Revs

I'm considering buying PhotoShop CS6, but I was wondering if someone can tell me if this here is a scam:
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-32-64-Bit-Full-Version-With-Key-Official-Download-MAC-/272664975805?hash=item3f7c1959bd:g:BS0AAOSwuLZY6JtV
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-For-Mac-with-Serial-Download-Official-Version-/252921954655?hash=item3ae352c15f:g:hh0AAOSwY3BZDPZ1
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-32-64-Bit-Full-Version-With-Key-Official-Download-MAC-/252929504314?hash=item3ae3c5f43a:g:RiMAAOSwPh5ZEkpj
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-32-64-Bit-Full-Version-With-Key-Official-Download-PC-MAC-/172600637576?hash=item282fccb888:g:oBoAAOSwkShY-fNT
 
The last one says 397 sold already. But could still be a scam. Looks very much like it, but then again, nothing can really happen on eBay, the worst that can happen is that I'll get my money back.
 
It's just that PhotoShop usually costs so much more. What do you think?

I am talking from years of experience architecting very large front-end UI's.
 
I suggest you take a read of this https://csswizardry.com/2012/11/code-smells-in-css/
 
The source order is in last place in order of precedence, then element selectors, then attribute selectors, then class selectors, then ID selectors and lastly !important.
 
Element selectors are fine for global styles, say you want every single <h1> to be a particular font size. whereas if you only want article headings to be underlined for example then you want to target that with a class so you are not hitting other unrelated headings that happen to use the same tag. Tag selectors are very far reaching, class selectors are much more targeted.
 
As for ID's they are dangerous to use because they have high specificity, which means any number of class selectors chained will still not override it. The not using IDs thing has been done to death there's plenty of good articles explaining this in detail.
https://csswizardry.com/2011/09/when-using-ids-can-be-a-pain-in-the-class/ explains this well.
 
Iheritance or the cascade is getting confused here also. The cascade / inheritance is when you set a property like "color" the descendants of that selector will also be styled with that colour, as the "color" property on all elements by default is "inherit", the same is true for some other rules, but it's important to know that not all rules will cascade.
 
Finally there is no concept of an inheritance tree in CSS. it's not even remotely related to the inheritance mechanism that exists in languages such as Java which more closely resembles a tree structure. I prefer the term cascade as that more accurately defines what is happening under the hood, the term inheritance here just leads to confusion.
 
I hope this post helps explains selectors and cascade as it is pretty unique to CSS and can be confusing at first.

Undoing / overriding styles is generally considered best practice. The only time a style should be overridden is for some kind of state (like .is-active) or by some utility class.
 
Yet you will see these smells on the vast majority of websites. If lots of rules are being overridden then those rules were prematurely declared and ideally shouldn't be in the codebase. This is why you should only use tools like Bootstrap if you agree with the design decisions. Maybe overriding a few rules isn't the end of the world but what happens down the line when a re-design is needed? It all just becomes a big unmanageable mess over time instead of following a sound architecture.

To solve your problem you really want to be able to get access to your markup to add some class names and target those in your CSS. Although I wouldn't feel too confident with this theme you have chosen...

input[type=submit] { clear: both; position: relative; float: none; display: block; width: auto; height: auto; margin-top: 12px; background: transparent; padding: 8px; cursor: pointer; } The above is terrible CSS, not only is it targeting every submit button in your project (It should be tied to a class so other buttons can have that style) but why is it setting positioning? float:none ? Inputs are not floated by default amongst other things.
You can tell that the original theme's author didn't know what they were doing and were just hacking around with CSS properties.

To be honest though almost all theme providers on WordPress write really bad CSS. It might be worth it the long run building your own from scratch.

that's sort of how CSS works really.
 
Anyway you have on line 123 of style.css?ver=4.8.2
input[type=submit] {margin-top: 12px;}
moving the Subscribe button down a bit, but not the other one.

A lot of these sellers have commercial bulk licences, they have either registered themselves as businesses or actually own a business, they purchase bulk licencing and get hundreds of keys to use, then they use some and sell the rest at seriously reduced rates, still very dishonest and illegal but the key itself is genuine and will work forever.
 
Maybe the question you should ask the seller is how can they sell serial numbers so cheap, much cheaper than adobe sell them for, then assess the answer.

you can get the creative cloud photography package (photoshop cc, lightroom, hmm bridge) for around a tenner a month.
 
this cs6 as Robert says sounds too good to be true, and therefore almost certainly is

I think the answer should be pretty obvious given the price disparity... It's not a genuine copy.

Thanks for your responses everyone!
 
I unterstand that traffic is important. I don't have the traffic yet, for a simple reason: My site isn't open to the public yet.
 
Let me explain the background. My site is about benchmarking a certain software, for music production, on specific computers. There's a site online where people compare their benchmark scores, but the way they're measured is … scientifically not very "correct" and it's also a thread over hundred pages, making it difficult to find out specific scores for that software on specific computers.
 
My site has a graph where scores are displayed, and users can submit their scores easily. It's a bit like Geekbench if you want. Very similar concept actually.
 
Now, there's companies that make software plugins for that software and these computers I'm benchmarking. And the people who will be using my site (or who are currently using that thread on that forum) are the same people who buy those plugins.
 
My site is online and basically finished. Last thing I'm thinking of was to send these emails. I wanted to do that because I thought if the ads are already online when I make a big hype around the "opening" of the site, it might be more interesting for these companies to have their ads on their from the start. The forum and the thread I talked about has enormous traffic, and people will prefer submitting their scores to my site than writing them down in the thread. (there was a similar project before and people were disappointed when the chart with the scores wasn't updated anymore – that's why mine works automatically now, or let's say it's the users that make it work).
 
So I expect it to run rather well. And I expect lots of people watching it at the start especially. Do you think that's still not interesting for these companies, to have their ads on their from the start?
 
Basically, the forum I'm talking about has a lot of traffic. Now I need to prove that I'll get the traffic that this specific thread is getting.

Very few people click the links in the footer. But I think it's nice to have presentation-wise. Put them in the same order as they would appear in the header.

It really doesn't matter and it's up only to you. It's a important to make menu in good order but noone really care about the footer.
 
Cheers,
Adam

The footer isn't really looked at but I'd probably have about 3-5 of the most viewed links with either a copyright on the right or a back to top link on the right.

Yes most important is ok, that might tie in with most popular a lot of the time

If you are a perfectionist the links should add value.
 
So you need: Home | Polls | About | Contact
 
Bin the copyright as it means nothing (it's implicit) and make better use of the right side to add more links.

I'm not sure if it's possible to test like that, I work with statistics and statistics usually don't work like that. If you changed your background and noticed users stay longer on the site, it could have to do with a million other (exterior) factors! Factors you don't even know about. Example: You posted a picture of a pink Corvette. A famous rock star just posted something and mentioned how he'd love a pink corvette. Suddenly people are searching for pink corvettes and watch your site. Meanwhile, you think your background is making them stay longer, but in reality, people never noticed or didn't even know there was a different background before, because it's the first time they visit the site.
 
Very simplified example here.

I'm not sure if it's possible to test like that, I work with statistics and statistics usually don't work like that. If you changed your background and noticed users stay longer on the site, it could have to do with a million other (exterior) factors! Factors you don't even know about. Example: You posted a picture of a pink Corvette. A famous rock star just posted something and mentioned how he'd love a pink corvette. Suddenly people are searching for pink corvettes and watch your site. Meanwhile, you think your background is making them stay longer, but in reality, people never noticed or didn't even know there was a different background before, because it's the first time they visit the site.
 
Very simplified example here.

As far as older browsers are concerned, I noticed some sites simply block them. I have an old Apple eMac that must be around 11-12 years old now, and I use it from time to time. Some sites will tell me that I need to upgrade my web browser. Of course that's not possible, because to use that latest web browser, I'd need to install a newer system, which isn't possible on that computer anymore.
 
On one side, it's easier for you to make your UI more uniform throughout all browsers. On the other hand, you maybe loose (even if just a few) users. Maybe the better solution is so make an extra UI for older browsers. Of course that's a lot of work, what I say is all just theoretical.
 
And as for the wow factor. @@Nillervision talked about architecture. I surely prefer Neo-Baroque buildings to post-war architecture, even if their decoration has no 'use'. (except psychological use)
But I think here we're talking about small details. The diagonal lines in the gradient Nillervision has done for me, might appear a little larger or a little smaller on a different browser. That's the kind of things I'm thinking of. I don't think anyone would notice, nor would it affect the visitors unconsciousness. I think this is more of a psychological thing for the developer / designer. It's the fact that he / she KNOWS that it's not the same, that bugs him or her.

All the modern web browsers can handle the CSS gradients spec perfectly fine, you will need the right vendor prefixes, but again this can be automated just like the image compression using front-end tooling like gulp to run image compression and autoprefixer.
 
A thing to bear in mind with cross device UI design is that you have to get over the fact some aspects might appear slightly different across browsers and devices, certain features will not be supported. What is important is that the users all receive great UX for all the supported devices, a gradient is hardly likely to impact on the UX. The vast majority of users just want to complete their task / get the information as quickly as possible, I'm not saying good looking visuals are not important, but they most definitely take a back seat to UX.

You're welcome. I'm always glad to help when I can.
The reason that it renders so fast is simply that no data have to be loaded.
I might be using the wrong tems here, but in essence the gradient system is simply a part of the browsers native API.
Images on the other hand requires an extra request to the server (unless the image is encoded in the document which is kind of messy)
Other that the request itself, it also takes time to transfer the bytes of the images from the server to the client which is the reason we have to compress the images in the first place.
 
We don't have to "compress" the CSS gradients because they are just a "call" to a method build into the browser (definitely the wrong terms, but you get the picture).
 
Of cause images still have their place in web design, after all the gradients will only let us create abstract and very symetrical shapes (for now).
 
 
 
Besides from the blend modes I mentioned before, I really hope that future versions of CSS will have noise/cloud generators so that we can create grainy "grunge textures" as well.
Another interesting feature in CSS that we can use to make interesting backgrounds is the filter properties which allows us to blur our shapes, shift hue etc (unfortunately not implemented in IE yet)

I can't see the diagonal stripes on the original image but remember that you can use multiple backgrounds so it will be no problem to use either an image OR ANOTHER REPEATING DIAGONAL GRADIENT as another layer.
See this updated fiddle. https://jsfiddle.net/Nillervision/80hgta3j/1/ (note the first gradient is the "top-layer")
It is correct that the CPU/GPU power required to render a CSS gradient is the same as rendering an image (in the end it is all pixels). What you save is not processing power but bandwidth which is far more important (unless you are particularly concerned about your users battery use)
 
EDIT: The only reason to create these sorts of backgrounds in PhostoShop is that we still don't have all the blend-modes for the layers in the browser (overlay, multiply, screen etc.) but I think we will see this in future versions of CSS

Interesting discussion on CSS gradients vs images:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28043228/which-one-has-better-performance-css-gradient-or-background-image

Use a CSS radial gradient instead:
DEMO: https://jsfiddle.net/Nillervision/80hgta3j/

Dang when I saw the jpg my mind went 'hang on' and there you go, @@Nillervision for the win

Adobe have made PhotoShop CS2 free for download (requires that you register though) http://www.redmondpie.com/download-adobe-photoshop-cs2-for-free-legally-while-you-still-can/
Unfortunately CS2 for Mac is designed for the old PowerPc processors, not the Intel processors that Apple chose to downgrade their current products with. If you want a free alternative to PhotoShop Gimp is really the best choice.

https://compressor.io/compress
 
http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/

Just a quick note, partially related to the discussion:
There's a tinypng for gulp - https://www.npmjs.com/package/gulp-tinypng and they also have a WP plugin, which is very useful when you want to optimise an image on upload to Media library or optimise the whole media library in bulk via the admin.