Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> However, Internet Explorer 6 (being quite old, but still widely used) still 
> renders certain things very strangely.

  Transparent PNGs + IE = sucks.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I think "clear both" is buggy in IE7
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200603/new_clearing_method_needed_for_ie7/

Post a reply to this message

"stbenge" wrote:
> 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 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'.

Yeah, it's all the ones where the image to the right extends lower down than 
the text, for some reason.

> I hope this helps.

It helps me take it extra seriously, when I know that IE7 hasn't fixed these 
issues as I had hoped. :(

>> Any idea how to fix it?
>
> Yeah, convince the world not to use IE :)

I need something a bit quicker... ;)

> 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.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>  Transparent PNGs + IE = sucks.

I thought it was fixed in IE7? For IE6 I am feeding the browser transparent 
gifs instead.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

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. :(

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

"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.

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

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:21:49 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:

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

Looks ok with IE 7.0. 5730. 11

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>> Also, could someone with IE 7 let me know if the problem with the
>> bottom of the boxes is still there?
>
> Looks ok with IE 7.0. 5730. 11

Thanks! :)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

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

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

"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

http://tinyurl.com/37c5uq

Without the charset override, it doesn't even let me validate it.

FWIW, looks OK on IE6.

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> Now I've reverted to using some good old tables

*vomits*

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> Rune escribió:
>> Now I've reverted to using some good old tables
>
> *vomits*

Yeah, I know that many people feel like that.

Them: Don't use tables for layout purposes!

Me: Okay, so what do I do instead to get the same result?

Them: Use this more complicated method here with lots of nested divs, then 
apply this long list of browser-specific hacks in order to make it work in 
all major browsers.

Me: And how exactly is that better than using a simpler table approach that 
works exactly as expected, is consistent across browsers, and is equally 
user-friendly?

Them: Because using tables is baaaad...!


Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table 
approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. It's 
not like I haven't tried.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/37c5uq
>
> Without the charset override, it doesn't even let me validate it.

I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what 
they mean.

> FWIW, looks OK on IE6.

:)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table 
> approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. It's 
> not like I haven't tried.

I was very impressed by this tutorial, but then I don't write web apps 
other than ugly ones. You might bet some good out of it.

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table 
> approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. It's 
> not like I haven't tried.

 From the explanation of the acid2 test: "Tables for layout aren't bad. 
What is bad is using table *markup*". However, display:table, 
display:table-cell, etc. aren't supported by any released version of 
IE... Otherwise they would be an interesting one.

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/37c5uq
>>
>> Without the charset override, it doesn't even let me validate it.
> 
> I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what 
> they mean.

<a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so 
<a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> Rune escribió:
>> Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table 
>> approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. 
>> It's not like I haven't tried.
>
> From the explanation of the acid2 test: "Tables for layout aren't bad. 
> What is bad is using table *markup*".

The solutions I have seen for creating flexible rounded boxes without tables 
require just as much markup, only in div form instead of in table form.

The rounded boxes really are the main problem here. I just couldn't find a 
way to create rounded boxes without tables that
- Supported transparent PNGs
- Worked even in IE 6 (including transparency)
- Was flexible in width and height

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> Rune escribió:
>> I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what 
>> they mean.
>
> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so 
> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.

Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic 
information. Not good...

Oh well, the page validates now.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> Them: Don't use tables for layout purposes!

  From the dawn of the WWW "they" have punctuated that HTML should not
be used for layout, only for content, that the layout should be separated
from the content. One argument which has always been given is that you
don't know the screen size of the user, and that some users might want
to view the page in a small hand-held device.
  "They" were right. Hand-held devices capable of viewing web pages are
becoming more and more popular every day (cellphones, handheld game
consoles...) and people are browsing the WWW with them more and more
(and suffering from all those "this site requires at least a 800x600
resolution" sites).
  People are still not paying attention. They still tell themselves that
nobody *really* browses the internet with a cellphone.

  (What I find puzzling is that "they" preached separation of content
and layout from the dawn of the WWW, yet "they" hate CSS, which is exactly
what they wanted: Total separation of content and layout. I never really
understood why. It's exactly what they wanted. But no.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> One argument which has always been given is that you
> don't know the screen size of the user, and that some users might want
> to view the page in a small hand-held device.

My site is about high resolution 3D graphics and multimedia applications 
mainly. It makes no sense to target hand-held devices, or blind people for 
that matter in this case. Rather, on their high resolution monitors, which I 
*know* my intended audience have, I want the site to look good.

Turns out lots of other people want their sites to look good too. Sure, many 
avoid tables and style markup directly in the content, but they still use 
loads of nested divs which have no purpose other than helping control the 
look. What I'm saying is that I don't see how using tables is worse that 
using all those leyout-specific nested divs.

>  (What I find puzzling is that "they" preached separation of content
> and layout from the dawn of the WWW, yet "they" hate CSS

Who does that? I find that most people love CSS, including me... I just take 
certain liberties, that's all, but I still would hate to design a site again 
without the aid of CSS.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

> My site is about high resolution 3D graphics and multimedia applications 
> mainly. It makes no sense to target hand-held devices, or blind people for 
> that matter in this case. Rather, on their high resolution monitors, which 
> I *know* my intended audience have, I want the site to look good.

And even if you do have a site that could be used by mobile devices, you 
usually make a site dedicated for that device.  I use mobile.msn.com (or 
whatever it is) all the time on my phone to check my hotmail - it would be 
totally absurd if it had all the same content as the main hotmail site, no 
matter what layout was used.

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> Rather, on their high resolution monitors, which I 
> *know* my intended audience have, I want the site to look good.

And you use a fixed-width layout?

Your website is around half the width of my screen resolution, leaving a 
lot of wasted space on the sides. Enlarging the fonts breaks the layout 
quite a bit, since your rounded boxes specify sizes in pixels instead of 
ems.

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so 
>> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
> 
> Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic 
> information. Not good...

No, you have to invert it; move the link *inside* the heading.

Post a reply to this message

> Enlarging the fonts breaks the layout

Enlarging *just* the fonts breaks pretty much anything.  Try using a browser 
that scales the whole page properly, it looks nice at 200% here and fills my 
monitor perfectly!

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> Rune escribió:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>>> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so 
>>> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
>>
>> Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic 
>> information. Not good...
>
> No, you have to invert it; move the link *inside* the heading.

That would break the hover-effekt.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> That would break the hover-effekt.

Are you using the :hover pseudo-class? AFAIK it can be used on any 
element (like the whole rounded box), not only a link.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:24:15 -0000, Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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

Be aware of some of the flaws in AlphaImageLoader that may still be  
lurking around. Memory hits, links not working when positioned over some  
images, can't be treated like a background image, obviously won't  
validate. Doesn't look like you've got any of these problems from my first  
glance (bar css validation), but if something goes screwy in IE around one  
of these it'd be the first thing I'd look at.

Oh BTW like the lined background, which scrolls smoothly TYVM.

-- 
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 Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:08:56 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:

> Rune escribió:
>> That would break the hover-effekt.
>
> Are you using the :hover pseudo-class? AFAIK it can be used on any  
> element (like the whole rounded box), not only a link.

Three guesses which version of which browser only allows :hover on <a>  
elements.

-- 
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:
> Be aware of some of the flaws in AlphaImageLoader that may still be 
> lurking around. Memory hits

May have that - haven't checked.

> links not working when positioned over some images

There are workarounds for that, which I have used.

> can't be treated like a background image

Yep, can only be in the upper left corner and *can't repeat*. Which is why I 
use border images in IE 6 that are 25 pixels by 30000 pixels to match some 
of the very long boxes. :O Take no disk space at all, but may not be good on 
memory... I wish I could find a better solution for that. Luckily, in all 
other browsers, those images are never used.

> obviously won't validate.

Well, the IE 6 specific style sheet is inside a comment tag, so won't be 
visible to validators or other browsers.

> Doesn't look like you've got any of these problems from my first  glance 
> (bar css validation), but if something goes screwy in IE around one  of 
> these it'd be the first thing I'd look at.

I seem to get rather slow loading of the pages, which may be caused by the 
huge border images. I haven't observed any other problems.

> Oh BTW like the lined background, which scrolls smoothly TYVM.

:)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message