Author Topic: Simple Host Server Co. Comes To Blockland!  (Read 15661 times)

bump for lovey new website



well hes got the website retailer's tricks down.
advertise the best package at the worst package's price.

bump for lovey new website
But what idiot made the name an image?

well hes got the website retailer's tricks down.
advertise the best package at the worst package's price.
Get a server as cheap as $2.49, 1 GB of RAM and unlimited player slots!

-click-
lolsrry you need $10.49 to get 1 GB and unlimited slots. Try to argue with this? well it runs fine with 3 players!

Get a server as cheap as $2.49, 1 GB of RAM and unlimited player slots!

-click-
lolsrry you need $10.49 to get 1 GB and unlimited slots. Try to argue with this? well it runs fine with 3 players!
Oldest trick in the book.

Basically every hosting site ever does that.
advertise the best package at the worst package's price.

It's marketing ambiguity. Nothing wrong with it at all. As I said, everyone does it.

But what idiot made the name an image?
Font is impact - people who don't have that wouldn't be able to see it.

WC3 web standards require standard fonts.

Font is impact - people who don't have that wouldn't be able to see it.

WC3 web standards require standard fonts.
You, sir, are an idiot.
That's what you have fallback fonts and dynamically downloaded fonts for.
Simply put, depending on browser, you can make the browser either download the font automatically or switch to another font if the site is trying to use a font that doesn't exist on the local computer. Nothing wrong with that at all and both are better than the image-based approach that is used today.

You, sir, are an idiot.
No need to be a richard.

-snip-
People who use replacement fonts get a raped appearance of the text depending on how the browser decides to replace it.

Even if it's just text, that is basically the logo of the company. You don't want people seeing some disfigured stuff instead. Google does the same thing, actually.

Plus, the image isn't huge or anything - no reason not to use it really.

People who use replacement fonts get a raped appearance of the text depending on how the browser decides to replace it.
The web designer can manually specify the fallback fonts.
Google does the same thing, actually.
Because they use bevel and other 3D effects that can't be accomplished by pure CSS. This site doesn't fit into that criteria.


Holy stuff.


Am I the only one who is like, having a mini-climax at this?

I'm probably only having one because of the free trial though lol.

The website looks worse than before, honestly.