Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PISA-caching

Pimping my waymarks

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to pimp my waymarks, because I want to increase their overall quality - at least a little. I will start with my oldest waymark and once I'm completely satisfied with it, I will change all the others one by one.

One thing I want to change: Every waymark should have a long description in the local language first and the English text after that. I haven't yet decided whether all titles should either follow the same pattern (local language title / English title), or just have an English title or just the local title. The short description will always be local and English language. I've seen that many waymarkers have their own system (sometimes it's just the two languages separated with a " / ", sometimes there is also "DE", "FR", "EN" etc. in the short description to make it easier to find the desired language.

The other thing is: The long description should have a little more color. As I'm not very good at HTML, CSS and all that I "borrowed" some code here and there. The local text has a red border/background and a flag of Germany and Austria for the German text and blue border/background and flag of USA and UK for the English text.

If anybody has any advice as to what I should or shouldn't do to make them look even better, I would be very grateful.

Also: I created an unfinished waymark and uploaded these two flag image files. Since I don't have a website where I could store these images, I thought that this would be the best thing to do. As far as I know Images can be called with different URLs and I'm not sure, if https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-Waymarking-images/36a32ac9-6a31-41bb-9b26-caabe6e5c2bc.gif is the best choice. Again, every advice is highly appreciated.

Andreas

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

A great idea, but don't forget that quality is determined by content. The researched and presented information and the pictures do make the value of a waymark. Bells and whistles are fine, but only when the rest is worth it.

Your example looks good to me. I would personally not use flags that are so large, they are icons, not pictures, so their ideal size is about the one of the font. And I would use more padding around the text and the flags (the space between the content and the border). But this is just my personal preference.

I think, the flag solution is perfectly valid, but I have experienced that in some environments this can be sensitive. Waymarking is not such an environment, so just for completeness: There are very little one-to-one language country relations; what combination you chose is always a political statement. Why not Canada or Australia instead of the UK? Or Switzerland instead of Austria? (well, I know why ;)) (And the Kiwis are even more upset, because I don't even mention them :ph34r:). Will you use a Spanish and what South American Flag when you are going to visit Cuba and Argentina?

For my own waymarks I do not really follow a pattern for the title, usually it's English, but not always. I have tried two and in some cases even three languages in the short description, but came back to English alone, because sometimes the available space does not allow larger texts for more than one language.

I currently try to have all my waymarks in local language and English, and from time to time I update some of my older ones, that are still English only.

I decided to have English first for two reasons. First, I use different local languages, I live only two miles from a language border, and I have waymarks in countries where I do not speak the local language. So the constant factor is the English version, and for me this is a reason to put it in the first place. And second, this is the version I expect the officers to understand.

I also use a waymark gallery to store additional pictures, e.g. for category descriptions. Mine is not unfinished, but an old denied one, but this does not make a difference, technically.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not very good at HTML, so I prepared a template for my waymarks in word, and I just have to copy what I prepare and stick in my waymark, it's true that the color brings a little more gaiety in the presentation, I must thank "BK-Hunters" for its beautiful presentations.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the helpful input. Of course I will also look over the content and add more Information, make a quick spell check, check the other data etc.

The flags were just the first try and I agree that they should be smaller. I understand, that people from Australia and other countries will not be happy with the UK and USA flag, but these two are the best-known flags of all the countries that have English as the main language. If the flag of England (not UK ! ) would be more famous, I would use the flag of Germany for German, the flag of England for English, the flag of Spain for Spanish and so on. Maybe I pass on the flags completely and do something else instead.

About the languages: I think we had that discussion already and my reason for putting the local language in front is that most of the visitors are local waymarkers. And I create the waymarks for the visitors, not the officers. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

About the languages: I think we had that discussion already and my reason for putting the local language in front is that most of the visitors are local waymarkers. And I create the waymarks for the visitors, not the officers. :-)

That's interesting! Here, it's different. About three of four visit logs I receive are from international tourists, maybe more. Only my waymarks in France have a little more local visitors.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, fi67 said:

I currently try to have all my waymarks in local language and English, and from time to time I update some of my older ones, that are still English only.

 

There's something that had not occurred to me until reading fi's post. When we're Waymarking south of the 49th, we should be doing our WMs in both 'Merican & Canuck. We'll have to start doing that!! :rolleyes:

Keith

Share this post


Link to post

Andreas - I disagree with fi67 - the flags are just the right size to me, the British flag, for example, would lose most of its detail if it were smaller.

I agree with fi67 about the padding. I would replace "padding-left:15px;padding-right:10px;" with simply "padding:15px" or maybe even a couple more pixels. 

The code you're using to place the flags would be pretty hard to beat for simplicity and effectiveness. To pull them in from the radiused corner, add 15 or 20 pixels of transparency to the left edge, then use the same code you're using now.

Like these:f8b559d1-a262-469a-8aa9-227dc97df7b5.gif518209a3-fa2b-4c4f-8cab-c66349d02063.gif

These have 16 px of transparency. Use them if you want.

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

There's something that had not occurred to me until reading fi's post. When we're Waymarking south of the 49th, we should be doing our WMs in both 'Merican & Canuck. We'll have to start doing that!! :rolleyes:

Keith

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, fi67 said:

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

You could always just go with Romansch. :rolleyes:

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

You could always just go with Romansch. :rolleyes:

Keith

If I only was more firm in one of the five main variants of Romansh ...

I have a few waymarks in the Romansh area, one a Sign of History written in the Bargunsegner sub-variant of  Putér, was a challenge to translate without any existing online dictionary.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, fi67 said:

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

If y’all’d just speak Texan, y’all wouldn’t have none of these problems, and y’all could just be out yonder waymarkin’.  Everthang’d be just fine. 

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, fi67 said:

That's interesting! Here, it's different. About three of four visit logs I receive are from international tourists, maybe more. Only my waymarks in France have a little more local visitors.

Well, of course I have not counted all the visits and it was more a feeling, but now I checked a few of my waymarks and there are some that are in typical tourist areas and they have a lot of foreign visitors, but here in Vienna there are a few geocachers who also visit lots of my waymarks and I think that makes the difference. One active local waymarker/geocacher will visit many more waymarks over the year while tourists just stay a week or so and just visit a limited number of waymarks.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

Andreas - I disagree with fi67 - the flags are just the right size to me, the British flag, for example, would lose most of its detail if it were smaller.

I agree with fi67 about the padding. I would replace "padding-left:15px;padding-right:10px;" with simply "padding:15px" or maybe even a couple more pixels. 

The code you're using to place the flags would be pretty hard to beat for simplicity and effectiveness. To pull them in from the radiused corner, add 15 or 20 pixels of transparency to the left edge, then use the same code you're using now.

Like these:f8b559d1-a262-469a-8aa9-227dc97df7b5.gif518209a3-fa2b-4c4f-8cab-c66349d02063.gif

These have 16 px of transparency. Use them if you want.

Keith

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I also think that the size is good, because we might once visit a country with a flag that has even more detail than the UK flag. And if I find a good source in their language I might use that text and then I need that flag. I have already done waymarks with Swedish and Norwegian text, so you never know. :-)

If I used "padding: 15px", the "[DE]" would go down too much, but I changed it to "padding: 0 15px" (0 for top & bottom, 15px for left & right). Thank you for the flags with transparency, but right now I'm thinking about putting the language code between the 2 flags and/or using different flags, so I have to recreate these Images anyway. One idea I'm still considering is to create round (or rounded) flag buttons like these (but smaller):

sweden.png or Italy-icon.png

These would perfectly fit into the round corner, but I have yet to think about that.

Edited by PISA-caching

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, fi67 said:

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

I can confirm that Swiss German has very little in common with Standard German. When we once visited Switzerland we had a hard time to understand what people were talking about. People from Vorarlberg (the most-western province of Austria bordering Switzerland) also speak their special kind of German that you wouldn't understand unless you have been living there for years. :-)

Share this post


Link to post

For waymark creation, it is the local "written word" that is important.  If the waymark is written in the language of the local newspaper or restaurant menu, is that adequate?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, elyob said:

For waymark creation, it is the local "written word" that is important.  If the waymark is written in the language of the local newspaper or restaurant menu, is that adequate?

That's a good definition.

I generally do expect English, but do not require it unless the category does. Additional languages are always welcome, but should never be required, because there are so many great waymarks created by tourists without knowledge of the local languages. Thus, I would not even require local language for regional categories. Local language is, according to your definition, the predominant written language in the area and/or the official language of the region. There are many places with an official minority language although today the majority of the locals speak another language, like Romansh in Switzerland, Alsatian in France or Basque in Spain. Here the language choice is not obvious.

However, this is quite academic, because in reality we cannot expect anyone to know these languages. I would keep it simple. But whatever a category requires, the officers need to be able to handle it. It is better to require English than not to be able to correctly review a submission in another language. (and I have seen a lot of non-English waymarks completely unrelated to the category, only approved because an officer did not dare to admit he cannot read it. This must not happen.)

Online translation tools have moved forward a lot. Some language combinations work better than others, but normal sentences get quite acceptable results. You have to consider five points:

  1. Simple sentences work better, subordinate clauses and complex constructions lead to mistakes.
  2. The tools are usually overstrained with grammatical genders. English versions will have a lot of he/she instead of it.
  3. Technical terms are usually translated incorrect, especially when these terms also exist in other fields with different meanings.
  4. When you translate between two languages that are not English, then the software does this in two steps in the background, language A to English, the English to language B. So these translations do tend to have much more mistakes than the ones to and from English.
  5. Google translate changed the algorithms a few months ago. Before, it did not translate things it did not know. Now, it assumes a typo and translates something similar. This is especially unfortunate for place names.
Edited by fi67

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

I can confirm that Swiss German has very little in common with Standard German. When we once visited Switzerland we had a hard time to understand what people were talking about. People from Vorarlberg (the most-western province of Austria bordering Switzerland) also speak their special kind of German that you wouldn't understand unless you have been living there for years. :-)

I have some nice Swiss German tongue twisters for you.

The first is not a tongue twister at all for locals, but still nearly impossible for most foreigners:

"S'Chüeli hett äs Chüechli us äm Chuchichäschtli gchlaut." (The little cow stole a cookie out of the kitchen cupboard.)

This one is a real tongue (better: lip) twister for anyone:

"Dä Pabscht hett z'Schpiäz s'Schpäck-Bschteck z'schpot bschtellt." (The Pope was too late in ordering his bacon cutlery in Spiez (town name).)

Share this post


Link to post

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

Edited by Bon Echo

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, fi67 said:

"S'Chüeli hett äs Chüechli us äm Chuchichäschtli gchlaut." (The little cow stole a cookie out of the kitchen cupboard.)

"Dä Pabscht hett z'Schpiäz s'Schpäck-Bschteck z'schpot bschtellt." (The Pope was too late in ordering his bacon cutlery in Spiez .)

I'll have to try to remember both of those for that inevitable time when it comes up in conversation next time I'm across the pond. :rolleyes:

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

Think of the bigger picture. There are other websites out there, not just Waymarking. If our WMs go down the drain as the result of browsers' no longer supporting our code, then about six sextillion other sites/pages will go down with them. That seems to me to be unlikely. Browsers that caused the demise of slews of websites would quickly fall out of favour.

That said, I agree that it's bad form to use HTML 4 (or earlier) when HTML 5 or CSS can be used. I use W3 schools on occasion and if they mention that a command  or directive is being, or has been, deprecated, I studiously avoid it.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, fi67 said:

I have some nice Swiss German tongue twisters for you.

The first is not a tongue twister at all for locals, but still nearly impossible for most foreigners:

"S'Chüeli hett äs Chüechli us äm Chuchichäschtli gchlaut." (The little cow stole a cookie out of the kitchen cupboard.)

This one is a real tongue (better: lip) twister for anyone:

"Dä Pabscht hett z'Schpiäz s'Schpäck-Bschteck z'schpot bschtellt." (The Pope was too late in ordering his bacon cutlery in Spiez (town name).)

Most of these sentences I could have translated (reading is always easier than listening), but I think that trying to pronounce them properly is hopeless. :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

Most of HTML 4 is also valid in HTML 5. And even old HTML-tags, that shouldn't be used anymore, still work with most browsers. However, it's a good idea to just use the very basic tags like <div>, <p>, <h1>, <a href> and so on. These will be valid in many future versions of HTML. The rest should be done with CSS. There are updates of CSS too, but same story here. Most of the newer versions of browsers support older versions of CSS.

Share this post


Link to post

I was a little lazy for a while, but today I started again to improve the design of my very first waymark. I decided to put the language code in the top left corner of the <div>s and the flags in the top right corner. So, whether you pay more attention to the left or right side of the text, it should always be easy to find your language very fast. The background image has a selfmade color gradient and the font is 10% bigger (1.1 em) than usual. The border color is closer to being a pastel color now.

Please let me know what you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks great :rolleyes:

One down and only 863 to go...

If you are like us, we improved with age. ;)

5a833c9f05e38_WereNotLost.forumjpg.jpg.400ed28650ff60edad1815c7a8ee068a.jpg

Edited by BK-Hunters
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks and yes, there are lots of waymarks to edit. And it will take quite some time, because I not only change the design, but also:

  • Check links in the long description and variables
  • Standardise the order of languages in short and long description (local language first, English second)
  • Check that sources are mentioned in the long description
  • Check all the variables....

12 down, 856 to go. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Andreas, you mentioned in an email that my mask needn't be quite so large. That was true until I realized that I sometimes get carried away and write a tome which scrolls off the screen. I have made it smaller, but still larger (taller, at least) than a single screen.

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that you use "background-size:cover;" which should resize the image to the size of the container. So, if your mask image was 1x1 pixel, it would still be stretched until the entire <div> is covered. I'm not sure, if it will stretch it in both directions, but in worst case is has to be 1x??? or ???x1 pixels. And the long description is usually only 760 pixels wide, so the background image doesn't need to be wider than that, or am I completely mistaken and/or overlooking something?

Just when I had used the new design at the first 20 waymarks I found another nice way to make a border. See the new Version of my very first waymark.

Edited by PISA-caching

Share this post


Link to post

Only suggestion I would make regarding color is to remember that many people (more prevalent in men than women - go figure!) are color-limited or color blind. You may want to visit Toptal Color Blind Filter and  Vischeck to learn about good HTML practices for color-limited people. For the categories I manage, I require black text since there was a trend several years ago when people were using HTML to make their text blue or red. Red is one of the most common color limitations, so I ask text be black. Yes, I have color-limited friends, so I am perhaps more sensitive to the issue.

Take care, Outspoken1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/15/2018 at 0:35 AM, PISA-caching said:

I noticed that you use "background-size:cover;" which should resize the image to the size of the container. So, if your mask image was 1x1 pixel, it would still be stretched until the entire <div> is covered. I'm not sure, if it will stretch it in both directions, but in worst case is has to be 1x??? or ???x1 pixels. And the long description is usually only 760 pixels wide, so the background image doesn't need to be wider than that, or am I completely mistaken and/or overlooking something?

Hey, that sounds brilliant!! I was in mental shrink mode and never even considered stretch mode. 1x1 pixel may well work. I've gotta give it a try. THANKS!!!

One caveat before I do. I've noticed that the background image is never distorted, only resized, preserving the aspect ratio. I may have to resort to "repeat". We'll see....

A few minutes later - couldn't save a 1X1 image, so I made an 8X8 mask. Works as expected, without "repeat".

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/15/2018 at 0:35 AM, PISA-caching said:

Just when I had used the new design at the first 20 waymarks I found another nice way to make a border. See the new Version of my very first waymark.

I was considering that very thing, with minor adjustments. Looks really cool! Gives it a more liquid effect.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Outspoken1 said:

Only suggestion I would make regarding color is to remember that many people (more prevalent in men than women - go figure!) are color-limited or color blind. You may want to visit Toptal Color Blind Filter and  Vischeck to learn about good HTML practices for color-limited people. For the categories I manage, I require black text since there was a trend several years ago when people were using HTML to make their text blue or red. Red is one of the most common color limitations, so I ask text be black. Yes, I have color-limited friends, so I am perhaps more sensitive to the issue.

Take care, Outspoken1

Is that a more general suggestion or do you see a problem with my specifiic design, that I don't see? All my text is black. I even paid attention to the color contrast. I use the Colour Contrast Analyser program (https://developer.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrastanalyser/) to check this. From time to time I myself have a problem with reading pages that don't have enough contrast.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

Hey, that sounds brilliant!! I was in mental shrink mode and never even considered stretch mode. 1x1 pixel may well work. I've gotta give it a try. THANKS!!!

One caveat before I do. I've noticed that the background image is never distorted, only resized, preserving the aspect ratio. I may have to resort to "repeat". We'll see....

A few minutes later - couldn't save a 1X1 image, so I made an 8X8 mask. Works as expected, without "repeat".

Keith

Wow, the new mask is just 97 Bytes. That's great.

New question: Is there any way to replace an image? Or do you have to either keep both versions of the mask PNG or change the code of all your older waymarks (which of course you wouldn't want to do)?

Edited by PISA-caching

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Wow, the new mask is just 97 Bytes. That's great.

New question: Is there any way to replace an image? Or do you have to either keep both versions of the mask PNG or change the code of all your older waymarks (which of course you wouldn't want to do)?

If I have a bunch using the old mask I just leave them alone rather than edit all of them, then change my templates to use the new mask.

Replace an image? There doesn't seem to be a way to do that. It is right at the top of my wish list, though.

97 bytes - it just occurred to me that given the content of the mask it should compress to about three bytes for 24 bit colour, the other 94 bytes being header and footer...

... I just looked. There appears to be about 25 bytes of data, the rest filler.

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, replacing an image would be a great feature. It will take a lot of time to pimp all my waymarks and if I ever think that a different border would look better I would have to start over again. The current border was just a quick&dirty DIY border. But as it is now, I had to choose between quick&dirty and endless variations until I'm completely happy with my border which might never happen.

Share this post


Link to post

Update: I create all my new waymarks in the new design from now on. 

At the same time I go through all my existing waymarks, starting with the oldest one. This was a very good idea, because I found several links in the old waymarks that didn't work anymore and I found better descriptions (sometimes in the local language) etc. It will take quite a while until I pimped all my waymarks, but I think it's worth the effort. Compare this (pimped) waymark with this (unpimped) waymark.

Share this post


Link to post

Months have passed and there were times were I was lazy and times where I was diligent. But finally I'm through with pimping ALL my (1,000+) waymarks. Here's what I did:

  • Changed the long description from simple text or slightly formatted text to my new design with clear separation of different languages, boxes for text on signs, headlines etc.
  • Made sure, that in the short description there is either only English text or local language text first, followed by English text, separated with a "/".
  • Checked that headlines are no longer underlined and/or bold, but bold all the time
  • Checked all the links and searched for new ones, if the old one wasn't working anymore
  • Removed any "http://" or "https://" in the link text, which looks much better now
  • Made sure that every link from within the long description opens in a new window
  • Added Information that I recently learned, but didn't know when I created the waymark
  • Some waymarks had only English text, because I don't speak the local language. So I searched for text in the local language (Norwegian, Swedish,...) in Wikipedia and other sources and added them to make the waymark more attractive for local waymarkers.
  • Corrected typos wherever I found them (and I found more than I expected)

It was quite time-consuming, but now that it's done, I'm really happy with the result and of course all the future waymarks will be created in a similar quality.

Edited by PISA-caching
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Were most of the web links broken?

Edited by elyob

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 1/13/2018 at 11:33 AM, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

I don't know how to pimp my waymarks. I don't know html. If html is going to be required for waymarks, I'll be severely limited in what I can submit.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

 

I don't know how to pimp my waymarks. I don't know html. If html is going to be required for waymarks, I'll be severely limited in what I can submit.  

I don't think that anyone ever would want to require HTML.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, fi67 said:

I don't think that anyone ever would want to require HTML.

Some already do. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, elyob said:

Were most of the web links broken?

 

No, I have a lot of links to Wikipedia and they are all still valid, but - for example - there's a website for Viennese cemeteries that I use for Worldwide Cemeteries and some other waymarks and they changed one character in all their URLs from "2" to "3" and unfortunately didn't create a redirect from old URLs to the new ones. So, I had to change all of them. All in all I estimate that I changed around 30-40 URLs.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

 

I don't know how to pimp my waymarks. I don't know html. If html is going to be required for waymarks, I'll be severely limited in what I can submit.  

 

Well, I do a lot of my waymarks in two languages and I wanted to make it easier for the visitor to find the text that she/he needs. That really was the most important reason for me to do it in HTML. Besides, you don't need to know HTML to use it to a certain level. There are online HTML WYSIWYG Editors like https://html-online.com/editor/ were you can create HTML without any knowledge of it. But, like fi67 I doubt that HTML will ever be required.

 

Apart from that, you can still improve your waymarks by checking the links included, adding current Information and so on.

 

And don't forget that you are a native English speaker. Your English text will always be better than mine, so I have to add some color and blink. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/3/2018 at 1:27 AM, PISA-caching said:

 

Well, I do a lot of my waymarks in two languages and I wanted to make it easier for the visitor to find the text that she/he needs. That really was the most important reason for me to do it in HTML. Besides, you don't need to know HTML to use it to a certain level. There are online HTML WYSIWYG Editors like https://html-online.com/editor/ were you can create HTML without any knowledge of it. But, like fi67 I doubt that HTML will ever be required.

 

Apart from that, you can still improve your waymarks by checking the links included, adding current Information and so on.

 

And don't forget that you are a native English speaker. Your English text will always be better than mine, so I have to add some color and blink. :-)

 

Blink?

Anyhow, actually, there is a category that (purports to) require HTML. The requirements state that one must post a pic on the page and that if one doesn't know how they should elicit help from someone in getting it done. Can't remember anymore which category it is, but I've posted at least a few there. I see 99 mentioned above that there were "some" that  require HTML. So far I can only remember  encountering this one.

 

Then there's another category which (again, purports to) prohibit HTML. The rule is not enforced, however, as I've not had a WM declined there. Again, can't remember which category this one is, either.

 

About your English. It's better than that of more than a few English speakers here.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post

PISA-caching - just looked at your WMs. Nice! One tiny criticism, however. In the first <div> I would add margin-top:20px to the style, or a similar number of pixels.

This creates a bit of a break between "Long Description:" and your WM. I discovered that I didn't like the look of mine when they were right up against the "Long Description:".

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

Blink?

 

The German word is "Glanz" and I obviously chose the wrong translation. So, it should be glance, gloss, shine, shininess or whatever. :-)

 

19 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

PISA-caching - just looked at your WMs. Nice! One tiny criticism, however. In the first <div> I would add margin-top:20px to the style, or a similar number of pixels.

This creates a bit of a break between "Long Description:" and your WM. I discovered that I didn't look the look of mine when they were right up against the "Long Description:".

Keith

 

Good point, and just in time - now that I finished updating more than 1,000 waymarks. LOL! Anyway, anything else I should change? I think instead of a margin-top I will simply add a <br /> at the beginning. That's also the way I separate the <div>s from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PISA-caching said:

 

The German word is "Glanz" and I obviously chose the wrong translation. So, it should be glance, gloss, shine, shininess or whatever. :-)

 

 

The word I would have chosen is pizzaz, or maybe glitz.

Why do people use <br /> instead of just <br>? <br> seems to work just fine for me. Is it because it's "recommended" that the former be used instead of the latter?

 

Anything else you should change?...

... Well, your boxes aren't centred. This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't have gone all the way to white with the background gradient.

Now that your inside corners are square I would have gone with padding:15px (or thereabouts) instead of padding:10px 17px.

My wife tells me my artistic sensibilities are (more than) somewhat lacking, so I'm not sure you should pay much (or any) attention to my criticisms.

 

And now I have a question. In the following:

border-image:url('IMGURL') 30 stretch

what parameter does the number (30 in this case) control? I've played with it at length and read appropriate bits at W3 School but still can't see exactly what it controls. It allows me to specify (roughly) the width of a matte in my images, but that doesn't seem to be its intended purpose.

Keith.

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

The word I would have chosen is pizzaz, or maybe glitz.

Why do people use <br /> instead of just <br>? <br> seems to work just fine for me. Is it because it's "recommended" that the former be used instead of the latter?

Keith.

 

I use <br />, because someone once told to use it. :-) I never asked why, but here's the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

 

I use <br />, because someone once told to use it. :-) I never asked why, but here's the answer.

Yeah, now I see - I have never purported to aspire to XML validity, simply because there's no point. :rolleyes:

Keith

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×