IE css problems only on win XP

[Fredo Vincentis]

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!

 

[SAZ]

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.

 

[brucie]

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.

 

[Fredo Vincentis]

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


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?

 

[brucie]

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

none specifically just all of them

 

[Fredo Vincentis]

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.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

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/index_flash.php

 

[brucie]

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

 

[Fredo Vincentis]

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.

 

[brucie]

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

 

[Fredo Vincentis]

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.

 

[brucie]

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.

 

[Spartanicus]

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

 

[rf]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Fredo Vincentis]

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 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.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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 ?

 

[Fredo Vincentis]

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.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Fredo Vincentis:

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?

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.