User talk:WBClarkson

Yo Bro what are you thinking of working on? (Cnurney9 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC))


 * Web Design, you? WBClarkson (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yo Yh im good with any topic just want a hard working group really. (Cnurney9 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC))


 * When you comment back please use the correct format. WBClarkson (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just trying this out, hoping it works. So much for not confusing? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's easy. WBClarkson (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup Nicola (Cnurney9 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

Ok I will do some reading into web design and see where i can find a gap i want to fill in. Cnurney9 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to decide on an area first it would be a waste of time to just read about web design. WBClarkson (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Web Design
Leave any comments related to the web design module below.


 * Has anyone started writing things in their sandbox or done any research yet? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes have you seen my sandbox it has the full page in there. WBClarkson (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Wayne. Are you doing the careers thing? If so i stumbled onto this book which talks about web design as a career which has a particularly good part on page 10 i think. It may also have a lot of stuff that you could use for your introduction otherwise. Check it out: website Nicola Witbooi (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nic, I'll have a look. And yeah still planning on doing that.

Hi I have a problem. For the last 3 hours or so I have been trying to find liable sources from 2000 onwards and found nothing. I have found some stuff on other websites, however, dont know yet how liable those websites are and what i found was mainly just on the styles used in 2002 and 2005 and compared to 1991 till 1998 is not nearly sufficient enough to write about. I have noticed that most of the web design history is based on the different design styles over time and the possibilities of designing as the technology improved. Again most of the technology improvements are made until 1999 so not much to write about for me. Also at least 5 sources so far are writing about the 4 generations of web designing so I do feel this is an important aspect to talk about. So my suggestion is that either Teri does the history on her own as from what I can tell there isnt much more work from 2000 onwards and We find a different area for me to do. Or we talk about the four generations and split them up evenly and then just talk about the styles, technology and the people within the time of each generation. Or we split up the years differently. Right now I really dont know what to write about otherwise. Finally, I have noticed that the majority of information are on normal website, so what would you guys consider to be liable sources. Cause Im not sure if we can use websites such as this: link but otherwise we are very limited. So what do you think? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re our discussion, it's just about knowing what to look for, try newer browser issues, web standards, responsive web design, platforms; such as mobile and tablet, standard based proprietary software like edge and muse. WBClarkson (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well good thing we've got you. I would've never dreamed to look at those aspects Nicola Witbooi (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the intro to my sand box please let me know what you think before I add it to the real page latter. WBClarkson (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * hey i've just read the introduction..i mean i know so little about this area so to me it sounds good. The only thing i can think of is that i read somewhere that they said that web designers and web developers usually work closely together. dunno if that is something relevant you want to put in because you talk about the different areas of creating a website? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh another thing ive thought about do you actually reference to any external sources in your intro? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey wayne the intro sounds great...sorry i wasn't available last night some stuff came up...so to clarify are we still doing what we originally set up to do?? nic's msgs have confused me??? Teri Bateson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Yeah, just continue as you are, as long as we all get something done it doesn't matter if sections aren't finished. WBClarkson (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

History 2000 onwards

 * ok here is a draft of (most of my part). I havent finished the section on 2011, however am struggling a bit on how to finish that. Also i may add a few bits such as new coding coming in such as Javascript and so on. But this is what I have so far. Any feedback would be great!

With the excitement of the new century in 2000 came many changes. The web rapidly developed and grew and as it changed so did web designers take new design avenues. By 2002 the usage of Flash was largely interlinked into the creation and design of websites. Large animated introduction pages were popular during this time. While HTML were limited on design options, Flash enabled the creation of more complex as well as more interactive sites which had animated features. Flash, however, was also very much critiqued and considered to encourage design abuse (Jakob Nielsen). Furthermore the long introduction disrupted and delayed the usability of the website. However used correctly, Flash enhanced the website and was useful to add discrete animation to the website.  CSS also won popularity during 2000. While its existence was available a long time before then, its unfamiliarity intimidated many designers. CSS allowed for greater distinction from the different elements on the web page and document sizes showed for improved page responses. Further changes during this time included pixel art in icon design and buttons, colourful boxes to create clear distinctions between the different sections of the page and the experimentation with typography. This time era was most importantly known for its colour evolution and creating colour combinations to harmoniously co exist within the website in order to grab attention. 

By 2004 websites were classified as the fourth generation. An advancement on code tools, allowed for more options. By 2006, designing for a variety of browsers, a continuous struggle was made easier with web technology improvements such as HTML5, CSS3 and WebGL. In 2005, websites began to look less cluttered as the idea of simplicity grew more popular. By this time web design had been developing for around 10 years by the time the idea of a single page was evolved. Navigation was improved through content tables and providing easier access around the page such as giving a “back-to-top” button. 2005 allowed for more design experimentation. Creating interesting yet less distracting backgrounds became important and texture use wasn’t uncommon. Furthermore, this time period was known for the experimentation with typography, including font size, colour and also direction (horizontal or vertical). Further developments included more discrete usage of colour, commonly using vibrant colours on neutral backgrounds.

With 2011 came the use of huge photography and simple text arrived. The minimalistic look is very much present in this trend. Nicola Witbooi (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi wayne ive added my draft of the web design history, if you could take a look over it and see what you think, cheers Teri Bateson (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you link to your sandbox, the template on your page is just a general link WBClarkson (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a read and think its good, i'd post it on web page as soon as poss, to get feedback and reaction. I'd poss try and make sub headings for the paragraphs if it'll work. WBClarkson (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi I have now done the section on Occupation. Im not sure I have done it correctly so if anyone could give me feedback on it its in my Sandbox. Ta Nicola Witbooi (talk)


 * I like most of what you put but I there are a few things I would change.


 * I wouldn't put there are two jobs, as I'd argue there are loads more.
 * I would completely remove web development as this will be covered elsewhere and i think is out of scope for this page.
 * You have two jobs listed for SEO i'd put them into one.
 * I'd remove photographer, Although photos do get placed on websites I see that as a separate thing, like a video producer.

Other occupations i'd suggest; Web Graphic designer, UX designer, usability designer, front-end designer and proprietary software designer i.e. flash(named in a better way). I wouldn't use any brands or standards as these change and can ad bias. WBClarkson (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that the majority of the occupations you mentioned don't really have an explanation on any website to them. I will do the ones that do and otherwise reference the intro as best i can Nicola Witbooi (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you worry too much about references. Just because someone doesn't say something is so doesn't mean it isn't. WBClarkson (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I will get to it wayne and im still with you just had an eventful weekend will get on with the work will have something up for tomorro morning

Cnurney9 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wayne,

Just checked the web design page if I'm still to write on techniques can i focus on the following:


 * Typography
 * Page layout
 * Quality of Code(W3C)
 * CSS and style sheets
 * Designing for mobile devices? or is this a separate page

Hope this is focused enough regards Cnurney9 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good list, i'd add visual design skills, interface design, user experience design. Up to you if you want to add the

mobile one, if you do i'd call it responsive design. WBClarkson (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

An invitation to the Teahouse... Please join us!
I went to the tea house and had some Darjeeling, if you saw me there and want to chat please use this section. :) WBClarkson (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Presentation
Ok so if you are free meet tomorrow to discuss. I'm not sure if you were reminded about it Chris, but it was mentioned last week. WBClarkson (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

hi

wayne can i hav a time plz and ill be there. Cnurney9 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris this was yesterday. But we just discussed what should go in the slides, basically every one can decide their own. Look at what i've put on your talk page and how to go about it.

Can everyone try and have their slides to me by 10, I don't fancy staying up all night. Cheers WBClarkson (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Presentation
Hi wayne soz about not getting the time right i was on wiki yesterday but didnt notice a message my bad. will have the slides for you by 10 or before hopefully. Will check the web design page also.

ty Cnurney9 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wayne Brendan Clarkson Face.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Wayne Brendan Clarkson Face.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blowers Jewellers


A tag has been placed on Blowers Jewellers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Travelbird (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blowers-Jewellers-Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Blowers-Jewellers-Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)