 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / November 2005Border not complete in IE6. Small 1px gap.
Hello all, I'm having a weird design issue with IE. The bottom borders on two of my div's stop 1px or 2px short of the right side of the div. In Mozzilla and Opera, these borders go completely to the end. It's almost like there's a 1px padding on the right side, but all my padding is set to zero. I'm not sure if the problem is in my css or in my html. You can see an example here: www.sayatnova.com/home_5.htm www.sayatnova.com/styles/home_5.css (this is the page specific css) www.sayatnova.com/styles/sndc.css (this is the generic css for the entire site) The border below "Top Headlines" and "Features" stops just short of the right side of the div in IE. In Opera and FF, it goes to the end and completes the box. I'm trying to convert the current design of this site to a table-less design and want to work out the bugs before I go live. Thanks in advance for any replies!  Signature>I'm having a weird design issue with IE. The bottom borders on two of my >div's stop 1px or 2px short of the right side of the div. > >www.sayatnova.com/home_5.htm You've got far bigger problems to solve first, in no particular order: a) Viewport width centric design aimed at a stupidly large 1024px width. b) IE centric design. c) Javascript dependency. d) Popup dependency. e) Java dependency? f) Acrobat dependency. g) Legacy coding (<font> tags for crying out loud) and doctype. h) A complete lack of document structure (aka as div soup). i) An idiotically large number of text colours. I could go on for a while like that. There is only one way to improve this awful mess, delete the whole lot, get a clue, then start again from scratch. SignatureSpartanicus Oh.....I get it. You're the Enforcer. Your job is to cruise this and other newsgroups, look for newbies and people just trying to learn, and belittle them. Your job is not to answer questions and spread knowledge, but to drive away as many newbies and information seekers as possible. I forget that people like you never started out as newbies, but had an intricate knowledge of site scripting at birth. Was there ever a time that you didn't know everything there was to know, Mr. Supereme One? I'm just *learning*. This is a *hobby*. I asked a simple question. If you don't want to provide me with an answer, that's fine. But if you just intend on critisizing, please just leave me alone and let someone else with a kinder heart answer my question. > a) Viewport width centric design aimed at a stupidly large 1024px width. That's my choice to make. > b) IE centric design. Site statistics show that 94.5% of the viewers of this site use IE > f) Acrobat dependency. So what if I want to have a link to a pdf document? That's my choice to make! > g) Legacy coding (<font> tags for crying out loud) and doctype. Just learning. See above. > i) An idiotically large number of text colours. So what? Again, that's my choice to make. Maybe I want to draw attention to certain text!? > I could go on for a while like that. Good for you. Your mother must be proud of you. Do you still live in her basement? > this awful mess, delete the whole lot, get a clue, Get a life! > > b) IE centric design. > > Site statistics show that 94.5% of the viewers of this site use IE That's a circular argument, though. If I make a site that doesn't work at all in a particular browser, I can't then use the argument that 0% of the visitors use that browser as an excuse to not fix it - of course none of them use it... Site statistics are also a highly unreliable mess (+/-10% margin of error at the best of times, +/-50% or more at worst) - see http://www.analog.cx/docs/webworks.html > > g) Legacy coding (<font> tags for crying out loud) and doctype. > > Just learning. See above. Best to start learning with good-quality modern code, though, otherwise you'll have to go through the stage which just about every web author goes through of needing to unlearn bad habits. The sooner you can get that out of the way, the better. <font> tags haven't been the best way to do fonts and colours since about 1997 (and they weren't a particularly good method then), and they're actually harder to write in any non-trivial case than the equivalent CSS. By stretched analogy, you can learn Italian (modern CSS+HTML) or you can learn Latin (ancient <font>y HTML). You can talk to people in both, but more people (browsers) are likely to understand Italian. SignatureChris >if you just intend on critisizing, please just leave me alone and >let someone else with a kinder heart answer my question. Hey Viken. I wouldn't worry too much about getting slammed on a tech group. It's not just you, it happens to everyone. That's why the readership on these groups is so small. >Site statistics show that 94.5% of the viewers of this site use IE It's possible that people on other browsers go to the site once, see it doesn't work, and don't come back, thereby raising the number of people on your site who use IE. Sorry I don't have an answer to your question. 1px gaps are very annoying. Sometimes it's as simple as taking out whitespace between tags, which shouldn't work, but it does (sometimes). Ian > Hey Viken. I wouldn't worry too much about getting slammed on a tech > group. It's not just you, it happens to everyone. That's why the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it doesn't work, and don't come back, thereby raising the number of > people on your site who use IE. In my defense, the site does work in other browsers. I think the bigger reason is that many people view the site at their work and, in the US, companies are dominated my Microsoft Windows/Office/IE. > Sorry I don't have an answer to your question. 1px gaps are very > annoying. Sometimes it's as simple as taking out whitespace between > tags, which shouldn't work, but it does (sometimes). I'll have to give that a try. Thanks for your kind reply. <comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets , Viken Karaguesian , vikenk@NOSPAMcomcast.net> <v9idnbPSFvwPjBfenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com> <Sun, 27 Nov 2005 03:05:28 -0500> > In my defense, the site does work in other browsers. You dont have to defend yourself to anybody on here - you arnt on trial and they arnt judges . Signaturewww.vhit.co.uk (create a short url) <comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets , Viken Karaguesian , vikenk@NOSPAMcomcast.net> <ON6dnf8zr-wclBfeRVn-uw@comcast.com> <Sun, 27 Nov 2005 02:31:03 -0500> > I'm just *learning*. This is a *hobby*. I asked a simple question. If you > don't want to provide me with an answer, that's fine. But if you just intend > on critisizing, please just leave me alone Dont know who you are replying to - but people like them are found on most types of web authoring newsgroups . They think other people should be as perfect as they are and its best just to ignore them . While sometimes they do make a valid point - they often say it in such a ego trip high handed manner their reply gets disregarded and that in turn makes it a bit pointless . Learn at your own pace and do what you want on your own website . Signaturewww.vhit.co.uk (create a short url) [...] > I'm just *learning*. This is a *hobby*. I asked a simple question. > If you don't want to provide me with an answer, that's fine. But if > you just intend on critisizing, please just leave me alone and let > someone else with a kinder heart answer my question. If you're learning, then it would seem a good idea to temper your artistic flair with a bit of an attempt to understand web design, and use current good-practice. *You* might suppose that this is about nothing more than achieving a desired visual result on your own display, but usually there are other readers to think about, with their own browsing situations to be taken into account. You don't win any friends by telling them from the outset that they chose the wrong browser and display settings. > > a) Viewport width centric design aimed at a stupidly large 1024px > > width. > > That's my choice to make. Your readers may take a different view. With such an enormous catalog of demands on the first page I meet, I'm going to take *some* convincing. You throw away the opportunity to convince with your actual /content/, when you start off on the wrong foot like that. The odd pixel at the edge of the window *is as nothing* compared with that. I soon left anyway, thanks to the distracting animations. Animations can do a fine job when /requested/, but they make it difficult (for some readers, indeed, "impossible") to concentrate on anything else on the page. > > b) IE centric design. > > Site statistics show that 94.5% of the viewers of this site use IE No wonder they "show" that, if you frighten others away. (I assume you aren't ready yet to understand the major uncertainties in such statistics, anyway). In other words, you don't *want* users of www-conforming browsers - you convince yourself that you don't *get* users of www-conforming browsers - and you have the gall to come here and say, in effect, that it's working as designed? Well, that isn't the stance which the WWW takes, and this is a usenet group about the WWW. > > g) Legacy coding (<font> tags for crying out loud) and doctype. > > Just learning. See above. Then /do/ the learning. There's no reason it has to impair your resulting web pages. Admittedly you got an outspoken reaction to your web site, but the chief impairment I can see here is your apparent resistance to learning anything from the experience. > Oh.....I get it. You're the Enforcer. Your job is to cruise this and other > newsgroups, look for newbies and people just trying to learn, and belittle [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of site scripting at birth. Was there ever a time that you didn't know > everything there was to know, Mr. Supereme One? Spartanicus' approach leaves much to be desired, but you should know that a lot of good advice lies beneath his spleen. > I'm just *learning*. This is a *hobby*. I asked a simple question. If you > don't want to provide me with an answer, that's fine. But if you just intend [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's my choice to make. True, but I do recommend making your choices such that you'll accomplish the most possible with your site, taking into account such factors as your users' screen resolution and how much the beauty of a 1024-pixel-wide is lost when a user has to scroll way to the right. >>b) IE centric design. > > Site statistics show that 94.5% of the viewers of this site use IE To some extent that's a circular justification. If your site only works in IE, then obviously people using other browsers aren't going to use your site. Your statistics only tell you about the people who do visit, not about the people who don't nor about why they don't. >>f) Acrobat dependency. > > So what if I want to have a link to a pdf document? That's my choice to > make! To reiterate my point under (a) and to make it a little stronger: You can also choose to have no visitors to your site--that's your choice to make! I'm exaggerating, but the point is that when people give you advice, they're not questioning your right to do what you want, they're telling you that you may be making life difficult for your users, and even hurting yourself as a result. Regarding PDFs, it is best if they are used as a means of conveying electronically a document that already exists in print form, as a substitute for having to mail it to them. They are especially useful when the exact layout and typography of the document is genuinely important. Beyond that, they are not the preferred form of communicating information over the web, however--that's what HTML was developed for. Harlan, Spartanicus may be a genius for all I know, but I did not appreciate the way he ripped me apart. Many of the things he critisized me on were matters of taste. Too many text colors? Page width? Where are there any rules that dictate how many text colors one can use? Yes, the site homepage is designed around 1024x768, but did he bother to see if it fits at 800x600? The answer is yes, it does. The whole point of the re-design of the homepage is so that it fits better at smaller resolutions. The site is viewable with other browsers. In the past I've had certain design bugs in other browsers that I couldn't figure out. So I just put a note on the site saying that it looks best in IE. What's the big deal? I'm trying to learn more so I can get those design bugs out. Instead of helping me out, he tells me to scrap the whole thing and start all over?! Why...because my text is too colorful and I have a Javascript based menu? Gimme a break. I don't flame anyone in any newsgroups, especially people looking for help, and I expect to be treated the same way. That's all. Viken K. I notice that Spartanicus never bothered to reply. A**hole. Ignore people like this. He or she most likely got laid off from a dot-bomb, had to sell their overpriced Bay Area home and Audi TT, now lives in flyover country creating sites for the local hardware store. The only thing people like this have to cling to is their "mastery" of "design." Viken, keep asking, keep learning, and keep an open mind. > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Thanks in advance for any replies! Your <DIV id=content> is acting suspiciously like the paragraph described on this page: http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/threepxtest.html If you add height:1%; to #content, then the gap goes away. Or you can take the HEIGHT: 30px off of the DIV.header > Your <DIV id=content> is acting suspiciously like the paragraph described > on this page: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or you can take the HEIGHT: 30px off of the DIV.header I took the 30px height out of the div.header and it worked perfectly. Thank you very much for the solution and a great link! Viken K. I notice that Spartanicus never bothered to reply. A**hole. > Your <DIV id=content> is acting suspiciously like the paragraph > described on this page: > http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/threepxtest.html > > If you add height:1%; to #content, then the gap goes away. I'd advise against using height to get around these IE bugs. The next version of IE may (finally) Do The Right Thing where this property is concerned, then you'll have an ugly mess. I suggest using zoom:1.0 instead. The result should be the same, and there's less risk. SignatureReply email address is a bottomless spam bucket. Please reply to the group so everyone can share. > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -- I do not have access to IE here, but have you tried that old trick of using "the great equalizer" as the first line in your CSS: body {margin:0; padding:0; border:0;} This, many times, does wonders to compensate for "those danged browser differences". In your CSS, you have quite a mixture of font-families...even in individual style attributes: body {... font-family: arial, "times new roman", verdana;... Did you intend to mix sans-serif, and serif, in one attribute? In many environments (such as many standard UNIX/Linux environments) "Arial" is not included in the default set-up...so the viewer would end up seeing a serif font, where you had made a sans-serif font *your* first choice. This difference could be just as "annoying" or "damaging" than your "1px problem". Instead, to help ensure that *everyone* sees things in the preferred sans-serif font, try something like: body {... font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} (always try to include the *generic* font-family name) ....... On to other matters: **This site is designed to be viewed full screen at 1024x768 resolution and may not look correct at lower resolutions. **The preferred browser for this site is Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 5.0 or higher. Certain features may not operate as intended with other browsers. **Please report any problems with the operation of this site to the webmaster. **The Adobe Acrobat reader is required to view some of the featured items on this website. If you don't have it, you can get it here. **If Pop-up Blocking software is used, please add this website to the "allowed sites" list. SNDC will never use pop-up windows to advertise or sell any 3rd party items. ***Please enable Javascript for full funcionality of this site. <<< Okay...I am certain, that by now, you have been endlessly scolded about this; but for many reasons, it is deserved. Contrary to what you may believe (even I had a hard time believing it...) there are *many* people who do *not* have their resolution set at 1024x768 (even those using 17-inch monitors)...perhaps as many as half the people. You will lose many of these people. Specifically stating the site is written for IE, also will repel people. Believe it or not (I was also surprised...) many entities, such as those in the public sector...do *not* use IE. For example, many terminals in my city's public library system run Windows 98, with Netscape as the browser (perhaps it is the city's method of "affirmative action", or "spreading the wealth" or "the quota system"?) Featuring links that require a .pdf viewer may also be counter-productive, for the above reason. Using "Click Here" as the text in your links, can get very repetitive, and can be annoying. You were able to incorporate some of your links as part of your normal sentences; so try to do all of them this way. Example: <li>Read our <a href="director.htm#interview">interview</a> with Sayat Nova Dance Company director Apo Ashjian!</li> Although, I am sure that many viewers will have a problem with the "blue on black" coloring of the links. SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10) ..... Marge: You don't have to join a freak show just because the opportunity came along. Homer: You know, Marge, in some ways you and I are very different people. Homerpalooza > body {... font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} I'd drop Helvetica from that list. There are multiple versions out there, and no 2 are quite the same. One may be very readable at the default font size and another not. You have no way to know which version a visitor has. I'd drop Arial from the list, too, just because it's ugly. ;) SignatureReply email address is a bottomless spam bucket. Please reply to the group so everyone can share. >> body {... font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} > >I'd drop Helvetica from that list. There are multiple versions out >there, and no 2 are quite the same. One may be very readable at the >default font size and another not. That's a new one on me, and I find it very surprising - specifically the last sentence. Do you have some documentation for it? From what (little) I've heard from font buffs, Helvetica is one of the better sans-serif fonts. >I'd drop Arial from the list, too, just because it's ugly. ;) I suspect a majority of readers will get it anyway if you just specify sans-serif. SignatureStephen Poley http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/ >>> body {... font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've heard from font buffs, Helvetica is one of the better sans-serif > fonts. If you ran Linux, you might already have the answer. I haven't counted pixels, but the URW version of Helvetica is probably about 80% the size of Adobe Helvetica. Those aren't the only 2 makers, either. SignatureReply email address is a bottomless spam bucket. Please reply to the group so everyone can share. > In your CSS, you have quite a mixture of font-families...even in > individual > style attributes: > > body {... font-family: arial, "times new roman", verdana;... Hmmm. I guess I need to read up on that a bit more. Maybe I'm nit sure what a "generic" font is. I thought that by declaring those font types I was saying: "the first choice is Arial. If the system doesn't have Arial, switch to Times New Roman. If there's no Times New Roman, make the final switch to Verdana". But from what you have written, I must be misunderstanding how the font-family declaration works. > Instead, to help ensure that *everyone* sees things > in the preferred sans-serif font, try something like: > > body {... font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} > (always try to include the *generic* font-family name) OK, so Sans-Serif is a generic font-family? I guess I have to read up on this just a bit more. >I thought that by declaring those font types I was >saying: "the first choice is Arial. If the system doesn't have Arial, switch >to Times New Roman. If there's no Times New Roman, make the final switch to >Verdana". That's basically it. The last bit is, "If none of these fonts are present, switch to the default font." For a reason I've never fathomed, everyone sticks to either serif or sans-serif fonts in their list. I do this too. You should end the list with the generic font name, either "serif", "sans-serif", "monospace", and, I think, "cursive" and "fantasy", in case none of your fonts are present, but if you still don't want the page to use the default font. It's also a good idea to put quotes around any font name that has spaces in it, like "times new roman". The font-family declaration I use on my main site is: font-family: "berling antiqua", "times new roman", times, serif; I started with the most obscure font (but the one I really want), then went to a popular alternative, then to (what I believe is) the more generic version of Times New Roman, and finally to whatever serif font is the default. That's at least how I do it. Like I said, the reasons for sticking to either serif or sans-serif are a mystery to me. Others will have a good answer, I'm sure. Ian > I started with the most obscure font (but the one I really want), then > went to a popular alternative, then to (what I believe is) the more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > either serif or sans-serif are a mystery to me. Others will have a > good answer, I'm sure. If the browser doesn't have an inkling that the font you are trying to portray is fantasy, and I doubt that it has a list of all possible fonts and their families available to it, it will substitute the default font which won't be fantasy. Best I can do and probably wrong :-) leo Signature<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/> > Contrary to what you may > believe (even I had a hard time believing it...) there are *many* people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > these > people. Right. And for that reason, I like to design the site so that it's flexible and still viewable at the smaller resolutions. That's one major reason that I'm moving away from the main table and am trying to incorporate this "liquid layout", one that shrinks and grows with screen size. But the main layout is designed to fit into a 1024x768 resolution. > Specifically stating the site is written for IE, also will repel people. > Believe it or not (I was also surprised...) many entities, such as those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > wealth" or "the quota system"?) I have to change the fine print in the site :>) In the past, I'd have some peculiarities with the site in Mozilla (and other browsers) and couldn't figure out why. It was easier for me to declare that site was "best view with IE" than to figure out the bugs. Now that I'm learning more about css and HTML and getting more into manual coding I'm rooting out those bugs so the site is more cross browser compatible. > Featuring links that require a .pdf viewer may also be counter-productive, > for the above reason. Sometimes, all I have is a PDF document. > Using "Click Here" as the text in your links, can get very repetitive, and > can be annoying. I've already started to move away from that. Thanks for the advice. It's much better presented by people like you than people like Spartanicus. Viken K. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.