IE css problems only on win XP

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Fredo Vincentis, Dec 27, 2003.

  1. I am not quite sure why this happens, but it seems that IE on Windows XP
    displays my website differently than IE on Windows 2000. Has anybody had
    that problem before?

    To be more precise: if you look at the website
    http://www.addictivemedia.com.au, you will find that I used CSS to create a
    design that always takes up a minimum of 100% screen window-height. This
    works fine on all browsers I tested it on, but now I was told by a couple of
    people that IE on Windows XP cuts off the last lines of text. They disappear
    behind the footer-div of the design.

    Has anybody encountered this before or even better: do you know how to fix
    the problem?

    Thanks heaps!
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fredo Vincentis

    SAZ Guest

    In article <bsj5ju$gn1$>, yahoda21
    @hotmailNoSpam.com says...
    > I am not quite sure why this happens, but it seems that IE on Windows XP
    > displays my website differently than IE on Windows 2000. Has anybody had
    > that problem before?
    >
    > To be more precise: if you look at the website
    > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au, you will find that I used CSS to create a
    > design that always takes up a minimum of 100% screen window-height. This
    > works fine on all browsers I tested it on, but now I was told by a couple of
    > people that IE on Windows XP cuts off the last lines of text. They disappear
    > behind the footer-div of the design.
    >
    > Has anybody encountered this before or even better: do you know how to fix
    > the problem?
    >


    No time to check your code, but in IE6, WinXP, no problems at all.

    And yes, I have noticed some minor div issues in IE6 vs IE5.5, but
    nothing I can't overcome by validating my code.
     
    SAZ, Dec 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fredo Vincentis

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:bsj5ju$gn1$>
    Fredo Vincentis said:

    > I am not quite sure why this happens, but it seems that IE on Windows XP
    > displays my website differently than IE on Windows 2000.


    IE may also display a page differently depending if its online or local.

    > To be more precise: if you look at the website
    > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au,


    fix your HTML and CSS errors to see if the problem goes away.

    --
    brucie
    27/December/2003 05:44:03 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 27, 2003
    #3
  4. "brucie" <> wrote in message
    news:bsjdh6$ddfj0$-berlin.de...
    > in post <news:bsj5ju$gn1$>
    > Fredo Vincentis said:
    >
    > > I am not quite sure why this happens, but it seems that IE on Windows XP
    > > displays my website differently than IE on Windows 2000.

    >
    > IE may also display a page differently depending if its online or local.
    >
    > > To be more precise: if you look at the website
    > > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au,

    >
    > fix your HTML and CSS errors to see if the problem goes away.


    Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Fredo Vincentis

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:bsld7u$18ao$>
    Fredo Vincentis said:

    >> fix your HTML and CSS errors to see if the problem goes away.


    > Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?


    none specifically just all of them


    --
    brucie
    28/December/2003 12:12:46 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 28, 2003
    #5
  6. "brucie" <> wrote in message
    news:bsle8n$dufl4$-berlin.de...
    > in post <news:bsld7u$18ao$>
    > Fredo Vincentis said:
    >
    > >> fix your HTML and CSS errors to see if the problem goes away.

    >
    > > Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?

    >
    > none specifically just all of them


    That is not really useful to me. I do not know what errors you are talking
    about. According to the validators I use, the CSS and HTML is fine.
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Leif K-Brooks, Dec 28, 2003
    #7
  8. Fredo Vincentis

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:bsln1i$1anc$>
    Fredo Vincentis said:

    >>> Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?


    >> none specifically just all of them


    > That is not really useful to me.


    i don't think its fair for you to expect me to go through your markup to
    correct the errors to see if that fixes the problem or not and then let
    you know if it worked. errors should have been checked for and corrected
    before you posted.

    > I do not know what errors you are talking about.


    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php
    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....com.au/index_html.php&warning=1&profile=css2

    > According to the validators I use, the CSS and HTML is fine.


    i have a mirror like that. nice long red hair, green eyes glowing with
    desire, firm breasts and a really nice tight bum. of course its not a
    reflection of reality[1], but it makes me feel good.


    [1] i have blue eyes

    --
    brucie
    28/December/2003 02:56:55 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 28, 2003
    #8
  9. "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in message
    news:pgtHb.216$...
    > Fredo Vincentis wrote:
    > > That is not really useful to me. I do not know what errors you are

    talking
    > > about. According to the validators I use, the CSS and HTML is fine.

    >
    > Then get a new validator.
    >

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/i
    ndex_flash.php

    I agree, the W3Org validator will not pass my code as valid. But this is
    mainly due to the fact that I have not escaped the & characters in the URLs
    (which I will do one day, I promise). I don't think this would cause my
    layers to overlap in Windows XP.

    I assume we are rather talking about a css problem, but I do not know what
    could cause this behavior in XP. I don't have an XP machine here to test it,
    either. So if there is anybody out there who could confirm whether the
    problem really occurs all the time, that would be helpful.
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 28, 2003
    #9
  10. Fredo Vincentis

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:bsloaj$1b3s$>
    Fredo Vincentis said:

    > I agree, the W3Org validator will not pass my code as valid. But this is
    > mainly due to the fact that I have not escaped the & characters in the URLs
    > (which I will do one day, I promise). I don't think this would cause my
    > layers to overlap in Windows XP.


    have a look at errors 21-22 and the error in your css


    --
    brucie
    28/December/2003 03:14:02 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 28, 2003
    #10
  11. "brucie" <> wrote in message
    news:bslobc$e7luu$-berlin.de...
    > in post <news:bsln1i$1anc$>
    > Fredo Vincentis said:
    >
    > >>> Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?

    >
    > >> none specifically just all of them

    >
    > > That is not really useful to me.

    >
    > i don't think its fair for you to expect me to go through your markup to
    > correct the errors to see if that fixes the problem or not and then let
    > you know if it worked. errors should have been checked for and corrected
    > before you posted.


    Brucie, did I ask you to go and correct my errors? My post is purely to find
    out whether anybody had any problems with browsers on XP. You came up with a
    comment claiming that my code was full of HTML and CSS errors. What do you
    expect me to do? Of course I ask you what you are talking about.

    You have to learn that it is not helping anybody if you respond to a simple
    question by complaining about somebody's code if it is irrelevant to the
    problem.
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 28, 2003
    #11
  12. Fredo Vincentis

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:bslps3$1bfn$>
    Fredo Vincentis said:

    > You have to learn that it is not helping anybody if you respond to a simple
    > question by complaining about somebody's code if it is irrelevant to the
    > problem.


    the fist step is always to fix your errors so you can know if its a
    problem with your markup or a problem with the browser. if you don't fix
    the errors you're just bumbling around without any idea what may be the
    cause of the problem or the solution.

    --
    brucie
    28/December/2003 05:35:04 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 28, 2003
    #12
  13. Fredo Vincentis

    Spartanicus Guest

    Fredo Vincentis wrote:

    >Brucie, did I ask you to go and correct my errors? My post is purely to find
    >out whether anybody had any problems with browsers on XP. You came up with a
    >comment claiming that my code was full of HTML and CSS errors. What do you
    >expect me to do? Of course I ask you what you are talking about.


    http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Dec 28, 2003
    #13
  14. Fredo Vincentis

    rf Guest

    "Fredo Vincentis" <> wrote in message
    news:bsld7u$18ao$...
    > "brucie" <> wrote in message
    > news:bsjdh6$ddfj0$-berlin.de...
    > > in post <news:bsj5ju$gn1$>
    > > Fredo Vincentis said:
    > >
    > > > I am not quite sure why this happens, but it seems that IE on Windows

    XP
    > > > displays my website differently than IE on Windows 2000.

    > >
    > > IE may also display a page differently depending if its online or local.
    > >
    > > > To be more precise: if you look at the website
    > > > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au,

    > >
    > > fix your HTML and CSS errors to see if the problem goes away.

    >
    > Can you tell me what HTML and CSS errors specifically you mean?


    These ones, for a start :)
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 28, 2003
    #14
  15. Fredo Vincentis

    rf Guest

    "Fredo Vincentis" <> wrote in message
    news:bsloaj$1b3s$...

    > I agree, the W3Org validator will not pass my code as valid. But this is
    > mainly due to the fact that I have not escaped the & characters in the

    URLs
    > (which I will do one day, I promise). I don't think this would cause my
    > layers to overlap in Windows XP.


    Your code should validate. If it does not then there is no point in looking
    for any errors in it, the errors that are there cloud the issue.

    > I assume we are rather talking about a css problem, but I do not know what
    > could cause this behavior in XP.


    I really don't think this emphasis on XP is valid. There is nothing special
    about XP, it is merely Windows NT release 5.1. I suppose there is one
    special thing about it, it ships with IE6. This is what you should be
    talking about. IE6.

    > I don't have an XP machine here to test it,
    > either.


    You don't need one. Simply download IE6. It fits quite nicely even into 98.
    The only cost is the bandwidth usage.

    > So if there is anybody out there who could confirm whether the
    > problem really occurs all the time, that would be helpful.


    I don't see your particular problem but I do see many others.

    You might rethink the whole concept of placing something at the bottom of
    the canvas. What is wrong with the bottom of the page and in any case it
    sometimes does not work:

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/1.jpg

    You might also reconsider specifying font sizes in pixels, or specifying
    font size at all. One day somebody is going to get cranky about your small
    fonts and the fact that they cannot be changed in IE and choose to ignore
    your suggestions and then your carefully crafted positioning will screw up
    on you:

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/2.jpg

    You might also consider testing your page in other browsers:

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/3.jpg

    Of course your horrendously long title hides the fact that this is a
    screenshot of Mozilla :)

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 28, 2003
    #15
  16. Fredo Vincentis

    rf Guest

    "Fredo Vincentis" <> wrote in message
    news:bslps3$1bfn$...
    > "brucie" <> wrote in message
    > news:bslobc$e7luu$-berlin.de...
    > > in post <news:bsln1i$1anc$>
    > > Fredo Vincentis said:

    >
    > You have to learn that it is not helping anybody if you respond to a

    simple
    > question by complaining about somebody's code if it is irrelevant to the
    > problem.


    Oh come on. You complain about an error in your code. brucie points out the
    errors in your code and you get cranky?

    How do we know for sure that absolutely none of the errors the validator is
    reporting is the error that is relevant to your problem?

    I'll just bet that if you correct all the errors the validator reports then
    your problem will go away.

    If it does not then the error is an error in your design. These are *far*
    easier to fix when it is *known* that there are no other errors that may be
    causing IE's rather dubious error correction to kick in and do all sorts of
    weird things.

    OTOH you *may* be falling into one of IE's many bugs but once again how can
    we tell if your HTML is not valid to start with?

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 28, 2003
    #16
  17. "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:JVzHb.68060$...
    >
    > "Fredo Vincentis" <> wrote in message
    > news:bsloaj$1b3s$...
    >
    > > I agree, the W3Org validator will not pass my code as valid. But this is
    > > mainly due to the fact that I have not escaped the & characters in the

    > URLs
    > > (which I will do one day, I promise). I don't think this would cause my
    > > layers to overlap in Windows XP.

    >
    > Your code should validate. If it does not then there is no point in

    looking
    > for any errors in it, the errors that are there cloud the issue.
    >
    > > I assume we are rather talking about a css problem, but I do not know

    what
    > > could cause this behavior in XP.

    >
    > I really don't think this emphasis on XP is valid. There is nothing

    special
    > about XP, it is merely Windows NT release 5.1. I suppose there is one
    > special thing about it, it ships with IE6. This is what you should be
    > talking about. IE6.


    Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is that I
    tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine. The only users that
    mentioned it does not work are people using IE 6 on XP. This is what causes
    my headache.

    > You might rethink the whole concept of placing something at the bottom of
    > the canvas. What is wrong with the bottom of the page and in any case it
    > sometimes does not work:
    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/1.jpg


    It only appears at the bottom of the canvas if the content of the site does
    not exceed the height of the canvas. In the case of the screenshot I assume
    the content + space afterwards was longer?

    Normally I am happy with putting images at the bottom of the page, but in
    this particular case I want to ensure that the image doesn't "hang" in the
    middle of the page should the content be shorter than the window-height.

    > You might also reconsider specifying font sizes in pixels, or specifying
    > font size at all. One day somebody is going to get cranky about your small
    > fonts and the fact that they cannot be changed in IE and choose to ignore
    > your suggestions and then your carefully crafted positioning will screw up
    > on you:
    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/2.jpg


    Rather than specifying font-size in pixels I am currently considering
    specifying them in %. This is a design issue I have to address in the next
    version of the site.

    > You might also consider testing your page in other browsers:
    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/3.jpg


    I have tested the site in Netscape 7 and IE 5+6 for both PC and Mac as well
    as on Safari (Mac) and Opera (PC) and it worked fine on all of them. Mozilla
    slipped my tests and I guess it's Murphy's Law that it doesn't work there.
    Should be addressed in the next version, I agree.
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 28, 2003
    #17
  18. Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:

    > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php


    > Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is
    > that I tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine.


    No it doesn't.

    http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/images/addictive.jpg 80KB

    Windows 2000 Pro SP4
    IE 6 SP1
    Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility
    [x] Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
    (because your font size is too small)
    Browser at 800x600
    Monitor at 1024x768 (however, irrelevant)

    There is a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Needs to be about 855
    pixels wide before scrollbar disappears.

    > The
    > only users that mentioned it does not work are people using IE 6 on
    > XP. This is what causes my headache.


    Consider it mentioned for other browsers as well. Your design falls
    apart in many browsers. Opera 7.2 actually does a better job than any
    of the other browsers I used.

    Curious as to why the filename is index_html.php rather than just
    index.php ?

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 28, 2003
    #18
  19. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:OPDHb.4967$...
    > Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:
    >
    > > http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php

    >
    > > Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is
    > > that I tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine.

    >
    > No it doesn't.
    >
    > http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/images/addictive.jpg 80KB
    >
    > Windows 2000 Pro SP4
    > IE 6 SP1
    > Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility
    > [x] Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
    > (because your font size is too small)
    > Browser at 800x600
    > Monitor at 1024x768 (however, irrelevant)
    >
    > There is a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Needs to be about 855
    > pixels wide before scrollbar disappears.


    Sorry, but I don't agree on this one: the site works in 800 x 600. Set your
    monitor to the correct resolution and it will work. It works on all the
    machines I have got standing right next to me.

    The site works fine in IE 6 and all other browsers with the stylesheets as
    defined. If the css are overwritten, I agree it does not look great, but the
    site is accessible and that is what my client requires.

    The font is not too small for the target audience specified.On a different
    website I will use a different font-size, but this particular site addresses
    the target audience just right.

    > Curious as to why the filename is index_html.php rather than just
    > index.php ?


    There are two versions of the site - a flash version and a html version.
    index.php runs through a flash-detection and redirects the user accordingly.
    So there is a file called index_html and a file called index_flash.
     
    Fredo Vincentis, Dec 28, 2003
    #19
  20. Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    > news:OPDHb.4967$...
    >
    >>Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:
    >>
    >>> http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/index_html.php

    >>
    >>>Thanks for your feedback, Richard. The reason why I emphasize XP is
    >>>that I tested the site on IE 6 for Win2000 and it works fine.

    >>
    >>No it doesn't.
    >>
    >>http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/images/addictive.jpg 80KB
    >>
    >>Windows 2000 Pro SP4
    >>IE 6 SP1
    >> Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility
    >> [x] Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
    >> (because your font size is too small)
    >>Browser at 800x600
    >>Monitor at 1024x768 (however, irrelevant)
    >>
    >>There is a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Needs to be about 855
    >>pixels wide before scrollbar disappears.

    >
    > Sorry, but I don't agree on this one: the site works in 800 x 600. Set your
    > monitor to the correct resolution and it will work. It works on all the
    > machines I have got standing right next to me.


    My monitor is set to my preference. Your page does show a scrollbar
    with a window size of 800x600. Why would you want me to change my
    resolution (which again is irrelevant) just for your site anyway? And
    why would you want to design for one particular size?
    http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

    > The site works fine in IE 6 and all other browsers with the stylesheets as
    > defined. If the css are overwritten, I agree it does not look great, but the
    > site is accessible and that is what my client requires.


    So you think you can control the computers of all your visitors, then.
    The visitors will never have a sidebar opened? You think everyone
    browses with the window maximized?

    > The font is not too small for the target audience specified.On a different
    > website I will use a different font-size, but this particular site addresses
    > the target audience just right.


    Are you saying this site is targeted to /only/ young people with
    excellent vision? How bold of you.

    Maybe it's an intranet?

    >>Curious as to why the filename is index_html.php rather than just
    >>index.php ?

    >
    > There are two versions of the site - a flash version and a html version.
    > index.php runs through a flash-detection and redirects the user accordingly.
    > So there is a file called index_html and a file called index_flash.


    Ok, understood.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 29, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ARaman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    407
    Mike Wahler
    Oct 23, 2003
  2. Chris Lyon
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
    Chris Lyon
    Oct 7, 2003
  3. Ringwraith
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    968
    Ringwraith
    Jan 27, 2004
  4. Krist
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    801
    Arne Vajhøj
    May 7, 2010
  5. Peter Singer

    Web Services on Win 2003 to SQL Server on Win 2000

    Peter Singer, Sep 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    318
    Yan-Hong Huang[MSFT]
    Sep 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page