Absolute positioning between browsers
|
|
Thread rating:  |
mehstg1319 - 16 Apr 2008 10:41 GMT Hi there
Not sure if anyone can help me, I am working on a site for my university, and am having a bit of trouble with css positioning. I am very new to css and do not know very much about it.
Here is the link: http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html
Basically, the problem is that the ticks on the grid look perfectly placed in IE but wrong in Firefox, and when I edit it to match Firefox, it looks strange in IE.
Any ideas?
Paul
dorayme - 16 Apr 2008 11:04 GMT In article <4d83e9db-a7de-48f0-8ebb-3bcbd32927c6@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Hi there > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Any ideas? There are a fair few validation errors for the html via
<http://validator.w3.org/>
But never mind this for now. Why are you not using an html table, something that is particularly appropriate, that is known to be very cross browser friendly in many ways?
Up the text size and see how your page goes into fits (in FF, View menu, Text size, Larger a couple or more clicks). In your lists you are doing things like width: 80px; What do you expect will happen when the text, your html text ticks (which are not and cannot be pixeled successfully) don't fit in and worse.
I have spent some effort trying to convince various folks that some lists are at bottom tables. But this is taking things too far in some opposite conceptual direction!
Use a table and you won't then even have to specify widths for the cell. They will shrink and grow to fit. Why have you forsaken the benign magic of tables for the sorcery of lists and floating. They don't even have the advantage of floats by wrapping.
> Paul
 Signature dorayme
mehstg1319 - 16 Apr 2008 12:46 GMT > In article > <4d83e9db-a7de-48f0-8ebb-3bcbd3292...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - dorayme
First of all, thanks alot for taking the time to help me. I have done as you said and redesigned the grid to use standard tables. There still seems to be some discrepancies between how the site looks in IE and Firefox.
new version is uploaded here: http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrixtable/matrix.html
Any ideas
Paul
John Hosking - 16 Apr 2008 13:05 GMT >> In article >> <yaddayaddapointlesslylongbutabridgedM-Id@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Here is the link: >>> http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html >>> Basically, the problem is that the ticks on the grid look perfectly >>> placed in IE but wrong in Firefox, and when I edit it to match >>> Firefox, it looks strange in IE. If by "ticks" you mean the question marks I see in FF and the empty squares I see in IE6, then I guess you're talking about their vertical alignment with the left-hand labels. Yes?
>> There are a fair few validation errors for the html via >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> your html text ticks (which are not and cannot be pixeled successfully) >> don't fit in and worse.
>> Use a table and you won't then even have to specify widths for the cell. >> They will shrink and grow to fit. Why have you forsaken the benign magic >> of tables for the sorcery of lists and floating. They don't even have >> the advantage of floats by wrapping.
> First of all, thanks alot for taking the time to help me. I have done > as you said albeit only partially
> and redesigned the grid to use standard tables. There > still seems to be some discrepancies between how the site looks in IE > and Firefox. You do know that they are *always* going to be different for most non-trivial pages, don't you? They are, after all, different browsers.
> new version is uploaded here: http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrixtable/matrix.html > > Any ideas Make the /whole/ table a table, including the text labels on the left.
Also, I would say it is time to make your code validate (dorayme's remark notwithstanding). Any time you're bashing your head against differences between IE and FF, remember to check your code validity. It may not solve the problems you're having, but it almost never hurts.
HTH
 Signature John Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
dorayme - 17 Apr 2008 02:02 GMT > >> In article > >> <yaddayaddapointlesslylongbutabridgedM-Id@googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > differences between IE and FF, remember to check your code validity. It > may not solve the problems you're having, but it almost never hurts. Most of this I agree with, I see ticks, John sees ?s, I can't see the left list as quite to do with the ticks, seems to be some independent navigation? Frankly, it is not really obvious what this page is meant to be conveying.
You certainly must have as part of the table all those things that are relevant and that *includes the headings*. You have the headings in a horizontal list and are doing some lining up acrobatics with the table!
Tables are designed to have headings. Use its gifts. Put Consultancy, Bus Dev, etc in <tr><th>Consultancy</th><th>Bus Dev</th><th>.....</th></tr> before the rows with the <td>s.
You can style the headings to appear white backgrounded.
You are fighting to get everything squeezed in. Too much juggling and code. You will be disappointed unless you put the whole thing on a better and sturdier scaffold.
Time to go back to basics though rather than be battering at this page.
<http://www.htmldog.com/>
But do come back when you have something simpler and validated as best as you can.
 Signature dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty - 17 Apr 2008 02:34 GMT > But do come back when you have something simpler and validated as best > as you can. ..and after looking at the page with JavaScript disabled...
 Signature -bts -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
mehstg1319 - 25 Apr 2008 10:29 GMT Ok. Will sort the validation errors out now.
And in answer to your <heavy sigh> comment about what is taught in university nowadays.
I am not taking a HTML/CSS course, it is a sideproject. I have never used HTML or CSS until now, so this is my first attempt at it.
Paul
mehstg1319 - 25 Apr 2008 14:59 GMT Right, have redesigned the page from the ground up, and all shows as valid XHTML/1.0 Transitional
I haven't added any of the javascript to the page yet as I just want to get the page working properly!!!
One thing I am not happy with is that two of the Div's are absolute positioned, which I do not like.... Both boxKeyPersonel and boxMoreInfo are absolute positioned, but I cannot figure a way of getting them to sit next to boxAbout properly, if I use inherit, the box drops down below boxAbout.
Paul
Chris F.A. Johnson - 25 Apr 2008 20:02 GMT > Right, have redesigned the page from the ground up, and all shows as > valid XHTML/1.0 Transitional What page is that? Please provide a URL. (Note that you are posting to usenet, where previous posts in the thread may not be visible.)
Why are you using XHTML instead of HTML? Why transitional instead of strict?
> I haven't added any of the javascript to the page yet as I just want > to get the page working properly!!! Good! (99% of the JavaScript on the Web is unnecessary, and limits the page's audience.)
> One thing I am not happy with is that two of the Div's are absolute > positioned, which I do not like.... > Both boxKeyPersonel and boxMoreInfo are absolute positioned, but I > cannot figure a way of getting them to sit next to boxAbout properly, > if I use inherit, the box drops down below boxAbout.
 Signature Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
mehstg1319 - 28 Apr 2008 10:15 GMT Sorry, this is the address to the page
http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html
--Original Message-----------------------------------------------
Right, have redesigned the page from the ground up, and all shows as valid XHTML/1.0 Transitional
I haven't added any of the javascript to the page yet as I just want to get the page working properly!!!
One thing I am not happy with is that two of the Div's are absolute positioned, which I do not like.... Both boxKeyPersonel and boxMoreInfo are absolute positioned, but I cannot figure a way of getting them to sit next to boxAbout properly, if I use inherit, the box drops down below boxAbout.
Paul
Andy Dingley - 28 Apr 2008 12:51 GMT > http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html Why use tick.png when there's a perfectly good character for doing this? Try ✔, or ✔ if you can't get the encodings straight and prefer to use a numeric entity.
✓ ☑ are worth a look too.
mehstg1319 - 28 Apr 2008 13:01 GMT > >http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ✓ ☑ are worth a look too. I used the tick character before rebuilding and was criticised for using it as it appeared as squares on some systems.
Andy Dingley - 28 Apr 2008 14:53 GMT > > ✓ ☑ are worth a look too. > > I used the tick character before rebuilding and was criticised for > using it as it appeared as squares on some systems. Which ones? If you do this competently (i.e. use the entity, or set the encoding correctly) then it will work for anything within living memory. I'd venture to suggest that support for this would actually be wider than support for .png formats.
Tutors telling you to use absolute positioning for this simple task are in no position to comment on coding standards.
mehstg1319 - 28 Apr 2008 15:18 GMT > > > ✓ ☑ are worth a look too. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Tutors telling you to use absolute positioning for this simple task > are in no position to comment on coding standards. Tutors are not telling me to use absolute positioning. It is a side project, nothing to do with my course! I put that in previous posts.
I was simply asking for advice on how to build the bottom section of my page, as I have done it with absolute positioning but am not happy with it as I do not like using absolute positioning.
I have done very little HTML or CSS before so am pretty new to it!
Paul
John Hosking - 28 Apr 2008 15:14 GMT >>> http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html
>> Why use tick.png when there's a perfectly good character for doing >> this? Try ✔, or ✔ if you can't get the encodings straight and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I used the tick character before rebuilding and was criticised for > using it as it appeared as squares on some systems. For the record*, in case you mean me, I didn't *criticise* you for using whatever you were using; I just couldn't tell what they were supposed to be. As I recall, even View Source showed question marks.
Added to that is the fact that I'm not so familiar with "ticks" as nomenclature for, um, those things. I call them "check marks". (Or "checks", which some of my fellow Yanks would be keen to cash at a bank.)
"Ticks" are nasty little blood-sucking parasitic arachnids. Keep 'em off my browser, please. ;-)
*And &Diety; knows the Internet record has to be correct.
 Signature John The UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
mehstg1319 - 28 Apr 2008 15:50 GMT On 28 Apr, 15:14, John Hosking <J...@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html > >> Why use tick.png when there's a perfectly good character for doing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > John > The UIP:http://improve-usenet.org/ Didn't mean it as an insult when i used the word criticise, "Brought to my attention" would have probably been a better phrase to use!!
Have re-implemented the ticks/checks as characters again. Any chance you could let me know John if that is what they show up as in your browser.
Also, does anybody know how I can set up my boxes at the bottom not to use absolute positioning. I can't seem to get things to sit side by side using relative.
Paul
John Hosking - 28 Apr 2008 19:02 GMT >>>>> http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html
>>>> Why use tick.png when there's a perfectly good character for doing >>>> this? Try ✔, or ✔ if you can't get the encodings straight and >>>> prefer to use a numeric entity. >>>> ✓ ☑ are worth a look too.
>>> I used the tick character before rebuilding and was criticised for >>> using it as it appeared as squares on some systems.
>> ...I just couldn't tell what they were supposed to >> be. As I recall, even View Source showed question marks.
> Have re-implemented the ticks/checks as characters again. Any chance > you could let me know John if that is what they show up as in your > browser. In FF2 (and, uh, Netscape 7.1), question marks. In IE6, empty squares. Tested on a basic Dell PC with Windows XP Professional. No other box available here to test with.
View Source shows you are using ✓ which would be ✓ in decimal. With content="text/html; charset=utf-8", you ask for UTF-8 encoding. Everything ought to work, ISTM.
Except that the code point you've specified doesn't seem to be available in any of the fonts being used.
Your CSS asks (albeit not for this content) for Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; I don't have Helvetica on my PC, and Arial doesn't seem to have your checkmark. I believe my default sans-serif font is Arial, too.
Since you don't specify, my browser looks to its defauls, which in this case is @serif@ for these links (gridNavStyle a). For me, that's Times New Roman, which (surprise!) lacks a check mark at #x2713.
FWIW, The DB info at http://www.eki.ee/letter/chardata.cgi?ucode=2713 includes an empty entry for "found in charsets:"
In any case, I think I'm never going to see the CHECK MARK unless your CSS can point to a font-family that (1) contains a glyph for that code point and (2) is available on my PC. (There's a check mark thingy in my "Wingdings 2" character set, at the same position as most other fonts have the letter "P", but that info won't help you much on the WWW.)
Maybe some other better-informed person can help you further.
 Signature John Please trim the sigs from posts you reply to, even in GoogleGroups. Or *especially* in GoogleGroups.
Gus Richter - 28 Apr 2008 17:48 GMT > Sorry, this is the address to the page > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cannot figure a way of getting them to sit next to boxAbout properly, > if I use inherit, the box drops down below boxAbout. .boxabout add: float:left;
.boxkeypersonnel remove: position:absolute;top:2px; add: float:left;
.boxmoreinformation remove: position:absolute;top:2px;left:731px; add: float:left;
I also would like to know: "Why are you using XHTML instead of HTML? Why transitional instead of strict?" Do you have a very good reason for each?
 Signature Gus
mehstg1319 - 29 Apr 2008 19:07 GMT > > Sorry, this is the address to the page > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > Gus Gus
I am using XHTML as it was what I believed to be correct. If it would be better to set it a HTML I will
Paul
Bergamot - 16 Apr 2008 18:38 GMT >> > I am working on a site for my >> > university, and am having a bit of trouble with css positioning. >> > http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html <heavy sigh>
Is this what they're teaching at the university level these days? It's appalling. Please learn something about semantic HTML and get rid of about 90% of those div's and br's. http://microformats.org/wiki/posh
See also the links at the bottom of that page. Send your instructor(s) there, too.
> http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrixtable/matrix.html That's not really much better. You have the column headings completely outside the table to which they apply, in invalid list markup.
There are 46 validation errors, some of which are serious, like duplicate IDs.
The layout has issues as well. You are attempting to position text blocks at precise x/y pixel coordinates. This is doomed to fail because you cannot control the font size. Subsequently you end up with overlapping text, making it unreadable.
You need to start over, I think.
 Signature Berg
GTalbot - 16 Apr 2008 21:59 GMT http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~bp6ar/bus_intel/matrix/matrix.html
> > > Basically, the problem is that the ticks on the grid look perfectly > > > placed in IE but wrong in Firefox, and when I edit it to match [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > There are a fair few validation errors for the html via <http://validator.w3.org/>
Paul,
First fix all validation markup errors. This is the first step to do with your webpage. We can not go any further without fixing this issue. Fix CSS errors if there are any. If you need help on this, then visit:
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages:Makin g_your_page_using_web_standards_-_how_to and http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
Where can I validate my webpages? How to validate webpages? http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages:Makin g_your_page_using_web_standards_-_how_to#Where_can_I_validate_my_webpages.3F_How _to_validate_webpages.3F
You have to understand that there is no correct or incorrect webpage rendering when the markup code is invalid. So fix that and we will give you more info, recommendations, useful suggestions.
I agree with Bergamot. You misuse div and br; you over-use div and br: lack of semantic too.
{ Divitis and classitis Related to <span> mania. Adding unnecessary div elements and class attributes. Why? See “<span> mania” and “lack of semantics”. } Web development mistakes, redux http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200408/web_development_mistakes_redux/
" Classitis and Divitis A common error of beginning CSS coders is to use far too many <div> tags and class attributes (...) "
Web Page Development: Best Practices http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/bestwebdev.html
" Superfluous elements and classes When starting out with CSS, it’s common to make the mistake of using unnecessary XHTML elements, superfluous classes, and extra <div> elements. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the code will be invalid, but it counteracts one of the reasons of separating structure from presentation; to get simpler, cleaner markup. "
Developing With Web Standards Recommendations and best practices http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/css/#css
Fix your validation markup errors: then we will be able to offer additional assistance.
Why we won't help you http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you
Regards, Gérard
|
|
|