Re: Style problem (DIV sizing)

"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote

Hi!

On this page:
http://www.lifesong.de/veranstaltungen.html

I've been waiting All Day for somebody to mention what this page looks in
the most popular browser, IE.

There are no images (those "background" things) at all. The only image
visible is the real background image.

In article <D97Uk.15803$sc2.10118 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote in message
news:gfq3no$r1d$1 (AT) oxygen (DOT) pond.sub.org...
Hi!

On this page:
http://www.lifesong.de/veranstaltungen.html

I've been waiting All Day for somebody to mention what this page looks in
the most popular browser, IE.

There are no images (those "background" things) at all. The only image
visible is the real background image.

You should see how it behaves in MacIE 5 under browser expansion and
contraction and scrolling! I would need to make a movie of it... Weirder
than weird. But I did not like to say because there is too obvious a
retort.

(If there was a Mac X movie equivalent to the screenshot, I could show
you more easily...)

--
dorayme

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote

In article <D97Uk.15803$sc2.10118 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:


"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote in message
news:gfq3no$r1d$1 (AT) oxygen (DOT) pond.sub.org...
Hi!

On this page:
http://www.lifesong.de/veranstaltungen.html

I've been waiting All Day for somebody to mention what this page looks in
the most popular browser, IE.

There are no images (those "background" things) at all. The only image
visible is the real background image.

You should see how it behaves in MacIE 5 under browser expansion and
contraction and scrolling! I would need to make a movie of it... Weirder
than weird. But I did not like to say because there is too obvious a
retort.

(If there was a Mac X movie equivalent to the screenshot, I could show
you more easily...)

[looks more closely]

Clear case of a client that has run amok: "I know what'd look good. Lets put
all the text on high contrast backgrounds so it's impossible to read".

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-39EB66.17523717112008 (AT) news-vip (DOT) optusnet.com.au...
In article <D97Uk.15803$sc2.10118 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:


"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote in message
news:gfq3no$r1d$1 (AT) oxygen (DOT) pond.sub.org...
Hi!

On this page:
http://www.lifesong.de/veranstaltungen.html

I've been waiting All Day for somebody to mention what this page looks
in
the most popular browser, IE.

There are no images (those "background" things) at all. The only image
visible is the real background image.

You should see how it behaves in MacIE 5 under browser expansion and
contraction and scrolling! I would need to make a movie of it... Weirder
than weird. But I did not like to say because there is too obvious a
retort.

(If there was a Mac X movie equivalent to the screenshot, I could show
you more easily...)

[looks more closely]

Clear case of a client that has run amok: "I know what'd look good. Lets
put all the text on high contrast backgrounds so it's impossible to read".

Forgot to comment on the actual backgrounds. There is 5K of HTML on the
subject page. There is four hundred and thirty K of images obscuring the
text contained in that HTML.

rf wrote:

"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote in message
news:gfq3no$r1d$1 (AT) oxygen (DOT) pond.sub.org...

http://www.lifesong.de/veranstaltungen.html

Clear case of a client that has run amok: "I know what'd look good. Lets put
all the text on high contrast backgrounds so it's impossible to read".

It's even more attractive if you happen to use an 800px wide window, and don't have Comic Sans installed. The stretched background images are highly distracting, which doesn't help readability. I do hope the average visitor can figure out what all those chopped off words are supposed to be.
http://www.bergamotus.ws/screenshots/lifesong2.png

That's not to say it would be any more attractive if Comic Sans *were* installed.

--
Berg

In article <GZaUk.15845$sc2.69 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Forgot to comment on the actual backgrounds. There is 5K of HTML on the
subject page. There is four hundred and thirty K of images obscuring the
text contained in that HTML.

Me too, I knew the ratio was big when I saw the delay on the background
loading. To the OP, it is far too big for a background image for a
website for the general public.

--
dorayme

In article <gfvgan$7vj$6 (AT) oxygen (DOT) pond.sub.org>,
hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org (Hannah) wrote:

Hi!

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
In article <GZaUk.15845$sc2.69 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Forgot to comment on the actual backgrounds. There is 5K of HTML on the
subject page. There is four hundred and thirty K of images obscuring the
text contained in that HTML.

Me too, I knew the ratio was big when I saw the delay on the background
loading. To the OP, it is far too big for a background image for a
website for the general public.

What ratio (or absolute value) would usually be seen as ok?

Keep it down to very very few seconds and bear in mind that everything
is stretched out for slow broadband and dial up users.

I have pretty fast broadband myself, and you know, the way you had it, I
had time to think, "Hey, nice clean background... OP has removed the
picture" when I tried a different browser where your page was not
cached.

Another Australian - rf - has such a slow connection that he has been
known to wait a week for a page to load, he lost weight and hair and was
so traumatized by the experience that he now packs food and water before
surfing and he has had an en suite toilet built into his desk.

As my background image doesn't tile well, and CSS can't scale background
images and the scaling background hack doesn't work out too well as we
have seen (even though konqueror can do better with a *global*
background, see http://www.kitty.sub.org/foo.html, just think away at
least the left scrollbar and think using the "lifesong" "frame"
technique instead of "foo"'s one, IE might still have difficulties, and
I can't test it locally, i.e. fast enough), I use one with bigger
dimensions, with background-attachment: fixed, and keep my fingers
crossed that the viewport is not even bigger than that.

In the current version I've got it to about 128k.

For the main page, a logo of about 50k gets added (alas, as GIF, as I
need transparency, and I'm not so sure about uniquitous png and png
transparency support, and even if, would that save all too much?).

Does that sound more acceptable, now that I've removed those additional
backgrounds?

Yes, it is *more* acceptable... I would feel a touch uncomfortable at
having non-content 178K having to come on stage for the show to begin...
but it is not the end of the world.

If you want to have a bg pic to the whole viewport, it pays to be very
subtle about it, to make sure that bg to the text is clean (either by
the main bg being itself not too heavy or the specific text backgrounds
being nice and clean...). Personally, I am irked by anything but plain
behind text that needs reading. But other folk might not be. It is the
one time I seriously start meaning to make my own stylesheet or turn off
the author's.

Still, what you were trying with the layout was interesting... <g>

--
dorayme

"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote

Hi!

rf <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:
"Hannah" <hu47121+nospam (AT) usenet (DOT) kitty.sub.org> wrote in message
news:gfq3no$r1d$1 (AT) oxygen (DOT) pond.sub.org...
On this page:
http://www.lifesong.de/veranstaltungen.html

I've been waiting All Day for somebody to mention what this page looks in
the most popular browser, IE.

There are no images (those "background" things) at all. The only image
visible is the real background image.

While I've removed that aspect of the design anyway, just for curiosity:
Which IE version was that? 6? Later? Earlier?

6 and 7.

Perhaps that was due to differences in the interpretation of z-index.

Or one of the other myriad of bugs IE has.