Re: [css-d] strange IEX behaviour
My website looks fine except in IEX where behaves strange: http://kunstomhetlijf.nl/res2/ The whole page is a mess. The CSS has got numerous errors and you have used tables for layout. I have rebuilt the page with valid and semantic code: http://roughtech.com/t/fusionticket.html http://roughtech.com/t/fusionticket_files/style.css ~Chetan __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On Saturday, December 18, 2010 02:21:05 am G.Sørtun wrote: On 18.12.2010 06:13, David McGlone wrote: http://99.90.129.247 and I'm having a problem with the text in the header not positioning correctly. I'm wondering if for any reason it's something I have done. I have validated my CSS and had no problems. Many CSS weaknesses in there that the validator won't catch since they're perfectly valid - they just don't make sense in browsers. For instance: you are absolute positioning in thin air by not providing positions and reference. Browsers handle such positioning differently, and IE 6/7 are notorious for messing it up. That you also try to float an absolute positioned element is wrong, but doesn't make much difference since all browsers ignore float on A:P elements. Completley my fault. Out of frusturation I was throwing everything I could at it. My common sense should have told me that absolute means absolute. LOL You have also not providing space for expansion if/when font resizing is introduced or window-size reduced, which causes overlapping and lost navigation. The headlines also ended up overlapping the logo when font-resizing up. I'm glad you mentioned this, it is something I was worried about, but hadn't got to that point yet. What is your technique for checking this aspect? What I do other than using browswerlab and browswershots, is to change the resolution on my monitor. I also hold down ctrl and +, to enlarge the font to see how it looks. Are these proven methods? I have corrected as much as I could find in there - CSS only. Take a look at the page and stylesheet below, and see if that solves your problems. Page: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/dm/Tri-City%20Lawn%20Care%20LLC.htm Stylesheet: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/dm/Tri-City%20Lawn%20Care%20LLC_files/defa ult2.css It did. I really appreciate it. -- Blessings David M. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] strange IEX behaviour
I've fixed with css validation :) Thanks! On 18-12-2010 2:36, Claude Needham wrote: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Thijs Hakkenbergth...@ebrius.nl wrote: Dear list, My website looks fine except in IEX where behaves strange: http://kunstomhetlijf.nl/res2/ Anyone know why? A CSS issue? Yes, it does behave weird in IE8. I would start by validating your html code http://validator.w3.org/ (20 errors at the moment) Also validate your css code http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ (26 errors at the moment) There is a good chance that you problems will either clear up or become obvious after you validate the page. Regards, Claude Needham __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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 [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] strange IEX behaviour
On 12/18/10 10:33 AM, Thijs Hakkenberg wrote: I've fixed with css validation :) http://kunstomhetlijf.nl/res2/ Validating the markup might be a nice touch...:-) . Best, ~d http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
What is your technique for checking this aspect? What I do other than using browswerlab and browswershots, is to change the resolution on my monitor. I also hold down ctrl and +, to enlarge the font to see how it looks. Are these proven methods? New browsers can zoom whole pages, and that's enough to test for regular window-size weaknesses. Most new browsers also have one or more forms of font resizing, and that's usually enough to test for such resizing weaknesses. 1: I always test in the original page-zoom browser, Opera, and also set its 'minimum font size' to '32'. - On my system 'm.f.s = 32' equals 200% of browsers' default font size, which equals WCAG recommendation - as I read it. * 2: I always test in IE 6/7/8, both with regular font resizing and with accessibility font resizing. ** - When I don't have full IE versions available, I use IETester. - Doesn't matter to me whether a site supports older IE versions or not, as testing in them always produces useful information about a site's integrity and design-quality. 3: Brief testing in latest versions of other browsers completes my test-round. Usually nothing to report for sites that survive the above reasonably well. * A large number of web sites fails and become more or less unusable when subjected to 200% of browsers' default font size. Added to and/or included in that number come sites that are not properly cross-browser tested and/or rely on browser peculiarities. ** A large number of web sites fails and become more or less unusable when subjected to accessibility font resizing in IE. Low accessibility awareness is commonplace. regards Georg __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On 2010/12/18 10:43 (GMT-0500) G.Sørtun composed: New browsers can zoom whole pages, and that's enough to test for regular window-size weaknesses. Most new browsers also have one or more forms of font resizing, and that's usually enough to test for such resizing weaknesses. 1: I always test in the original page-zoom browser, Opera, and also set its 'minimum font size' to '32'. - On my system 'm.f.s = 32' equals 200% of browsers' default font size, which equals WCAG recommendation - as I read it. * Note that the impact of 32px minimum font size (or 24px, which is not in fact the Firefox limit) and setting the browser's default to 32px (or 24px, which can be larger in Firefox via about:config) cannot be expected to have equivalent impact, particularly if you set container widths in px instead of em or rem. Page zoom will stretch those px widths, while larger than 16px default browser settings will not. It's nice for these cases that 32px is considered twice 16px, because in fact the nominal CSS sizes are not real sizes, but, as in the print world, merely heights. Physically, 32px (1024 dots/char) is four times 16px (256 dots/char). -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] strange IEX behaviour
Thijs Hakkenberg wrote: Dear list, My website looks fine except in IEX where behaves strange: http://kunstomhetlijf.nl/res2/ Anyone know why? A CSS issue? I don't know if this is a CSS issue or not. As others have pointed out, you need to validate and correct many of the markup errors found on the page you referenced... I do know that your page is switching to quirks mode in the IE browsers. You are using an incomplete doctype !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN If it was / is your intent to have the IE's in Quirks mode then leave it as is if it wasn't your intent, then change to a complete doctype which includes a system identifier. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd; For more information see: http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html and http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html HTH Jim Nannery www.oldcurmudgeon.net __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On 18.12.2010 17:37, Felix Miata wrote: Note that the impact of 32px minimum font size (or 24px, which is not in fact the Firefox limit) and setting the browser's default to 32px (or 24px, which can be larger in Firefox via about:config) cannot be expected to have equivalent impact, particularly if you set container widths in px instead of em or rem. Page zoom will stretch those px widths, while larger than 16px default browser settings will not. Would be a shame if page zooming and font resizing had equivalent impact. No use having both options available in our browsers then. But, we have had this issue on the table a few times, and seem to always end up more or less on opposite sides :-) It's nice for these cases that 32px is considered twice 16px, because in fact the nominal CSS sizes are not real sizes, but, as in the print world, merely heights. Physically, 32px (1024 dots/char) is four times 16px (256 dots/char). Yes, CSS font sizes are heights, not squares. And huge differences in aspect ratio between font families too often messes up visual size and readability. Question: is 'font-size-adjust' well enough supported across browser-land today to be of any use? regards Georg __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On 2010/12/18 12:15 (GMT-0500) G.Sørtun composed: Felix Miata wrote: Note that the impact of 32px minimum font size (or 24px, which is not in fact the Firefox limit) and setting the browser's default to 32px (or 24px, which can be larger in Firefox via about:config) cannot be expected to have equivalent impact, particularly if you set container widths in px instead of em or rem. Page zoom will stretch those px widths, while larger than 16px default browser settings will not. W...e have had this issue on the table a few times, and seem to always end up more or less on opposite sides :-) Maybe once your new system is installed you can demonstrate to me how horizontal scroll caused by high font-size to viewport width ratio is usually a bad thing, and/or worse than short line lengths, truncation and overflow caused by px-constrained container widths. Until then, I stand firm that px is an inappropriate unit for sizing containers for text content. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On 12/18/10 12:50 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Felix Miata wrote: I stand firm that px is an inappropriate unit for sizing containers for text content. Not everyone in the universe is thrilled at having to scroll both vertically and horizontally in order to read a scaled web page, either. -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On 2010/12/18 13:06 (GMT-0500) David Laakso composed: Felix Miata wrote: I stand firm that px is an inappropriate unit for sizing containers for text content. Not everyone in the universe is thrilled at having to scroll both vertically and horizontally in order to read a scaled web page, either. Did the qualifying part (about the _reason_ why horizontal scrolling might manifest) you failed to quote escape your understanding? You write implying as if horizontal scroll was _always_ equivalent to torture. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
Felix Miata wrote: I stand firm that px is an inappropriate unit for sizing containers for text content. Not everyone in the universe is thrilled at having to scroll both vertically and horizontally in order to read a scaled web page, either. fwiw, I prefer increasing text-size to zooming a page for the very reason that the former does *not* create a horizontal scrollbar (with px sizing). -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Felix Miata wrote: On 2010/12/18 13:06 (GMT-0500) David Laakso composed: Felix Miata wrote: I stand firm that px is an inappropriate unit for sizing containers for text content. Not everyone in the universe is thrilled at having to scroll both vertically and horizontally in order to read a scaled web page, either. Did the qualifying part (about the _reason_ why horizontal scrolling might manifest) you failed to quote escape your understanding? You write implying as if horizontal scroll was _always_ equivalent to torture. Not always; only 99.9% of the time. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, http://cfajohnson.com Author: Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On 2010/12/18 14:07 (GMT-0500) Chris F.A. Johnson composed: Felix Miata wrote: as if horizontal scroll was _always_ equivalent to torture. Not always; only 99.9% of the time. When pigs fly will anyone convince me that be true. Every page I actually read, as opposed to open to view, scan and/or screencap, is read with _much_ larger than average text. About the only time horizontal scroll ever bothers me is when author CSS has necessitated my disabling site styles entirely, which in turn resulted in an iframe being an inanely small size for its needed content. Unfortunately, that's something that all too often really does happen. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:15 AM, G.Sørtun wrote: Question: is 'font-size-adjust' well enough supported across browser-land today to be of any use? Gecko 1.9.0+ only (Firefox 3.0+, Camino 2.0+, ...) Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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] Is it because of my code? [correction]
Gecko 1.9.0+ only (Firefox 3.0+, Camino 2.0+, ...) Hmm, no real improvement over the last few years then. That's too bad. Georg __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
