Re: [css-d] menu problem
Roger Roelofs wrote: ... But, this time- for some reason the 'hover' does not look good. It is as if the bottom 1/4 of the 'green hover image' is cut off. http://www.pdrsolution.com/waters/index.html Patrick, ... The fix described is demo'd here: http://www.tfelice.com/testcase/offsetHoverMenu.html ... Anyone still see any mac/opera issues? It looks good in both ff1.5 and Op9pre on my mac. Actually better on Opera -- it withstands 200% zoom. Breaks after several font size increases in Firefox, and behaves very badly in IE 6 (all on XP SP2) on font size change. As Roger said, these are unrelated to the initial question, so same qualification applies. - Pat - Patrick Mannix On an unrelated note, there's no bg color set on body. I realize you are doing a demo for Patrick so if the original page doesn't have this problem, feel free to ignore me. Roger, __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Site Check
http://test.upc-orlando.com 3 column (home page) http://test.upc-orlando.com/ministries/children 2 column http://test.upc-orlando.com/gallery/gallery02.html 1 column I'm not a pro so be kind ;) No pro here either. I also just work pro-bono for non-profits. But I've received much help from this list will try to give back a little. This looks ok in win ie6 and firefox 1.7, but I'm sure it stinks in ie5 5.5 and who knows about Mac. Actually there is more work to do within the browsers you have available. I see you are targeting 800px window/viewport width. To avoid horizontal scroll bars on 800px viewports you need to set overall width to less. Many use 770px. I believe 748 is safe for most common browsers. Then play with font sizing. You fall victim to an IE misbehavior where extreme font changes result because you used 1em as the body default. Not that 1em isn't good -- these tired old eyes wish more folks start with that. Use percentage instead (only here, em's work fine after that). I use 100.01% and can't remember the exact reason for the fraction. I believe to work around an earlier Opera problem ... I can't figure out if and when and how to use what hack. You're doing the right thing to avoid hacks. Use them only when you have to. You asked us to be kind, so I'll only kindly offer that I was disappointed to see all the table tags. smile - Pat - http://xps.org/ and http://mhcug.org/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Repost: Mac site check
http://xps.org/test-fluid.html Looks fine in browsercam. http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=170039 ~dL Thanks to all who responded. I will make use of browsercam in the future to verify changes, now that I've got the basic design in place. - Pat - __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Repost: Mac site check
Larry Wishon wrote: only problem ... search box spilled outside the main box area ... Thanks Larry. I added a style rule for input and shortened the field length. Anyone for IE5/Mac? http://xps.org/test-fluid.html - Pat - __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Repost: Mac site check
Thank you Georg (and David L ... ). Your suggestions prodded me to dig in deeper and I'm pleased to say I now have a page - http://xps.org/test-fluid.html (css: http://xps.org/styles/xps-fluid.css) ... ** I would appreciate a site check using Mac browsers. ** ... Patrick Mannix http://xps.org/ http://mhcug.org/members.htm I'm reposting for two reasons. First, to apologize to David Laakso for getting his name wrong! Second, I sure would appreciate a page check on Mac browsers. Thanks! http://xps.org/test-fluid.html - Pat - __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Mac site check and IE question
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: You can use another IE-expression to simulate min-width, but there are a couple of things that should be taken care of first. Solution: put an xml-declaration above the DTD, like so: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en lang=en 2: You need one more wrapper, since two IE-expressions can't work on the same element. ...read more about this method, and its weak spots, here: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_02_01.html#item3 Also, read about 'conditional comment' for stylesheet linking. Thank you Georg (and David Lasko). Your suggestions prodded me to dig in deeper and I'm pleased to say I now have a page - http://xps.org/test-fluid.html (css: http://xps.org/styles/xps-fluid.css) that works on all Windows browsers that I tried (Win IE5 gracefully degrades to fixed width) with liquid design working from 769 to 1100 pixels in width, centered after that, behaving nicely below 769. ** I would appreciate a site check using Mac browsers. ** I took so long getting back on this because I make it a practice to not simply copy design approaches, but work them through, step by step myself. One objective I had was to design to the standards (ok, recommendations). I really didn't want to put IE into quirks mode. However, at one point in testing I had IE lock up. That did it! Now a believer in Georg's approach. There is one remaining css validation problem, but that is Mark Hadley's fix for IE Mac that is part of the float clearing rule, .clearfix. (display: inline-block; which is allowed under css 2.1). Patrick Mannix http://xps.org/ http://mhcug.org/members.htm __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Mac site check and IE question
Greg Salt wrote: http://xps.org/test08jun.html Looks great in Mac FF, Safari and IE Mac under Tiger. The layout breaks in IE Mac at 200% zoom but I don't think that is anything to worry about. Good job! Thanks Greg. Much appreciated. Pat __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Reassurance on site design
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Patrick Mannix wrote: ...I have tentatively decided that the fluid (?) design seen at http://www.mhcug.org/members.htm which seems to fit my requirements the best. I think that layout-method is best described as 'proportional', as it isn't really fluid. Thanks, I was searching for a better term. This proportional linking is overriding everything, so I'm seriously in doubt whether this proportional layout is doing any good for ordinary visitors, or if it just suits web designers wish for predictable results. Proportional pages don't break--they just become less accessible. Good point. Accessibility is highest among my priorities. I did like the not breaking part though. Should be obvious from the above that I prefer real fluid designs My advise is to test even more across browser-land, and look at other solutions / combinations. Georg, I am very pleased that you took the time to thoughtfully respond to my post. You certainly have provided much appreciated food for thought. It had been some months since I spent a great deal of time on your website. It provided much inspiration at the time, and my revisit today, particularly to your simple web pages http://www.gunlaug.no/homesite/main_7.html is sure to inspire even more! While my current approach met my requirements for simplicity, cross-browser compatibility with no hacks, and usability -- you pointed out accessibility issues I failed to consider. I thought I had covered that by testing among a group of seniors (our user group has a significant representation of retirees) and at least one blind tester (who used a screen reader, which doesn't reveal the issues you pointed out). So, I will take your advice and look for other solutions and test and test again! Regards, Pat __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Reassurance on site design
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Try http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1.html instead. They are slightly more prepared for the future. Also, read them as 'dated' material, as 'search for better solutions' is the only constant you'll find on my site. Thanks Georg. I have just begun to dive into all the goodies you present ... ... You must also try to find the point when you say it's ridiculous to go any further at this stage, or else you'll never find solutions that are working in most cases. To quote myself: People who like to argue in length about lack of access for their preferred software, should be listen to--up to a point. If accommodating one small group, makes web pages less accessible for the larger groups, then some software should be fixed, not our web pages. See: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03.html for more. I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to which solutions are better or worse, as web design is a bunch of compromises. The further we can push the limits, the better it'll work, but there will always be limits. Some of these limits are 'standardized', and some are best described as 'trends without foundations' (someone's untested personal preferences that are being copied, without further testing). Good luck, and share any findings with the rest of us. Frankly, I very much enjoy reading your perspectives on Web design (and cows, and gardens, and ...). In fact I agree with you on most everything. However I find myself overwhelmed with the complexity of your extremely innovative solutions. If one looks back to my earliest pages on the xps.org site you find a simple two column table that fit a 600 pixel wide browser window. Very simple, but sufficient to present the all-important content. I updated that design to present three columns in an 760 pixel browser window, using only CSS; but still very simple. The mhcug.org site is my testbed for further enhancing the design. Right now I'm satisfied that this design works in Windows 5, 5.5, and 6 through the full range of that browsers text sizes. It works plus or minus two size increments in Firefox. It does not pass the 200% zoom in Opera. My feeling at this point is that Opera represents a minority of my intended audience, so it is not a primary benchmark throughout the range of capabilities it offers. Don't misunderstand, I like Opera enough to have purchased my copy. I used it as my default browser for several months (since replacing it with Firefox). You have convinced me to delay implementing the proportional approach on my xps.org site. I will seriously explore a fluid design with max width (with IE work-arounds); but only if it meets my notion of simplicity. Otherwise I may just stay with a fixed width presentation. Thanks again for helping me to firm up my own objectives. Regards, Pat Patrick Mannix http://xps.org/ http://mhcug.org/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Reassurance on site design
I can't think of a better way to express what I'm asking. I developed and maintain two sites, http://xps.org/ and http://mhcug.org/, with the xps site being the most extensive (and important). They each evolved since the mid-1990s, using a basic two-column design using simple table layout. I've begun redesign of both, but using slightly different standards-based approaches. I have tentatively decided that the fluid (?) design seen at http://www.mhcug.org/members.htm which seems to fit my requirements the best. This design is classic three-column with header and footer. Column widths are in EMs, such that at default browser font settings, the page fits an 800 pixel width display. (First two or last two columns can display in 640 window.) The idea being that as screen resolution increases the USER settings are likely to be for larger font size. The columns will expand in proportion. I know there is no single best solution, but I hold line length to be an important usability concern. The question is: Is this a good approach before I begin converting my many (hundreds) of static pages? The XHTML and CSS (http://www.mhcug.org/styles/advanced.css) validate and most 508 issues are resolved (search box still needs attention). I have only tested in Windows and Linux browsers, so Mac reports would be appreciated. Nit picking encouraged! The real question is the reassurance one. Is this a satisfactory approach? Thanks for listening. Pat Patrick Mannix Webmaster, http://xps.org/ and http://mhcug.org/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Bullets are foobarred!!
Scott Blanchard wrote: Please take a look at this screenshot (JPEG): http://v5.octane8.com/destin/images/x8webtop_images/picture1.jpg Notice how the bullet images in the sitemap menu on the left are all mangled? Here's the actual URL to the page, can anyone else see the mangled bullets? http://activeinternational.com/activeLanding2.asp?id=113 Scott, I don't see the problem viewing with latest Firefox or IE 6 on WinXP Pro, 1024 by 768 resolution. Pat __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
