[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]--
Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
(animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
it's here:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:8qsapg1mutu0veu0t1u3fvuq066or69nds@4ax.com...
[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
it's here:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
That is a fantastic collection of photos and papers. The oldest things I've got are a few photos on dog-eared thick card and a photo of my great x n grandmother as a young woman, on glass or maybe on metal protected by glass (could it be a Daguerrotype?). But no papers going further back than that. When I was about 10, back in the mid 70s, my dad got my grandpa and his mother (my great-grandma) together and recorded a conversation of their reminiscences about "who was Henry Walmsley?", "who owned the sweet works that burned down - several times?" and my grandpa's memories of witnessing a tram crash right in front of him when it lost control on a steep hill, came off the rails and ran uncontrolled across the market place into a bank. And his memories of scare-stories from his dad who was a foreman in an iron foundry, of people being injured or killed in accidents in the foundry. And then memories of helping the limelight operator at the local theatre with some of the very elaborate lighting effects: as with any new technology (think of word processors and the initial gratuitous plethora of fonts in a document!) there was a tendency in the 1910s/20s for directors to over-use the technology and to demand lots of lighting changes to highlight specific objects as they were mentioned in the dialogue ("there's my cigarette case
on the mantelpiece", so the limelight operator had to have a pencil beam aimed at the case, ready to reveal it on cue).
Nothing as far back as you go, and nothing as grand and opulent as yours,
but still a wonderful record of their voices (their intonation, their accents, their phraseology) and of their accounts of life in the early 20th century. That 2-hour tape has been copied to numerous WAV files which are backed up all over the place, along with my own transcription of it to Word file.
[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
(animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
it's here:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
IMV, one of the most interesting recent series on TV has been David
Olusoga's "A House Through Time":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9
He is a good presenter, and I like the fact that he tries to tell the
story of poor people as well as wealthier people.
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
link to my own
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
link to my own
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
the eyes.
The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.
On 18/11/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite
hard to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky
and post a link to my own
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
the eyes.
I can accept that you prefer your own screen presentation (you chose it
so that was a given), and I note that the sans serif font on a dark background makes it easily readable. However my personal preference
between yours and Jim's in Jim's.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:59:44 +0000, Indy Jess John
The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.
I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did.
I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --
In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --
Simply having a light grey background can
help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --
Perhaps I could have added there that this problem used to be much
more marked with CRT screens. I just couldn't look at pages with
white or light backgrounds for more than around half-an-hour at a
time. I don't find the problem nearly so bad with LCDs, but it's
still more tiring for me than light on dark.
As you say, each person tends to differ, and I think a lot of it comes
But from this viewpoint, light on dark is not exactly natural either,
while if you use midtones for both ink and paper, then potentially you
can run into the colour-blindness problems already mentioned. So I
stick with light on dark as being the least bad.
Simply having a light grey background can
help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.
Again, my experience is exactly the opposite, I find serif fonts bitty
and confusing to the eye.
sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was >allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone >had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen >reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.[]
No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width
only, and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than
the designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right
to read them.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf<noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was[]
allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone >> had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.
No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
them.
Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
even know how to.)
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was >>allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone >>had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen >>reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.[]
No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
them.
Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
even know how to.)
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --
I suppose one way to think about it is: "What, as far as our eyes are concerned, is most natural? Clearly it's not black on white or any
other bright colour! The only time we have this situation in nature is
when we look too close to the sun, or perhaps even just up at the sky on
a hot bright day.
A big difference is between frame rate and flicker rate, though it's
less so with static material such as text. It used to be thought that
refresh rate had to be at least not much less than 50, as otherwise the flicker was indeed noticeable (and in many cases headache-inducing):
that's why (both) TV systems used interlace (OK, there were bandwidth
reasons too; it was quite a clever invention), and most film projectors
had a shutter that interrupted the light _twice_ a frame.
No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
them.
Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
even know how to.)
In somewhere around 2000, my desktop computer was upgraded, and there was around £100 going spare, so I had a high-resolution monitor instead
of the bog-standard ones that all my colleagues were given. Result was
that the University's top page came out tiny, with something like 4-pt characters. So I complained. "Oh, no, you're wrong, it was
Professionally Designed and it looks Fantastic." "Not on my screen, and
not on the screens of any prospective students or sponsors who also
happen to have good [or for that matter bad] monitors." "Well, we've
just checked, and it's Right. There's something wrong with your
computer." I tried to explain what they'd done, but inevitably got
nowhere. Left them to it.
In article <sn3vqu$9hs$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
Thanks. Interesting. :-)
That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
link to my own
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
which uses a simpler layout and colours that I find much easier. And may
also interest some here given the xposting. Apologies to anyone who
objects to xposting so many groups. Not something I'd usually do.
Slainte,
Jim
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 113 |
| Nodes: | 8 (1 / 7) |
| Uptime: | 40:28:05 |
| Calls: | 2,498 |
| Files: | 8,651 |
| Messages: | 1,907,644 |