jump to navigation

Kuli Angkut July 17, 2008

Posted by radhite in Lifestyle.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Kuli angkat di stasiun bus Bangalore, India, mereka tidak hanya mengangkat barang tetapi juga mengangkat kendaraan roda dua, Jika bagasi bus telah penuh maka barang – barang tersebut dinaikkan di atas bus. Dengan ongkos angkut 20 rupee (sekitar Rp 4.600,-) luar biasa …

By Sonya

Rumah-Rumah Berbentuk Ajaib July 17, 2008

Posted by radhite in Lifestyle.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Rumah selayaknya bisa menjadi tempat tinggal bagi penghuninya. Tapi, kalau bentuk rumahnya seperti ini… wah, repot juga ya? Kira-kira, ada yang mau nggak tinggal di rumah yang bentuknya ajaib ini?

By Hestianingsih

Sepatu Berbentuk Kaki July 17, 2008

Posted by radhite in Lifestyle.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Kita sudah banyak melihat bentuk sepatu yang unik dan aneh. Tapi sepertinya belum ada yang bisa menandingi sepatu yang modelnya super ajaib seperti ini! Yang pasti, untuk bisa memakai sepatu ini, selain mencocokkan nomor telapak kaki, anda juga harus mencocokkan dengan jari-jari kaki.

By Hestianingsih

Lunch Time! July 17, 2008

Posted by radhite in Lifestyle.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Ayoo… Saatnya makan siang! Nyam..nyam..

panda lunch

panda lunch

Sleepy Monkey

Sleepy Monkey

White Bear

White Bear

By Hestianingsih

Creating Your Own Favicon.ico July 17, 2008

Posted by radhite in Web Development.
Tags: , ,
2 comments

If you’re trying to entice people return to your site from the Explorer’s Favorites menu, it helps to prompt them with a special logo of some kind. If you’re in Explorer right now and pull down that menu, you’ll probably find some of those logos lined up next to the selections in the Channels item. For very little effort, you can have the same thing next to your own site’s name.

This little icon is called a “favicon”, and it works only in Explorer 5 and above. If your visitors are running Netscape or an older version of Explorer, the browser will just ignore your little icon.

When an Explorer 5 user bookmarks your page, Explorer searches for a special icon with the name “favicon.ico”. If it finds one, it replaces the default Microsoft icon with your special little icon next to your name in the favorites menu and in the location bar. The user can also put your icon on the desktop and the taskbar, though few are likely to bother.

The icon you create has to be exactly 16 pixels by 16 pixels. There are some alternative larger sizes, but only use these if you’ve investigated favicon use very thoroughly. The safest route is definitely 16×16. Try to fool the browser with a larger or smaller size and it will usually ignore you. You should also stick with 16 Windows colors. Again, more colors can be used in sophisticated icons, but 16 is your safest bet.

There are two routes to creating your icon. You can take an existing graphic, maybe a BMP or a GIF, and convert it using graphics software. A decent converter is available for free at Irfanview. Unfortunately, some icon converters don’t do a good job of transforming bitmaps into .ico files.

The alternative is to use a dedicated icon editor. There’s one included in Mocrosoft Visual Studio, and an online Java editor you can try at www.favicon.com. In the long run, you’ll probably find it faster to use an icon editor to create your graphic from scratch, rather than converting an existing graphic and ironing out the inevitable bugs.

When you save the .ico, name it “favicon.ico”. That’s the default icon that Explorer looks for. If you want other pages to have different icons, you can do that too. Name each icon differently, but make sure they all have .ico extensions.

To have Explorer pick up the default favicon.ico, copy it into the root directory – the main directory that holds your HTML pages. If all you want is favicon.ico to be associated with your site, you’re done. Every time a visitor bookmark your site with Explorer, favicon.ico is copied to the visitor’s cache, where it waits to be displayed. You don’t even need to alter your HTML.

However, there are some other tricks you might want to play. If you want a different icon associated with special pages, use the LINK tag on those pages like this:
<LINK REL=”SHORTCUT ICON” HREF=”mypage.ico”>

When visitors bookmark this page, instead of favicon.ico they’ll get mypage.ico. You can direct the browser to any absolute location you want using:
<LINK REL=”SHORTCUT ICON” HREF=”http://www.mysite.com/graphics/icons/mypage.ico”>

Of course, there are weirdnesses to take into account. If you test the favicon on your own site, you may get only one shot at it. Once a site is bookmarked, it’s hard to flush out that listing completely. Even if you delete the pages from your cache, delete the listings from the Favorites menu, and reboot, re-bookmarking a previously bookmarked site may not cause the new icon to “take”. If this happens, enlist the help of somebody who hasn’t previously bookmarked your page.

One other potential snag is that some Web hosts don’t support .ico files. If you use one of these, contact the company and politely ask them to start supporting .ico files.

If you follow these guidelines you should find it all relatively straightforward. The only time-consuming parts are getting used to an icon editor and then creating your icon or fixing the problems with your converted graphic. For relatively little effort, you too can give your site that customized cutting-edge look in IE5.

by Tim Altom

Google’s Flash Indexing Disaster July 17, 2008

Posted by radhite in Web Development.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

On July 1st, Google announced that, using technology provided by Adobe, it had enhanced the Google Search Engine to index the text embedded within Flash movies. What followed was bad advice from Google, second-guessing by web developers, and finally a few straight answers.

Google’s initial announcement was so incredibly vague as to render it all but useless. Developers came away knowing that Google was doing something different with their Flash content, but that’s about it.

While Google’s Dion Almaer suggested that search engines have always been black boxes and that it was up to us to discover what had changed through testing, just about everyone else was crying foul.

Google’s credibility was immediately in question due to the obviously bad advice it contained:

“If you prefer Google to ignore your less informative content, such as a “copyright” or “loading” message, consider replacing the text within an image, which will make it effectively invisible to us.”

For the record, replacing fast-loading, accessible text content with a bulky image simply to hide it from search engines is never a good idea.

Google’s list of caveats in the announcement were similarly perplexing:

“Googlebot does not execute some types of JavaScript. So if your web page loads a Flash file via JavaScript, Google may not be aware of that Flash file, in which case it will not be indexed.”

What types of JavaScript? Established best practice for publishing Flash content is to use the SWFObject JavaScript library to overcome bugs in older browsers, so was Google saying that it would only index Flash content that was authored using broken/outdated HTML-only techniques?

“We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.”

Any experienced Flash developer knows that if you are going to have any significant amount of text in your Flash content, your best bet is to stick it in an XML file and load it on the fly, so you don’t have to rebuild your Flash movie whenever you change the content.

Apparently, not only will Google not see Flash content authored this way, but it will track down the XML file anyway and index it as a separate page on your site! That’s right, Google will helpfully direct people searching for your content to the raw XML file that contains it, rather than your slick, Flash front-end.

All this stuff made so little sense, that many developers questioned whether Google was actually able to index any Flash content of consequence. Within a few days, however, the Search Engine War blog was able to verify that Google was indeed indexing Flash content.

Finally, after several days of developer outcry, Google admitted it had left too many questions unanswered, and four days later, it posted a significant update that is well worth reading if you have any Flash content on your site.

Here’s a quick summary of what we now know:
The July 1st release didn’t index Flash content inserted with the SWFObject library’s dynamic publishing method, which writes the Flash content into the page entirely with JavaScript. The recommended static publishing method (where two nested <object> tags are included in the page) was indexed. Google is now deploying an update that supports the dynamic publishing method as well.

Text content loaded on-the-fly from an XML file is not yet indexed, but Google is working on fixing this in the near term.

Google will do its best to detect when duplicate content is there to provide an HTML alternative to Flash content, and will only display one of the two versions in the search results. No penalty is applied to a site’s search ranking due to duplicate content.

There are still unknowns here, but that will always be the case with the Google search engine. Though it took a few days, Google is answering what questions it can, and responding to developer concerns with enhancements.

Before very long, most of the text within Flash-based web sites will make its way into the Google search index. Nevertheless, uncertainty will remain over how deeply Google is able to probe Flash content for a while yet. Providing non-Flash alternative content will remain an effective means of guaranteeing your most important content a place in the Google index. It also gives users of non-Flash-enabled browsers (like the iPhone) something to look at.

Though Google’s initial message was pretty half-baked, the follow-up has put most of my concerns to rest. How about yours?

by Kevin Yank