 |
 | 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 / HTML / October 2008why no text+shading in Firefox?
Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text - which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.) For example, if you look at the following page website: http://www.davidcade.net See the two yellow lines saying "Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON ! With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide !" Now look at those two lines in Internet Explorer. There's black shading around them. Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce shading behind text? Is there a way of getting around this by using html? Thanks. P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not being able to show shading? > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text - > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer > (not that IE should be used as the standard, and I haven't tested > whether other browsers, like Opera, are the same.) If there is a difference between IE and any other browser then bet on IE being wrong. > For example, if you look at the following page website: > http://www.davidcade.net AAARRGGGG. No thanks. So bloody red! And, BTW I see no difference between FF and IE. > > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text - > > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And, BTW I see no difference between FF and IE. Thanks, RF. You (and Harlan) have pointed to the fact that IE6 is prepared to faithfully reproduce shading behind text, while IE7 (like FF) is not! Damned nuisance, I say! Thanks for your help. > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text - > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce > shading behind text? That's correct. Other browsers can't reproduce effects created in IE by using non-standard Microsoft inventions that the makers of the other browsers didn't copy from Microsoft. > Is there a way of getting around this by using html? No. And even in IE it isn't done using HTML. > Thanks. > > P.S. If you look at the name "David Cade" at the top of the page, it > has black shading, but you can't select the words "David Cade" because > they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not > being able to show shading? It isn't a "problem" any more than it would be a problem if Microsoft hadn't implemented it either. It's a cool feature, but hardly a necessary one. > > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce > > shading behind text? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hadn't implemented it either. It's a cool feature, but hardly a > necessary one. Thanks a lot, Harlan. Your answers are really helpful. Really appreciate it. >>> Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce >>> shading behind text? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Thanks a lot, Harlan. Your answers are really helpful. Really > appreciate it. There are ways, but it is kind of messy with absolute positioning and doubled content... <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us"> <title>Shadow</title> <style type="text/css"> body { background: #804; color: #fadb61; } div.shadow { font: 1.3em bolder, sans-serif; position: relative; color: #000; } div.shadow span { display: block; position: absolute; color: #fadb61; top: -2px; left: 2px; } </style> </head> <body> <div class="shadow"> Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !<br> With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide ! <span> Cheaper HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE, including AMAZON !<br> With immediate FREE shipping/postage world-wide ! </span> </div> </body> </html>  SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > There are ways, but it is kind of messy with absolute positioning and > doubled content... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > </body> > </html> Thanks, Jonathan. Looks like its time to upgrade my web-making program. If I use this "messy" method, every time I save the page within the web-making program the program will no doubt eliminate the tweaks!? >> There are ways, but it is kind of messy with absolute positioning and >> doubled content... > > If I use this "messy" method Don't. Please. Drop shadows are a non-essential and resorting to doubled content to simulate the effect is just plain a bad idea. Remember that CSS is supposed to be optional and a page should make sense when CSS is disabled. Doubled content won't, especially for anyone using a screen reader. SignatureBerg > > If I use this "messy" method > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sense when CSS is disabled. Doubled content won't, especially for anyone > using a screen reader. Thanks for the warning, Bergamot. Eddy kirjoitti seuraavasti: > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce > shading behind text? Unfortunately (?) Safari is the only browser supporting the text-shadow property in css2. There are messy ways to do it in other browsers, too. Check out http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/css/cross-browser-drop-shadows SignatureAri http://users.utu.fi/athein/ > Eddy kirjoitti seuraavasti: > > Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There are messy ways to do it in other browsers, too. Check out > http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/css/cross-browser-drop-shadows Thanks, Ari. Interesting info. Thanks for the "messy" help via the above link! > Eddy kirjoitti seuraavasti: >> Can anyone explain - beyond confirming that Firefox can't reproduce >> shading behind text? > > Unfortunately (?) Safari is the only browser supporting the text-shadow > property in css2. FYI: text-shadow was dropped from CSS 2.1 but is present in CSS 3. Implemented by Safari and other Webkit browsers like Chrome (though not the current build), Konquerer, iCab; Opera since 9.5 and Firefox from 3.1 onwards. Internet Explorer support (partial) expected some time around 2014 > FYI: > text-shadow was dropped from CSS 2.1 but is present in CSS 3. Implemented > by Safari and other Webkit browsers like Chrome (though not the current > build), Konquerer, iCab; Opera since 9.5 and Firefox from 3.1 onwards. Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF 3.0.3. Have just been to Mozilla and it doesn't appear that there is a version beyond 3.0.3 yet. Where did you hear of 3.1? > Internet Explorer support (partial) expected some time around 2014 Er. I think you're joking. Microsoft surely doesn't have plans for such minute things six years hence? > Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I > have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF > 3.0.3. Have just been to Mozilla and it doesn't appear that there is a > version beyond 3.0.3 yet. Where did you hear of 3.1? 3.1 is the latest *beta* version of Firefox, so the general public won't be using it yet. I've yet to look at it myself, but from what I've read, it features some nice improvements to speed and adds further support for CSS. SignatureDylan Parry http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own. >> Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I >> have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it features some nice improvements to speed and adds further support for > CSS. Yeah. Apparently is now benchmarking faster than Chrome for JavaScript [FF 3.1] > Yeah. Apparently is now benchmarking faster than Chrome for JavaScript Now that is interesting! The only thing that's currently stopping me from using Chrome is the lack of extensions. I love how fast it is, but I can't deal with not having all those little features that I get in my FF extensions. If FF 3.1 is truly faster, and if they implement the same method that Chrome uses with separate processes for each tab, then I'd have no reason to switch to Chrome at all. I also heard that FF 3.1 will handle embedding of fonts through CSS - anyone heard anything else about this? It's one feature that I'd really like to be able to use, and with Safari already supporting it, FF 3.1 adding it would make me even more likely to consider it as a bells n' whistles feature. SignatureDylan Parry http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own. > > Hi, Nik. "implemented by . . . Firefox from 3.1 onwards"? I thought I > > have the latest version of Firefox and have just checked. I have FF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it features some nice improvements to speed and adds further support for > CSS. Thanks, Dylan. What a world, eh? Waiting around hoping that then next WILL faithfully reproduce one's website, and if not, then maybe the version after that! By the way had a look at your website, and in FF 3.0.3 the links to all the tutorials on the following page are not available. http://webpageworkshop.co.uk/main/css_index > By the way had a look at your website, and in FF 3.0.3 the links to all > the tutorials on the following page are not available. > http://webpageworkshop.co.uk/main/css_index They're not available in any other browser either ;) Planned tutorials that I never got around to writing. It fact I've not updated that site in such a long time that it's sort of fallen by the wayside really. Still, all the stuff that is there is still useful, so no plans to take it down any time soon. SignatureDylan Parry http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own. > > By the way had a look at your website, and in FF 3.0.3 the links to all > > the tutorials on the following page are not available. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Still, all the stuff that is there is still useful, so no plans to take > it down any time soon. Well what have you been doing? I mean you have not been posting in here for quite some time, don't tell me that you've become one of those types of people that just reads posts in the NG and does not post? <g> I have recently launched http://3rar-sa-assoc.org.au for a client. -- Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org > Well what have you been doing? Mainly working on clients' sites and another site of my own. I get easily bored, so I tend to end up with a lot of unfinished personal projects! > I mean you have not been posting in here for quite some time, don't > tell me that you've become one of those types of people that just > reads posts in the NG and does not post? <g> Nah, I generally either read the posts and post the odd reply, or I just mark the lot as read if I'm too busy to read them. SignatureDylan Parry http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own. >> FYI: >> text-shadow was dropped from CSS 2.1 but is present in CSS 3. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 3.0.3. Have just been to Mozilla and it doesn't appear that there is a > version beyond 3.0.3 yet. Where did you hear of 3.1? Hi Eddy. What Dylan said, not at public release yet. If you're feeling lucky: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/ >> Internet Explorer support (partial) expected some time around 2014 > > Er. I think you're joking. Microsoft surely doesn't have plans for > such minute things six years hence? Yeah, it was a cheap shot, I know. >Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text - >which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not >being able to show shading? IE has always been tinkering with non-standard items. Run your page through the validator at w3.org and you'll probably find those items are not accepted. IE also "assumes" too much. Where the page might work properly in IE as intended, FF shows it correctly. http://validator.w3.org/ > IE has always been tinkering with non-standard items. > Run your page through the validator at w3.org and you'll probably find [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://validator.w3.org/ Really, interesting, Richard, thanks! Will go look at w3 org. On Oct 26, 6:04 am, Eddy <eddy.bent...@removeALLbutRESTvirgin.net> wrote: > Firefox appears to be incapable of revealing the shading behind text - > which appears when text+shading pages are viewed in Internet Explorer [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > they are an image. Perhaps, a way around the problem of Firefox not > being able to show shading? I am replying late and see that others have explained the reason for shading behind text not showing on most browsers. Since there appears to be no easy, clean method that works on most browsers using only html, you might consider making an image instead if you want shaded text for only a few lines in a fairly small area. There likely are shaded fonts you can find out of the perhaps thousands that you can download. The problem is that most people would not have the font you used installed on their browser. However you likely could use a shaded font on an image tool, such as PaintShop, to make a png on a transparent background so that seeing the shading does not depend on the browser. Also the gd extension for php likely would allow you to do the same thing, in which case you would have to upload the selected shaded font to the server. Some image tools may allow you to use a common font you have installed for labeling and can be set to shade the text. I have never had a need for this, so I have not checked the common image tools to see which support text shading, if any. I suppose a few people still turn their images off, so you might want to consider that. A good alt text might overcome this problem in many cases. > I am replying late and see that others have explained the reason for > shading behind text not showing on most browsers. Since there appears [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > consider that. A good alt text might overcome this problem in many > cases. Cwdjrxyz, thanks a lot for this. Yes, forcing shading onto a browser that won't reproduce shaded text by merging jpgs of text is a good idea and an alternative. I have done this before when put an email address on a website. Spammers can't be bothered writing the thing down and then typing it into wretched "spam-machines". But I have never considered before the danger you mention: that some purists do browse with all images turned off, looking only at text. Thanks for the thoughts. > some purists do browse > with all images turned off, looking only at text. Not only purists, but also people with an old computer, a bad/slow connection or a small bandwidth allowance. Irina Signature"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" --Albus Dumbledore http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 27-Oct-2008 >> some purists do browse >> with all images turned off, looking only at text. > > Not only purists, but also people with an old computer, a bad/slow > connection or a small bandwidth allowance. ...people on (some) mobile devices, people who use screen readers, people who aren't people at all (Google) > >> some purists do browse > >> with all images turned off, looking only at text. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...people on (some) mobile devices, people who use screen readers, people > who aren't people at all (Google, dorayme) ... Signaturedorayme |
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.