Teddy Talk: Creating, Collecting, Connecting

Just a few thoughts (from someone that hasn't read every post above, so hopefully I'm not being repetitive).

A challenge should be, by definition, something new and challenging.  However, having people post work that they've done previously, or having experts on the subject post examples, also has merit.  What about the thought of having two galleries... the challenge gallery with new pieces designed to "meet the challenge" and a SHOWCASE of existing and inspirational work?

Just a thought!
Kelly

Laura, you are an inspiration!  But the big question is... how on earth did you manage to let all those beautiful bears leave your house?  I think I would have barricaded the door shut at the end of the day to keep everyone in!

Bear hugs,
Kelly

We contacted our phone company and were told that legally, they absolutely cannot block calls (didn't catch if this was local or state law).  Well, I guess other people can try this route with their own phone companies, as long as you don't live in upstate NY you should be able to block her incoming calls...

She did not call us yesterday.  But she called on the 11th and left another message.  Again she greeted the dog in the ad "Hi Jack!" and was obviously reading the ad as she called.   We state in the ad that we do "teddy bears and soft-sculpture animal art".  She was very confused by this sentence.  She kept mumbling about art, send me this, no don't send me this, and finally said "I don't know what animal art is", got very angry, proclaimed "Oh, don't send me ANYTHING!" and slammed the phone down.  I am hoping she crossed out our ad in anger and won't call again.  But I realize that the next time we place an ad, it will just start all over again.

Is it possible that both Nancy and Daphne are correct?  That is, that perhaps she did live in a group home for most of the last few years, but also that her elderly mother did have a debilitating stroke recently.  I would think family members might have opted to put both the physically disabled elderly mother AND the mentally disabled daughter into ONE care facility at that point.  You know, like one of those two bedroom assisted living apartments, or one of those little cottages on the grounds of a nursing home.  It would be a heck of a lot cheaper than keeping two disabled individuals housed separately, both of whom required assisted or full care.  This is just a thought.  But if anyone has her STREET address, you may be able to look up online and see if it is part of a community of assisted-living housing or linked to a nursing home.  Because if you can't get past Margaret on the phone, and can't talk to the mother, the next step would be to find a backdoor route to talk to the people who are financially responsible for her living arrangements (other family members).  They may be none to pleased to receive this month's phone bill anyway!

We will continue to advertise and continue to list our phone number in future ads.  Removing our phone number is not an option.  We have previously received calls from some very wonderful bear collectors, who just happen to not have computers for any number of reasons.  We would have missed both sales and getting to know those nice people if we hadn't listed a phone number.  As far as the picture lady goes, we will continue to not pick up the phone when she calls, and not send her anything.  I hope that this lady can find happiness and get the help that she needs.  Obviously she gets the teddy magazines, so she certainly already has access to lovely bear photos in those.

Best wishes,
Kelly

I'm running through here very quickly, but wanted to add something to the conversation.  (Hopefully it hasn't been said before, I just scanned the replies above!).

I think we all need to remember that the TOBY and Golden Teddy award rules are meant for artists AND manufacturers.  Sometimes, as an artist, we will run across a rule that doesn't make much sense.   I usually presume that when that happens, it was intended more for manufacturers. 

I don't have the rules in front of me, but I remember them stating that the piece must be created during a certain time period.  Yes, that applies to artists.  But when it says that the bear MUST BE SOLD during a certain time period, I have always presumed this is intended for manufacturers, who run on a completely different schedule to create a product than an artist would.  It is my understanding that they want ARTIST bears made in the previous year, and they want MANUFACTURED bears SOLD for that year (as opposed to, for example, a bear that was on the market three years ago).  Perhaps I am interpreting it differently than others are?

Best wishes,
Kelly

I found that comment funnier than the original list, for some reason!   

She has been calling us every day, but we see it is her on the caller ID and do not pick up.  The first time she left a rambling message, she has hung up with no message every time she's called since then.  <sigh>  I don't quite know what to do about her, my first choice would be to block her through the phone company but I can't seem to find an easy way to do that.  I guess I should call them...

Had one funny moment from her.  I tried to listen to the first long message she left on our machine (and didn't understand most of what she was trying to say).  But the first part of the message was very clear.  "This message is for Jack.  Hi Jack!"

Jack is the dog we had in our advertisement.  Perhaps I should let her talk to a stuffed animal next time...

The sad thing is that if she'd just BACK OFF from calling tons of people every single day with the same demands... she would probably get more of what she's asking for.  If I thought sending her photos would make her happy (and that I wouldn't hear from her again for a while), I would do it.  But with the behavior she's shown with other bear artists... no way.  I'm not going to encourage her by speaking to her or sending anything.

It's a shame.
Kelly

Between my mother's patterns and my own, they total many, many dozens (mostly her's, I must admit).  In the earlier days, we had a different pattern for every bear.  We now have perhaps half a dozen patterns that we lean on more heavily, and those patterns have "options" that go on for textbook length (four different leg options, three different body options, eight different head options, and it keeps going).  My mother is a whiz with patterns, but she is a lifelong fine artist and seamstress, so she can sketch out exactly what she wants it to look like, then knows what to do to make a 2D sketch translate to a 3D bear.  Yes, she is a little scary.  I sometimes wonder if we're really related...
   

Best wishes,
Kelly

Jared, the stuffed dog is in storage with my childhood teddy bear collection.  I think my brother's prized giant T-Rex is in there as well!  (Mom always was smart about what an older brother might like...)

Kim, no problem if the guy was a vet, you needed somebody with "horse sense" anyway!

Cheers,
Kelly

With a great design, you can say "I meant for that to happen", when asked about particular features.

With a GREAT design, you actually did mean for it to happen.

Notice the subtle difference 

No seriously, I start new designs usually by looking at photographs of the actual animal.  If I want to make a bear, I look at pictures of real bears.  If I want to make a rabbit, I look at pictures of real rabbits.  Or as others mentioned, working off your existing patterns is a lovely way to move forward.

Best wishes,
Kelly

And for those of us who can't pronounce 'Euripides'.....?

Kelly

Love the other stories 

I always had teddy bears growing up.  I was never really a "doll kid", it was teddy bears all the way even when ALL of my friends went through a Cabbage Patch phase simultaneously.  I have a pink-and-white bear that my mother's father (who I saw very few times before he passed away) bought me on a trip to Disney World when I was perhaps three.  My mother made me bears and all sorts of outfits for my bears, not to mention making all kinds of other stuffed animals.  She made me my own Care Bear (far superior to the store-bought ones!), and then proceeded onto an entire family of different Care Bears, those were favorites for a long time.  I slept with several teddies in my bed for many years, it was sometimes quite a decision as to which ones got the privilege on any given night!  On into my teenage years, I got a special teddy bear every Christmas.  I still have my (sizeable!) collection, but it is in storage until I have a nice, safe place to put them.

One particular stuffed animal incident does come to mind.  My mother was making us a life-sized stuffed dog to look like the dog we had at the time, a chocolate lab.  Our real dog, Jenny, never had cared about the lines of teddy bears and other stuffed animals that came from my mother's sewing machine.  But as that big brown dog took shape, she started to pay attention.  You could see the wheels turning.  "Hmmm, that fellow looks kind of familiar."  My mother was putting stuffing in the dog one afternoon, each time she put a handful of stuffing in, the stuffed dog would wiggle and jiggle and twitch, of course.  Jenny watched all of this with great interest.  "It's moving!"  She finally could stand it no longer, bolted across the room, snatched the dog from my mother's hands, and ran like the devil to the opposite end of the house with it in her mouth.  She didn't hurt the dog, she was just very, very convinced that it was meant for her.  We knew the stuffed Jenny dog was "Jenny-approved" by her namesake after that!

Best wishes,
Kelly

Daphne, I was only teasing above because you'd been the last person to speak with her.  I'm sorry, I can't say anything right today!  I certainly did not mean to imply that your conversation with her made her call Wanda, or I, or anyone.  She obviously does what she wants to do, when she wants to do it, and it doesn't sound possible to influence her in any other direction but her own.

I do feel badly that the lady has problems, but at the same time, I also would hate to encourage her by responding, as she has apparently taken advantage of other artists' goodwill previously.  I think it would be one thing if I thought that sending her pictures once would make her happy, but this lady sounds like the "give her an inch and she takes a mile" variety, and I just don't have the time to play that game again and again and again...

Wanda, what a sad case your other lady was.  Sounds like she drank alone and did not have friends to talk to.  But you certainly are not obligated to make other people's problems your own, I think you did the right thing when she got out of hand.  Being kind is one thing, being taken advantage of is another.

Best wishes to all,
Kelly

Uh oh!  I've just joined a very non-exclusive club, it seems.  Guess who just left a message on ye olde Canna Bear Paint answering machine? 

Daphne, you must have convinced her that it was time to start calling some "other" artists 

I think our service does block calls, so we'll just have to look into that.  Soon.

Not pickin' up the phone when the caller ID says "Daniel, F.E."...
Kelly

So glad to hear the show was a success!  It looks absolutely fantastic, wish I could have been there to meet everyone and see all the lovely bears!   

Bear hugs,
Kelly

Good grief, somebody needs her telephone privileges revoked!  (Not you, Sue Ann!)   

I can't remember from the last conversation, but has this lady ever actually bought a bear from anybody that she demands photos from?

I wonder if it would help to tell her that you can only send photos out for a nominal fee to offset the cost of ink, postage and such.  The fee could be reimbursed with the purchase of the first bear.  But I bet with someone like this, as soon as you mention needing a payment of some sort, she just disappears instead...  Well, maybe.

Good luck with her!
Kelly

Yes, I've had several people make contact from both the Teddy Talk issue ad and an ad I took out in the previous issue.  They all want to see our updated web site, so I've been slaving away to get it finished, LOL!  We were lucky, none of the individuals who contacted us was the "infamous picture lady".

Best wishes,
Kelly

Wow, that is sad news, my thoughts are with his loved ones. 

On the other hand though, I admit to a level of surprise that he's been around as long as he has, given all the dangerous situations he's put himself in over many, many years.

Best wishes,
Kelly

Went back through these and saw I'd missed a few things   

Be careful with using layers as an analogy, the two really aren't alike.  The fourth table is just one more element in the third table, I worry that using layers as an example implies that it overrides or overlays any other content in the third table, as it does not.  The fourth table is really inside the third table.  But it is no more important an element in that third table than anything else that may be in the third table.  You could have paragraphs of other text and images scattered all throughout that third table, however you want it.  Your third table could have multiple rows with one cell per row (this is like the example code I posted).  It could have multiple rows with multiple cells per row.  It could have one row with one cell for absolutely everything, where your table just happens to make an appearance in a big block of blahblahblah text, for example. 

If cellpadding is 50 then both the left and right side of the cell EACH add 50, for a total of 100 added pixels within the cell.

I think my brain is fried now, too 
Cheers,
Kelly

Something else to play with if cellpadding is driving you nuts is to keep everything set to zero.  There are other ways to pad out your images and text from the sides of the table surrounding it.  With that narrow fourth table, we're moving the text away from the outer blue walls without ever touching cellpadding.  If you placed an image in that third table and wanted to move it away from the blue walls as well (without putting it in the fourth narrower table), look up "hspace" for images.  It adds horizontal padding around an image.  (vspace is its partner in crime to add vertical padding.)  Just like with cellpadding though, you need to calculate this value into your overall maximum allowed width!  So your image might be:

<img src="myimage.jpg" width="400" hspace="20">

That would push the image 20 pixels away from everything that surrounds it horizontally.  Just one more option!

I hope some of this gobbledygook helped!  Maybe someone else can come along with other potential solutions, or just explain it better than I can.  Please don't hesitate to ask about anything.

The pathetic thing is, the page I'm currently working on for my site overhaul really does have nineteen tables.  It's pathetic because I should be using more advanced formatting solutions, but all of those books are packed... so I stick with basic old nested tables because I know it by heart and hand-code everything.   Ah well!

Best wishes,
Kelly

The beauty part about adding images to the third table in this situation is that it gives you some more room, so your images can be a bit bigger.  If you want all of your images grouped together separate from all of your text, just keep adding them in the third table in their own <tr><td><img src="myimage.jpg"></td></tr> one after another all like that, then insert your table of text before or after all of your images with its own <tr><td><table blah blah blah></td></tr>.

If within your auction, however, you want your images and text interlaced (one image followed by text, second image followed by text, third image followed by text, and so on), then your third table could, technically, be a mix of images in their own rows <tr><td><img src="myimage.jpg"></td></tr> followed by a table of text in its own row <tr><td><table blah blah blah></td></tr>, followed by an image in its own row <tr><td></td></tr>, followed by a table of text in its own row... and so on.

The beauty and the horror of HTML is that there are many, many ways to accomplish something.  What I'm describing to you isn't ideal, I don't really know the overall effect you're looking for but this fits in your format.  And no matter how hard you work to make it perfect, you also have to remember that browsers all shows things just a little bit differently (or sometimes, A LOT differently).  Your template could be perfection in one version of one browser, and skew in another version of the same browser or in another browser altogether.  Compatibility is the greatest headache for web designers.

I agree that designing for 800 x 600 monitor setting is a good minimum size to work with.  I think the place to start might be to figure out exactly how many pixels wide you like that innermost table.  Just play with punching in numbers until it looks like it's the right width at 800 x 600.  Possibly 400 or 500 pixels across, but I don't know how narrow you really want that text to be, so you'll have to eyeball it.

So yes, whichever table you ultimately put your images in... third table which is a little wider, fourth table mixed in with your narrow text, as yet to be determined nineteenth table, whatever... you just have to keep the width in mind.  You will have a maximum width with your images that you can't exceed without distorting the sides of your tables.  So if you have a set size of 500 for a table width and cellpadding at 20, then you know your images cannot exceed 460 pixels wide in that particular table.  The same applies for percentages, so if your table is set at 65% of an 800 pixel wide screen, that's like saying that your table is 520 pixels wide.  With cellpadding at 20 in that particular table, your image width cannot exceed 480 pixels.

Whew 
Kelly

At some point though, you need to design for MOST people and not every possible monitor configuration.  (The latter is impossible.)  Look up data on the most popular monitor resolution settings, and don't even worry about the people with miniscule screen settings, the worst that will happen is your blue tables may disappear for them.  And then there's the group of people surfing on handheld devices...  LOL!

Actually, no.  Leave the wide images where they are in the third table.  Eliminate the cellpadding number in the third table, so put cellpadding and cellspacing at zero.  Going back to the four table snippet of code I posted earlier, check out what I added in the third table.  I think you said your wide images were at the top and bottom of the page, so it would go like this...  Inside the third table, your first row <tr> and the cell in that row <td> would hold the image at the top of the page.  Close that </td> and </tr>.  The next row <tr> and cell <td> in the same third table holds the fourth table with all your text.  Close the </td> and </tr>.  The last row <tr> and <td> in the third table in your last wide image, then close it too </td></tr>.  Hope this helps! Kelly

<table width="100%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#50869E">
<tr>
<td>

      <table width="90%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#C8DDEE">
      <tr>
      <td align="center">

            <table width="75%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#B4A296">
            <tr>
            <td align="center">
                  <img src="here is your big image at the top of the page.jpg">
            </td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
            <td>
   
                  <table width="60%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#B4A296>
                  <tr>
                  <td align="center">
                               Here's your fourth table with all the text
                  </td>
                  </tr>
                  </table>
            </td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
            <td align="center">
                  <img src="here is your big image at the bottom of the page.jpg">
            </td>
            </tr>
            </table>
      </table>
</table>

Regarding using percentages for tables versus fixed numbers...

Yes, the size of the images you use in your tables can indeed affect them.  We saw that above with a wide image + an increased cellpadding number pushing the edges of your central table out so far they shrunk the outer tables.  So if your images are VERY large (if you are designing with your images at the max width for your tables on a monitor set at a high resolution), then everyone with a monitor set at a lower resolution will experience distortion of the tables.  The central table will bulge out, and so on.

Now it is possible to combine percentages and fixed values.   Your outer tables can stay at percentages so that they will always cover the outer edge of every viewer's screen, no matter what their resolution.  Try experimenting with a fixed number for your central table.  If all you want in the innermost table is a narrow row of text, set the width value on the fourth table to width="450", for example, and see if you like the results. 

Forgot to add earlier, make sure you ditch the cellpadding number in the third table if you add the fourth table... 

Kelly

Adding to the last post.  Easiest way to get around your problem without changing your images... add another nested table for your text to push it farther away from the blue edge, just make it an appropriate percentage smaller than your last table at 75% (for example 60%).

<table width="100%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#50869E">
<tr>
<td>

<table width="90%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#C8DDEE">
<tr>
<td align="center">

<table width="75%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#B4A296">
<tr>
<td align="center">
   
<table width="60%" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" bgcolor="#B4A296>
<tr>
<td align="center">
blahblahblahblahtext

Hmmm, where to begin.  The beginning, I suppose.  Actually, you're very correct in all of this.  Cellpadding expands the amount of space between the cell and its contents (the text).  Cellspacing expands the distance between two cells <td></td><td></td>.  If you are only working with ONE cell here, which it looks like you are, cellpadding and cellspacing will accomplish pretty much the same thing for you.  But technically yes, it is cellpadding that you want.

Your table code is absolutely correct to start three nested tables.  And yes, increasing the cellpadding in the central table should give you exactly what you want.  HOWEVER (and I see from your most recent post, I think you've figurd this out), the width it can shrink inwards is affected by the WIDEST content in the cell (an image).  Remember when calculating how much space your cell will take on the screen, that you're telling it to pad that cellpadding on both sides of your widest image.  (I'm taking random numbers for this example).  So if your widest image is 800 pixels wide, and you tell it to add 100 pixels on each side, your central cell cannot be smaller than 1000 pixels.  If your browser resolution is set smaller than that (let's say 800 pixels across), it is going to compress the outer tables until they disappear completely off the screen, and eventually all you'll see will be the central table.  Try it with your code, tell it to add a huge number like 400 cellpadding or something, the other tables should disappear. 

Let me post more separately so you don't explode waiting 
Kelly