ie & other browser

Ron Eggler @ Work wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Ron Eggler @ Work wrote:

<snippage>

META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR

Suggest you use a better editor.

why? I'm using Textpad.

What is MSHTML 6.00.2600.0 ? Looks like a Microsloth thingy.

oh thank you for your help. i wanna do a navigation-bar simlar to
http://www.inetgate.ch/site/navigation.htm
but without flash. i plan to do it with css and javascript... but don't
know yet how exactly....

Have a look at this site of mine. The navigation uses ul/li instead of
table, and CSS only, no JavaScript. Scroll down through the CSS for
the ul.nav, li.nav, and the li.nav link parts.

http://www.freezeblock.com/
http://www.freezeblock.com/style/freeze2.css

font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

Google for why Verdana is a bad idea. Well, read this:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

...and don't use px for size, use percentages. 100% for body and content.

script type="text/javascript"
!--

You don't need comment tags in scripts either. Old cargo cult.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:29:26 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
<b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:24:59 -0800, Fred Banaszak <banaszak (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:03:32 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Ah, there goes Barbara again. Our little ray of sunshine...

I never ever saw you in any of the webauthoring and design related
groups.
If you think you a complete noob makes friends quickly by regular
bashing,
think again.

You, regular? I don't think so.


Damn, this is what happens when you start feeding a troll.

Byebye.

You are right. I should not ridicule you.

Someone that has such a pathological need to be a ill-tempered,
foul-mouthed xenophobe is someone to be pitied rather than ridiculed.

Paul Burke wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:11:47 +0100, Ron Eggler <NOspam (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:


Paul Burke wrote:


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:08:58 +0100, "Ron Eggler" <NOspam (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:


Paul Burke wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:21:02 +0100, "Ron Eggler" <NOspam (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:


Hi,

is it possible to make following page in 'all' (common) browsers
look the
same way, as it now does in IE?
Thank you!
http://www.inetgate.ch/site/navigation.htm

Hi
Try validating the code will help.

http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/vali...url=http%3A%2F

2Fwww.inetgate.ch%2Fsite%2Fnavigation.htm&warnings =yes

Ok, i already tried to, but don't know what exactly i should change to get
the same result, if i delete all the margin-things, i get other result...


Most of that should be moved to css.

how do i movw that to css? margins on a page?


You should alrady know that if you are a company building sites for
people, but here you are

body { margin:0; padding:0; }


My Firefox needed plugins for your site to work. And I don't want to
install them, so it won't load up.

it needs macromedia-flash-plugin...

Yes, but if you want everyone to see the site the way you want to,
then you should use the most basic way. ie. no plugins.

Not everyone wants to install plugins.

hm, yes maybe u're right. but now i got this design with flash and most
users have the plugin installed so i wanna try to use this design now. i'll
do annother when i'll find some time.


most users have the plugin installed ?

Really ? How do you know that ?

And I hope you are going to have text links as well. Otherwise you are
making your site inaccessible.

snip

plh
Paul


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

95% of ALL browsers have the plug in. There are plenty of stats out
there backing that up.

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:03:08 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

If you are using the Flash just for navigation (which seems the case
to me), why not change that to a far more accessible scheme of pure
HTML and CSS rollovers, which would give access to absolutely
everyone? No sense blocking some, just because a technology exists...
:-)


Does Google e.a. follow links that are part of a Flash something yet?
Or do SE's still rely on html links to be able to index a site? If the
second, it is not just about excluding some human visitors, but also
excluding bots from SE's. Now, that would be very harmful for clients
who fully rely on a professional webauthor for a good implementation of
a site for their needs. Sue-worthy methink.

Google does follow links inside Flash.

SpaceGirl wrote:

95% of ALL browsers have the plug in. There are plenty of stats out
there backing that up.

Let's see... what if your site takes in ten thousand visitors a month
and they all want to spend 100 dollars/pounds/euros on your product.
Now what if 5% of them can't navigate your site.

Is it ok to give up that 50,000 dollars/pounds/euros each month? Well
over a half-million a year?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Duende wrote:

Ok with me. Much less trouble being broke.

<lol> Just think, with that $50,000 you could buy a Microbus fit for
a king!

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:20:21 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

95% of ALL browsers have the plug in. There are plenty of stats out
there backing that up.

Let's see... what if your site takes in ten thousand visitors a month
and they all want to spend 100 dollars/pounds/euros on your product.
Now what if 5% of them can't navigate your site.

Is it ok to give up that 50,000 dollars/pounds/euros each month? Well
over a half-million a year?

You always have to look at the down-side. What I could do with the 950,000
<whatevers> would make it so I wouldn't worry about the pidly little 50,000

SpaceGirl wrote :

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:03:08 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

If you are using the Flash just for navigation (which seems the case to
me), why not change that to a far more accessible scheme of pure HTML and
CSS rollovers, which would give access to absolutely everyone? No sense
blocking some, just because a technology exists...
:-)


Does Google e.a. follow links that are part of a Flash something yet? Or
do SE's still rely on html links to be able to index a site? If the
second, it is not just about excluding some human visitors, but also
excluding bots from SE's. Now, that would be very harmful for clients who
fully rely on a professional webauthor for a good implementation of a site
for their needs. Sue-worthy methink.




Google does follow links inside Flash.

What about other SEs? Is Google the only one that does (or can do)
that?

--
dont pick your nose if it is sore

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

95% of ALL browsers have the plug in. There are plenty of stats out
there backing that up.


Let's see... what if your site takes in ten thousand visitors a month
and they all want to spend 100 dollars/pounds/euros on your product. Now
what if 5% of them can't navigate your site.

Is it ok to give up that 50,000 dollars/pounds/euros each month? Well
over a half-million a year?

You and I both know that this sort of argument is POINTLESS. Duh. Not
everyone has computer either, so that kinda fucks up marketing online at
all, given your argument. Given the 6 billion people on the planet, with
1 billion or so with internet access, can YOU afford to cut of
5,000,000,000 users?????

Flash is fine, so long as you provide an alternative -OR- your market
can bear it. It is very short sighted to think everyone everywhere wants
the same thing, or has the same technology installed. So you dont design
a single solution for everyone.

Disco Octopus wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote :

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:03:08 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

If you are using the Flash just for navigation (which seems the case
to me), why not change that to a far more accessible scheme of pure
HTML and CSS rollovers, which would give access to absolutely
everyone? No sense blocking some, just because a technology exists...
:-)


Does Google e.a. follow links that are part of a Flash something yet?
Or do SE's still rely on html links to be able to index a site? If
the second, it is not just about excluding some human visitors, but
also excluding bots from SE's. Now, that would be very harmful for
clients who fully rely on a professional webauthor for a good
implementation of a site for their needs. Sue-worthy methink.




Google does follow links inside Flash.


What about other SEs? Is Google the only one that does (or can do) that?

I think google is the only one. It's NOT a good idea to design a site
that totally relies on Flash for navigation anyway for a lot of reasons.
I was just pointing out that Flash is more accessible than some think.
All of our Flash sites also provide text links even IF the Flash movie
is displayed.