Site compatibility check

Hi
Can people please have a look at the following page and tell me if it looks
correct in your browser. I've checked quite a few, but obviously I don't
have every browser and particularly the different versions, so if you do
look could you post (not e-mail, I don't get them) back here with your
browser, version, and whether the page looked fine or if there were display
problems, and if there were problems what those problems were.

http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/subaqua/

I do intend to change the handling for IE5 so that it uses a bug to correct
the css rather than a separate css file, but it should work the same then as
now.

Thanks a lot

David

David Walker <wbsdavenews (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Can people please have a look at the following page and tell me if it looks
correct in your browser.

http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/subaqua/

The layout breaks when I override your px-based font sizes. Text expands
beyond the size of its container and is hidden.

The layout breaks when my browser window is narrower than the fixed width
your design assumes. The left-hand navigation bar is pushed to the left,
and I can't scroll any further left to bring it back on screen.

I saw this with Opera 7.11 and MSIE 5.5.

It works okay in Lynx, or in Opera with document CSS disabled.

BTW, your browser sniffer can't seem to tell the difference between "MSIE"
and "not MSIE". :-)
--
Darin McGrew, darin (AT) TheRallyeClub (DOT) org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: The Italian Rob (Saturday, August 2)

The layout breaks when I override your px-based font sizes. Text expands
beyond the size of its container and is hidden.

Oh yeah, I meant to look into that \

The layout breaks when my browser window is narrower than the fixed width
your design assumes. The left-hand navigation bar is pushed to the left,
and I can't scroll any further left to bring it back on screen.

Ummmm - i'll think about that, might fix it.... maybe?

BTW, your browser sniffer can't seem to tell the difference between "MSIE"
and "not MSIE". :-)

It doesn't do much except for adding a stylesheet for IE5.x to correct a few
bugs. Its there more for my debug purposes than anything else. If you tell
me what browser it is, and copy the full browser string here then I can
check for that browser too and it will show up correctly.

Thanks for the feedback.

David

Missing alt text on all images.

Technically I don't have any images. I have backgrounds, which if the
images don't load don't take anything away from the site - that is the main
reason I made them backgrounds instead of images (also gets all the site
structural images out of the main page code). I could make the main logo in
the top left and the Warwick logo images and have some alt text for them,
but would you see that as something that is useful for the disabled or
others who rely on the alt text? Why would you have them as images rather
than backgrounds?

David

"David Walker" <wbsdavenews (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:bel88q$hi9$1 (AT) wisteria (DOT) csv.warwick.ac.uk:

Missing alt text on all images.

Technically I don't have any images. I have backgrounds, which if the
images don't load don't take anything away from the site - that is the
main reason I made them backgrounds instead of images (also gets all
the site structural images out of the main page code). I could make
the main logo in the top left and the Warwick logo images and have
some alt text for them, but would you see that as something that is
useful for the disabled or others who rely on the alt text? Why would
you have them as images rather than backgrounds?

Good question - I don't know.
Maybe ask those questions in c.i.w.a.html, where there are
more knowledgable people in regards to HTML, and where there
has just been a thread about the use of alt text :-)

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, the Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org dpatton at confluence dot org
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Vancouver/Whistler - host of the 2010 Winter Olympics

David Walker wrote:

Missing alt text on all images.


Why would you have them as images rather than backgrounds?

How about so that you can supply alt text for text-based browsers.

Otherwise they won't see your background, your logo (or any semblance of
it if its only a graphic), etc....

--Nikolaos

Why would you have them as images rather than backgrounds?

How about so that you can supply alt text for text-based browsers.

Otherwise they won't see your background, your logo (or any semblance of
it if its only a graphic), etc....

But the entire point was, if its text based, its not an important image to
the content, it is merely a logo, so why would I need to have alt text at
all for it? If there is a reason then I would change them to images, but
i'm trying to find out what the general consensus is about needing any alt
text at all for images which aren't important for the content of the site.

David

In message <bemv16$4c7$1 (AT) wisteria (DOT) csv.warwick.ac.uk>, David Walker
<wbsdavenews (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> writes

Why would you have them as images rather than backgrounds?

How about so that you can supply alt text for text-based browsers.

Otherwise they won't see your background, your logo (or any semblance of
it if its only a graphic), etc....

But the entire point was, if its text based, its not an important image to
the content, it is merely a logo, so why would I need to have alt text at
all for it? If there is a reason then I would change them to images, but
i'm trying to find out what the general consensus is about needing any alt
text at all for images which aren't important for the content of the site.

David


Just leave it as it is; there's no information being lost.

--
Jake

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:18:05 +0100, "David Walker"
<wbsdavenews (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

(about http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/subaqua/)

Why would you have them as images rather than backgrounds?

How about so that you can supply alt text for text-based browsers.

Otherwise they won't see your background, your logo (or any semblance of
it if its only a graphic), etc....

But the entire point was, if its text based, its not an important image to
the content, it is merely a logo, so why would I need to have alt text at
all for it?

Agreed. If an image is for decoration only, conveying no information,
then it's fine to use ALT="", or place it as a background image. (Or
ALT="*" in the special case of a decorative list bullet.)

If there is a reason then I would change them to images, but
i'm trying to find out what the general consensus is about needing any alt
text at all for images which aren't important for the content of the site.

I would place the images as foreground images (with ALT="") if they are
intended to take up space in the final presentation and backgrounds if
they are intended to be overlaid by text or other images. It probably
doesn't matter enormously, but I would imagine that if someone has
images on and CSS off you would prefer the images to appear?

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/