The incredible ever-changing page background

Here’s more stuff that web designers might find interesting and everyone else will find either irrelevant or won’t even notice.

I kind of liked the abstract image I had as the background of the pages in this new site design (which, if you’re interested, can still be found on my IE6 users’ “welcome” page), but I was never completely satisfied with how it was just shoved into the upper left corner of the window. So I took a horizontal cross-section from a very colorful portion of that design, stretched it out into blurry vertical stripes, and made it the new background.

But, you may notice, there’s a bit more to the background than that. Once again it’s the magic of PNG alpha channel transparency at work.

The background of this page is actually the product of 3 separate images (a JPEG at the “back” and two transparent PNGs over it) overlaid on top of each other. In the bottom layer is the aforementioned blurry multi-colored vertical stripe image (JPEG). It’s 1600 pixels wide by 20 pixels high, tiled.

Next above that is my “Close to the Edge” image, a gradient from the teal of my color palette (at the bottom) to transparent (at the top). For a while I toyed with simply using this as a teal-to-black gradient, and I have to say it looked quite nice, but there’s not enough else going on visually with the design of the page, so a solid black band at the top of the page came off a bit boring. So, the gradient as an overlay on the stripes. This image is 50 pixels wide by 600 pixels high, and it’s fixed to the bottom of the window and tiled horizontally.

Above that is the (probably overused) “NTSC scanline effect” image, which produces the horizontal stripes. Unnecessary and as I said, probably overused, but it’s still kind of cool looking. Or would have been in 1998 at least. Call me old fashioned, if you think 1998 is old. (OK, in the web world, it’s ancient history.) This is a 20×20 image, also tiled.

So, how does this all fit together? Well, the way I do it is by applying the JPEG to the <body> tag, which is immediately followed by a pair of nested <div> tags that fill the window and exist for the sole purpose of overlaying the other background layers. Then inside of that, the rest of the page’s HTML appears as normally.

Looking at it precisely, the CSS file contains the following:

body {
  background: #000 url(“images/body_bg_stripes.jpg”) top left repeat fixed;
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
}
#body_overlay {
  background: url(“images/body_overlay_bg_ctte.png”) bottom left repeat-x fixed;
  height: 100%;
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
  width: 100%;
}
#body_overlay_2 {
  background: url(“images/scanlines_25_black.png”) top left repeat fixed;
  height: 100%;
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
  width: 100%;
}

And the HTML for the pages follows this basic structure (with lots of stuff cut out in this example, of course):

<html>
…HEAD TAGS HERE…
<body>
<div id=”body_overlay”>
<div id=”body_overlay_2″>
…PAGE BODY HERE…
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

What’s really cool about this is that it results in a background pattern that, as a single image, would need to be at least 1600 pixels by 600 pixels (in other words, very large in both dimensions and file size), and even then it would not be able to achieve exactly what you see here because the gradient is fixed against the bottom of the window. In fact there’s absolutely no way to produce the background of this page without transparent PNGs. The 1600×600 image would easily be a few hundred kilobytes at a fairly low-quality compression level — far too big to justify, especially since it would still end up looking like crap. But as it is, the three images are 6857, 135, and 714 bytes respectively — less than 8 kilobytes combined. Sweet! (OK, it’s pathetic that I think something like this is “sweet,” but there it is.)

OK, putting ads on my site was worth it just for this

As you’ve probably noticed, I’ve been running Google ads on my website for the better part of two years now. I do feel like a bit of a tool, but hey, it’s earned me a whopping $114 in cold hard cash so far. (OK, maybe that’s revealing too much about my low readership selective appeal.) But it was all worth it just to discover an ad for DopeKitz.com appearing on one of my music pages.

Now, the ad features some animation which is apparently JavaScript-driven from Google ads, because when I tried to save it to repost here, it was a JPEG (and if anyone out there has ever heard of an animated JPEG before, please let me know). So I’ll just have to recount the experience for you as best I can.

First, it says, in an EXTREME font (both distressed and metallic — a winning combination):

YOU A PRODUCER?

And then, in an even MORE EXTREME font (with randomly-sized, overlapping letters):

GOT HEAT?

Followed by an explosion of EXTREMENESS mixing multiple distressed fonts, and with a tantalizing sample of the mangled grammar to follow:

STEP YO’ GAME UP!

This then changes to the final frame, a still shot of the URL in bold black text: www.DOPEKITZ.com over a picture of a row of woofers.

Clicking the link takes you, of course, to DopeKitz.com, a place where design is alternately excessive or non-existent, and where the only apostrophes are in places where they don’t belong! A place that implores you to “Find out what some of the industrys Hottest producers Have already discovered.” (Yes, all apostrophes are optional and all H-words are capitalized.)

Don’t miss such outstanding products as “Killer Klapz 1 & 2” and “Monsta Drumz,” although my personal favorite is “Screwed Voicez.”

Whatever you do, just remember: “Dont Waste your DOE.”

(Incidentally I believe that was the only instance on the entire page of correct use of “your/you’re”; fortunately they’ve tempered it with errors in every other word in the sentence.)

Keith Olbermann’s gloves are off!

Holy freakin’ schnitt. (No, not Schnitt.) Check out Keith Olbermann’s tirade on Bush last night:

I’m speechless. Yet despite the intensity and severity of his accusations, he still made me laugh out loud a few times, such as when he was reading a Bush quote and not-so-subtly emphasized a grammatical error — you could almost hear the “[sic].” Then of course there were the moments where he referred to Cheney as an “evil ventriloquist” and Bush as “marionette or moron.”

Too bad no one watches MSNBC.

Please tell me no one takes Sherri Shepherd seriously

I’ve maybe seen 1/10 of an episode of The View in my life. And if this is the intellectual level of the discussion that goes on, I’ll be sure, for the sake of my sanity, never to see any more of it.

Apparently, not only does she consider the shape of the planet to be up for debate, but she also fails to grasp the basic sequence of well-documented events in human history.

To the others’ credit, Whoopi did her best to seriously, and non-condescendingly, challenge Sherri to think a bit more carefully about the matter, and Joy was obviously stunned into silence. But the fact that someone could get on a national TV show and shamelessly (proudly, in fact) flaunt such ignorance is still reprehensible.

Microsoft does well by their customers… and even better by their non-customers

I was curious to read today about Microsoft’s new Windows Genuine Advantage changes coming in Windows Vista Service Pack 1.

The current draconian system of locking down machines that appear to be running pirated versions of Windows has not been well received, apparently, especially a few weeks back when a buggy update was released prematurely and left thousands of “genuine” customers without working copies of Windows. So Microsoft is softening the approach, as described in the article linked above.

In the new version, PC users found to have a pirated copy of Vista will continue to be able to use their computers, but with unmistakable signs their operating system is a fake. The desktop wallpaper will turn black, and a white notice will appear alerting users to the problem. Each time they log in, they will be prompted to buy legitimate software, and every hour, a reminder bubble will appear on the screen.

Users with a high tolerance for irritation can put off switching to genuine software indefinitely, but those who relent and buy a real copy of Windows can do so at reduced prices — $119 for Windows Vista Home Premium, half the regular retail price.

OK, well that does seem to be an improvement, but… wait a minute! Read that second paragraph closely. Surely it can’t mean what I think it means, but it sounds like what they’re saying is that if you pirate Windows first, and then after enduring the automated nagging for an indefinite period of time, you’re entitled to buy Windows for half the regular price paid by loyal customers who purchase a legitimate copy up front.

Well, at least it’s consistent with Vista’s backwards approach to system security. (Throw up excessive warnings to the user about nearly everything they’re about to do, but don’t actually restrict their access to those things based on permissions.)