"Phil Cook" wrote:
> 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.

The fixed background is a subtle gradient (greener towards the bottom of the 
screen) but if it causes a slowdown, I won't use it. Thanks for letting me 
know.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

"scott" wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I did. :) Thanks for testing it!

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> 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.

Of course there's nothing *requiring* me to use CSS to design a web 
page.  On that note, there's nothing that says I have to use standard 
compliant HTML or, for that matter, HTML at all (viva la Flash...ugh).

I do not care to do a whole lot of web design work.  I generally just 
want my layout and style to work without a whole lot of hassle (or ugly 
hacks) because I'd rather focus on the content.  The last thing I want 
to do is fiddle endlessly with my markup and stylesheet because a 
browser fails to render it properly.

Again, I fail to see why you chose to make a sarcastic post when I 
brought up something that is a very clear and obvious problem with the 
way that IE is designed.  I shouldn't have to dodge features of a 
language, or use lame quirks, just because IE is too inept to deal with 
it.  Every browser but IE handles it without question.

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:40:39 -0000, Ian Burgmyer  
<spe### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Tim Cook wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Of course there's nothing *requiring* me to use CSS to design a web  
> page.  On that note, there's nothing that says I have to use standard  
> compliant HTML or, for that matter, HTML at all (viva la Flash...ugh).
>
> I do not care to do a whole lot of web design work.  I generally just  
> want my layout and style to work without a whole lot of hassle (or ugly  
> hacks) because I'd rather focus on the content.  The last thing I want  
> to do is fiddle endlessly with my markup and stylesheet because a  
> browser fails to render it properly.
>
> Again, I fail to see why you chose to make a sarcastic post when I  
> brought up something that is a very clear and obvious problem with the  
> way that IE is designed.  I shouldn't have to dodge features of a  
> language, or use lame quirks, just because IE is too inept to deal with  
> it.  Every browser but IE handles it without question.

To give it a physical viewpoint if you're moving small bags around it's  
easy to do it by hand; if you're moving pallets then you want to use the  
forklift. Then you discover the forklift's too tall to fit through the  
door of one of the warehouses. So either you stop ordering things by  
pallets because of one awkward door, or you may be able to use a pallet  
truck for this one warehouse. Either way it's a hassle and you don't get  
things quite the way you'd want them.

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:
> To give it a physical viewpoint if you're moving small bags around it's 
> easy to do it by hand; if you're moving pallets then you want to use the 
> forklift. Then you discover the forklift's too tall to fit through the 
> door of one of the warehouses. So either you stop ordering things by 
> pallets because of one awkward door, or you may be able to use a pallet 
> truck for this one warehouse. Either way it's a hassle and you don't get 
> things quite the way you'd want them.

Physical viewpoints require thinking in terms of physical labor.  Screw 
that. ;)

Think about it from my perspective, though.  If I were an experienced 
web designer that knew of most of the quirks that IE had and how to 
easily write around them, I probably wouldn't have complained about it 
in the first place.

However, as someone who isn't a big fan of doing web design (mostly 
because of such quirks, really), I would much prefer it if it just 
worked so I could get the stinking page online without having to deal 
with any workarounds or hacks.

And yes, the fact that I dislike crude hacks in web pages but use them 
occasionally when I program (like that one time I hacked unsafe 
multithreading into a .NET app I was developing and it somehow managed 
to run quite stably without too much extra work) is kind of ironic, but 
that's a story for another bedtime. :P

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:15:59 -0000, Ian Burgmyer  
<spe### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> To give it a physical viewpoint if you're moving small bags around it's  
>> easy to do it by hand; if you're moving pallets then you want to use  
>> the forklift. Then you discover the forklift's too tall to fit through  
>> the door of one of the warehouses. So either you stop ordering things  
>> by pallets because of one awkward door, or you may be able to use a  
>> pallet truck for this one warehouse. Either way it's a hassle and you  
>> don't get things quite the way you'd want them.
>
> Physical viewpoints require thinking in terms of physical labor.  Screw  
> that. ;)

Heh, but it helps some people.

> Think about it from my perspective, though.  If I were an experienced  
> web designer that knew of most of the quirks that IE had and how to  
> easily write around them, I probably wouldn't have complained about it  
> in the first place.

Yeah if you're experienced in using the pallet truck it's annoying, but  
you can do it. You don't like having to use it, but it's not a major  
hardship; then...

> However, as someone who isn't a big fan of doing web design (mostly  
> because of such quirks, really), I would much prefer it if it just  
> worked so I could get the stinking page online without having to deal  
> with any workarounds or hacks.

...on the other hand you get those who've only used the truck being shown  
how to use the forklift and then moaning that it doesn't fit under the  
doors they've taken for granted as being the right height, there's too  
many controls, etc.

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:
> Yeah if you're experienced in using the pallet truck it's annoying, but 
> you can do it. You don't like having to use it, but it's not a major 
> hardship; then...
> 
> ....on the other hand you get those who've only used the truck being 
> shown how to use the forklift and then moaning that it doesn't fit under 
> the doors they've taken for granted as being the right height, there's 
> too many controls, etc.

Indeed.

When I do web design I just want to get it done so I could focus on 
other things.  I recall times where I spent upwards of 45 minutes trying 
to figure out how to get similar results on IE, Firefox, and Opera, then 
moving on and quickly running into a roadblock.  That's usually the 
point where I just move to a prefabbed system out of sheer frustration.

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

I though you once made an image of a cracking egg with an eye peering 
through, but can't find it on the groups or on your website. If this was 
indeed your image, you should consider reworking it and submitting it to 
the RTChallenge topic 'Into the Wilderness.'


www.tc-rtc.co.uk

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>
> I though you once made an image of a cracking egg with an eye peering 
> through, but can't find it on the groups or on your website.

It is here:
http://runevision.com/graphics/cggallery/#67

> If this was  indeed your image, you should consider reworking
> it and submitting it to the RTChallenge topic 'Into the Wilderness.'

It would not be appropriate since the eye inside the egg and the birds are 
completely post-processed, not raytraced.

Also, I don't want to rework it to conform to the rules when I am already 
satisfied with it the way it is.

Thanks for the suggestion though!

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Just an update:

Transparent PNGs with drop shadows (and antialiasing) are now used and even 
work in IE 6. I also changed the background.
http://runevision.com/temp/new_design_test.htm

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message