I'm designing a Drupal theme and, unsurprisingly, am running into some
problems with IE6. All of these things are displaying correctly in FF,
IE7, Safari, and Opera.
1. The main (horizontal) menu is displaying in the wrong place.
2. There's a blank space between div#main and div#footer.
3. B
On 11/08/2009, at 1:00 PM, Michael Stevens wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
> [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Lalena
>
>> I have a new challenge. In CSS, is it possible to get an image to be
> cropped off on both sides? Or
-Original Message-
From: Sam Brown [mailto:freejack_in...@yahoo.com]
>You can use the DOM object to get at settings such as deviceXDPI and
others. I've used it to determine a client's DPI and set different styles to
correct for IE rounding errors at higher DPI.
http://www.w3schools.com/htm
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Lalena
>I have a new challenge. In CSS, is it possible to get an image to be
cropped off on both sides? Or in print language, to "bleed" on both sides?
--
Any particular
Thanks for all your answers about screen resolution! I never imagined
it was so complicated.
I have a new challenge. In CSS, is it possible to get an image to be
cropped off on both sides? Or in print language, to "bleed" on both
sides?
On my homepage, I want the ornaments on both sides of m
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Felix Miata
>If accessibility and usability of a CSS-styled web page design matter, then
the size of web page objects is a matter of quite some significance.
>Resolution
On 2009/08/10 14:23 (GMT-0700) Michael Stevens composed:
> The user's feelings on a particular size doesn't really matter... The
> question was "Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi?" The real answer
> is a monitor's resolution is not measured in DPI but PIXELS x PIXELS. And,
> it's really n
On 2009/08/10 16:22 (GMT-0700) Theresa Mesa composed:
> What I find amusing about the admonition to use points is that points
> are printing-industry-based, not monitor- or Web-based. There are 12
> points in a pica, or 72 points in an inch. Back in the day, one pica
> was .166 of an inch; n
- Original Message -
From: "Philippe Wittenbergh"
>
> On Aug 8, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Fiona Hayward wrote:
>
>> Apparently an image will be treated as an inline element and even
>> though I
>> had zeroed margins and paddings, browsers will still add extra space
>> to
>> images , appar
What I find amusing about the admonition to use points is that points
are printing-industry-based, not monitor- or Web-based. There are 12
points in a pica, or 72 points in an inch. Back in the day, one pica
was .166 of an inch; now it is 1.6 of an inch. But we don't use inches
or picas whe
Thank you!
On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Rob Emenecker wrote:
>> I was talking about the *saved JPEG*. 1 layer. When I
>> right-click and "Get Info" on the file, it says the JPEG is
>> 96K. When I *open the
>> JPEG* in Photoshop, it's back up to 399KB.
>
> The GET INFO shows the file size on your
-Original Message-
From: hramr...@gmail.com [mailto:hramr...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michal
Suchanek
>The problem is that the physical size is what the user sees, not the pixel
resolution. That's why it's better to avoid pixels and specify sizes in
points or other physical units where poss
On 9/08/2009, at 12:58 PM, Matt Hampel wrote:
> On my site, the number of an ordered list item will disappear when
> the list
> begins with a blockquote. This problem occurs in IE 7, but not
> Firefox or
> Safari.
>
> Here's an example:
> http://arborupdate.com/article/1843/primary-results-co
> I was talking about the *saved JPEG*. 1 layer. When I
> right-click and "Get Info" on the file, it says the JPEG is
> 96K. When I *open the
> JPEG* in Photoshop, it's back up to 399KB.
The GET INFO shows the file size on your hard drive (media, etc.). The size
in Photoshop shows the size of th
2009/8/10 Michael Stevens :
> --
>>DPI most definitely matters WRT to physical size. Visit any store where
> several laptops sit side by side on display. You should be able to find a
> 14" or 14.1" sitting next to a 15.4", both at 1280x800 resolution. Because
> the smaller screen has less area for
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Felix Miata
>Think that if you want, but because the pixel density is higher on the
smaller, those with adequate vision may in fact find the smaller to be the
better when
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andrew Badera wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Been mostly lurking on this list for months now, learned/got reminded
> of a ton, thanks a lot.
>
> I'm working on a web app in ASP.NET targeting IE6/7/8, FF3.x, Safari
> 3, 4, and Chrome. After dusting off my years-rusty CSS skill
Hi all,
Been mostly lurking on this list for months now, learned/got reminded
of a ton, thanks a lot.
I'm working on a web app in ASP.NET targeting IE6/7/8, FF3.x, Safari
3, 4, and Chrome. After dusting off my years-rusty CSS skills, I have
a layout that works well across these clients on Vista,
Hi,
Can default "value" text be two different styles within the same textbox?
For example -- in one input text box I'd like to put:
Location (city or zip)
Can "Location" be large and "(city or zip)" styled smaller?
Thanks!
CC
Hi,
Can default "value" text be two different styles within the same textbox?
For example -- in one input text box I'd like to put:
Location (city or zip)
Can "Location" be large and "(city or zip)" styled smaller?
Thanks!
CC
On 2009/08/10 12:06 (GMT-0700) David Hucklesby composed:
> Theresa Mesa wrote:
> ...the nominal DPI can be changed in the operating system. Most
> Windows and Mac boxes come set to 96 DPI these days. But note that Unix
> boxes, and my hi-def IBM laptop, come with higher DPI settings quite
> frequ
On 2009/08/10 12:20 (GMT-0700) Michael Stevens composed:
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:35 AM
>>> It think it's still best to optimize your images for 72dpi - 96 max -
>>> because higher DPI images create larger file sizes, which make your
>>> web pages larger file sizes, which make them lo
On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Michael Stevens wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
> [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Theresa Mesa
>
> Interestingly enough, as a learning exercise, I opened an image in
> Photoshop, set the image
Hi David,
Thank you for responding to my problem.
> sono...@fannullone.us wrote:
>> I think I've narrowed it down. If I remove the following code in
>> the css-ui.tabs.css file:
>> .ui-tabs-nav:after {
>> display: block;
>> clear: both;
>> content: " ";
>> }
> [...]
>
sono...@fannullone.us wrote:
> I think I've narrowed it down. If I remove the following code in the
> css-ui.tabs.css file:
>
> .ui-tabs-nav:after {
> display: block;
> clear: both;
> content: " ";
> }
[...]
>>
>> http://www.superiorshelving.com/mfg/nexel/test/test6.php
>>
Theresa Mesa wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Lalena wrote:
>
>> Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi? Or do some of these
>> newfangled monitors have a higher resolution?
In addition to the very useful table supplied by Felix, I'd also note
that the nominal DPI can be changed in the
On 11/08/2009, at 1:10 AM, Michael Beaudoin wrote:
> I just finished roughing out a site for a client and it looks good in
> all browsers, except there is an alignment issue in IE 7. If you look
> at these sample pages:
>
> - http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/index.htm
> - http://www.ba-doyn.com/ju
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Felix Miata
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:35 AM
>> It think it's still best to optimize your images for 72dpi - 96 max -
>> because higher DPI images create larger fil
Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/08/10 11:00 (GMT-0500) Lalena composed:
>
>> Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi?
>
> Resolution rarely ever was 72. Mac OS prior to X assumed 72, just like
> Windows assumed and still assumes 96.
>
>> Or do some of these
>> newfangled monitors have a higher r
I design and artwork all of my websites at 300dpi, as if print (can
come in handy if you need to print your websites in a brochure etc.).
I can't stand grainy images and if I work in 72dpi the results are
crap. 'Save for web' from a 72dpi artboard will have worse results
than a 300dpi artb
Ian Gibson wrote:
> Hi David
>
> Many thanks for your help. I thought my container had a min-height of
> 100% from
>
> body > #container {height: auto; min-height: 100%;}
>
> but of course DotNetNuke generated that extra form, so I needed...
>
> body > form > #container {height: auto; min-heigh
On 2009/08/10 10:33 (GMT-0700) Michael Stevens composed:
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Lalena wrote:
>> It think it's still best to optimize your images for 72dpi - 96 max -
>> because higher DPI images create larger file sizes, which make your web
>> pages larger file sizes, which make them lon
On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:03 AM, tedd wrote:
> At 10:33 AM -0700 8/10/09, Michael Stevens wrote:
>> Image resolution has nothing to do with it's pixel size. For the
>> web the
>> only thing you have to worry about are the pixel dimensions. An
>> 800x600
>> pixel image is going to display EXACTLY
Erik Vorhes wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>>> 4. If the IE stuff breaks any other browsers, put the culprits back in
>>> a conditional comment.
>> I must say that is a unusual and strange step.
>>
>
> Really? If I have a site that renders properly in everything excep
At 10:33 AM -0700 8/10/09, Michael Stevens wrote:
>-Original Message-
>From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
>[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Theresa Mesa
>On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Lalena wrote:
>
>It think it's still best to optimize your images for 72dpi
> Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi? Or do some of these
> newfangled monitors have a higher resolution?
Screen resolution hasn't been reliably 72 dpi since the demise of the CRT (5+
years ago?). HD screens get higher definition by having smaller pixels. And
smaller pixels means lar
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Theresa Mesa
On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Lalena wrote:
It think it's still best to optimize your images for 72dpi - 96 max -
because higher DPI images create larger file
On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Lalena wrote:
> Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi? Or do some of these
> newfangled monitors have a higher resolution?
> Thanks!
> Suzi
> __
> css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http:
On 2009/08/10 11:00 (GMT-0500) Lalena composed:
> Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi?
Resolution rarely ever was 72. Mac OS prior to X assumed 72, just like
Windows assumed and still assumes 96.
> Or do some of these
> newfangled monitors have a higher resolution?
Actual resolution is w
72 to 100 dpi is now the normal as I recall.
I suggest creating all images at 100 dpi for best viewing
Don
- Original Message -
From: "Lalena"
To:
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: [css-d] Screen resolution?
> Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi? Or do some of the
Is computer-screen resolution still 72 dpi? Or do some of these
newfangled monitors have a higher resolution?
Thanks!
Suzi
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/F
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>> 4. If the IE stuff breaks any other browsers, put the culprits back in
>> a conditional comment.
>
> I must say that is a unusual and strange step.
>
Really? If I have a site that renders properly in everything except,
say, IE7, but the techni
I just finished roughing out a site for a client and it looks good in
all browsers, except there is an alignment issue in IE 7. If you look
at these sample pages:
- http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/index.htm
- http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/services.htm
you will see that the vertical white li
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Michael Grosch wrote:
> Hello Rizky,
>
> did you try the below? Feedback via the list would be greatly appreciated.
>
Hi Michael,
Really sorry for the late response. Yes, it works perfectly now btw.
Thx for your help, really appreciate it :)
Case closed.
Regard
Elli Vizcaino wrote:
> So am I better off using Javascript/JQuery then?
Normally I'd say "no", but it depends on what you want to achieve.
Show, or describe in some details, your goals, and I/we can provide
better answers.
regards
Georg
__
45 matches
Mail list logo
