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

And lo on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:49:18 -0000, Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom>  
did spake, saying:

> I'm working on implementing a new design on my website (based on the  
> mock-up I posted about earlier) and I've come quite far. Web design  
> seems to have
> become much easier since six years ago, where browsers had far more  
> peculiar
> behaviours than now.

Looks okay with both Firefox 2.0.0.11 and Opera 9.22.8801 although on an  
underpowered machine I've noted it scrolls quite slowly. In the past this  
is due to fixed background images, but I didn't spot any in your source;  
Not a concern, just a remark.

In the IE front the first thing you might consider is switching to a  
strict type. MS fixed some div/floating/other bugs in IE6 to match the  
standard model, but only if you use a strict type.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:02:36 -0000, Phil Cook  
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> did spake, saying:

> And lo on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:49:18 -0000, Rune  
> <aut### [at] runevisioncom> did spake, saying:
> In the past this is due to fixed background images, but I didn't spot  
> any in your source; Not a concern, just a remark.

Scratch that it's your fixed body background image. I overrode it with a  
"scroll" and can't see any difference visually it just removes the  
slowdown.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message