Wrong header autosizing

hi2all!

Can we change the size of the header? My one is covered by next block: http://pizza.ily.tel/

Any possibility to fix it?

10x!

ily.tel wrote:Can we change the size of the header? My one is covered by next block: http://pizza.ily.tel/

Any possibility to fix it?

@ily

Telnic do not respond to bug reports, suggestions for improvements, or anything else for that matter posted on TelTalk - even though it is the leading .tel forum !

You could try Telnic's own at forum at http://telnic.org/forum - though I believe it's pretty quiet there these days since they introduced "lockdown" - preventing access to it without you being both registered and logged-in !

http://MikeSeaton.tel

@ily

The header is static and can't be adjusted by the domain owner.
Without a correction by Telnic you can only shorten the text to make it completely visible.
Sometimes it helps if you shorten or lengthen a single word. This leads to different text sizes and different line breaks.
An alternative is to delete the logo icon to give more space to the text line in the header.
One more problem is that the header appears differently on different devices. It may be okay on a cell, but is still cut on a desktop.

ily, did you try to use other templates where the header size is smaller / bigger?

@mikeseaton, @Expert Thank you!

Expecting the same as Expert answer on Telnic forum, and will follow the advice.
Still hadn't do this because of LF keywords

@Expert
I do not like other templates, there are a couple of problems:

template low quality, missing Cyrillic fonts (in Latin all ok, but wrong Cyrillic analogs are terrible),
and translation errors (automatic translation was used for last 3 templates, video labels, etc.)

@ily

Some people have found a way of reducing font size in headers see http://flickforkicks.garethc.tel

Sorry but I don't know how it is done, but I guess there is probably a clever person out there who  does!!

Wishing  you success with your project

lostwithiel wrote:@ily

Some people have found a way of reducing font size in headers see http://flickforkicks.garethc.tel

Sorry but I don't know how it is done, but I guess there is probably a clever person out there who  does!!

Wishing  you success with your project

There is nothing clever here, the header font size is the same size if you write 1 word or full the header with words, the TITLE,  (top) the more words you write it become smaller, to see an example check this site that the title is full and the letter very small. I will keep that example only for 1 day, before I delete it. this is the site: http://7k.tel

Regards 

http://4g.tel

1. YES indeed and the example is self explanatory thanks.

2. What is more SAD it the not optimised auto rendering of dot TEL domain name itself on MOBILE DEVICES, when the domain name itself is larger than 7 to 10 letters, depending on how many narrow letter in the domain name .
And it is somehow the same with Telnames TLN in a different manner although Telnames partly tried to momentarily escape from this  (and showing the TITLE Bigger then the url , which is arguable, while offering some more escape ways for flexibility .

See some example rendered on mobile like  http://metromanila.TEL or http://yourbusiness.tel  http://theploughappleton.tel http://executivesearch.TEL or http://agencies.executivesearch.tel


3. Encouraging mobile usage of TEL (without distinction of TELs and TLNs)  is vital for TELNAMES who cannot succeed alone if dot TEL awareness is refrained  by not optimised dot TEL mobile rendering.

Therefore TELNAMES might support (easy in internal talks) TELNIC to increase TELs rendering  (not TEL packaging, which is a different story, on which TELname business is based of course) .

Joe public is soon to be too confused and could develop in other forums whatever basic complains not good at all for global TEL image , as it is not possible for Joe public to understand from scratch what is a TELNAME from a dot TEL as long as TELNAMES communication is still Embedded into TEL, and that TELs are still sold by hundreds of Registrars... 
This also as long as there will be for a while more TELs (as pro TEL) visible on the internet, then TLNs  from Telnames , the former being more easily found in search engines  (when correctly fed with relevant content ) than the latter , etc etc.

The possible lurky thoughts that TELnames rendering on mobile should be optimised alone by Telnames (again, we are talking here about rendering of TELs, not about a specific nice Packaging of a TEL into a TLN under a given TELNAMES service pack ) , and that pro TEL might not at all,  could be an unproductive or even dangerous Londoner vision as the internet is being definitively reshaped by mobile, s well as commerce, ... and all of us being enough polite or not concerned, to not remind any initial goals of TELnic years back when pitching the future dot TEL journey (it is a private shareholder problem, or possibly a portfolio owners problem, anyway not Joe public 's problem )

Therefore it might be Telnames smart interest while already on its tracks, to accept and even encourage ( indeed yes !!!) now better rendering of TEL globally towards TELNIC, as they would benefit back from smarter TEL awareness and TEL projects without no risks ( such pro TELs are not nicely packed compared to through Telnames services pack (reason for higher price for service at TELNAMES IN COMPARISON of pro TELs), which should turn dot TEL (remembering , that at the end , it is a gTLD !!! ) positive awareness into ... more sales of TLN !!!

INSTEAD of having some TEL underlying concerns (and simultaneously , also as the bare TEL dn is underlying bare technology/public service sold through registrars on one hand, but also enabling somehow TELnames Inc)  indirectly weakening or even jeopardizing towards institutional partners or tier one stake holders, any further smart upscales or replication of Telnames nice POC to larger scales/markets .

That is why encouraging mobile usage of TEL (without distinction of TELs and TLNs)  is vital for TELNAMES who cannot succeed alone if dot TEL awareness is refrained  by not-optimised dot TEL mobile rendering

THAT IS WHY ALSO possibly 3 topics should be removed, at list from the visible and unappropriate window on top of forum ( self shooting in the foot ) :

ICANN c ....
TIME to....
DROP .....

while why not still offered in a more appropriate dedicated
speculative columm as  " vision/predictions/controversy "  ???

What do you think ?

thanks2all, guys! I just did hope, that the header size can be changed trough SOAP

@Telwax sorry for my english if I can not round the corners, but I think that more practice in current situation = more profit fot .tel owner. Discussions are time eaters. Except technical moments.

Did anybody publicate scripts, examles more serious than Telnic dev ones?