View Full Version : Very Nice!
rhamej
August 17th, 2005, 10:42 PM
Love this style. Even if it's not flash ;)
http://www.levensaler.com/index_js.php?gal=0
asj
August 18th, 2005, 08:27 AM
That is pretty amazing for not being flash...
Loststarz
August 18th, 2005, 08:33 AM
Pretty much seems like allot of work to do what Flash could do much more simply
simplistik
August 18th, 2005, 09:31 AM
Pretty much seems like allot of work to do what Flash could do much more simplyuh... you still have to code a flash site right, it doesn't create itself all magically delicious, someone programs it.
Anyway... as for the site, while the tech is kinda kewl... I'm just not really feelin the layout. But mad props for doin it in JS.
Seb Hughes
August 18th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Wow, nice and simple :love::love:
ramie
August 18th, 2005, 09:44 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX#External_links
AJAX, relatively new way of going about things like that, get your head around it now if you want to stay on top of the game ;)
slinkyart
August 18th, 2005, 11:12 AM
here's mine: http://www.beagleentertainment.com/slinky/portfolio/the_city.html
von_dragon
August 18th, 2005, 11:29 AM
^ lot slinky that is so random. I don't think that is the right place to put that.
slinkyart
August 18th, 2005, 12:29 PM
^ lot slinky that is so random. I don't think that is the right place to put that.
Oh :( I thought we were showing our sites here. Sorry :(
von_dragon
August 18th, 2005, 12:47 PM
Its np just put it in a new thread if you want to showcase and critique it?
netrix
August 18th, 2005, 12:57 PM
nice site... wish i could code like that!
Zach-E2
August 18th, 2005, 02:30 PM
well, the original posted link is nifty, but again.. not feeling it. the second link posted.. cool concept, but really annoying trying to figure out the menu.
Moo.
August 19th, 2005, 06:10 AM
I recon its really god seeing as it isnt flash, but you could have made that really easily on flash. I love the design though :love:
NoirWD
August 19th, 2005, 06:15 AM
really nice, it must've taken a long time.
Sailesh
August 19th, 2005, 06:40 AM
slinky!! that rawks :D!
rhamej
August 19th, 2005, 10:47 AM
I recon its really god seeing as it isnt flash, but you could have made that really easily on flash. I love the design though :love:
And just as easily using js ;)
Loststarz
August 19th, 2005, 01:22 PM
uh... you still have to code a flash site right, it doesn't create itself all magically delicious, someone programs it.
Anyway... as for the site, while the tech is kinda kewl... I'm just not really feelin the layout. But mad props for doin it in JS.
Why would you give him props for doing it is JS? You just spent the whole post suggesting that doing it in Flash is the same difference in terms of difficulty?
simplistik
August 19th, 2005, 02:15 PM
No, I didn't say it was the same in terms of difficulty. You say Flash is much easier, like it takes no time and effort to do it in Flash, because it's seemingly a piece of cake. And the props are for not using Flash, when most ppl would have. Had nothing to do w/ difficutly.
DDD
August 19th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Why would you give him props for doing it is JS?
You heard it here first and you can quote me.
"Taking the road less travelled often leads to innovation"
It is these types of people that set trends leaving us to be the trendwhores... :trout:
rhamej
August 19th, 2005, 03:20 PM
You heard it here first and you can quote me.
"Taking the road less travelled often leads to innovation"
It is these types of people that set trends leaving us to be the trendwhores... :trout:
I couldn't have said that any better :thumb:
VersusMG
August 19th, 2005, 03:40 PM
<!--
// ************************************************** ******************************
// This site uses a <table> for layout purposes. The decision was intentional.
//
// The original design used only DIV elements, but the resulting choppiness of
// the resize transitions was unacceptable. Because each section of the
// interface gride must move in concert, tables make for a better "glue" than
// floated DIVs. So althought TABLEs may not be semantically correct, they do a
// better job here than the alternatives.
//
// Scott Upton, Uptonic
// May 2005
// ************************************************** ******************************
-->
Thats great!
Loststarz
August 19th, 2005, 03:48 PM
No, I didn't say it was the same in terms of difficulty. You say Flash is much easier, like it takes no time and effort to do it in Flash, because it's seemingly a piece of cake. And the props are for not using Flash, when most ppl would have. Had nothing to do w/ difficutly.
That is not what I said at all, and how you redefine things in your head shouldn't be my issue.
I said it would have been easier in Flash, you called me out, now your saying the exact thing I started with.
Congratulations, that's some fierce logic you got going.
DDD
August 19th, 2005, 03:59 PM
no flamin please....I believe the dude did it in JS just to be diff and show there is a horizon beyond flash. Thus the mad props. :thumb2:
G
August 19th, 2005, 04:23 PM
thats certainly a very good go at it in JS....of course the easing is a little jerky but still this is def a good example of what you can do with js and a little imagination :)
simplistik
August 19th, 2005, 04:29 PM
That is not what I said at all, and how you redefine things in your head shouldn't be my issue.
I said it would have been easier in Flash, you called me out, now your saying the exact thing I started with.
Congratulations, that's some fierce logic you got going.
No... I didn't say it was easier in Flash, I didn't say that at all. I said where most of us would've done it in Flash... cause that's what we do, he did it in JS cause no one else, would've done it.
Loststarz
August 19th, 2005, 04:31 PM
I guess there is some point to asynchronous scripting, but unless it was an immense project that paid like crazy, I would just go the easier route.
Because time = $$$.
DDD
August 19th, 2005, 04:45 PM
I guess there is some point to asynchronous scripting, but unless it was an immense project that paid like crazy, I would just go the easier route.
Because time = $$$.
some people just dont get it.
VersusMG
August 19th, 2005, 04:50 PM
I do know one thing...I couldn't do either so there :2c:
ramie
August 19th, 2005, 04:51 PM
another thread ruined at kirupa :)
rikiwaka
August 19th, 2005, 05:42 PM
yes that's a good jod !! :-)
rhamej
August 19th, 2005, 07:18 PM
some people just dont get it.
b - i - n - g - o, and bingo was his namo! :)
I guess there is some point to asynchronous scripting, but unless it was an immense project that paid like crazy, I would just go the easier route.
Because time = $$$.
How do you know that flash would have been easier for the designer that designed that site?
He may know js like scotty knows as. And therefore it was easy for him ;)
treatkor
August 20th, 2005, 10:32 PM
excellent site! thx for sharing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.