMs Mr. T mentions are IMO garbage (Sorry T), especially Real. I think DAP has spyware. Go for Star Downloader, Leechget, or if you need a full-featured client, GetRight. Leechget is easily the best in terms of everything except for CPU. Go!Zilla has spy/adware too.
Shark Daddy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 11:19 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby DJGM » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 5:14 pm

The new NSBA looks good, but I notice there's no DOCTYPE declaration.

e.g. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

As for download managers, most of then do indeed contain nefarious
adware/spyware/scumware, especially the likes of Go!Zilla and DAP.
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Shark Daddy » Fri 23 Aug, 2002 9:18 pm

A doctype declaration won't really help here, DJ.
Shark Daddy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 11:19 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Please provide more detailed feedback.

Postby Antony » Sat 24 Aug, 2002 9:12 am

Please provide your feedback on...
  1. header size and the design of header.
  2. 'graphite' buttons on the header? Would those be too hard to read?
  3. Overall colour usage? Better? Worse? (Basically I've reduced the colours to gradient style.)
  4. Information presented? too much? too little?
  5. Font/text size? too small still?
  6. Would overall design still complicated?
  7. Would overall layout/design still too crowded?
  8. More sections? OR should be less sections?
  9. How about navigation?
  10. Loading speed?
  11. Any other suggestions?

Thanks.
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Josh » Mon 26 Aug, 2002 12:48 am

It looks pretty good. Loads fast w/ Moz, IE, and Opera. However, the links to the Communicator 4.8 Mac and *nix release notes are broken.
Josh
SD701 Moderator
User of Safari 4.0.3 on :tiger:
User avatar
Josh
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Fri 21 Jun, 2002 11:04 am

Postby Dennis L. » Mon 26 Aug, 2002 1:37 am

GREAT LOOK Anthony

New design looks nice. The header and color selections are very pleasing to the eyes.
The balance of --- "Alot of Information" --- to --- "Just to Busy of a Read" -- is a very difficult task. As long as the user can navigate the site, which most forum user's can, I feel you did a great job. With 7.0 Final coming out, would be a nice time to bring out a NEW look.
Dennis L.
silver member
silver member
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat 22 Jun, 2002 12:21 am
Location: Central Wisconsin, USA.

Re: Please provide more detailed feedback.

Postby Mega\ » Mon 26 Aug, 2002 4:20 am

  1. header size and the design of header.
    -> I think it a few big, but the design is cool. 8)
  2. 'graphite' buttons on the header? Would those be too hard to read?
    -> I can read it well.
  3. Overall colour usage? Better? Worse? (Basically I've reduced the colours to gradient style.)
    -> Feels good.
  4. Information presented? too much? too little?
  5. Font/text size? too small still?
  6. Would overall design still complicated?
    -> A bit.
  7. Would overall layout/design still too crowded?
    -> No.
  8. More sections? OR should be less sections?
  9. How about navigation?
  10. Loading speed?
    -> A bit slow.
  11. Any other suggestions?
Mega\
User avatar
Mega\
member
member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu 20 Jun, 2002 1:46 am
Location: Seongnam, Korea

Postby Hendikins » Mon 26 Aug, 2002 5:28 am

It's an improvement for sure, but I nearly had a heart attack when I did a view source...

Also, you've got "released notes" rather than "release notes" a couple of times there...

Validation result with doctype override
Michael Hendy
Mozilla PluginDoc - http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/
Hendikins - The Lurking Wolfox
User avatar
Hendikins
Lurking Wolfox
Lurking Wolfox
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon 26 Aug, 2002 5:21 am
Location: All stations to Zig Zag via the North Shore Line

Postby minh » Mon 26 Aug, 2002 1:47 pm

I like it, except I have a problem with colors. Your gray is too dark. Usually, if you have a dark gray, you would contrast it with a lighter color. Furthermore, your blue is already "grayed". The dark colors and lack of contrast is really depressing. I suggest you lighten the gray. It will help your site visually.

http://www.apple.com/

Apple.com (a company known for aethetics) also uses gray, but their gray is lighter and they use a white background. The lighter blue color at Apple and the two values of grays (dark/light) when juxtaposed contrast and compliments each other.

Apple's site is more easy on the eyes than yours.
Also, can you make your buttons translucent blue?

The boxes in which you seperate content is too strong. Each box seems isolated from the rest. I suggest you cut off the top-left corner of the box at 45 degrees or round the box out. Maybe you could frame the boxes by adding border IMHO.

:D I hope my critique help. These are just my opinions. I hope you take no offense.
http:wishlist.mozdev.org - Mozilla Wishlist Project
Please visit and contribute.
minh
new member
new member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 26 Aug, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Carlsbad, CA, USA

Postby Antony » Mon 26 Aug, 2002 6:11 pm

Thank you for all feedbacks so far.

About the HTML DOCTYPE and HTML validation, sorry, I am more interested in how users see it than the reading of source codes. Also, there are a number of intentional illegal codes.

The overall background colour, I've lightened them last night. Thanks for the comments. About Apple's website, sure it is very well designed, however, I can't make the Netscape Browser Archive too "Aqua". Our majority users are Windows.

I will try to adjust the colours to compromise between visibility and my SillyDog701 theme. Got the create a harmonic integration for NSBA and SD701.
Also, can you make your buttons translucent blue?

If you are talking about top "graphite" buttons, then I believe the current "translucent graphite buttons" look nicer than blue, also won't be too "aqualise".

With 7.0 Final coming out, would be a nice time to bring out a NEW look.

I will try, but no guarantee.

Thank you for all comments/feedbacks, particually I appreciated those "critiques".

More comments still welcome.
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

New Netscape Browser Archive released

Postby Antony » Tue 27 Aug, 2002 7:20 pm

Hello guys.
I've now officially release the new Netscape Browser Archive!
http://sillydog.org/narchive/
If there are any problems with the new Netscape Browser Archive, please do not hesitate to report it there.
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Next

Return to Firefox, SeaMonkey and Netscape

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot]