On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:41:58PM -0700, Chris Kinata [kcom] wrote:
> With respect, could you clarify what the issue is on
> the page you've referenced? I'm looking at
> http://carol.gimp.org/blog.html
> in both IE6 and Firefox, and the major differences
> I see are some spacing variations and the absent img
> in the "Pattern" box.

yes.  that was my prediction.  every time i use a transparent png i am
able to predict that IE will not display it correctly.  i actually used
this fact when designing my index page, btw.  there is a message that is
much clearer if you read it from IE than if you read it in any mozilla
product.  IE users need to understand the message somewhat more than
users of hmm, should i call it gecko instead of mozilla products?

the first thing i did was review css2 things to see if there were some
elliptical clipping there i had not seen yet.  the next thing was to
decide that i did not care about what IE displayed and went for this
sappy portrait style with the transparent png instead.

> By the way, I agree that jumping through browser-specific
> hoops to design webpages is a major pain, and often resent 
> having to take on the pain. But it seems there's sort of
> a spectrum from lowest-common-denominator-and-works-everywhere
> design to maximum-bells-and-whistles-and-must-be-tweaked-for-
> every-browser design. I absolutely do not know where the
> line should be drawn, but really want to achieve certain
> effects anyway. Hence the pain 8).
there will not be a good style for broken software.

i fully admit that i am unable to use the gimp image map plug-in to its
fullest, however even with my limited skills, it would be easy to get a
screenshot of the page being rendered correctly and send all IE viewers
to this demonstration.  this is a web server configuration, last time i
looked.  if i were not designing this script to run silently without a
display from a web server, i would be so tempted to make the image map
page just to show how simple it is to make your pages work properly and
look correctly in IE.  perhaps this would also work in Netscape3 as well
as IE5?

that would be such a larger sample for your least common denominator!

perhaps you could use your experience and predict if my solution would
work in IE for me?


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to