CSS Link styling and Layout Problem

[Tim Gill]

Hello all,
Please take a look at this:
http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp

Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
is styled.

Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
outer container be fluid.

Thanks everyone for the help.

--
-Tim Gill
The The Tim Gill Orchestra & Trio
http://www.timgillmusic.com/trio

PS: Yes, I know that the layout is fixed-width.

 

[rf]

Tim Gill wrote

Hello all,
Please take a look at this:
http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp

Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
is styled.

Are you talking about the navigation bar, with it navlinks? Well you don't
have a visited rule for that. In your style sheet you have

#navlinks a:link, a:visited

This means any a:link inside something with ID navelinks plus any a:visited.
Note, a:visited, not within anything.

What you mean is

#navlinks a:link, #navlinks a:visited

This happens all through the style sheet. The last rule that includes
a:visited is the one that applies.

Your style sheet is way too verbose. You could cut it down to a quarter of
its present size if you considered inheritance and resued a few things.

Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
outer container be fluid.

You are relying on a bug in IE. Even IE6, since you are running the browser
in quirks mode (lack of a URL in the doctype).

A general rule is to design the page for "others", netscape or mozilla or
whatever, and then "check" it with IE just to make sure it works. IE has
more bugs than you can poke a stick at. It also over corrects your mistakes.
You assume that because it renders that it is correct.

Hint, your page validates transitional. Try validating it strict.

 

[Tim Gill]

(snip)

What you mean is

#navlinks a:link, #navlinks a:visited

Thanks for the help on that!

(snip)

Your style sheet is way too verbose. You could cut it down to a quarter of
its present size if you considered inheritance and resued a few things.

I realized that comparing what my usual stylesheet looks like compared to
others' work. I have yet to learn the art of writing a fluid and concise
stylesheet, as everything I learned was bit-by-bit style from online
tutorials and individual experimentation. A pointer to any helpful online
articles or print references would be quite appreciated.

(snip)

You are relying on a bug in IE. Even IE6, since you are running the browser
in quirks mode (lack of a URL in the doctype).

Ah, I see [newbie googles "quirks mode"].

(snip)

A general rule is to design the page for "others", netscape or mozilla or
whatever, and then "check" it with IE just to make sure it works. IE has
more bugs than you can poke a stick at. It also over corrects your mistakes.
You assume that because it renders that it is correct.

I will have to figure out how to make what I have done work on those
platforms. The biggest thing that i have to conquer is the small visual
layout issues (netscape blows up the main nav menu, etc.).

(snip)

Hint, your page validates transitional. Try validating it strict.

Will do.


-TG

 

[Philip Ronan]

Hello all,
Please take a look at this:
http://www.timgillmusic.com/temp

Problem one: All of the links, when visited (none are actually linked right
now) do not follow the stylesheet's instructions for their specific type,
and instead default to the main navigation menu's text size and the
browser's default bright blue color. I can't figure out why... I am
specifying that a:visited look exactly the same as an active or regular link
is styled.

You should really ask about this in a css group.

But try changing "#navlinks a:link, a:visited" to "#navlinks a:link,
#navlinks a:visited", etc.

Problem two: This layout breaks down in Netscape and others, though it looks
perfect in IE. The container enveloping the content does not resize itself
to suit the length of the body text. Any fixes? The layout demands that this
outer container be fluid.

Then why is is specified with a fixed width of 605px?
Phil

 

[rf]

You should really ask about this in a css group.

Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

 

[Philip Ronan]

Why? CSS is perfectly on-topic here.

I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s

 

[Spartanicus]

I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s

You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,
and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
probably higher than in ciwas also.

His lordship of kink Brucie only hangs out here for one (when he's not
being forcibly sedated), and he's reasonably dapper with CSS ;-)

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

You're more likely to get practical help with CSS here than in ciwas,

My experience (after reading both groups for years) is quite different.

You might get shorter lectures here, though. This typically means that
you will miss the vital information that something in what you asked for
was a wrong idea from the beginning, and would learn it (perhaps) after
years and after some painful experiences only.

(In this particular case, the lecture might have included an explanation,
or reference to an explanation that says why setting unvisited, visited,
and active link colors the same is a _very_ bad idea. Not to mention the
principle "when setting color, always set background too" - which is
easily regarded as irrelevant by authors who don't understand
the "C" in CSS.)

and the pure CSS knowledge in this group is at least as high and
probably higher than in ciwas also.

You are trolling, are you not?

 

[rf]

I think you'd get a better answer in c.i.w.a.s

I don't.

ciw* are theoretical. That's why there are so many of them, one for HTML,
one for CSS, one for javascript and be damned anybody who posts something
off-topic. They get real anal about it.

Here we accept everything and can freely talk about how the CSS may interact
with the HTML and be influenced by javascript.

Crikey, we even talk about server side stuff and whether javascript is
better for floaty out menus than PSP. Would you get that over in a ciw*
group?

If you did not notice a suitable answer was given by me to the OP several
hours ago, at least 4 hours prior to your chirping in. Do you find that
answer lacking in any way? Do you think that somebody over at ciwas could
have given a better answer?

<find/> You have only been here for a month. Stick around and see what
happens. Read the FAQ (if you can find it) where it clearly says "almost
anything web related goes".

 

[Spartanicus]

You are trolling, are you not?

Au contraire, not on balance of course, but amongst the best most
definitely.

 

[rf]

My experience (after reading both groups for years) is quite different.

You might get shorter lectures here, though. This typically means that
you will miss the vital information that something in what you asked for
was a wrong idea from the beginning, and would learn it (perhaps) after
years and after some painful experiences only.

(In this particular case, the lecture might have included an explanation,
or reference to an explanation that says why setting unvisited, visited,
and active link colors the same is a _very_ bad idea.

I pondered including that in my response to the OP but chose not to.

Why?

I have lost count of the number of times I have provided a very detailed
answer, pointing out all the other things that I see wrong with the site
apart from the original problem, only to never hear from the OP again. Why
should I waste my time so? I don't, any more.

Only when the OP responds to my post (as this one has, with a request for
"further information") am I prepared to expand on the issues, knowing I have
an audience who is a) listenening and b) not rejecting out of hand what I
say.

If *you* feel the OP needs a lecture on styling links and background colours
at this point in them then go right ahead

 

[Philip Ronan]

I don't.

ciw* are theoretical. That's why there are so many of them, one for HTML,
one for CSS, one for javascript and be damned anybody who posts something
off-topic. They get real anal about it.

Here we accept everything and can freely talk about how the CSS may interact
with the HTML and be influenced by javascript.

Crikey, we even talk about server side stuff and whether javascript is
better for floaty out menus than PSP. Would you get that over in a ciw*
group?

No of course not. But at least the answers provided there tend to be correct
more often. For example, last week you incorrectly asserted that web pages
with SSI and PHP includes are indistinguishable from ordinary HTML pages
(they usually aren't), and that a separate HTTP connection is needed to
deliver each individual resource from a server (not so in the case of a
persistent connection). You also told someone that it's impossible to put
anything in a web page to prevent IE from caching the contents of individual
form fields (autocomplete="off" usually does the trick).

If you did not notice a suitable answer was given by me to the OP several
hours ago, at least 4 hours prior to your chirping in. Do you find that
answer lacking in any way? Do you think that somebody over at ciwas could
have given a better answer?

Sorry sorry sorry. My mistake. Your answer was perfect. I just didn't notice
it.

<find/> You have only been here for a month. Stick around and see what
happens. Read the FAQ (if you can find it) where it clearly says "almost
anything web related goes".

Yessir.