Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Major Site Update for Regal

This is topic Major Site Update for Regal in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001609

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-05-2003, 07:58 PM:

Regal's New Website is up! It looks great, and finally is titled with respect to all three chains. (The old site was titled "Welcome to Regal Cinemas") Also, depending on what you type in, the Flash animation changes logos!

Try
www.edwardscinemas.com
and then
www.regalcinemas.com
See the difference?

"Our movie-goers are the stars at our new Website. We have redesigned with you in mind and hope you like our new look and features."

It looks great!

Go There ---->

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-05-2003, 08:20 PM:

Very nicely done web site. They even updated the list of theaters in the "comments" section so it no longer lists locations that have been closed for a long time.

[sniff] This thread smells like "Yak" to me! [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-05-2003, 08:29 PM:

Good nose, Davey-poo.

This thread is now banished to Yak for all enternity.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-05-2003, 09:45 PM:

WOW! They finally did a screen count at the theatre named the Stonestown Twin and discovered it had only TWO (as opposed to 10) screens!

I have to say that my last ten visits to the Edwards have been excellent (brightness, focus, proper sound levels and formats). Even two recent visits to the (business dead for years) UA locally surpised me with good image and sound (and that theatre I stayed away from under previous management).

I have a question, however. While both Edwards and UA Theatres emploees were polos, the design pattern is different on all the ones at the UA compared to the ones at Edwards, even though both have the REGAL emblem on them. Also, people at Edwards still say "Welcome to Edwards", the people at UA NOW say (insetad of rudely tearing your ticket) "Welcome To UA Theatres". Also, the UA has been showing the Regal policy trailer for months now. The Edwards stiull hasn't started showing it. Will these eventually converge?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-05-2003, 10:43 PM:

Very nice, indeed! [beer]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-05-2003, 11:03 PM:

All theatres should be showing the new Regal policy trailer.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-06-2003, 12:56 AM:

www.uatc.com is still the same, though. I always got the feeling that UA and Regal hated each other.

=TMP=

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-06-2003, 01:36 AM:

Wow, such a great site. I have completely forgotten about how many of those theatres have "one size fits all" screens with no masking. [Mad]

Danny

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-06-2003, 11:22 AM:

quote:
Good nose, Davey-poo.

You have no idea. [Wink]

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-06-2003, 04:42 PM:

quote:
the design pattern is different on all the ones at the UA compared to the ones at Edwards, even though both have the REGAL emblem on them.

Regal has two different polos. What is all burgundy with a multi colored collar. The other is burgundy on the bottom and grey on the top, with the same multi colored collar. It is possible that the employees at the UA were all wearing one design and the employees at the Edwards were wearing the other.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2003, 09:32 PM:

Regal's new site follows the current "fashion" of web design (not much graphics and mostly text, even if it is dressed up with CSS rollover link effects, etc.). It still looks pretty nice.

I could tell by some of the source code that the designers must have used DreamweaverMX to put it together. I've only been using that app for a couple months or so, but I already prefer it over Adobe GoLive 6. The "MX" style interface is very straight-forward, with an emphasis on speeding up routine tasks and providing a lot of other conveniences. GoLive gave me some fits with some of its JavaScript behaviors (wierd custom code that would glitch out on certain browsers). At least DWMX works the way I want it to work.

I'm currently working on a site for one of my coworkers. She makes pencil drawn portraits from photographs (and does a very good job at it). I've tried to keep it somewhat simple, but a couple pages still need a few tweaks here and there.
http://www.portraitsbyvalorie.com

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-06-2003, 10:15 PM:

Too bad the new Regal site doesn't comply with any known version of the HTML spec. http://validator.w3.org/ doesn't get past the lack of DTD definition and weblint complaints about extended markup and illegal attributes, as well as images without ALT= text defined.

Having said that, it does appear to be usable in most browsers, including Lynx.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2003, 02:12 AM:

I think it is a common thing with Dreamweaver and other WYSIWYG web page assembling tools to generate pages that are illegal to certain HTML standards. For it to come out fully legal you have to do some hand coding. Of course, I'm a graphic artist and not a programmer so I hate messing around with code (even though sometimes I have no choice).

Overall, web design is a giant balancing act. You have all those different HTML standards and then have to choose between how advanced you want a page to be while maintaining backward compatibility with older computers. I'd prefer to put together web pages using nothing but CSS and DIV layer elements. The work would come out great on version 5 or later browsers. But it would go wacko all over the place for anyone using Netscape 4 and earlier browsers. So, many are still stuck with all those <tr> and <td> tags.