5 ms·

Hey! You did it! I'm going to update my original blog post linking this one.

by thecr0w 9mo ago

fluidcruft 9mo ago
This version just pastes the screenshot as background.
- jfindper 9mo ago
  Yes, anyone who reads the post will find that out because it says it in the post.
  - fluidcruft 9mo ago
    I actually did read your post and it read to me as if it put in the background to get around some sort of issue with how you took the screenshot, but had still placed the images and text on top. What you wrote was: So it kind of cheated, though it clearly felt angst about it. After trying a few ways to get the stars to line up perfectly, it just gave up and copied the screenshot in as the background image, then overlaid the rest of the HTML elements on top. Which is only "kind of" cheating if only the background was wrong. Everything being invisible and in the wrong spot doesn't seem like merely "kind of" cheating. You didn't come anywhere close to addressing the problem that the original post was about.
    - jfindper 9mo ago
      >I actually did read your post [...] >What you wrote was: [...] >You didn't [...] It's not my post.
      - fluidcruft 9mo ago
        Sorry!
- taejavu 9mo ago
  Wasn’t the OG Space Jam website an image map? Not so different
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- thecr0w 9mo ago
  Oh you're right. I read it a bit too quickly this morning and thought it had just done that initially to compare planet placement. Too bad.
  - Ukv 9mo ago
    The index_tiled.html version correctly positions the original assets, and to me looks as close as you can get to the screenshot while using the original assets (except for the red text). The version with the screenshot as a background is where it was asked to create an exact match for screenshot that had been scaled/compressed, which isn't really possible any other way. The article acknowledges this one as cheating. Better I think would've been to retake the screenshot without the scaling/compression, to see if it can create a site that is both an exact match and using the original assets.
  - godelski 9mo ago
    If you look at the diff you'll see that all the planets are off too. So the OP mentioned the starfield but that doesn't explain the planets

Hey! You did it! I'm going to update my original blog post linking this one.

by thecr0w 9mo ago

Hey! You did it! I'm going to update my original blog post linking this one.

fluidcruft 9mo ago

This version just pastes the screenshot as background.

jfindper 9mo ago
Yes, anyone who reads the post will find that out because it says it in the post.
- fluidcruft 9mo ago
  I actually did read your post and it read to me as if it put in the background to get around some sort of issue with how you took the screenshot, but had still placed the images and text on top. What you wrote was: So it kind of cheated, though it clearly felt angst about it. After trying a few ways to get the stars to line up perfectly, it just gave up and copied the screenshot in as the background image, then overlaid the rest of the HTML elements on top. Which is only "kind of" cheating if only the background was wrong. Everything being invisible and in the wrong spot doesn't seem like merely "kind of" cheating. You didn't come anywhere close to addressing the problem that the original post was about.
  - jfindper 9mo ago
    >I actually did read your post [...] >What you wrote was: [...] >You didn't [...] It's not my post.
    - fluidcruft 9mo ago
      Sorry!
taejavu 9mo ago
Wasn’t the OG Space Jam website an image map? Not so different
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
thecr0w 9mo ago
Oh you're right. I read it a bit too quickly this morning and thought it had just done that initially to compare planet placement. Too bad.
- Ukv 9mo ago
  The index_tiled.html version correctly positions the original assets, and to me looks as close as you can get to the screenshot while using the original assets (except for the red text). The version with the screenshot as a background is where it was asked to create an exact match for screenshot that had been scaled/compressed, which isn't really possible any other way. The article acknowledges this one as cheating. Better I think would've been to retake the screenshot without the scaling/compression, to see if it can create a site that is both an exact match and using the original assets.
- godelski 9mo ago
  If you look at the diff you'll see that all the planets are off too. So the OP mentioned the starfield but that doesn't explain the planets