stbenge nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/20 01:48:
> Rune wrote:
> 
>> This page works fine in Firefox 2.0:
>> http://runevision.com/temp/new_design_test.htm
> 
> I use FF 2.0.0.3 and I see no problems.
> 
>> However, when I view it with IE 6 some of the boxes are completely 
>> white, or flickers white, and they also have a white, unshaded left 
>> border. I have really no idea what causes this, and haven't been able 
>> to find help on the net (I don't know what to search for).
>>
>> Do you see the same artefacts in IE? Are you using IE6 or IE7?
> 
> I tested your site with IE7, and I see a couple of rendering errors. The
> first occurs at every 'box'. It manifests as a continuance of the
> left/right box graphics extending below the bottom graphic (shown in
> attached image). I also get the unshaded left border at each box. All
> these boxes are affected by the unshaded left border: 'Fractal Structure
> And Some Red', 'Burn in Hell', 'No More Chrome Spheres Please', 'Merry
> Christmas on The South Pole', 'Tunnel', 'Impossible Triangle', 'Red
> Dragon', 'Tubes', 'Torus Fractal', 'Green Dragon' and 'Pens'.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
>> Any idea how to fix it?
> 
> Yeah, convince the world not to use IE :)
> 
> Sam
> 
> P.S. I'm still finding (good) uses for your Illusion include file!
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Page open side by side in both Firefox 2.0.0.11 and IE7. They both look 
identical, apart from a 1 point font size difference. No graphycal glitch or 
anomaly here.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when whenever you write include, even 
in essays, etc, you always add a "#".

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> "Tim Attwood" wrote:
>> I think "clear both" is buggy in IE7
>> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200603/new_clearing_method_needed_for_ie7/
> 
> I didn't see any solution I could understand in that article, but the 
> problem was indeed "clear:both".
> 
> Now I've reverted to using some good old tables, and everything works fine 
> in IE 6 and Firefox 2.
> http://runevision.com/temp/new_design_test.htm
> 
> The menu items to the right are far more spaced in IE than in Firefox 
> though. Don't know why.

I tested your site again with both FF 2.0.0.3 and IE 7, and I see no 
such difference.

> Also, could someone with IE 7 let me know if the problem with the bottom of 
> the boxes is still there?

I found neither hide nor hair of the pesky white boxes. It would appear 
that you have managed to eradicate that particular problem. In fact, the 
page actually looks *better* in IE due to the automatic antialising of 
page fonts.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>>>  Transparent PNGs + IE = sucks.
>>
>> I thought it was fixed in IE7? For IE6 I am feeding the browser 
>> transparent gifs instead.
> 
> Yes, translucent PNGs actually work in IE7 (and, based on my limited use 
> of it, they seem to work quite well).
> 
> As you've seen, however, CSS is still horribly broken.  I can't even 
> tolerate doing any sort of web design work anymore thanks to IE. :(

None of this is going to discourage me from liberally using translucent 
PNGs and and CSS when I decide to update my site. What kind of people do 
I want to have viewing my site? Probably not IE users ;)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> "stbenge" wrote:
>> P.S. I'm still finding (good) uses for your Illusion include file!
> 
> That's nice to hear, and yeah, it's basically just a projection, so I guess 
> it is versatile. If you have any images online that uses it, I could link to 
> them in my "Outside Gallery" if you'd like.

I might just hold you to that offer.

BTW, it would seem your include file is partially incompatible with 
POVb24.... It happens when I wrap the 'illusion' pigment inside a 
pigment_pattern for a texture_map, and then render the scene with 
antialiasing, focal blur, or any other feature that makes the scene 
render slowly. POV just quits abruptly, without even an error to tell me 
what went wrong. I need to look for a log file. Hopefully POV produces 
one. It's really quite frustrating :(

Perhaps it's somehow related to the same error which causes the first 
object in my HFarch example file to not render. I'm thinking POV doesn't 
handle user-defined functions the same way it used to.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> As you've seen, however, CSS is still horribly broken.  I can't even 
> tolerate doing any sort of web design work anymore thanks to IE. :(

Because it's physically impossible to make a webpage without using CSS 
or CSS features that IE doesn't render properly.  Gotcha.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

"stbenge" wrote:
> None of this is going to discourage me from liberally using translucent 
> PNGs and and CSS when I decide to update my site. What kind of people do I 
> want to have viewing my site? Probably not IE users ;)

I found a way to make transparent PNGs work even in IE 6, so my site will 
feature nice drop shadows even when using that browser! :)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
>> As you've seen, however, CSS is still horribly broken.  I can't even 
>> tolerate doing any sort of web design work anymore thanks to IE. :(
> 
> Because it's physically impossible to make a webpage without using CSS 
> or CSS features that IE doesn't render properly.  Gotcha.

Standards were created for a reason.  The second you have to start 
intentionally modifying your code to dodge implementation issues it 
completely defeats the point of having the standard in the first place.

And really, since when should it be the web designer's responsibility to 
mangle their perfectly compliant page just because Microsoft can't seem 
to fix their broken web browser after this many years?

I suppose I just fail to see why me complaining about a perfectly valid 
issue *that many web designers complain about* could possibly warrant 
that sort of response.

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> BTW, it would seem your include file is partially incompatible with 
> POVb24.... It happens when I wrap the 'illusion' pigment inside a 
> pigment_pattern for a texture_map, and then render the scene with 
> antialiasing, focal blur, or any other feature that makes the scene 
> render slowly. POV just quits abruptly, without even an error to tell me 
> what went wrong. I need to look for a log file. Hopefully POV produces 
> one. It's really quite frustrating :(

Okay, I've had time to find the real cause of this bug. It's with the 
beta version of POV, not your include file! I posted a bug report to 
p.beta-test.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

>> I tested your site with IE7, and I see a couple of rendering errors. The
>> first occurs at every 'box'. It manifests as a continuance of the
>> left/right box graphics extending below the bottom graphic (shown in
>> attached image).
>
> Eep, that's even worse than in IE6! How could that happen...?

I don't get that at all in IE7, it looks perfect and identical to FF.  I 
thought maybe you have fixed it since you made the first post?

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> As you've seen, however, CSS is still horribly broken.  I can't even 
>>> tolerate doing any sort of web design work anymore thanks to IE. :(
>>
>> Because it's physically impossible to make a webpage without using CSS 
>> or CSS features that IE doesn't render properly.  Gotcha.
> 
> Standards were created for a reason.  The second you have to start 
> intentionally modifying your code to dodge implementation issues it 
> completely defeats the point of having the standard in the first place.
> 
> And really, since when should it be the web designer's responsibility to 
> mangle their perfectly compliant page just because Microsoft can't seem 
> to fix their broken web browser after this many years?

It shouldn't; I'm just saying that there's nothing *requiring* you to 
use CSS to design a webpage, or that you can't use the parts of CSS that 
*do* work with IE and make a working layout.  I use some CSS on my 
webpage and it renders fine in IE.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message