On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:11:53PM -0400, David Laakso wrote:
> BTW, red on green may be difficult for some users, too.
Impossible to distinguish by certain types of color blind people,
actually.
Ángel
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists
My first thought is the graphic in the upper left that shows a severe
decline is, perhaps, not the best choice for an investment site where, I
assume, they are supposed to be making money...
On 7/14/09 10:26 PM, "Noah Learner" wrote:
> I am working on relaunching http://www.fureyresearch.com
--
> Noah Learner wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I am working on relaunching http://www.fureyresearch.com
> What do you think?
> > Any feedback about aesthetics or layout would be greatly
> appreciated.
> >
>
> It seems to do fairly well cross-browser, except for a
> missing header on at least
Noah Learner wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I am working on relaunching http://www.fureyresearch.com What do you think?
> Any feedback about aesthetics or layout would be greatly appreciated.
>
It seems to do fairly well cross-browser, except for a missing header on
at least one page in IE/6.0. It
It would be really nice if someone could provide the OP with an open,
honest, direct, and specific solution to his problem. I regret I am
unable to do so.
Best,
~d
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-disc
>>> Is this the bug present in FF2 or SeaMonkey? Anyone?
>> Yes, it is present, as well, in:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20)
>> Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> That is hardly surprising. All those browsers (Camino 1.6.x, SeaMonkey
> 1.x, F
On Jul 12, 2009, at 6:29 AM, David Laakso wrote:
> Alan Gresley wrote:
>>> ...
e.g. #form_login { width: 11.75em; }
>>> I was doing clear:left; both; overflows, comment those lines, put
>>> them back.
>>> I was thinking about some lines on my css that should start with
>>> moz- ...
Alan Gresley wrote:
> MEM wrote:
>
Give the form an explicit width. It doesn't need to be hidden from
other browsers.
>>
>>
>>> e.g. #form_login { width: 11.75em; }
>>>
>> I was doing clear:left; both; overflows, comment those lines, put them back.
>> I was
Alan Gresley wrote:
> MEM wrote:
>
Give the form an explicit width. It doesn't need to be hidden from
other browsers.
>>
>>
>>> e.g. #form_login { width: 11.75em; }
>>>
>> I was doing clear:left; both; overflows, comment those lines, put them back.
>> I was
MEM wrote:
>>> Give the form an explicit width. It doesn't need to be hidden from
>>> other browsers.
>
>> e.g. #form_login { width: 11.75em; }
>
>
> I was doing clear:left; both; overflows, comment those lines, put them back.
> I was thinking about some lines on my css that should start with
> > Give the form an explicit width. It doesn't need to be hidden from
> > other browsers.
> e.g. #form_login { width: 11.75em; }
I was doing clear:left; both; overflows, comment those lines, put them back.
I was thinking about some lines on my css that should start with moz- ...
And here it
On 10/07/2009, at 3:59 PM, Tim Snadden wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2009, at 3:44 PM, MEM wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is still a lot of people that uses FF2 on this
>> side of
>> Atlantic. Can I have help on solving that issue?
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/
>
On 10/07/2009, at 3:44 PM, MEM wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there is still a lot of people that uses FF2 on this
> side of
> Atlantic. Can I have help on solving that issue?
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/
> 20090605
> SeaMonkey/1.1.17
> Doesn't display proper
> if you want to just forget FF/2x; and, ride with a broken page in
> SeaMonkey and Camino until such time as they catch-up?
The site is far away from been launch. And SeaMonkey is absolutely
inexistent on this side.
But the fact that affects also Firefox 2 - bugs me.
> The correction for FF2x,
>
>
>> Check your page in SeaMonkey/1.1.17.
>>
> No I get the same symptoms on Firefox 2.
>
> So the problem is that, on SeaMonkey 1.1.17,
The problem is in FF/2x, SeaMonkey, and also Camino.
> I'm unable to contain the float
> ? Should I apply a clear fix method, or a ove
> Actually, you're doing quite well,
Thanks.
> regardless of your personal choice
> for font-family :-)
I see...
http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/01/avoid-verdana
Well, if Unix distros don't have it by default.
I must declare on the CSS Verdana alternatives.
However, doing that, will caus
MEM wrote:
> Hello again list,
>
> We always can do better and better, this is my second css layout, so I know
> it's mediocre, anyway:
>
Actually, you're doing quite well, regardless of your personal choice
for font-family :-) . My second CSS layout was exactly like my first
CSS layout: u
17 matches
Mail list logo
