Would anyone be willing to wip up an expo-themed map? Like an expo playground or something? Or some Quake-art screens of something resembling an expo inside Quake? Just curious. 

got it.. see what can do
Do u need a playable map or only a screen art ? 

Anything! Both! Whatever you can do. :) 

Just showed me the previous two posts, and I can't remember what's before.

Those two posts are what it's all about.

Great work. 

I'm so hurried with qexpo deadline though god only knows how much stuf lies in my hdds :(

..am I the only one ? 

I am scrambling against time and my ADD to finish some maps by the start of QExpo. I hope to complete one this weekend, when I can do a ton of work. It's still about 6 weeks away, so there's still plenty of time. 

I have to polish my boots again.
Mapping is awsome, but can give a real kickback.
Might have some crumbs left thou.. 

just for info.. what is possible and what not when creating a booth ?

-a background image ?
-background audio playing ?
-a movie starting on booth entering ?
-last: HTML knowledge is requested ? 

-can a guestbook/comment module be included in the booth ?

thanks 

You can anything you want inside the content box.

However, a movie starting on booth entering: if you embed a Youtube movie, you should make sure "autostart" is "on" or "yes".

Background image, not yet.

Background audio sucks. You can embed sounds from other sites, but this practice generally sucks.

HTML knowledge is not required. You're adding text and images. You are presenting your mod/map/engine. You are not creating a web site.

There is a forum for members, I'm not sure if a comment module would be useful - all creations will be commented on other sites such as this one, Inside3D, QuakeOne.com and others. 

Don't make videos autostart, it's annoying. Don't use background music, it's annoying. Don't use excessive graphics/images, it's annoying.* Don't use blinking text, marquee, several different fonts and colors, it's annoying. DON'T USE COMIC SANS! If you desperately need a guestbook, link to a free external one.

* Chip, that's a nice logo, but 100KB?!! Don't use PNG, it's annoying. :) A transparent GIF should be half the size. 

The logo is way too big, scrolling is bad.

Remind me to mail you about a trivial loophole, can't do that right now. 

Hey, what image format is best to use for screenshots,..?

I'll go with PNG for its best balance between size/quality

-jpg causes quality loss
-bmp is too big
-gif is worst than png

do u agree? 

JPEG. With a quality of ~85% there is no visible quality loss or a just one that is irrelevant. 

Because i hate artifacts. 

I personally verified a consistent quality loss in JPG.. so I'll guess PNG should be the way to go..

obviously also depends on goal/purpose picture is for 

I'd rather have minor quality loss than excessively large file sizes. We're talking about Quake sceenshots here, not HD renders or whatever else would require nearly lossless quality. 

It's what they are meant for. Although All fo this anal-oldschoolness is a bit daft if u ask me. A lot of people have broadband now, and most have fast broadband, and it really dont matter if a screenshot is 500k if u ask me (even though i used jpegs on my website) because the website is still only gonna take a couple of seconds to load. I mean you guys can stand there and tell someone that 85-90% JPEGs are necessary because anything bigger is SOO annoying that you wont even look at the site, and if you do you will be genuinely annoyed and irritated, and conjour up these bad anal feelings, and I'll just siot here and laugh and smile and feel good whilst I watch some 1080p streaming videos on Youtube of cats getting stung by bees (in HD!!!). 

the website is still only gonna take a couple of seconds to load
Did you give up your web designer plans? 

to load on your computer? I mean this one for example, it's got to be a couple of MEgabytes atleast, it only takes a couple of seconds to load on my computer?

http://failblog.org/ 

It's not only about speed. Some people don't have unlimited bandwidth. Not so much a matter of anal-oldschoolness rather than common sense, or reasonable design. 

Text-based websites are great, but personally I like the idea of lots of rich media content, lots of pictures and graphics, something which might take up to 10 seconds to load for example - well once it's loaded I can look at it for 5 minutes. It wouldn't bother me if people could even link pictures on func and have them actually appear in the posts. I mean in this day and age you could make a website which people can customize the appearance of depending on their mood or device. You could set Spirit's account to just show URLs, and mine to show pictures or something. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities. It's not in the style of Func or QMap and all that, and would therefore change this forum into something it isn't, and probably kill it, but it can be done, just meant as an example. A web designer has to define it's target audience and then cater for that, so a showcase website for content for a game which is played by hardcore gamers should probably have a bit more permission to go for flashy graphics than, say, a weather report website, or something. 

Hmmmm - people who play on-line games have a lot of bandwidth. People with Steam accounts and download new games - they have a lot too. Hardcore Quake-fans are the cream of the crop, it hurts me to think that they are all still using p200's and 56k. OK, over-exaggeration, though people who have <2Gb/month probably use their 'computers' for emails and a 'little browsing'.
They aren't the gamers of the 21st century that I know, or at least not the vast majority of them. 

If you feel like learning something today, look up things about "conversion rates" in correlation with "loading times".

Random starting points:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-in-web-search-ranking.html
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703a.html

Of course, if you target a LOLOL FAILZ CATSS FARSTS ROFL audience then disregard anything I said. 

Well the first link doesn't explain why my inefficient website has gone up in google rankings since it's launch, rather than down, and the second link sends me to a 14-year-old page with an update at the bottom which links to the following page:

http://www.nngroup.com/events/tutorials/usability.html

And similar. They are all focused on usability, which is a much more modern approach than just saying "speed is everything", because it's just not. For example - your website is great and fairly feature-rich, but it does look rather bland to me sometimes, and I wish there were more pictures, and that the pictures that are there weren't so small and blurry. I would happily wait an extra second or two to see it. And really not many people are going to look at it via an iPhone anyway, because people like to play Quake on their 486 100s and a 14" cr8. I mean a computer with a screen and everything. Remember?