ID:186700
![]() May 15 2005, 11:28 am
|
|
I just looked at the BYOND developer icon. Is it new? It looks different >.>
|
![]() May 15 2005, 11:29 am
|
|
Yer, it's new I can just tell.
|
N1ghtW1ng wrote:
I just looked at the BYOND developer icon. Is it new? It looks different >.> I really like it. :) |
It's not unless you hav'nt actually took a good look at the "Developer", you might be looking at the BYOND GAMES! one.
I like the new one, the circle around it is great. |
Funny, as I'm in developer... Maybe my browser's cache didn't clear or something...
Heh, turns out Firefox had this marked as a "make available offline" page, so I couldn't see the new one. They just replaced the old one, and as it was the same filesize as the old one, and had the same name, it didn't want to update. I had to manually clear it. It looks nice, but it's going to take some getting used to. |
Yes, yes it looks nice, but there are more important things that should be made instead of a new flashy logo.
|
N1ghtW1ng wrote:
Is it new? Indeed it is, and it's a sign of the many new things that are just around the corner... |
You should considering making an attempt to add or remove at least one byte from it. Firefox, and every other browser on my Linux box made me delete my cache to get the image to show, even after reloading the page. Mostly because it's impossible for the browser to know it's a new image because the name and size are still exactly the same. (Looks good, by the way.)
|
Yeah, I had the same problem. I guess it just goes to show that the old saying about assumptions is true for browsers, too, eh?
|
Mike H wrote:
N1ghtW1ng wrote: /me takes that as the sign that BYOND 3.5 is coming soon! |
For Firefox you shouldn't have to wipe out your entire cache to reload new images. Ctrl-F5 reloads a page from scratch.
|
Nadrew wrote:
You should considering making an attempt to add or remove at least one byte from it. Firefox, and every other browser on my Linux box made me delete my cache to get the image to show, even after reloading the page. Mostly because it's impossible for the browser to know it's a new image because the name and size are still exactly the same. Nope. :) The file size is different (731 bytes more, to be exact), but more importantly, the date is much newer. Firefox should be asking the web server for the date of the file, and reloading if it's newer than what's cached. Obviously the browser is not properly doing its job there. Not much we can do about that! |