Second try - Now how does it look?

I have tightened up the code and the graphics quite a bit, and I’ve
discovered that IE support in my new layout and design is temperamental
at best.

While Firefox and Opera seem to display the site just fine, one-third of
machines that I use to view it with IE have IE crapping out on the
design. The other two-thirds of machines where I use IE to view the site
with, it works perfectly.

If anyone has the site crap out on them with IE, could they please
provide me with full machine stats (HW, O/S, Software, etc.) so I can
determine if it is a version, software or o/s issue.

Btw, the site is http://rene.kabis.org/

TIA
René Kabis

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, René Kabis
<rene (AT) kabis (DOT) org> spouted in alt.html.critique,alt.html,alt.discuss.html:

[alt.discuss.html removed as it doesn't exist on my news server]

If anyone has the site crap out on them with IE, could they please
provide me with full machine stats (HW, O/S, Software, etc.) so I can
determine if it is a version, software or o/s issue.

Btw, the site is http://rene.kabis.org/

IE6, Win2k here. Looks mostly OK, except the top banner has a grey
section above and below it (IE doesn't support alpha transparency in
PNGs), and the content drops below the navigation when I increase the
font size.

In both FF and IE, there is a huge space over the left side (yes,
there's a sunflower there, but it still looks odd), while the right side
is right up against the side of the browser. I keep looking for a
horizontal scrollbar to try and get to the rest of the right side of the
page. I think a large part of that is the green banner - it looks like
it keeps going beyond the right side of the page. I have my screen
resolution fairly high, and you're only using about half the available
width of my browser, particularly in IE (in FF I have a sidebar open, so
it isn't quite so bad). This makes your page much longer than it needs
to be, as well as looking odd as explained above.

It does look nice though. :-)

As far as under the hood goes, XHTML 1.1 is not suitable for use on the
WWW - it *must* be served as application/xml+xhtml, which IE can't
handle. HTML4.01 is the best option (and it would take minimal work to
convert it). Having said that, your (X)HTML validates, with just one
warning (unescaped &). You do have one error and a handful of warnings
in your CSS though.

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

René Kabis wrote:

I have tightened up the code and the graphics quite a bit, and I’ve
discovered that IE support in my new layout and design is temperamental
at best.

While Firefox and Opera seem to display the site just fine, one-third of
machines that I use to view it with IE have IE crapping out on the
design. The other two-thirds of machines where I use IE to view the site
with, it works perfectly.

If anyone has the site crap out on them with IE, could they please
provide me with full machine stats (HW, O/S, Software, etc.) so I can
determine if it is a version, software or o/s issue.

Btw, the site is http://rene.kabis.org/

TIA
René Kabis

Am running Windows98 SE with a screen resolution of 600x800 pixels to
view your site.

Looking at it with Internet Explorer (version 6), the banner headline
div (Little Green Delusions: etc etc) is not displayed in the browser.

Ed.

"René Kabis" <rene (AT) kabis (DOT) org> wrote in message
news:_pUzf.285721$2k.128261 (AT) pd7tw1no (DOT) ..
I have tightened up the code and the graphics quite a bit, and I've
discovered that IE support in my new layout and design is temperamental at
best.

While Firefox and Opera seem to display the site just fine, one-third of
machines that I use to view it with IE have IE crapping out on the design.
The other two-thirds of machines where I use IE to view the site with, it
works perfectly.

If anyone has the site crap out on them with IE, could they please provide
me with full machine stats (HW, O/S, Software, etc.) so I can determine if
it is a version, software or o/s issue.

Btw, the site is http://rene.kabis.org/

TIA
René Kabis

WXP SP2
IE: 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp2_sp2_gdr.050301-1519
Netscape: 8.04 (Mozilla/5.0)
Screen: 1600*1200 at 32bit, adapter Riva TNT2
Mobo MS7177 (Via chipset), PIII, 512Mb memory

A bit weird, all text right aligned but readable so there's a big "gap" at
the left, top banner 'seems' to continue beyond right side of page (although
it is fully readable, so might be on purpose)
Sunflower visible :
When resizing the window in Netscape, it "shifts" (greyed) beyond text,
neatly aligned with colored part
When resizing the window in IE, it "shifts" (greyed) beyond text, neatly
aligned with colored part

Some weird characters as unicode text:
This is a Unicode (UTF-8) test: æ.""this'õö÷ø
"This is a quote"

"This is another quote, æon þýüû"

Looks neat though...

René Kabis wrote:

I have tightened up the code and the graphics quite a bit, and I’ve
discovered that IE support in my new layout and design is temperamental
at best.

The image at the top, title-trans.png, is still too large: 222 KB.

Convert it to a JPEG and the size shrinks to 24 KB. And you can cut the
size in half of the other background image, back.jpg, by reducing the
"quality" of the JPEG.
In Mozilla v1.7.12 the Navigation and Random Bitz move of the screen to
the left when the viewport is made small.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

René Kabis wrote:

I have tightened up the code and the graphics quite a bit, and I’ve
discovered that IE support in my new layout and design is temperamental
at best.

While Firefox and Opera seem to display the site just fine, one-third of
machines that I use to view it with IE have IE crapping out on the
design. The other two-thirds of machines where I use IE to view the site
with, it works perfectly.

If anyone has the site crap out on them with IE, could they please
provide me with full machine stats (HW, O/S, Software, etc.) so I can
determine if it is a version, software or o/s issue.

Btw, the site is http://rene.kabis.org/

TIA
René Kabis

Aside of the fact that your images are way too big, a little

optimization and compression can go a long way) you have a fundamental
error in your layout. Absolute widths that are right justified means
that on a average web browser with screen resolution of 800x600 must
have their browser maximize or your site navigation disappears off
screen. Not good at all.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:14:52 +1100, Mark Parnell wrote:

XHTML 1.1 is not suitable for use on the WWW - it *must* be served as
application/xml+xhtml

Not according to the W3C, it doesn't.

From <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/>:

In summary, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family
documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to
HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents.

SHOULD != MUST .

--
Ben M.

To reply directly, remove all occurrences of 'remove' from the email address.

Ben Measures wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:14:52 +1100, Mark Parnell wrote:


XHTML 1.1 is not suitable for use on the WWW - it *must* be served as
application/xml+xhtml


Not according to the W3C, it doesn't.

From <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/>:

In summary, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family
documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to
HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents.


SHOULD != MUST .

Maybe one should read:

XHTML Frequently Answered Questions
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Ben Measures wrote:

From <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/>:
In summary, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family
documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to
HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents.

SHOULD != MUST .

It doesn't just mean doing whatever you please, you know.

W3C cites rfc2119 for the meaning of this term.

SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

So we'd expect you to explain the "full implications", and your
careful weighting of them, before you'd get away with "choosing a
different course".

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:01:03 +0000, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Ben Measures wrote:

SHOULD != MUST .

It doesn't just mean doing whatever you please, you know.

Of course - nobody said otherwise.

--
Ben M.

To reply directly, remove all occurrences of 'remove' from the email address.