Re: [css-d] iPhone 4
On 10/12/2010, at 3:19 PM, David Laakso wrote: If you have an iPhone 4 simulator or handset please let me know if the fonts are out-of-control... as in Huge-O-Rama. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ Best, Helen Tuscumbia, Alabama -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ David, Looks fine from here; although keep in mind I'm in New Zealand currently, so a little further away than most. Regards Karl __ 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] Any good CMS platforms?
Have you taken a look at SilverStripe? We use it out of the box for simple sites, and in customised form for more complex undertakings. The templating is straightforward, there are some plugins available, and it's customisable with one's own scripts/mods without too much effort. Regards Karl On 14/08/2010, at 9:04 PM, Dipesh Parmar wrote: I've recently created phase 1 of a site i've shown you all before, www.rspca-brighton.co.uk, and i'm trying to incorporate CMS so that the staff can update text and photos themselves. I've been told SimpleCMS is very good, which it is and very easy to use. However, i'm unable to set it up to edit any of the photos on the slideshows such as on the main page. Does anyone have any experience in a good CMS platform, some people have mentioned ExpressionEngine, though this seems overkill for the site in question? regards Dipesh __ 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] An easier way?
On 27/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Bobby Jack wrote: --- On Sun, 7/26/09, David McGlone da...@dmcentral.net wrote: I know everyone here prefers that when a question is asked, that the poster upload an example on the web. Well is there any other way this could be accomplished? In order for me to put the work i've done on the internet would take too long because of the databases etc, etc. Hi David, Since this list is all about CSS, what we really care about is the final markup and CSS, rather than how it's generated. If you have a specific question, could you not just put up the relevant page(s) as static files? - Bobby Hi David, In similar situations, we use sitesucker - http://www.sitesucker.us/ - to retrieve and localise generated pages for perusal (as suggested by Bobby). Karl __ 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] RE; The CSS Overlords
On 19/01/2009, at 5:40 AM, Ron Koster wrote: At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: one of more important reasons is speed . CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net -- at least on my computer), it'll only take a mere 2 to 4 seconds? Sorry, but I'm not sure how important a reason that is. Ron ;) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca Ask anyone not on a fast internet connection. Not everyone has the luxury (utility?) of high speed internet connections such as those most of us on this list enjoy. k...@mothership.co.nz +64 21 999 990 Mothership | mothership.co.nz __ 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] [Slightly OT] Font sizes
On 12/09/2008, at 10:36 AM, David Laakso wrote: A Dao of Web Design http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao Not sure i can use this one as a reference. It is designed for us to read and learn from. Plus it does not conform to 100% body text size. Would be good if its CSS was consistent with its message. Blame the CSS and the fact that it does not conform to 100% primary content, and that the site itself suffers from the IE em font-scaling bug, on A List Apart http://www.alistapart.com/ they are the publisher, not the author, of the article. PS Slightly OT: I'd have a good answer ready should any these artists visit your signature link source document and its style sheet. Huh? I don't have a link in my signature. This one has gone over my head i think. It went over my head too, and I'm curious what it was about. Whoops. Sorry, I was referring to your e-mail address wink. Michael Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://paradise.net.nz/ -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ Paradise were the best ISP many years ago here in New Zealand, but were bought out by TelstraClear (ultimately owned by Telstra - Australia's govt owned incumbent). Since then it's been left to wither and die. (slightly more on topic...) Does anyone else have the page break below the header, and dance from left to right in Safari when reloading? Something I've not seen before. If it's not just me I'll send the person responsible an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +64 21 999 990 Mothership | mothership.co.nz __ 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
On 22/05/2008, at 12:39 AM, David Laakso wrote: Karl Hardisty wrote: http://mothership.co.nz/blog All feedback greatly accepted. Karl It looked fine to me cross-browser, Karl. Couple of trivial CSS errors to correct. Aside: The title of the document does not seem to appear in the text. Font-scaling breaks the long word mothership. in the nav It is not very user friendly to feed the IE's pixel fonts. If you are into pushing the envelope, minimum font-size 32px in Opera does a real number on the page. -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ David, thank you for this. In my headlong fall toward slumber I also noticed that I had only changed the main page, and not the blog entry pages as well. I'll be rectifying this later today, along with the three css errors. Also, thank you for the heads up on the font sizing (esp. with 'mothership'). I am guilty of forgetting from time to time to run the +2/-2 font size test (at a minimum) and this was one of those. Regards, Karl mothership | mothership.co.nz __ 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] Site Check please
http://mothership.co.nz/blog Our blog uses GridFocus from 5thirtyone.com with some custom modifications. Just now I've swapped the first and second columns around as I prefer the larger column to be in the centre, as (to me) it looks more proportioned. I've checked it in OS X: Safari 3+, Camino 1.6, Firefox 3, and Windows XP: IE 6, IE7, Firefox 3, and Safari 3.1 and it appears to render correctly. Could the kind folk on the list have a look and see if I've missed anything? (quite possible, as I've done it at the end of a long day!). All feedback greatly accepted. Kind regards, Karl mothership | mothership.co.nz __ 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] Major FF and Safari problems
On 22/03/2008, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Doades wrote: Hi all, I have been working on a site, and the person I am working with very kindly asked me to check this in FireFox... Sadly the main content get shoved to the bottom, can someone please have a look for me and see if they can make sense of what's going on? URL: www.weplan.co.uk user: trial pass: demo ( Please don't abuse this!! ) Thanks a huge amount!!! Andrew __ Andrew, you may want to run the code through validation. I took a quick look and firstly noticed that the end tags for the table and HTML were both missing, and then validated it, and there are numerous layout errors (missing tags, etc). While IE will often overlook these, Gecko and WebKit are stricter with standards, and will show up badly formed code more often. The first thing to do when errors such as this occur is to ensure that the code is well formed, and errors aren't caused by missing tags etc. Karl mothership | http://mothership.co.nz __ 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] New CSS/html tools?..
On 11/03/2008, at 3:38 PM, Kathy Wheeler wrote: On 11/03/2008, at 12:34 PM, Michael Stevens wrote: WeBuilder from Bluementals http://www.blumentals.net/webuilder/ WeBuilder is windows only. -Original Message- Karl Jacobs I'm really ready to dump BBedit, ... BBedit is Mac only. Unless Kar is dumping the Mac as well, WeBuilder will be of no use. Pity, otherwise it looks interesting and I'm always on the lookout for better OS X editors with current doctype, CSS, javascript, DHTML (and optionally PHP) support myself. Cheers, KathyW. __ As Karl suggested, I replied off list, and I recommended he take a look at Coda. I'm taking a look myself (again) and hope it has moved on from infancy to perhaps a petulant teen, with the maturity that comes with age. It is one of the few apps that does everything he requested. One aspect to keep in mind is BBEdit has been around a very long time, and has the features and completeness that goes with this age. Karl mothership - http://mothership.co.nz __ 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] Oldest Browser Currently Testing for
On 7/03/2008, at 8:29 AM, david wrote: Karl Hardisty wrote: On 6/03/2008, at 7:03 AM, Rick Faircloth wrote: As far as IE goes, I test for IE6 and IE7, nothing lower. My data shows no visitors ever coming to my sites with anything less than IE6. And if they do, well, it's just time for an upgrade. I'm not jumping through that many hoops to accommodate so few IE 5 users. And I make liberal use of conditional comments for IE. In the years to come, as standards and browser capabilities change, conditional stylesheets are much easier to change than hacks, which are no future-proof, either. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:css-d- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Story Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:36 PM To: 'CSS' Subject: [css-d] Oldest Browser Currently Testing for It seems that my perception of in the wild browsers was a bit off. As I consider IE 5 for mac to be deceased, however it seems to be alive and kicking for some. So I just wanted to get an idea of what the oldest browser you are currently testing for is? And how are you targetting them? Hacks, conditional comments, other techniques? -Mark I have recently updated our policies regarding this, after much examining of logs of sites we've developed. For IE it is now 6 upward as well, with a check to ensure it renders ok in 5.5, and that it is readable, if not reference rendering. In fact, the only mention of IE below 6 was in a discussion forum, for which the lone user of Mac IE5.2 on OS 9 could change the theme to another which rendered fine, so no issue there. Keep in mind this is more representative of the type of sites we do, than the internet as a whole, and the ultimate answer is for the developer to examine logs, and their own ideas of what they're comfortable with. And remember this about logs: If you design a site that doesn't work in browser X, after awhile, you won't have anyone using browser X visit your site *because your site doesn't work.* Then you'll pat yourselves on the back and say, See - no one uses browser X. ;-) -- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] authenticity, honesty, community __ David - you raise a very good point. This is why it is so important to pay special attention to logs immediately after a site update. Usage patterns can highlight issues that cursory testing of browsers during development may have missed. A comparison of usage before and after is generally a good idea. If a site design changes, and suddenly a certain type of browser/platform combination drops off markedly, there's probably a good reason. Karl mothership - http://mothership.co.nz __ 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] Oldest Browser Currently Testing for
On 6/03/2008, at 7:03 AM, Rick Faircloth wrote: As far as IE goes, I test for IE6 and IE7, nothing lower. My data shows no visitors ever coming to my sites with anything less than IE6. And if they do, well, it's just time for an upgrade. I'm not jumping through that many hoops to accommodate so few IE 5 users. And I make liberal use of conditional comments for IE. In the years to come, as standards and browser capabilities change, conditional stylesheets are much easier to change than hacks, which are no future-proof, either. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:css-d- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Story Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:36 PM To: 'CSS' Subject: [css-d] Oldest Browser Currently Testing for It seems that my perception of in the wild browsers was a bit off. As I consider IE 5 for mac to be deceased, however it seems to be alive and kicking for some. So I just wanted to get an idea of what the oldest browser you are currently testing for is? And how are you targetting them? Hacks, conditional comments, other techniques? -Mark __ 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/ I have recently updated our policies regarding this, after much examining of logs of sites we've developed. For IE it is now 6 upward as well, with a check to ensure it renders ok in 5.5, and that it is readable, if not reference rendering. In fact, the only mention of IE below 6 was in a discussion forum, for which the lone user of Mac IE5.2 on OS 9 could change the theme to another which rendered fine, so no issue there. Keep in mind this is more representative of the type of sites we do, than the internet as a whole, and the ultimate answer is for the developer to examine logs, and their own ideas of what they're comfortable with. We still use conditional comments for IE6 for functionality as far as transparent PNGs and a few other small aspects go, but the 'ie' stylesheet has become much shorter than it used to be. Karl mothership - http://mothership.co.nz __ 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] problem with borders
On 21/02/2008, at 8:42 AM, vwf wrote:
Hello,
I try to make new layout for my website. The first hurdle is a
horizontal navigation bar that does not behave like I want: I get
unwanted borders, and the background does not shift on hover.
Can someone help?
One sketch can be seen at http://www.opeform.nl/test/schets.png
The page as I made it so far (head only): http://www.opeform.nl/test/
The CSS: http://www.opeform.nl/test/screen00.css
The navigation bar is below the image/photo.
The idea is that the lines with round pads remain (later the texts will
change). The background of the navigation bar should change color on
hover. The red bar will change color, the same as the round pads. The
black background can have different colors too (black/white). I made the
navigation bar temporarily grey to make things more recognisable.
Some will notice that the CSS is a little bit messy, but part of that is
the result of my attempts to get it right.
My questions are:
How can I get rid of the white borders between the navigation images?
Why do my background images no shift on hover?
Thank you
__
Unsure if it's just me, but I can't get to any of the links listed
above - they all time out.
Regarding unwanted borders - if there are hrefed images involved,
some browsers will add a coloured border. Try adding the following
to your css:
a img
{
border: 0;
}
Karl
http://mothership.co.nz
__
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] setting background colour
On 18/02/2008, at 12:17 PM, Richard Grevers wrote:
On 2/15/08, Kristina Floyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
I've always learnt that setting the background colour on a site is
a very
basic thing to do and shows that as a web developer you've taken
care and
pride in your work.
All of the browsers that I use I have set a ridiculously garish
background
colour set to remind myself to do it. I am teased relentlessly for
this.
However it is important to me.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of sites that do not set a
background
colour. As if adding body { background-color: #FF; } is a really
tedious task.
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter, as it literally
drives me
bonkers. I am fully aware that we have moved on from the default grey
background of Netscape 3(?) and by default browsers will set their
background colours to white. Does this mean it's okay for
developers to be
lazy and sloppy and not bother to set it. Or am I just too old school
(eep!!) and set in my ways.
Leaving colours unspecified is definitely a valid design choice, but
not one that many clients would accept, so I have only ever used it on
personal sites. The key thing to remember is that if one colour, e.g.
background, is left to user's choice, then all colours (text and link)
need to be left unspecified to avoid a collision with the user's
settings - e.g. black 0r near-black text on a very dark background. It
also becomes necessary to make all imagery either rectangular or using
alpha transparency (24-bit png - hello IE6!).
It certainly is an elementary but common mistake to forget that
default background can be something other than white (mine is a warm
grey, for comfort and longevity of eyes) and suddenly have unreadable
text or ugly white edge artefacts on images. To me its a sign that the
designer doesn't have a sound understanding of CSS.
--
Richard Grevers, New Plymouth, New Zealand
Dramatic Design www.dramatic.co.nz
__
I checked through sites created recently and the background-color is
#FFF for each. I have this set as the default in my css template
file, as at the time I thought if I was to ever forget this, it would
be better displayed in white rather than the default background.
Whether viewing the background as white unless the design
specifically requires otherwise is taking control away from the
viewer or not, is open to interpretation. A well designed site will
allow visitors some control over fonts (size +/-2 for example) and
size. however, how far should good web design practice allow this
control to reach into the design?
Karl
http://mothership.co.nz
__
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] PNG repeating background in IE
On 11/02/2008, at 6:47 PM, Karl Hardisty wrote: On 8/02/2008, at 5:10 AM, Geoffrey Hoffman wrote: I am fairly certain that the PNG alpha trick that dynamically places a filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader on your site's png files does not work on repeating backgrounds. Search on IE6 transparent png on google and there's hundreds of helpful articles. If your site uses a solid background color you can use flattened gif files. ie render the drop shadow into the background color. __ No, the technique does not work with repeating backgrounds. I have given google a bashing over this (even before appealing to the list) and have tried various hacks, including the php hack, Dean Edwards IE7 (which includes one of the popular hacks), and several other approaches, including spending time with z-index values due to flattening the image causing all background properties to come through. The issue is the background of the page has an image set, and PNG24 in supporting browsers seems to be the only way to achieve what I want. Karl __ I'd like to thank everyone on the list for their suggestions and pointers. http://mothership.co.nz/reduction As can be seen, the layout is now working, thanks to the help of Rob @ drunkenfist.com. Adding to the issue was the fact that one of the things I had forgotten in the past three years is how tenaciously IE caches. I hit upon the solution several days before I realised, but because of IE's grip, didn't realise this! Like the existing, the new site design will use conditional commenting for ~IE6, however, IE7 can finally stand on its' own two feet (if somewhat unsteadily). Essentially, since all other techniques I found were unable to repeat a background png, the one in use - http://www.drunkenfist.com/ 304/2007/04/04/cross-browser-png-transparency-part-2/ - utilises IE's alphaimageloader to 'scale' to fit the 1px high PNG to whatever height is required. Perfect for what I wanted it for. Regards, Karl http://mothership.co.nz __ 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] PNG repeating background in IE
On 8/02/2008, at 5:10 AM, Geoffrey Hoffman wrote: I am fairly certain that the PNG alpha trick that dynamically places a filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader on your site's png files does not work on repeating backgrounds. Search on IE6 transparent png on google and there's hundreds of helpful articles. If your site uses a solid background color you can use flattened gif files. ie render the drop shadow into the background color. __ No, the technique does not work with repeating backgrounds. I have given google a bashing over this (even before appealing to the list) and have tried various hacks, including the php hack, Dean Edwards IE7 (which includes one of the popular hacks), and several other approaches, including spending time with z-index values due to flattening the image causing all background properties to come through. The issue is the background of the page has an image set, and PNG24 in supporting browsers seems to be the only way to achieve what I want. Karl __ 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] PNG repeating background in IE
I'm back in the fold after a break of 2-3 years, and much has changed. Unfortunately, this doesn't include IE5.5 and IE6. I have a layout I'm partial to, and have been experimenting with in the early stages, but have come across something I'm not sure how to fix. I've reduced the code down to the bare minimum to show the issue. The layout works fine in many browsers apart from the aforementioned, due to a transparent PNG being present in the css. Is there any way I can keep the general look and have it work somehow in IE of yore? HTML here: http://mothership.co.nz/reduction/ css here: http://mothership.co.nz/reduction/msnew.css Any thoughts to get me back on track much appreciated. Karl __ 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/
