Re: [css-d] Problem with values in form fields
Marje Cannon wrote: For some reason, the values within the form fields are too high in FF, but not IE... does anyone have a clue why this is happening. http://www.webdesignsarasota.com/contact.php The stylesheet is located here http://www.webdesignsarasota.com/styles-webdesignsarasota.css Thanks! Looks like as if the sIFR Headline, coming too late, pushes the rendered form, but not the initial value text of the inputs. The offset does not change by text zoom, so I guess its related to a fixed px margin collapsing/uncollapsing. Ingo -- http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] SOURCE (HTML + CSS) VALIDATES / FF 2.0.0.10 11 BEHAVES STRANGE
Here is something interesting (Operating System is Win XP 2002 Svp 2): First open http://www.putti.no in IE 7.0, you should see a page that displays OK. Now, clean cache, cookies, etc and open the page in FF 2.0.0.10 or FF 2.0.0.11. You will notice that the menu is not displaying properly (main menu line above display area, only partly visible). Now, do a refresh, and the menu is back in place, but still with problems. My conclusion is that (this time) it is not my fault, but a bug in FireFox, since the page display completely different after the first refresh. I would also be most happy if somebody could test the page in FF 2.0.0.9; I believe that the behavior is OK there. Comments / Ideas / Suggestions are most welcome! Thanks and Regards, Jan Christian Anker __ |ANKER - ZEMER Engineering AS | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Phone: +47 22 06 44 21 | Visitors' Address: Aslakveien 14 (Inng. A), Røa, OSLO |Postal Address: P.O. Box 253, |NO-0702 OSLO, Norway |VAT Reg. no.: 935 562 678 MVA | Web Page: http://www.anker-zemer.com |FSI / CFD: http://www.linflow.com | Founding Member of Technology Network Alliance, | Web Page http://www.caeworld.com __ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
At 02:07 AM 12/1/2007, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: No typo, but rather a reaction to the lowest common denominator design-approach I responded to. I rarely ever see sites the way they are designed - stable or not. I don't expect them to, and the mentioned approach doesn't help one bit on the end-result. Your advice is _generally_ true, since browsers _generally_ ignore stuff they don't understand, but extreme examples like the Acid Stress Test show that your advice doesn't _always_ hold. If you get fancy enough with standards-compliant code, some browsers won't simply miss features, they'll see something that's broken and unusable. Or they'll miss something that's important to understanding the page (e.g. a key animation that uses APNG). Two systems won't show a page in exactly the same manner for various reasons (viewport size, browser version, user preferences, etc), but that's not what designing to the lowest common denominator means. It's about designing so that the page looks acceptable on the lowest common denominator (which, depending on your site's audience, may be IE6, IE5, Lynx, or something else). Erik Harrishttp://www.eHarrisHome.com -AIM: KngFuJoe - Yahoo IM: kungfujoe7 - ICQ: 2610172- Chinese-Indonesian Martial Arts Club http://www.kungfu-silat.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Print Style Help
Thanks Georg. I did check that, and set my width to auto (it was 100%)
and it didn't make any difference.
In summary, I have a shell div, which contains a header, menu, and content
div. In the print style sheet, I set the menu and header to none. I was
focusing my print efforts on the content div, but have tried adjusting the
shell div as well. My content div looks likes this:
#content {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
width: auto; (have also tried 100%)
color: #000;
background-color: #fff;
font: 12pt Times New Roman, Times, serif;
}
Just can't figure it out.
Todd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] Print Style Help
Todd Richards wrote:
www.ldstrategies.com
When I do a print preview in either Firefox or IE 6, the content gets
chopped off. In IE 7, it shrinks it down to fit.
Start by making sure no printed containers are floated or absolute
positioned, as that may upset the mentioned browsers/versions.
You should also make sure width is 'auto' and that no javascript gets
through to IE6 in print-mode.
Shrink to fit is a user-option that only affects width. Test with
different paper-sizes.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] SOURCE (HTML + CSS) VALIDATES / FF 2.0.0.10 11 BEHAVES STRANGE
On Dec 1, 2007, at 11:56 PM, Jan Christian Anker wrote: http://www.putti.no Now, clean cache, cookies, etc and open the page in FF 2.0.0.10 or FF 2.0.0.11. You will notice that the menu is not displaying properly (main menu line above display area, only partly visible). Happens, yes. But cookies have nothing to do with the issue. Cookies are just bad of the teeth. Now, do a refresh, and the menu is back in place, but still with problems. I don't see any problems when compared to Safari, Gecko nightly build and Opera. OS X 10.4.11. My conclusion is that (this time) it is not my fault, but a bug in FireFox, since the page display completely different after the first refresh. Not really your fault, no. I would also be most happy if somebody could test the page in FF 2.0.0.9; I believe that the behavior is OK there. I strongly doubt it would be better in Fx 2.0.0.9. The reason: your image (PPP-logo_skrift613x150.gif) has no dimensions specified. Give it width and height in the html or the stylesheet, and the problem will be gone. Longer: while first fetching the page, the browser doesn't know yet the intrinsic size of the image, but places your navigation much faster on screen than it fetches the image. If you specify the size of the image in the html or stylesheet, the browser doesn't have to interpolate it. Once the image is cached (on reload), the problem vanishes. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] site-check please, major ie6 issues
Subject: Re: [css-d] site-check please, major ie6 issues
Peter Hyde-Smith wrote:
http://www.bildas.fatpawdesign.com/index.html
Probably too much 'hasLayout' for IE6' liking already :-)
IE6 seems to have serious stacking-problems, and there's too many
'stacking-correctors' in there too.
Changing to default on the problematic elements...
#weeklyspecials {
position : static;
}
#rightcol {
position : static;
}
...will make it appear as intended in IE6.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
Georg:
Made change as recommended. Would appreciate another check. Can I just take
out those particular 'position' declarations out all together?
Peter
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers? [medium]
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Curiosity killed the cat... -- Molly 'the cat' :-) Don't worry, they have lives to spare :) [···] Content being the same doesn't mean users get to or want to see it in the same way across the board, and that is often the reason why users learn about browser-options and/or switch browsers in order to get it right - for them. Thus, what the designer sees when comparing across browser-land and browser-options, and what an end-user sees, will only be the same by chance. Maybe we're talking about different things here. What I understand here would be basically the same as saying that the standards shouldn't exist and, though interpreting the same content / instructions, each browser should render it its own way. Now users wanting to see it differently (or 'right for them') would usually do, in my opinion, one of two things: - change the browser's skin - change the content's theme (css style), whereas allowed by the site itself or externally with a custom css or tools such as stylish (and themes built the community). As an example, ESPN's Game Cast doesn't seem to work on anything but IE, and that's plainly wrong. We should have past already the time when we told users to use the browser /we/ wanted instead of their own choice. Now, that's how I interpreted your comments, that's why I'm guessing we're talking about different things here. What were you referring to? [···] Browsers don't use the same engines and same calculations, and their set of options vary quite a bit. Sites designed with built-in stability limitations, doesn't help much on anything. Sites (meaning design here) should not be stable, they should adapt to the environment the very best they can - without disturbing the end-user. Well, yes, that's our current situation: different engines with different limitations, behavior and bugs. But CSS is supposed to help us achieve the layout we want without the need of changing the structure. That's what we were promised, and what the future should bring, but for that we need for all engines to follow the specs (and that these are actually complete), but the should you used isn't referring only to present, but also future posibilities, and that's I don't agree. Also, if we only use the little set that looks like working right in all browsers then we wouldn't be able to be creative and come up with good, different and non-stiffed designs... so we would all be working for lynx and that's the designs we would see all around the web. Continuing with your paragraph... if by stable you mean 'pixel-perfect' I agree on what you say, but stability for me has little (if any) relation with pixel-perfect, fixed, liquid or any other style. For me it just means that it's as bullet-proof as the current engines allow us to (which can be a darn pretty hard work by itself). There is in reality no lowest common denominator to design for - maybe apart from the one called ignorance, only some common standards with plenty of play-room, common sense and varying degree of support. Add in the growing number of hardware variables and see the world evolve. Not much stability in there, and neither should there be if we want some progress. In my opinion, there should be a lowest denominator, and that's simply because if doesn't, we won't be able to move forward. There *is* a need for getting rid of older and plainly defective browsers, but we can't, just because they're the users' belongings and we cannot control that, so we then have the only choice of ignoring some features or think on special cases. As a note: nothing of this should care to lynx in any way, we're talking about CSS, something lynx just ignores (as it should, I believe). The content is there, we're talking about the presentation here. Some earlier thoughts related to the subject, for those who care to read articles on a, by definition, pretty unstable site... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_21.html regards Georg I still get the feeling that this is just a misunderstanding of your words, though maybe we do have different ways of thinking regarding our present and (possible) future in Web dev. Rafael. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Re: How will firefox 3 affect web de velopers?
I hope this time will work :) goerge wrote: I think someone is defining site stability on the wrong premises Well if you are refering it to me, First of all I never did define site stability.I did define Layout stability though. Now let me give you an example tomake it clear what the difference is between those two phrases. A building is built by columns and beams etc. which these columnsand beams create the structure for that building. When talking about stability of this building ,one as a professionalengineer would talk about stability of the structure of the buildingnot the stability of building. However other people who are notprofessional engineer would talk about the stability of this building,because they do not know anything about the structure of thisbuilding. Same as above when we talk about stability in web environment,a professional designer or coder needs to talk about layout stabilitywhich is the structure coded to create the site. So I believe, we will need to let other people call it site stability. No intention to insult anybody though :) . Because of my civil engineering background I can see some points thateven an expert has not seen it before in terms of layout stability ofweb content. This, of course, will not make me an expert. I am very far from it :) andI learn everyday. Even though one will find some nice and stable web siteson the internet , however I believe they have not been designed purposely for layout stability and or if they have, then the designershave not called for designing for it before which is why I decidded to make this call. Layout stability is not just a simple matter of what its phrase reffers to.That is why I have called for a case study and research at: http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/stability.html Problem arises when we assume that we know everything about it just bylooking at the definition of the layout stability phrase and act based on our assumptions. I believe I have pointed out an extremely important issue in regardsto make the web content more readable and more usable by calling for designing for layout stability. I do not believe it is creating limitation on web, actually I do believe reverse and that it makes the web more usable and more readable. limitation will come if one asks somebody not to use a tool, I am not asking this. I am sking to use a tool to create more user friendly content. In terms of your comment in your comment about a design displaying correctly by chance,I do not agree with you. because as a professional web designer you know better than everybody else that it is not possible for a specific design to be rendered correctly in all browsers by chance. cheers davoud _ Read what Santa`s been up to! For all the latest, Visit on the North Pole visit asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com! http://asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] site-check please, major ie6 issues
Peter Hyde-Smith wrote: http://www.bildas.fatpawdesign.com/index.html Made change as recommended. Would appreciate another check. Working just fin in IE6 (on w2k). Can I just take out those particular 'position' declarations out all together? Yes, that _should_ automatically take it back to default - static, and give the same result. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Forms and CSS
I am about to revamp a long form I created a while ago and I want to use CSS to style it. This will be my first form styled with CSS. Does anyone have any good online resources they can point me to that show how to do this? I have a book that briefly talks about it but apparently IE6 doesn't take on many of the form styles and you can't use attribute-value selectors because of IE6 - therefore, it says you have to use classes and IDs. Anyway, the examples given do not show the example with the classes and IDs. I'd like to find some examples that do show these classes and IDs AND the styling with CSS. Many thanks. Tina __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
DAVOUD TOHIDY wrote: I think someone is defining site stability on the wrong premises Well if you are refering it to me, I never did define site stability. I was _only_ referring to arguments and wording in the mail I responded to. Erik H. used your response as base for his arguments, and can expand on his understanding of it. I did define Layout stability though. Now let me give you an example to make it clear what the difference is between those two phrases. A building is built by columns and beams etc. which these columnsand beams create the structure for that building. snipped - see the original / One type of building - mostly rigid ones, yes. So I believe, we will need to let other people call it site stability. No intention to offend anybody though :). Of course not. Names may cause confusion but /should/ otherwise not hurt or offend anyone. snipped again - see the original / Layout stability is not just a simple matter of what its phrase reffers to.That is why I have called for a case study and research at: http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/stability.html Problem arises when we assume that we know everything about it just bylooking at the definition of the layout stability phrase and act based on our assumptions. I believe I have pointed out an extremely important issue in regardsto make the web content more readable and more usable by calling for designing for layout stability. The issue is important enough, but to me it looks more like another attempt on limiting the constant flow of changes. I prefer an inherent layout instability, which doesn't necessarily go against what you're looking for but widens it to cover as many unknowns as possible at any one time. The differences at the moment seems to be one of presenting a building structure (design) in a set environment vs. providing a flexible data-exchange vehicle (design) for whatever environment. As the data-exchange format we know as 'the internet' is still in its infancy, at this moment in time I'm not occupied by the need for stability but rather for flexibility. Too many media are tapping into the data-stream (internet), and I want/need the flexibility to study, supply and make use of them. The mindset behind this isn't new, as they build fighter-jets with inherent instability to make them flexible enough to take advantage of every opening at any time. It seems however to be the opposite of the building structure you use for describing your layout stability, where you have to know the environment in order to build something that's stable. It seems like you're looking for definitions on how to create stable structures in the environments (media) we know, while I'm looking for openings out of the known environments (media) and into the unknown. It should be obvious from the above that I will only pay limited attention to known environments (media) and whatever definitions, rules and best practices anyone can come up with for them. Known environments are limited and limiting, and defining rules for how to approach them is, IMO, another limitation one can do without. I want to know more about available techniques/methods with the potential to work, not rules on how and when to apply them or how they should work. Thus, I prefer to create and work with something that is robust enough _to work_ on/in existing media, but I don't care one bit if it breaks a whole set of rules, definitions and best practices in order to be more flexible than required by known media. OTOH: breaking rules isn't a point in itself, and not something I do just for the sake of breaking them. The only reason I follow any rules - like standards, is that they actually work. - HTML works, and at the moment it seems to be the best tool available in its field. So, I use the variant(s) I feel most comfortable with at the moment, while waiting for something better. - CSS works, so I'm applying it as far as I want to and User Agent support can take me at any one time. I certainly won't hold back just because a few User Agents are not up to it. - If I think a weak User Agent should be supported, then I'll give it something on a level it can handle - without disturbing the better User Agents. That's a natural part of an inherently unstable approach anyway, and doesn't yield worse results than any other approach. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Forms and CSS
Hi Tina, Give Stu Nichols CSS Play a shot: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/form on this page underneath the form, there are other links to different styles done to forms by other designer/authors. Elli --- Yoyo Etc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am about to revamp a long form I created a while ago and I want to use CSS to style it. This will be my first form styled with CSS. Does anyone have any good online resources they can point me to that show how to do this? I have a book that briefly talks about it but apparently IE6 doesn't take on many of the form styles and you can't use attribute-value selectors because of IE6 - therefore, it says you have to use classes and IDs. Anyway, the examples given do not show the example with the classes and IDs. I'd like to find some examples that do show these classes and IDs AND the styling with CSS. Many thanks. Tina __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers? [medium]
Rafael wrote: Maybe we're talking about different things here. What I understand here would be basically the same as saying that the standards shouldn't exist and, though interpreting the same content / instructions, each browser should render it its own way. Standards are defined for implementors - browser developers, in order to level out the playing-field somewhat. Same parts of standards have plenty of play-room, so User Agents may end up different without breaking same standards, although they usually tune their implementations to some form of consensus over time. Now users wanting to see it differently (or 'right for them') would usually do, in my opinion, one of two things: - change the browser's skin - change the content's theme (css style), whereas allowed by the site itself or externally with a custom css or tools such as stylish (and themes built the community). No need to go into actual design-changes a user can apply to any page, as any end-user can improve or destroy any page/site at will if s/he so chooses. There's no solution to that, and it isn't what I'm onto. Much simpler approach: change font-size base ever so slightly - 'minimum font size', and break half the web in one go. There are so many small and large alterations one can make in a browser or by changing to another, that the short-list can become extremely long. Yet, unless a design is frozen, it will either have to adapt to small and large alterations or it will break. As an example, ESPN's Game Cast doesn't seem to work on anything but IE, and that's plainly wrong. We should have past already the time when we told users to use the browser /we/ wanted instead of their own choice. Indeed. However, if there's no cross-browser 'alternative' then it may not be so wrong after all. I haven't studied that particular case since its content is outside my field of interest. We should provide working solutions for as wide a range of User Agents as possible, but should not necessarily abandon solutions that may not yet be fully supported by all. This is where 'alternatives' come in, and we can only provide as good 'alternatives' as the User Agent(s) in question can handle. Now, that's how I interpreted your comments, that's why I'm guessing we're talking about different things here. What were you referring to? As seen in the above: I'm referring to the, usually quite small, alterations anyone can apply to any web page/site in their choice of browser. [···] Browsers don't use the same engines and same calculations, and their set of options vary quite a bit. Sites designed with built-in stability limitations, doesn't help much on anything. Sites (meaning design here) should not be stable, they should adapt to the environment the very best they can - without disturbing the end-user. Well, yes, that's our current situation: different engines with different limitations, behavior and bugs. But CSS is supposed to help us achieve the layout we want without the need of changing the structure. That's what we were promised, and what the future should bring, but for that we need for all engines to follow the specs (and that these are actually complete), but the should you used isn't referring only to present, but also future posibilities, and that's I don't agree. I haven't found any promises in the specs, only a limited set of options that User Agent developers can implement - if and when they feel like it. Nothing the spec-writers can do about the progress, or lack of it... http://blogs.msdn.com/alexmog/archive/2007/09/25/css-not-moving-blame-microsoft.aspx Also, if we only use the little set that looks like working right in all browsers then we wouldn't be able to be creative and come up with good, different and non-stiffed designs... so we would all be working for lynx and that's the designs we would see all around the web. Exactly my point. Lynx certainly isn't holding us back though - see below ;-) Continuing with your paragraph... if by stable you mean 'pixel-perfect' I agree on what you say, but stability for me has little (if any) relation with pixel-perfect, fixed, liquid or any other style. For me it just means that it's as bullet-proof as the current engines allow us to (which can be a darn pretty hard work by itself). I don't like the term bullet-proof, but otherwise I think we agree on the essential points... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_26.html Gosh, that old layout has held up well for years, and now it is preparing to go, unchanged, into the future :-) In my opinion, there should be a lowest denominator, and that's simply because if doesn't, we won't be able to move forward. There *is* a need for getting rid of older and plainly defective browsers, but we can't, just because they're the users' belongings and we cannot control that, so we then have the only choice of ignoring some features or think on special cases.
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
Erik Harris wrote: Your advice is _generally_ true, since browsers _generally_ ignore stuff they don't understand, but extreme examples like the Acid Stress Test show that your advice doesn't _always_ hold. If you get fancy enough with standards-compliant code, some browsers won't simply miss features, they'll see something that's broken and unusable. Or they'll miss something that's important to understanding the page (e.g. a key animation that uses APNG). So, I would give browsers a complete Acid Stress Test, and hide same test from weaker browser and provide them with an alternative. IE/win users may in this context be given a picture of the same test performed in a better browser, and maybe even a comment about what they're given - and why. I'm dealing with reality here and those weaker browsers can't do better anyway. IE/win users probably won't miss seeing IE/win's broken rendering, and they're not locked out in any way. I certainly can't see the point in not giving a strong browser as much as it can handle, for the sake of protecting users of weaker browsers. Some users of IE/win may not like being informed through facts that they are using an inferior browser, but if they want something better in IE/win then they'll have to ask Microsoft for better standard-support. Two systems won't show a page in exactly the same manner for various reasons (viewport size, browser version, user preferences, etc), but that's not what designing to the lowest common denominator means. It's about designing so that the page looks acceptable on the lowest common denominator (which, depending on your site's audience, may be IE6, IE5, Lynx, or something else). I'm in total agreement, apart from that then you don't have to _design_ to the lowest common denominator. Again, you can _design_ for the top-edge, and fix things to make it look acceptable in the weaker ones. Different use of words..? I think I prefer a bit of (dis)graceful degradation in weak browsers, so I can make most out of standards and standard-support in the better ones. At the moment I have some mediaqueries to test out in a couple of top-edge browsers, and it doesn't look like neither IE nor Firefox can make much out of that - yet. I won't wait any longer though. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] absolutely positioned background?
On Nov 30, 2007 2:57 PM, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Ettinger wrote: http://chovy.dyndns.org/test/img/tab.html I'm trying to accomplish Good, but am only able to get Bad as shown in the link above. I'm looking for a bullet proof method, that will not insert a gap when font-size is adjused by the user. You have to provide a space for that background to sit in at the bottom. A suitable 'padding-bottom' on the anchor may provide that, as long as you make sure it lines up with the rest of the list-style. Not seeing the context, it is impossible to give a more precise answer. Create a complete HTML/CSS test case, and present it here for debugging if you can't make it work. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no Thanks, sounds like only way to position it is to adjust the height of the parent and adjust my design for the overhang. -- Anthony Ettinger 408-656-2473 http://anthony.ettinger.name var (bonita, farley) = new Dog; farley.barks(very loud); bonita.barks(at strangers); __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
At 05:09 PM 12/1/2007, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: So, I would give browsers a complete Acid Stress Test, and hide same test from weaker browser and provide them with an alternative. Aside from MSIE, how do you do this? You can use the MS-proprietary commented if statements to provide alternate markup for various versions of IE, which is useful for making up for IE's inability to do things right, but what about Opera? Safari? Firefox pre-3.0? Is there a straightforward way, aside from a JavaScript user agent checker, to provide the different browsers different style info (or markup)? I'm in total agreement, apart from that then you don't have to _design_ to the lowest common denominator. Again, you can _design_ for the top-edge, and fix things to make it look acceptable in the weaker ones. Different use of words..? I think so. That's pretty much how I do it, too - I design using both Firefox and the W3C validators to test, and then check out in IE6 and 7. I suppose I should install Opera and Safari, too, but I just haven't bothered (and at least Opera is good enough with standards compliance that I wouldn't expect anything I'd be doing would break it. As a Windows user, Safari wasn't even a possibility until recently). Erik Harrishttp://www.eHarrisHome.com -AIM: KngFuJoe - Yahoo IM: kungfujoe7 - ICQ: 2610172- Chinese-Indonesian Martial Arts Club http://www.kungfu-silat.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
on Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:55:44 +0100 George wrote: One type of building - mostly rigid ones, yes... Well it seems now you are talking about an environment that I know :) . But no you are absolutely wrong. It does not matter If a building is flexible or rigid, it will have a structure created from columns,beams etc. Same thing in here, even though I might not be an expert in WWW but I have been working with computers since when we used to work with cards to interact with them back in I would say 1975 ! as just a simple user and I have worked with DOS environment and dos based editors and I have even passed some programming languages like FORTRAN at the university. I have produced three commercial training cds on windows xp hacks and Tweak UI and I have innovated a most effective method of copy protecting data cds. For more info please see my portfolio. I have been then working with internet as a user since late 1999 and started to work professionally since 2005. It seems like you're looking for definitions on how to create stable structures in the environments (media) we know, while I'm looking for openings out of the known environments (media) and into the unknown. Continuing my above speech: So no it does not seem that way, that is you seeing it that way :). I know the environment very well, and I have transfered my stability skills from civil engineering to web environment and there is nothing wrong with that. The issue is important enough, but to me it looks more like another attempt on limiting the constant flow of changes. Well, that is your idea which I respect, but it is not a fact. No as i said it before purpose of a stable web environment is not limiting anything rather it creates a more user friendly environment to go with the flow of changes. I just can not understand why you are ignoring the fact that stability for web design increases the readability and usability of web content. Do you disagree with this? I prefer an inherent layout instability, which doesn't necessarily go... But I prefer an inherent layout stability, which does necessarily goes in the way of what you are looking for which is providing a better user experience. The differences at the moment seems to be one of presenting a building structure (design) in a set environment vs. providing a flexible data-exchange vehicle (design) for whatever environment. Well I believe you have misunderestood the definition of layout stability . layout stability does not create a 100% rigid web content rather it creates a flexible-rigid web content while increasing the readability and usability of web content to provide a better user experience. My portfolio located at: http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com is a sample of such a design . Thus it provides a flexible-rigid data-exchange vehicle (design) for the web environment. As the data-exchange format we know as 'the internet' is still in its infancy, at this moment in time I'm not occupied by the need for stability but rather for flexibility. Again please see my above comment too. But Why not? Stability is not against flexibility rather it helps to remove the defeciencies of flexibility. How many times have you happened to open up different browser windows on your monitor and you have resized your browser window and you have encountered problem reading and using the web content because of overlaps etc.? How many times you think visually impaired individuals have tapped on ctrl+ to increase the text size you think? This is what I am trying to solve with layout stability. Known environments are limited and limiting, and defining rules for how to... Even though I understand your point and agree with the fact that we should not restrict ourselves and our environment but sometimes by setting some rules we will have a more safe and usable environement. As a sample we rule that to keep our computers safe (no hackers or viruses) we need to install an internet security suite in our computers (environment). Purpose of layout stability is to providing a safe readable and usable environment regardless of circumstances. Come on give up now :) . ..., but I don't care one bit if it breaks a whole set of rules, definitions and best practices in order to be more flexible than required by known media. Then you are ignoring those who need more readability, Usability and a better user experience. My goal is to providing a better environment for Human Computer Interaction or (HCI). - If I think a weak User Agent should be supported, then I'll give it something on a level it can handle - without disturbing the better User Agents. I agree. That's a natural part of an inherently unstable approach anyway, and doesn't yield worse results than any other approach. Well not necessarily, It can be an inherently stable approach. Regards, davoud
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
DAVOUD TOHIDY wrote: on Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:55:44 +0100 George wrote: One type of building - mostly rigid ones, yes... Well it seems now you are talking about an environment that I know :) . Well, that's nice. But frankly, you and your environment bore me. Do you have a CSS question or answer you might want to share? __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
- Original Message - From: DAVOUD TOHIDY [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, December 1, 2007 9:03 pm Subject: Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers? To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org The differences at the moment seems to be one of presenting a buildingstructure (design) in a set environment vs. providing a flexible data-exchange vehicle (design) for whatever environment. Well I believe you have misunderestood the definition of layout stability . layout stability does not create a 100% rigid web content rather it creates a flexible-rigid web content while increasing the readability and usability of web content to provide a better user experience. My portfolio located at: http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com is a sample of such a design . Thus it provides a flexible-rigid data-exchange vehicle (design) for the web environment. At +3 steps up from default font in Firefox 2 on Linux, your left side menu overlaps the text. David authenticity, honesty, community [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] How will firefox 3 affect web developers?
Erik Harris wrote: At 05:09 PM 12/1/2007, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: So, I would give browsers a complete Acid Stress Test, and hide same test from weaker browser and provide them with an alternative. Aside from MSIE, how do you do this? You can use the MS-proprietary commented if statements to provide alternate markup for various versions of IE, which is useful for making up for IE's inability to do things right, but what about Opera? Safari? Firefox pre-3.0? Is there a straightforward way, aside from a JavaScript user agent checker, to provide the different browsers different style info (or markup)? 1: IE/win is given some extra styles... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_12.html ...and maybe even a conditional comment in the source-code. I mention this here since it my method for feeding styles to IE isn't used all that much. 2: My design-base is Opera, and if there are some disturbing deviations between Opera, Firefox and Safari then I usually manage to give them something they all agree on. My method involves giving all browsers complete source-code and CSS even if neither standards nor the best browsers requires it. I rarely ever hack these browsers for anything serious, although my old hacks seem to hold up quite well... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/styles/target-browser.css I expect these hacks to break since they are based on unusual use of standard selectors. Hopefully the CSS support has grown to a reasonable level to across the board when that happens, in which case the hacks just become redundant. Have to watch all such hacks though, and be prepared to correct them. I suppose I should install Opera and Safari, too, but I just haven't bothered (and at least Opera is good enough with standards compliance that I wouldn't expect anything I'd be doing would break it. You should have all major browsers available for testing even if they are pretty close on most CSS related stuff. Firefox 3.0b1 doesn't look too bad so far, but Fx 2 is/was a bit behind. As a Windows user, Safari wasn't even a possibility until recently). IMO, Safari has been a bit weak when fed complex stuff, and the latest win-version doesn't seem too impressive either. Close enough for comfort though, and nice for testing some new stuff while waiting for the others. FWIW: I've decided not to upgrade my Mac, so it'll stay frozen in time with Safari 2.x until it dies of old age. It'll provide me with a platform to check other Mac-browsers on for a while, and I'm probably not the only one who won't upgrade Mac OS - for whatever reason. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
