Re: [css-d] button hover

[Kathy Wheeler]

On 21/01/2009, at 5:42 PM, Michał Zieliński wrote:

Lets say that one banner is 5KB * 4 = 20KB
With sprites it will take more or less 40KB.
It`s a huge difference to achieve such effect, don`t you think?


If you use absolute positioning and a small transparent gif with a  
transparent background to overlay the base image circle the  
additional overhead should be insignificant.


Cheers,
KathyW.


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] button hover

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Micha? Zielin'ski wrote:


http://zielinski.civ.pl/img/logo.jpg

it`s a bit smaller than it will be on page. All I`d like to get is
change the color of one circle on the left (the most inner one) from
red to black.


If change is going to be as minimal and simple as that on the final
image, I'd use an 8bit PNG, make the "changeable circle" transparent,
and switch background color.

If the button is foreground/PNG, one can manipulate both
background-color and background-image to create all sorts of effects
with minimal extra load.

regards
Georg   
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Pragmatic look at our CSS future - ripped from: The CSS Overlords

[Nancy Johnson]

A few weeks I was talking to a web design faculty member at a
well-known art school, and was surprised to hear that she didn't know
much about css and when her design broke, she had to ask a web
developer to fix it.  To me design/development go hand in hand.  How
can one design without knowledge of the limitations of the medium.

It seems to me that the biggest mistake early on was when print
designers who started design webpages found they couldn't control the
font and look and started designing with Photoshop, then sliced and
diced into a web page.

Nancy

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun  wrote:
> David Laakso wrote:
>>
>> Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>>>
>>> Erika Meyer wrote:
>
 The way toward change in web design trends is always by setting
 examples, especially high-profile examples.
>>>
>>> Know of any existing ones out here?
>>
>> There are some out there. Not many. There will be more. Someone will break
>> the barrier. Others will follow suit...
>
> After having gone through all responses so far, my (maybe somewhat
> premature) conclusions and follow-up questions are as follows:
>
> 1: most barriers are not really web design related, and they are not
> well defined. Makes it hard to break them.
>
> 2: the basic design-goals are quite narrow - look/feel/use in regular
> browsers on regular screens. If/when media requirements change, these
> basic goals tend to limit freedom of movement.
>
> Ron Zisman wrote:
>>
>> because i do photoshop mock-ups doesn't mean i'm using tables and slicing
>> and dicing graphics to make 100lb pages
>
> You're perfectly right - it doesn't. However, you deal with both design
> *and* coding, so you can make those sides meet in a balanced way.
> The front-end coder handed a photoshop design and being told to "code
> this", may not be so fortunate.
>
> -
>
> Sticking to those regular browsers on regular screens:
>
> 1: it's unclear where one draws the lines between new/supported and
> old/obsolete browsers.
>
> 2: it is unclear how one (somewhat safely and intelligently) deals with
> browsers above and below those lines(1:).
>
> 3: it is unclear if/when/how one tests beyond a limited range of
> new/supported browsers.
>
> Think I've just touched on a few barriers that definitely are inside our
> playing-field, to the degree clients/time/economics allow for.
> Can someone provide input on these issues?
>
> (No back and forth arguing, please, as we don't need to reach consensus.
> Having many alternatives listed up is better than defining "best
> practices".)
>
>
> Myself, I naturally enough approach the support-issue from the top down,
> and drill as far down as I get paid for.
> Since "pay" isn't an issue on my own site, I tend to drill a little
> further there...
> 
> ...not just because I can, but also because I may need the know-how one
> day.
>
> -
>
> Looking beyond those regular browsers on regular screens:
>
> 1: often it's like hearing a "what? anything there?" response, followed
> by a "sorry, we didn't take that into account during the various design
> phases." To a large (and growing) degree HTML/CSS can deal with other
> media, so I guess it is up to us.
>
> 2: using WCAG2 as short-cut for widening the horizon beyond regular
> screens and browser-defaults...
> To a large (and growing) degree our humble HTML/CSS can deal with all
> those requirements/needs too, so that's up to us too.
>
> Also well within our playing-field, and the demand (from clients and
> others) seems to grow. The question is: how, if at all, are we dealing
> with this?
>
> -
>
> Revisiting the start of this thread:
>>
>> Ingo Chao wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a discussion like: how do we use CSS 3 with an IE6-userbase of
>>> greater than x% in years to come?
>
> IE6 vs. CSS3 doesn't create many problems, since IE6 doesn't support
> much of what's in the CSS3 modules. IE6 needs fallbacks so it doesn't go
> completely nuts with its buggy and weak CSS1/2 support, that's all.
>
> Searching around reveals quite a wide spread of browsers in use on
> various screens and operating systems - some of which can't/won't be
> upgraded, and with numbers of web users well above one billion already I
> find calculating in, and basing graded support on, percentages a little
> short-sighted.
> FWIW: Firefox 2.x and other versions using the same and older Gecko
> engines, are more of a problem than IE6 when it comes to CSS3, at my end.
>
> If we can present and share practical solutions for various issues based
> on what HTML/CSS can deliver and browsers can absorb without going nuts,
> we may be able to design better in the future. I think that's a pretty
> common goal, so I'm asking for more input that can lead us towards that
> goal. The CSS-D Wiki pages are showing age and weaknesses, and could do
> with some updates/upgrades.
>
> regards
>Georg
> --
> http://www.gunlaug.no
> _

Re: [css-d] Font size

[David Laakso]

Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:


I have been doing some inital work since my post and found IE7 is also ignoring 
font size and the window size is different. Firefox is set to my minimum of 800 
by 600 and IE 7 is displaying 1024 by 768. I can only get simular font size 
between Firefox and IE7 is when I set Firefox to 1032 by 776. Having Firefox 
3.0.5 and IE7 both at 1024 by 768 creates the same font size issue. The URL you 
wanted is:

http://www.choroideremia.org/new/crf_header.php

Angus MacKinnon
  


Angus meant to send the above to the list.



--

A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming.

http://chelseacreekstudio.com/

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] Help: CSS (horizontal) scalable buttons using for IE6 with a slight variation...

[Stephen Tang]

Dear Mustafa,
Thank you for looking at my code.  Your second solution is what I was
trying to do.  I was trying to make sure that the right image
(btn_right_side_long_on.gif) would "widen" or "narrow" itself as the
length of the text string changed.  Obviously, if a text string was so
long that it exceeded 300px, then it would break, but I see this as an
acceptable compromise.  I also am willing to accept that if the text
was enlarged, it would break.  I appreciate the time you took to look
at this.

Your first solution, which used the combined image, was not the
desired solution because I need the button to "resize" itself within a
certain range.

Yes, I agree with you that based on current web development best
practices, being able to add hooks into the markup would provide more
solutions.  Unfortunately, this was a project that had already been
developed before my time.  I am not a ASP.NET developer, but for
future projects, I will try to advise the development team to use
different controls (or none at all) to allow more UI coding
flexibility

Thank you for reminding me about IE6's :hover limitation.  I had
forgotten about that.

--Stephen


>More proper methods would require some hooks inside  like a 
>or you need to forego the rounded corners on the right side. This is
>considering you cannot edit the anchor element. This is why planning
>before you define the mark-up is very important.
>
>Remember, IE6 does not support the use of :hover pseudo class on every
>element. In your case . It can be done using Javascript.

>2. Here is the one I think you were trying to do. Using the existing
>images(reset the paths). Warning: Text-resizing will have some weird
>effects.
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] Footer-problem

[Ib Jensen]

Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html

The page in FF
http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ff.jpg

The page in IE
http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ie.jpg

Whats going on here ???

-- 
Regards / Mhv.
Ib K. jensen - http://ikjensen.dk
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Drop Caps

[Ron Koster]

Firstly, thanks for your reply, Holly -- and also thanks to Jen, too, 
for the tip (in a separate message) on the book to look for


At 11:59 AM 1/19/2009 -0600, Holly Bergevin wrote:
As with most things CSS, you'll need to test the effect you want in 
the environment it's going to be placed. Oh, and in a variety of 
browsers as well to see if the results are acceptable to you.


Actually, I had already done that before I even posted my question, 
tested out different variations of the drop cap style that I'd gotten 
from the wiki site for this list, and also ran my page through 
Browsershots and tried it out in 40+ browsers -- it seemed to work 
okay for the most part, except for a couple of browsers where things 
went a little bit haywire (I forget which browsers, but I think they 
were "less popular" ones, so if things go funny for, like, 0.01% of 
my visitors, well, that's too bad, but I suppose I could live with that).



it is doubtful that the author would suggest padding in ex units at this time


I seem to recall a fairly recent thread here on that subject -- in 
fact, I saved a bunch of font-related posts, so I should go through 
them (again) and see what they had to say about that (again).


On a similar note, for all these many years (ever since I first 
implemented CSS on my sites) I've had my base font size set at 14px, 
because that was -- apparently -- what tons of research said was the 
best way to go, at least at *that* time (years ago). From the 
aforementioned recent thread it would seem not to be the way to go, 
though, and so now I've been re-thinking how to do up the font sizing 
on my site. Argh.


That's a discussion for a separate thread, though, of course (if 
there's anything further to discuss, that is).



Another page that may give you an example is -

http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_04.html


Nicely laid out page, Georg (assuming you're reading this)! As an old 
"table layout" guy (for the time being, at least), when I look at the 
source code for pages like yours, though, I find that I'm just 
utterly mystified, it's hard for me to make head or tail of how you 
did certain things -- but that'll all come in time, I suppose. :/


The nature of web pages and browsers is not static like print, and 
there are a variety of variables that can come into play on any 
given page. If you don't like the look of the padding, take it out, 
or adjust it until you do like it. That's one of the beautiful parts of CSS


That may be what's beautiful about it, but it's also what worries me 
about it -- that is, whether what I create today (which might seem to 
work well enough cross-browser/platform) will still work tomorrow, 
whenever some new browser version (or new browser!) comes out.



Good luck, Ron, and keep experimenting.


I think that's part of it, too -- I don't want to spend all my time 
"experimenting", I really just want to get things "published", over 
and done with. I wish one didn't have to experiment and test 
practically everything -- I wish things were developed enough already 
that there was just simply tried-and-true ways to do certain things, 
so that one could just do them and not have to worry about them, 
whether they look/work okay (and will continue to do so for the long haul).


Maybe, at middle-age (but sometimes feeling more like a senior!), I'm 
just getting too old for this. Ah, if only I could have what I know 
now, but could be a teenager once again...


Ron :/ 


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

[Ron Koster]

At 11:18 PM 1/19/2009 +0100, bruce.som...@web.de wrote:

condiional comments are claptrap of the top order.


Can you explain what you mean by that? As suggested here, I tried it 
out (specifically to implement just those IE scrollbar "features") 
and it seems to work just fine.


Ron :? 


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Ron Koster]

At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote:

> At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts



Ask anyone not on a fast internet connection. Not everyone has the
luxury (utility?) of high speed internet connections such as those
most of us on this list enjoy.


I must have a slow "brain connection", because something about the 
above just hit me: how fast a page renders has nothing to do with the 
speed of your internet connection, but rather the speed of your 
computer. You would *download* the files faster or slower depending 
on your connection, but they only start rendering once they actually 
reach your computer, of course -- and, hence, it's the speed of your 
computer that would be the relevant factor.


In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for 
CSS pages to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow(er) 
computer -- it would have to be an extremely, extremely complex page, 
I would think, for it to be any difference greater than negligible.


Ron :) 


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Kevin Doyle]

I must have a slow "brain connection", because something about the above just 
hit me: how fast a page renders has nothing to do with the speed of your 
internet connection, but rather the speed of your computer. You would 
*download* the files faster or slower depending on your connection, but they 
only start rendering once they actually reach your computer, of course -- and, 
hence, it's the speed of your computer that would be the relevant factor.

In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for CSS pages 
to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow(er) computer -- it 
would have to be an extremely, extremely complex page, I would think, for it to 
be any difference greater than negligible.

Ron :) 



It's ~both~ how quickly your computer can process the page and how quickly your 
computer can download the page; however, it's mostly how quickly you can 
download a page because the processing load of a single web page, no matter how 
complex, is very, very small. Think of how quickly an HTML page displays when 
you view it locally versus online. 
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Ron Koster]

At 12:57 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Kevin Doyle wrote:
It's ~both~ how quickly your computer can process the page and how 
quickly your computer can download the page; however, it's mostly 
how quickly you can download a page because the processing load of a 
single web page, no matter how complex, is very, very small. Think 
of how quickly an HTML page displays when you view it locally versus online.


I guess it just depends on how one defines "rendering" -- to me, that 
means the process of taking all the parts, performing whatever 
calculations are needed in order to place them in the correct places 
(and with whatever effects, etc.), and then putting everything 
together as a whole. Rendering a graphic in photoshop, or rendering a 
video file, is basically the same thing, in that sense -- you already 
have all the parts, it's just putting it together (or applying an 
effect or whatever) in the correct, specified way -- and thus 
"downloading" isn't a part of that process.


In fact, this brings me back to my early learning about web design, 
when we were all taught (as we are still) the importance of 
specifying image height/width tags and stuff in our code, so that the 
page (HTML) could *render* itself and display correctly even as the 
images were still downloading, i.e. two separate processes 
(downloading and rendering).


But that's me, how I define "rendering", I suppose -- and I guess if 
others include downloading in that process... well, there you go.


Ron :)

Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com
Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org
Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Joseph Sims]

I know this whole thing is did to death already... but I just read some of 
this, and it makes me think.

I suspect that a lot of the table based layout enthusiasts are people who made 
a switch (partial even) from desktop publishing. Ron mentioned he did, and I 
have some clients that have websites built in tables that think like the 
webpage is a printed page. Most of them never look at code at all, they just 
use Dreamweaver or something, and they want their content to sit on a page and 
not move, the text to be the same size that they said it was going to be, and 
look the same way to everyone... just like a book/brochure/what-have-you.

I do desktop publishing as much as web development, and learned how to make 
websites in tables initially (in school, before professional work), but I see a 
huge divide in the thinking behind the mediums, and having a creative 
comparison between the two is like comparing video to a postcard. 

As far the need for change on your websites being, maybe every five years, I 
think that has to do with your not being in the professional realm, and not 
having demanding clients. But if I had a couple hundred pages, and my clients 
said they changed their logo or banner or something, I would be scared to make 
the change  in tables. And the idea of a webpage being there forever and living 
on after we die... it's only gonna live as long as the server is maintained, 
and someone has to do that. I would rather make something that any forward 
thinking web developer could take out of my hands an run into the future with 
after I die.

I do a lot of clean up in table based layouts for clients, and even though I 
know how, it's alot easier to work in code written with semantic  tags.


I wonder, Ron, do you use a WYSIWYG editor to make your tables? Or do
you get in the code and type in you  &  tags?


  
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Font size

[David Laakso]

David Laakso wrote:

Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:


I have been doing some inital work since my post and found IE7 is 
also ignoring font size and the window size is different. Firefox is 
set to my minimum of 800 by 600 and IE 7 is displaying 1024 by 768. I 
can only get simular font size between Firefox and IE7 is when I set 
Firefox to 1032 by 776. Having Firefox 3.0.5 and IE7 both at 1024 by 
768 creates the same font size issue. The URL you wanted is:


http://www.choroideremia.org/new/crf_header.php

Angus MacKinnon
  






Angus,

In order to get benefit and help from the entire membership of the list 
*please* reply to the list. Not me.

Best bet for starters is to validate the CCS

and the markup

~d


--

A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming.

http://chelseacreekstudio.com/

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Drop Caps

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Ron Koster wrote:

Another page that may give you an example is -

http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_04.html


Nicely laid out page, Georg (assuming you're reading this)! As an old
 "table layout" guy (for the time being, at least), when I look at 
the source code for pages like yours, though, I find that I'm just 
utterly mystified, it's hard for me to make head or tail of how you 
did certain things -- but that'll all come in time, I suppose. :/


FWIW: the basic layouts on my private site...

...are just overbuilt and overstyled versions of "negative margins"...

Once you've understood how "negative margins" work, such layouts are
relatively easy to create and work with.

A different approach for achieving pretty much the same look/feel and
cross-media flexibility can be found here...

...and the HTML/CSS is definitely simpler and should be easier to
understand. Haven't tuned it or added full support for older browsers to
it yet though, since it's just a "proof of concept" example.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Del Wegener]

I know this whole thing is did to death already... but I just read some of 
this, and it makes me think.


I suspect that a lot of the table based layout enthusiasts are people who 
made a switch (partial even) from desktop publishing. Ron mentioned he 
did, and I have some clients that have websites built in tables that think 
like the webpage is a printed page. Most of them never look at code at 
all, they just use Dreamweaver or something, and they want their content 
to sit on a page and not move, the text to be the same size that they said 
it was going to be, and look the same way to everyone... just like a 
book/brochure/what-have-you.


I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so insistent 
the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising company) be as 
static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG image of the desired 
page and I was instructed that web page was to consist of that single image.


There is very little to be done when the client insists.

Del 



__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Footer-problem

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Ib Jensen wrote:

Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html

The page in FF http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ff.jpg

The page in IE http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ie.jpg

Whats going on here ???


The "auto-expansion" bug in IE6 and older. IE6 doesn't respect declared
dimensions, and treats all elements as if they were expandable table-cells.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Ron Zisman]

On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ron Koster wrote:


At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote:

> At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts



In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for  
CSS pages to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow 
(er) computer -- it would have to be an extremely, extremely  
complex page, I would think, for it to be any difference greater  
than negligible.




i think we are talking about file size here. when css resides in a  
remote style sheet, all styles are written once. when styles are  
inline, they are repeated numerous time, thus enlarging the file size  
and parsing time (on your computer


--the other ron

Ron :)


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Footer-problem

[Ib Jensen]

2009/1/21 Gunlaug Sørtun :
> Ib Jensen wrote:
>>
>> Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html
>>
>> The page in FF http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ff.jpg
>>
>> The page in IE http://ikjensen.dk/test/wsimage/ie.jpg
>>
>> Whats going on here ???
>
> The "auto-expansion" bug in IE6 and older. IE6 doesn't respect declared
> dimensions, and treats all elements as if they were expandable table-cells.


Well, then I hope that I somehow can get FF to look like IE in this
situation. Because IE is showing the Footer as I want it to look.

Or, should I think in a different direction, and get it to look like
FF, with some height-declarations ?



-- 
Regards / Mhv.
Ib K. jensen - http://ikjensen.dk
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Ron Koster]

At 01:32 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Joseph Sims wrote:

I know this whole thing is did to death already...


Actually, I agree, believe it or not -- I don't know what else could 
be said, really, about the whole tables vs. CSS layouts thing. I only 
popped back in under that subject heading, though, because that 
afterthought occurred to me regarding CSS making the page render 
faster, supposedly in relation to one's connection speed, which I 
disagree (still) is the case.


Didn't mean to re-beat the already dead fish/horse. ;)


I wonder, Ron, do you use a WYSIWYG editor to make your tables? Or do
you get in the code and type in you  &  tags?


I've typed in my own code since the beginning, first doing it in 
plain ol' Notepad (when I first learned web design, back in the early 
1990s) and then eventually using Macromedia Homesite -- which, 
although now outdated (as far as certain "wizards" and stuff go, 
which I don't even use anyway), is still what I very happily use 
virtually exclusively, except for *some* editing of CSS files that I 
use TopStyle for.


Ron :) 


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords

[Ron Koster]

At 04:18 PM 1/21/2009 -0600, Del Wegener wrote:
I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so 
insistent the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising 
company) be as static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG 
image of the desired page and I was instructed that web page was to 
consist of that single image.


In a case like that, I would recommend that the page at least be in 
PDF format instead -- at least then it could have text that's 
selectable, is more accessible for the visually impaired, and for 
these latter reasons can be indexed by search engines.



There is very little to be done when the client insists.


That's one of the reasons I don't do this professionally any more.

Ron ;)

Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com
Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org
Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Footer-problem

[Bobby Jack]

> Ib Jensen wrote:
>
> Well, then I hope that I somehow can get FF to look like IE
> in this
> situation. Because IE is showing the Footer as I want it to
> look.

A classic problem: due to IE's bugs, it displays the page incorrectly, but as 
required. It's only natural to blame the non-IE browsers in this kind of 
situation, but developing for one of those browsers first is a generally 
recommended approach.

In this specific case, your problem is that the container #sidefod doesn't 
expand to contain its children (.split_right and .split_left) because they are 
floated. If you're ever curious as to WHY this behaviour is ingrained in CSS, 
check out [1]).

There are various methods of clearing the floats, some of which involve extra 
(non-semantic) markup, some additional CSS. Try searching the web for 
"self-clearing floats" for example. One quick and easy solution is to add 
'overflow: auto' to #sidefod, but please read up about some of the alternatives 
first, because there are various side-effects of each method, and you'll want 
to use the right one.

[1] http://www.fiveminuteargument.com/float-container

- Bobby


  
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Footer-problem

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Ib Jensen wrote:

Link : http://ikjensen.dk/test/common/blank.html



The "auto-expansion" bug in IE6 and older.


Well, then I hope that I somehow can get FF to look like IE in this 
situation. Because IE is showing the Footer as I want it to look.


Replace your footer-styles with the following - verbatim...

div#sidefod {padding:0.5em 1em;border-top:5px solid #191970; overflow:
hidden;}
* html div#sidefod {overflow: visible; height: 1%;}

...and all browsers will "follow IE6' lead" and "auto-expand" :-)

The difference is that good browsers will "auto-expand" the footer
because they're told to do so, and not because they're buggy.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] Characters After Identifier?

[johny why]

~~~
"problem with the !important identifier that wasn't fixed in IE 7 is the 
treatment of non-alphanumeric characters after the identifier"

http://www.javascriptkit.com/dhtmltutors/csshacks3.shtml

when would you ever use characters AFTER !important? the proper syntax is:

h1 { height: 35px !important; }

can someone give me an example of putting alphanumeric characters AFTER the 
identifier?


thanks, johny.
~~~

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Font size

[Hayden's Harness Attachment]

David

> In order to get benefit and help from the entire membership of the list 
> *please* reply to the list. Not me.

Sorry. I pressed Control + R for reply and only your email address appeared in 
the "To:" field.

I validated and fix the few errors. IE7 will give 18 point Verdana and no 
matter what window size I use, Firefox 3.0.5 says "13 point Verdana".

Angus MacKinnon
Infoforce Services
http://www.infoforce-services.com

"Faith is the strength by which a shattered world shall emerge into
the light." - Helen Keller

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Help: CSS (horizontal) scalable buttons using for IE6 with a slight variation...

[Mustafa Quilon]

> 2009/1/21 Stephen Tang :
> Thank you for reminding me about IE6's :hover limitation.  I had
> forgotten about that.

Hi Stephen,

You can add a fix for IE using javascript[1][2].

> Thank you for looking at my code.  Your second solution is what I was
> trying to do.

You're welcome.

[1] - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dropdowns/

[2] - http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-37253.html

-
Regards
Mustafa Quilon
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Scrollbar styles (etc.) & validation

[Mustafa Quilon]

I recently used jquery's JScrollPane plug-in[1]. It worked fine across
most browsers. Only Opera had some weird behavior.

I used it 'coz the other team at work was using the IE specific styles
and were not happy with it. I suggested them JscrollPane and
implemented it. Looks fine but in my opinion its just a overhead.

But I wouldn't recommend its use to anyone unless you have to!

[1] http://www.kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/jScrollPane/jScrollPane.html

-
Regards
Mustafa Quilon
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Font size

[David Laakso]

Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:

David

  
In order to get benefit and help from the entire membership of the list 
*please* reply to the list. Not me.



Sorry. I pressed Control + R for reply and only your email address appeared in the 
"To:" field.
  



No problem.



I validated and fix the few errors. IE7 will give 18 point Verdana and no matter what 
window size I use, Firefox 3.0.5 says "13 point Verdana".
  



Good!

As I understand it, your uri is:




Could you attempt  to validate the markup as well?


As ever,
Helen




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Characters After Identifier?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

johny why wrote:


http://www.javascriptkit.com/dhtmltutors/csshacks3.shtml

when would you ever use characters AFTER !important?


As the "unrecommended hacks" page says: if one wants to make a
property/value work in IE7 and below only.

The proper syntax followed by the improper syntax will then be:

h1 { height: 35px !important;  height: 25px !important!; }

...and only IE7 and below will apply the 'height: 25px' styles.

The example is _as presented_ in that page, and, unfortunately, some use
that and other invalid CSS constructions in all sorts of strange and
mostly nonsensical ways - quite often for no good reason at all other
than that they have picked them up somewhere and don't know any better.

Further comments...

...especially the *not for serious use* part.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/