Compatibility View is there somewhere in the IE menus, but you can also switch it on and off more easily by clicking on the broken-page looking icon in the address bar.
It could be that there are things I could do to default to a more presentable embed, but you should be able to hover over the embedded box, the one you say is mis-sized, and bring up the graphic Adobe Reader menu. You can futz with doc-size using the plus or minus thingies, or hit the graphic symbol and bring up more options, most of them merely distracting, but the first one under the little drop-down arrow on the menu bar will enable "fit to single page width" which might look better, though the whole rigamarole is too user-unfriendly to make this approach a preferred option at this time.
Would be easier-friendlier, I think, just to include a link for the IE-impaired to view whatever file in a separate dedicated reader window, as previously ( https://ckmacleod.com/otto/Otto_2012_intro.pdf ).
I disagree with your estimate, and the sustained discussions on point should in my view be encouraged.
When there are only several characters, talking to each other almost exclusively, the whole thing is not too hard to keep track of, but, even then, it can get chaotic. Might as well have a simple bulletin board or Facebook "Wall" or e-mail list. I think the blog should at least retain the potential or option of opening toward a wider usership.
I don't understand what you mean by a "box too big for the space." Do you mean it functions OK as an embedded file, but it overflows the margins?
Are you using IE 9? Have you turned on "Compatibility View" on purpose or by mistake?
So what I'm saying is that baseball commentary would lead to a more coherent, progressive conversation about baseball if localized in a series of posts with threads. Would require only slightly more discipline than just putting up a Wall thing, and would leave the thousands of other blog regulars free to move on to things they find more interesting, like photos of birds about to seized by snakes:
I've been experimenting with diverse Wall-like plug-ins, but they all have defects - functionality problems, conflicts with other plug-ins, tendency to vacuum up spam from the interwastes, aesthetic problems that imply extra work formatting them adequately beautifully. Then there's the overall negative of sucking/deflecting conversation away from the "main" blog into an even more disposable format that's hard to keep track of. The blog itself should be the repository of this, that, and the other thing, should be a "wall." At the same time, the main posts are searchable, categorizable, taggable, illustratable. They organize, whether or not they seem organic. The differentiation of "serious" content from "aside" content can be reinforced and extended in various ways - eventually, depending on how things go with the blog - the main content can be presented in magazine format and the "wall"-like content advanced in a bloggier mode..
Don't care (that is, sniff, a lot!) about you guys hijacking this ought-to-be-all-about-the-glories-of-Otto-thread with your baseball chud, but I think y'all oughta get in the habit of putting up "Aside" posts (easily created by format or category selection, you don't even need to create an excerpt, title, or image) for stray observations, speculations, etc. - or properly formatted and categorized "real" posts ("Standard" format, the default) for serious delvings into the autistical depths of baseballology. Such aside posts can also serve as "open threads," obviating the need for a "wall" or "shoutbox." Common blog practice would be to say something like: "How about them Yankees? This is an open thread, and here's a Youtube I liked, too."
yeah well it's kind of a radiographish idea
Could be that the heaviest work I did on the graphics occurred in the late pre-Katerina period when you and I were already falling somewhat out of touch - if that's how that all happened. There may be many readerly thrills and chills in store for you when you confront what I did to the thing. Could be the Angels problem.
(actually what I dud was one test without PDF, the other test without the viewer)
Is "radiograph" a common East Coast or health professional or East Coast health professional usage? Don't oft encounter that term out here in the wilds.
If you mean the beans ought to be compu-radio-graphically visualized along with the Ottobrain... absolutely. Since we're meant to visualize the brain (get that brain in our brains), and the brain is in the zonality of beans... or the zone of beanality... has beans on the bean... maybe that was already happening in my CK-brain: The beans are the outward manifestation of the garbagey brown inwardness, and vice versa.
If I'm getting you wrong, feel free to write out the actual indications as you envision they should be written.
Scott Miller: I love the insignia.
Scott Miller: I love the insignia.
Weren't all of the visuals in whatever version you were working from? (I seem to recall giving out early versions without them or without many of them... Maybe that's all you ever got?)
What are you trying to ask?
maybe some detail to solidify the low-rentedness of ‘em
We may spring for some very high-rent beans, but, as for a shot into the bowl, I'm all in favor of that. Wouldn't want to waste good beans!
Remember it's just the first seven, effectively six, pages of a ca. 100-page screenplay. And maybe, even and especially as a piece of closet cinema, it ought to leave scenic detail to the imagination of the reader-as-art director.
not an equivalent situation, though that doesn't mean that there might not be some way to use an Acrobat kind of solution.
If it's any comfort to you, this appears to be a longstanding, never-corrected, hair-pulling-out problem that goes back almost a year now, and specifically tends to affect people using IE on new computers, though it's a combination of IE weirdness and Adobe weirdness. I'm guessing you're already exhausted with the whole thing.
To test out their theory, I'm going to add a couple of files that don't use PDF, but use the viewer. Let me know if they show you anything. (Will put up the test in a few mins, and note it appropriately.)
Sheesh... Have you tried it after closing and then re-starting your browser? Do you know how to clear your cache?
I've installed an alternative viewer that supposedly circumvents the problems that some users encounter on IE (supposedly having to do with whether they've listed google.com as an "allowed site" in some typical IE weird security-related hink). Let me know if it works!
However, at Highest Security it also won't let me load the pdf link, and it also gives me a pop-up box informing me that an add-on isnt' being allowed to run. This is IE 9, by the way.
First, be aware that IE is still considered the enemy of all that's holy by many web developers.
That said, if I turn my IE security settings (under Tools/Internet Options/Security) to "Highest Security" then the Docs box turns into a blank with a never-finishing "Loading" thermometer. John Cage would probably not approve of that... but it is a lot like a blank box.
At Medium High security, it's ok/as expected.
what browser was it NOT working in?
I can also try actually uploading a document to Google Docs, but I don't want to have to rely on that step unless it's truly necessary. At the moment, the file is simply a PDF in my own domain. If the other alternatives don't work, are you at least able to access it at https://ckmacleod.com/otto/Otto_2012_intro.pdf ?
I'll be interested in seeing whether anyone else has a problem with the embedding. Do you have an alternative browser to try? Have you checked over your various settings - security, permissions, flash video, cache, etc.?
Cuz, as you know, this ain't the first time you've been vexed by something that I expected to be pretty straightforward. Works in both IE and Firefox for me, logged in or logged out. Uses a Google dealie-bob, but I'm not signed in to any Google account at the moment.