• TOT: Public Version of Family Archive

    From Java Jive@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 17 21:26:36 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    [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.
    --

    Fake news kills!

    ========================================================
    Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
    header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to Java Jive on Wed Nov 17 22:05:44 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 21:26:36, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
    (my responses usually follow points raised):
    [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.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the
    law." - Winston Churchill.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Java Jive@21:1/5 to me@privacy.invalid on Wed Nov 17 22:55:56 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 22:29:47 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

    "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.

    Thanks, but I don't think you should be too impressed by 'grand and
    opulent'! Everyone has their story of their times, and we are lucky
    today that digitisation means that we can save so much of it and make
    it freely accessible to all.

    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.
    --

    Fake news kills!

    ========================================================
    Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
    header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to Java Jive on Wed Nov 17 22:29:47 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to Java Jive on Thu Nov 18 01:55:15 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 17/11/2021 22:55, Java Jive wrote:

    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.

    Yes, it's an excellent series of programmes. I enjoyed the Leeds one particularly because that's the city where I was born and lived until I
    was about 10, and the house was only a couple of streets away from the
    school that my mum went to. It's remarkable the amount of information
    that the researchers have managed to unearth about each of the families
    who lived in the houses.

    With programmes like A House Through Time and Who Do You Think You Are,
    I've always wondered how many houses/families *looked* promising
    initially but turned out after closer research to have very little
    information available... or else a wealth of information that was just
    too prosaic. :-(

    I wonder what history might be unearthed about our house, which has
    parts dating back to at least 1890 (it's on an 1890 25" map but not on
    an 1850 6" map, and the NLS doesn't have any maps dated in between).
    When we bought the house a couple of years ago, I tried to work out a
    time-line of owners from the huge bundle of papers we were given as the
    deeds, but that probably lists owners rather than tenants - and I'm sure
    many of the owners that I've identified never lived here themselves.
    We're lucky that the woman who lives next door used to own our house,
    until she and her husband sold it to the people who we bought it from
    about 30 years ago, at which time they built a new house in what had
    been the grounds of our house. So she's fascinated to see how the house
    has changed and gradually been extended.

    It's the stories of people's attitudes and how they cope with adversity
    that really capture my imagination: my great-grandma recounts how her tyrannical grandpa wouldn't let his wife wear a new dress that she'd
    bought on hire-purchase... until the last instalment had been paid! My
    grandpa told the story of his father having to leave the area where he'd
    grown up to look for work in the (English) Midlands, and he'd been there
    for a few months when he arrived at work one morning to be met by
    someone he'd never seen before - "I'm t'new gaffer now. You worked for
    my predecessor? Right, you can pack up and bugger off! I'm not having
    anyone that he took on working here." And so he and his mate had to walk
    the hundred-odd miles back home because they had no money for food or
    for a train - it took them about a fortnight, literally singing for
    their supper in pubs or sleeping in hedge-bottoms. Life was hard!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to me@privacy.invalid on Thu Nov 18 10:25:29 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Java Jive@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 18 11:17:57 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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.
    --

    Fake news kills!

    ========================================================
    Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
    header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Indy Jess John@21:1/5 to Java Jive on Thu Nov 18 13:59:44 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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 had a bit of screen design training some time ago as a preliminary to recommending a website design guide for a project.

    In a nutshell, different people would have different preferences (males
    and females differ on what is "the best" colours, for instance) so the
    main objective would be to find widely acceptable rather than ideal.

    It boiled down to knowing how long the typical person would be looking
    at it and what message the design would aim to convey, and there was no
    "right" answer, though there were a few "wrong" ones. A typical "wrong"
    one was failing to recognise that about 8% of the population had some
    degree of colour blindness and they would have difficulty with schemes
    of juxtaposed Green & Black, Green & Grey, Blue & Grey, Light Green &
    Yellow, Green & Blue, Blue & Purple, Green & Brown, and Green & Red.

    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.

    For my project, the use by data entry clerks, I was advised to use a
    light pastel rather than stark white for the background, and my later
    little "what do you think of this?" sample for workmates showed a
    preference for pale cyan or pale buff as I tweaked the colour codes in
    the CSS.

    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.

    Jim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Java Jive@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 18 15:15:04 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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.
    --

    Fake news kills!

    ========================================================
    Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
    header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com on Thu Nov 18 15:14:20 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <sn5m8j$1n9$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
    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.

    FWIW I 'road tested' my choices when I worked on my first website (Scots
    Guide to Electronics). As this was/is a University website I built I got a number of undergrads to read it and comment. I found that there was indeed
    a variety of reactions wrt layout, colours, etc. But what I settled on
    seemed most generally OK for people. Some of them - like myself - have
    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.

    You can never get this perfect for all cases, but settled on the 'design'
    (sic) I've used since. It won't win any graphic design or whizz-wheel
    awards, but seems OK in general.

    BTW The 'Scots Guide' is now essentially 'frozen'. When I fully retired I
    lost my Uni email address and the pages remain as were. But I've built
    other sites since using the same old-fashioned approach. Assume people want content - or not.

    Alas, my eyesight is such that light - particularly sans - text on a darker background I find very hard to read. Hence my comment. But I assume this
    isn't a problem for most people. FWIW I also find screens harder to read
    than printed text. YMMV. :-)

    Jim

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Indy Jess John@21:1/5 to Java Jive on Thu Nov 18 16:58:38 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 18/11/2021 15:15, Java Jive wrote:
    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.

    Me too. That is why for my own stuff I use a pastel buff.

    Jim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to java@evij.com.invalid on Thu Nov 18 15:38:00 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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 also find what becomes 'black on white' difficult *on screens* because
    the active light background is very different to scatter reflection from a printed page. Causes 'glare'. Simply having a light grey background can
    help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.

    But some tint in the background can give the eye a further distinction
    without glare. Difficult to say more as it varies from person to person and with rendering setup.

    The big recent change, of course, is the use of 'mobile' devices with a relatively tiny screen. Different environment to using a desktop machine.

    Jim

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Java Jive@21:1/5 to noise@audiomisc.co.uk on Thu Nov 18 19:12:34 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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
    down with what you're used to. There's a hell of a lot of
    pseudo-science out there about this sort of thing, some of which has
    been debunked in this ng in the past.

    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. The former is acknowledged to be bad for
    ones eyes, while it can also be quite uncomfortable looking into a
    bright blue sky, and if you see a bird of prey circling on such a day,
    usually you can't make out any or much colouration on the underside of
    its wings, because the dazzle of the sky turns it into just a
    silhouette.

    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.
    --

    Fake news kills!

    ========================================================
    Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
    header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
    http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to Java Jive on Thu Nov 18 19:37:28 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 19:12:34, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
    (my responses usually follow points raised):
    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.

    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.

    But once the light source was constant, i. e. flicker ceased to be a
    real problem, frame rates could fall without headaches: even for moving subjects (except fast-moving, such as games or sports and some action
    films), they could (and still can) be a _lot_ lower than used to be
    thought necessary.

    As you say, each person tends to differ, and I think a lot of it comes

    (Indeed. In the pre-PC days, we had some computers that could do screen
    at either 50 or 60 hertz; I couldn't see much difference, but had
    several colleagues who definitely could [and preferred the 60].)
    []
    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.

    It seems odd that, pre-windows (roughly), light on dark was the norm,
    though not necessarily for technical reasons (one of the cheapest sets
    of home computers - the Sinclair[UK]/Timex[US] ZX80, ZX81, and Spectrum
    - used black on white).


    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.

    I reluctantly admit I find sans easier, though intellectually I dislike
    them, because there are more characters that can be confused (I, l, and sometimes 1, for example) in sans. I think they (sans) look "kiddy" -
    but that's probably why they were originally used for kids, i. e. that
    they're easier.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Douglas Adams is always right; any technology invented after you're 35 does indeed feel against the natural order of things. - Simon Mayo, RT 2020/7/28-/8/3

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 18 19:42:31 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    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.)
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Douglas Adams is always right; any technology invented after you're 35 does indeed feel against the natural order of things. - Simon Mayo, RT 2020/7/28-/8/3

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Walker@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 18 20:43:56 2021
    On 18/11/2021 19:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    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.

    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.

    --
    Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Boccherini

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Indy Jess John@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 18 20:35:00 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 18/11/2021 19:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    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.)

    HTML reflows within the width it has either been given explicitly or it
    has derived from the inheritance of earlier properties.

    If the width is explicitly stated as being wider than the reader's
    screen then it believes what it is told and the reader will have to
    scroll to read it. If the width is expressed as a percentage (not
    exceeding 100%), then the presentation uses that percentage of the width
    of the viewing screen (or table column or predefined area), and
    scrolling is never necessary.

    I do write HTML code, though I agree that most don't.

    Jim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Folderol@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Thu Nov 18 22:28:01 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:42:31 +0000
    "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    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.)

    I do!
    Oh, and in the Yoshimi user guide I flow text :)

    --
    Basic

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to java@evij.com.invalid on Fri Nov 19 09:11:35 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <ug8dpgdac843qmgqhcjqtoge08kmnsc26r@4ax.com>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
    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.

    Agreed. However I'd make two points.

    1) That for many years the bulk of 'reading' in many cultures has been dark black/brown ink on 'whitish' paper/parchment/etc

    2) That 'in the wild' much of what we see comes from a scene with blue-white sky illumination. Not really 'white'.

    The difference wrt a screen is that diffuse reflection is 'natural' but
    screens tend to be the light source. So can be harder to set such as to not 'glare'.

    FWIW Perhaps my longest-term best friend was for many years a superb
    graphic designer and photographer so we had many conversations about these topics. Quite, erm, illuminating for us both given my interest in the
    physics related to it.

    Jim

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Fri Nov 19 09:13:20 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <MzAT7C54tqlhFwUw@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
    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.

    With the old CRT monitors I tended not to see visible flicker, but the
    image somehow got more 'solid' or 'real' when the frame rate was above 60Hz even when nothing on-screen was being moved or changed.

    Jim

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Fri Nov 19 09:20:32 2021
    XPost: alt.os.linux, alt.windows7.general, alt.photography
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <bD3WHj5nyqlhFw00@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
    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.)

    I started off with HTML 1.x and hand coded using a 'plain text' editor.
    Since then I've moved on a bit and use !TechWriter (a RISC OS Technical document processor) to initially create the text. It can export plain HTML
    as well as rtf, word, pdf, postscript, etc. So serves as a common starting point for multiple output routes.

    I then tweak the HTML by hand, but using a quasi-plain-text editor
    (!HTMLEdit) that shows me the code so I can either edit entirely by hand,
    or use a set of shortcuts that edit markup.

    This makes it easy to get simple code and avoid 'bloat', etc.

    It's a shame more people don't know about !TechWriter, though. I was sent a copy to review in 1992 because I routinely have to write documents with
    maths. Fell in love with it as the easiest and best way to get results that easily follow the standard rules for layout of equations, etc. This is an aside, though. :-)

    Jim

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Lesurf@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 19 09:34:44 2021
    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.

    The basic problem is, I think, due to the following factors coming to
    dominate:

    1) Many websites are created *to look impressive on the boss's or client's desktop machine*. If they like it, you get paid even if the result looks
    awful to mere customers/readers.

    2) Generated by people who simply use a 'magical' program that created the webpage without the writer/designer having the slightest clue or sight of
    the actual HTML + css + (bugger)scripting +.... which gets crufted into it.

    3) The latest 'whizz wheels' MUST be used to impress rather than inform
    or make the content easier to use. If a browser can't cope with this
    it can be ignored even if it then can't make sense of the content.

    4) No one then checks what the result is like on a machine running other
    OSs with other rendering programs on different machines with various screen sizes, etc. Let alone any machine that more than a year old.

    5) if they do, it becomes "blame the victim" as per above. "YOU need
    to 'upgrade' " to suit the webpage.

    If anyone *does* look at the resulting 'code' they find it is a mess of
    cruft which tends to 'bind' layout and rendering in a way that interferes
    with any user preferences or circumstances. It is also usually a much
    bigger file which used to matter a lot - particularly when writing content
    you wanted people in 'less developed' places to have a chance of accessing.

    Alas, all too often...

    Professional = "Does it for money" -> Follow the money to get paid. -> 1 above...

    I've never been a 'professional' in the above sense. Just someone who
    wanted to make information available that I thought some people might find interesting/useful. If my poor taste in terms of graphic design comes
    though, fair enough, provided most people can read the content OK.

    Of course, you can't please everyone. But it is at least trivial to allow things like text reflow and let their browser set the default fonts, text sizes. etc. Not inflict a paralising css, etc, on their choice.

    I'll stop ranting there. :-)

    Jim

    --
    Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
    biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
    Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gordon@21:1/5 to Jim Lesurf on Sun Nov 21 03:29:25 2021
    On 2021-11-18, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
    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

    The street photo in the Welcome to My World section stuck me, it is just a street in the Covid lockdowns.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)