Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: > On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:08 PM, David Laakso wrote: > >> Michael Beaudoin wrote: >>> I think I know. Are you enlarging the type? >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:47 PM, David Laakso wrote: >>> Michael Beaudoin wrote: > What is broken? I'm looking at Fire

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> Even if points are not precise unit in CSS because of browser and OS >> problems most users can set their DPI in their preferences if it is >> not automatically determined from screen size (unless they are r

Re: [css-d] Main Content Following Left Sidebar

On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, David Hucklesby wrote: > Using the code from your site this morning, and simply adding > "overflow: hidden;" to the rule for .ul-tabs-nav put the border line > below the tabs, as I believe you want. Oh, man... I had added it to the .ui-tabs-nav:after rule i

Re: [css-d] Question about width and min-width in ul

Thanks. This did the trick. Chris Barth -Original Message- From: David Hucklesby [mailto:huckle...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:04 PM To: Christopher Barth Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: Re: [css-d] Question about width and min-width in ul Christopher Barth wrot

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: > What is broken? I'm looking at Firefox v3.5.2 and it looks ok to me. > > - http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/index.htm > - http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/services.htm >> > It looks fine in Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On 2009/08/11 12:26 (GMT-0400) Sam Brown composed: > I hate to skew the discussion by introducing another variable, but while > it is true that a layout designed using px for sizing is essentially > cemented in that size, all of the modern browsers I have seen now > emphasize page zooming over tex

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On 2009/08/11 12:24 (GMT+0200) Michal Suchanek composed: > ... Typically you look at the > screen from a distance similar to that from which you look at printed > paper Probably correct for laptops, but not for desktops, which is a large part of why the Windows default DPI assumption is 96: http:

[css-d] image cut-off in IE7

I did not create the original styles on this site - but am working to fix some things... Anyone see/know why the thumb image on the top middle content item (Consultancy Draws on Intimate Knowledge...) is cut off in IE7? http://www.apparelnews.net/features/profiles_qa/ I believe that this is the

Re: [css-d] Min-Width Question

> Under what circumstances might a container that has min-width set not > grow beyond the size of min-width? If the container doesn't need to grow beyond min-width. To put that answer in the context of your previous question, browsers would rather expand down than out. If an item can wrap, it w

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Sam Brown wrote: > I understand the argument from a purist perspective, > usability should be first and foremost in any design and/or > layout, but realistically, I don't see this as a practical > issue given the more common usage of page zooming over the > now declining exp

Re: [css-d] Main Content Following Left Sidebar

sono...@fannullone.us wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:48 AM, David Hucklesby wrote: > >> Odd. Adding "overflow: hidden;" to .ul-tabs-nav put the .ul-tabs-panel >> border below the tabs this end. On which browser does this not work? (I >> am on a Mac...) > > Same here - I'm using both Safar

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: >> >>> Is anyone seeing what David sees in Firefox? It looks fine to me in >>> Firefox Mac and PC. >>> >>> http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/index.htm >>> http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/services.htm >>> >>

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

On 12/08/2009, at 7:41 AM, Michael Beaudoin wrote: >> -- >> >> Message: 22 >> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:22:02 -0400 >> From: David Laakso >> Subject: Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7... >> To: Michael Beaudoin >> Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org >> Message-

Re: [css-d] Question about width and min-width in ul

Christopher Barth wrote: > I have a menu system that uses nested ULs. The main menu is a fixed > size, but I want the sub menu's to be variable width that will grow > to encompass the entire width of the menu item. I figured min-width > would do this; however, it only grows to be as big as the lon

Re: [css-d] Min-Width Question

On 12/08/2009, at 6:59 AM, Christopher Barth wrote: > Under what circumstances might a container that has min-width set not > grow beyond the size of min-width? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this question. Do you mean - what are some possible reasons as to why an element that you belie

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

> -- > > Message: 22 > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:22:02 -0400 > From: David Laakso > Subject: Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7... > To: Michael Beaudoin > Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Message-ID: <4a81c4da.6000...@chelseacreekstudio.com> > Content-Type:

Re: [css-d] Main Content Following Left Sidebar

On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:48 AM, David Hucklesby wrote: > Odd. Adding "overflow: hidden;" to .ul-tabs-nav put the .ul-tabs-panel > border below the tabs this end. On which browser does this not work? > (I > am on a Mac...) Same here - I'm using both Safari 4.0.1 and Camino 1.6.8 on OS 10.

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: > On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:08 PM, David Laakso wrote: > > >> Michael Beaudoin wrote: >> >>> I think I know. Are you enlarging the type? >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:47 PM, David Laakso wrote: >>> >>> Michael Beaudoin wrote:

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: > On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:08 PM, David Laakso wrote: > >> Michael Beaudoin wrote: >>> I think I know. Are you enlarging the type? >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:47 PM, David Laakso wrote: >>> Michael Beaudoin wrote: > What is broken? I'm looking at Fire

[css-d] Min-Width Question

Under what circumstances might a container that has min-width set not grow beyond the size of min-width? Chris Barth __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- h

Re: [css-d] Main Content Following Left Sidebar

sono...@fannullone.us wrote: > Hi David, > > Thank you for responding to my problem. > >> sono...@fannullone.us wrote: >>> I think I've narrowed it down. If I remove the following code in >>> the css-ui.tabs.css file: .ui-tabs-nav:after { display: block; >>> clear: both; content: " "; } >> [.

Re: [css-d] Styling forms

On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Krystian - Sunlust wrote: > Hi, maybe this isn't 100% CSS question, but I'm looking to build a > simple contact form, name, email, message and submit button (maybe > captcha too, but optional). > > The thing is that no matter how I construct a form it displays wrong,

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:08 PM, David Laakso wrote: > Michael Beaudoin wrote: >> I think I know. Are you enlarging the type? >> >> M >> >> >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:47 PM, David Laakso wrote: >> >>> Michael Beaudoin wrote: What is broken? I'm looking at Firefox v3.5.2 and it looks ok to m

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

But...the web isn't print. So, unless I'm creating a separate style sheet for print, I really don't care how it looks for other people. Theresa On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > On the other hand, designing in pixels is like saying "I design this > web for my screen a

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: > I think I know. Are you enlarging the type? > > M > > > > > > On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:47 PM, David Laakso wrote: > >> Michael Beaudoin wrote: >>> What is broken? I'm looking at Firefox v3.5.2 and it looks ok to me. >>> >>> - http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/index.htm >>>

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

Michael Beaudoin wrote: >> On 11/08/2009, at 1:10 AM, Michael Beaudoin wrote: >> >> >>> I just finished roughing out a site for a client and it looks good in >>> all browsers, except there is an alignment issue in IE 7. If you look >>> at these sample pages: >>> >>> - http://www.ba-doyn.com/ju

Re: [css-d] Styling forms

In order to help we'll need more information about what you've tried and a link of what your doing would be nice. Many of us have successfully created forms before, so this is not a technical difficulty. Also letting us know which technology your using would be very helpful. This is a form that e

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

- Original Message > From: Michal Suchanek > > 2009/8/11 Felix Miata : > > > Unfortunately, using pt, mm or in, regardless of DPI accuracy or screen > > resolution, doesn't work out all that much better than px. All but em/ex > > leave visitors' needs and preferences totally out of the

[css-d] Styling forms

Hi, maybe this isn't 100% CSS question, but I'm looking to build a simple contact form, name, email, message and submit button (maybe captcha too, but optional). The thing is that no matter how I construct a form it displays wrong, either in FF, IE7 or IE8. I've found some tutorials on Google, bu

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Theresa Mesa : > I'm designing for a *web* site. I'm not designing a business card. If I plan > for people to print it out, I can create a style sheet for that. > > I design for greatest usability and accessibility, if possible, checking on > the PC platform and Mac platform in a number o

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

I'm designing for a *web* site. I'm not designing a business card. If I plan for people to print it out, I can create a style sheet for that. I design for greatest usability and accessibility, if possible, checking on the PC platform and Mac platform in a number of browsers on each, but it's

Re: [css-d] Weird alignment issue with IE 7...

> On 11/08/2009, at 1:10 AM, Michael Beaudoin wrote: > >> I just finished roughing out a site for a client and it looks good in >> all browsers, except there is an alignment issue in IE 7. If you look >> at these sample pages: >> >> - http://www.ba-doyn.com/junk/saw/index.htm >> - http://www.ba-doy

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Felix Miata : > Unfortunately, using pt, mm or in, regardless of DPI accuracy or screen > resolution, doesn't work out all that much better than px. All but em/ex > leave visitors' needs and preferences totally out of the sizing equations. The difference is that with pt preferences like

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Theresa Mesa : > But...the web isn't print. So, unless I'm creating a separate style sheet > for print, I really don't care how it looks for other people. > > > Theresa Then you can as well draw a picture, print it out, and stick it to your wall. Or put plain text files on your site, no

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

I've learned much from this discussion. Thank you! Theresa On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:37 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > That's an easy one... 300px x 454px x 3 bytes/px = 408,600px, or > 399.0234k of actual, uncompressed image data. Add some headers and > metadata, and 399.3k sounds about right as

Re: [css-d] How to get window to crop image?

Hi guys, I guess I could just crop the image and make it 100%, but I would be "settling," I think, because based on what the current version is doing, I'm pretty sure I would see a little of my black background on either side. It won't really look like it continues beyond the window edge. C

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On 2009/08/11 11:11 (GMT+0200) Michal Suchanek composed: > Once you set the DPI properly sites designed in points, mm or em > should be reasonably readable for you. Em, yes, as long as the designer makes no assumption that the predetermined em is wrong and (arbitrarily) changes it. With pt & mm

[css-d] Question about width and min-width in ul

I have a menu system that uses nested ULs. The main menu is a fixed size, but I want the sub menu's to be variable width that will grow to encompass the entire width of the menu item. I figured min-width would do this; however, it only grows to be as big as the longest non-breaking string. I thus

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Rob Emenecker : >> Even if points are not precise unit in CSS because of browser >> and OS problems most users can set their DPI in their >> preferences if it is not automatically determined from screen >> size (unless they are running a particularly abhorrent >> browser + OS combination)

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Dave Sherohman : > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> Even if points are not precise unit in CSS because of browser and OS >> problems most users can set their DPI in their preferences if it is >> not automatically determined from screen size (unless they

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

> Even if points are not precise unit in CSS because of browser > and OS problems most users can set their DPI in their > preferences if it is not automatically determined from screen > size (unless they are running a particularly abhorrent > browser + OS combination). This brings up a very go

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Even if points are not precise unit in CSS because of browser and OS > problems most users can set their DPI in their preferences if it is > not automatically determined from screen size (unless they are running > a particularly abh

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 04:10:45PM +1000, Alan Gresley wrote: > 2. The 100px and 75pt boxes are the same size with a 96 DPI setting on a > monitor but also they are exactly 1 inch (using a ruler) in height and > width. ...which means that, within the limits of the accuracy of your ruler, your

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On 2009/08/11 16:10 (GMT+1000) Alan Gresley composed: > Very interesting discussion in which I am learning much. What you say > above got me thinking and I have decided to do a test case. > > This is what I note: > 1. The 96px and 72pt

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Felix Miata : > On 2009/08/10 16:22 (GMT-0700) Theresa Mesa composed: > >> What I find amusing about the admonition to use points is that points >> are printing-industry-based, not monitor- or Web-based. There are 12 >> points in a pica, or 72 points in an inch. Back in the day, one pica

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Theresa Mesa wrote: > Interestingly enough, as a learning exercise, I opened an image in > Photoshop, set the image size to 300px x 454px. File size was 399.3K, > regardless of what PPI it was. You were correct, Mike. > > Then I saved the image in Phot

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

Felix Miata wrote: [...] > The reason why IE does what it does, like other non-Gecko Linux browsers > other than Opera, is that its preference sizing is done in pt rather than px. > It is because 12pt equals 16px at (the Windows default of) 96 DPI that medium > happens to be 16px on most Windows sy

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

2009/8/11 Michael Stevens : > -Original Message- > From: hramr...@gmail.com [mailto:hramr...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michal > Suchanek > >>The problem is that the physical size is what the user sees, not the pixel > resolution. That's why it's better to avoid pixels and specify sizes in > p

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

On 2009/08/10 22:05 (GMT-0700) Michael Stevens composed: > From: Felix Miata [offlist, BTW] >> Not the monitor's actual DPI, but the DPI actually applied to the viewport, >> assuming a compliant browser with JS enabled: >> http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/dpi-screen-window.html >> http://fm.no-ip.com/au