Image Displays in IE, not Firefox

[Arthur Shapiro]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows the
problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will only be
up for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is showing
the same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly tell
me what I'm overlooking?

Regards,
Art Shapiro

 

[idle]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows the
problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will only be
up for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is showing
the same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly tell
me what I'm overlooking?

Regards,
Art Shapiro

Works ok in my FF.

 

[freemont]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows the
problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will only be
up for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is showing
the same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly tell
me what I'm overlooking?

It must be something on your machine. I see the bicycle here in FF 3.5.5
(Windows & Linux), and also in IE7, IE8 and Opera 10.10 (Linux).

I will point out, since this is alt.html, that your markup is horribly
deprecated. <font> tags and stuff like bgcolor don't belong in modern
sites. You should be able to create this page with maybe ten lines of
markup. For instance, replace:

<table bgcolor="" align="center"><TR><TD>
<A href="../../index.htm#ad">Back to Home page</A>
</TD></TR></table>

with:

<p><a href="../../index.htm#ad">Back to Home page</a></p>

and format it in a stylesheet. It's just silly as hell to put /that/ in a
table.

Anyway, have you confirmed the problem with anyone else, or is it just
something you're seeing?

 

[Neredbojias]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows
the problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will
only be up for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is
showing the same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly
tell me what I'm overlooking?

As did the others, I see the bike in ff, too. Since the thumb is
evincing the same anomaly, it might be a prob with your video setup or
video card/memory. Are you using full 16M color resolution? And did
you check with ff on another 'puter?

 

[Arthur Shapiro]

I will point out, since this is alt.html, that your markup is horribly
deprecated.

Thank you for the report. I had it fail on several of my Firefox
machines, tunneled into my office and deliberately remote-desktop'ed to
a rarely-used machine, and had that one fail as well. That's when I
posted. So I'm thoroughly baffled.

I totally agree with your observation about the code, and can't argue.
In my own defense, I generate these image pages with a freeware utility
cleaned up with a script, and it lets me churn out a bunch of linked
picture pages in a couple of minutes. (The example, with one picture,
is the pathological simple case.) So let's just say it gets the job
done quickly and lets me have the day's pictures posted before most
folks are even home to turn on their computers. For stuff that's going
to remain on the site for a week, I don't get too hot-and-bothered by
the crummy HTML. Hope this isn't a Bad Attitude!

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

Art

 

[dorayme]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows the
problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will only be
up for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is showing
the same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly tell
me what I'm overlooking?

I am seeing exactly what you are seeing on my FF and my Safari. Yes
there is a problem. There are a couple of things. When I substitute a
simple picture that is on an external server with a fullpath address and
get rid of that class of yours that is instructing something to do
something weird, the picture appears. Removing or altering the class
enables my picture to appear but not yours which flashes on as if to try
and then fails. There is funny scripting things going on! <g>

Perhaps tell us more about exactly what you are up to? Why not have
decent HTML mark up with proper strict doctype? And to keep things
simpler? If you are server side scripting, you might need to go to a
scripting usenet group to sort things out.

 

[Andy]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started encountering
an issue in which various images don't display at all in Firefox but have
no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows the
problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will only be up
for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is showing the
same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly tell
me what I'm overlooking?

Regards,
Art Shapiro

It worked in my FF, but when I looked at the source I noticed that you have
a lot of </TR></TD> when they should be the other way around </TD></TR>


Hope this helps


Andy

 

[Andy]

It worked in my FF, but when I looked at the source I noticed that you
have a lot of </TR></TD> when they should be the other way around
</TD></TR>


Hope this helps


Andy

Scrub that reply, was too hasty and misread source code, the </TD></TR>s are
ok.

Andy

 

[Andy Dingley]

I run a small site for a bicycle club.  I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE.  

Firefox 3.0.7 is failing to show it here. HTTP headers don't show any
request for the image.

Viewing the image URL works fine. Nothing obvious in the HTTP headers
for it.

Now the bizarre bit - viewing the DOM ("Generated source" through Web
developer's toolkit) shows a style="display:none;" which explains why
there's no image, but doesn't explain how it got there.


PS - that HTML sucks. Looks like mid-90s code, both as source and when
rendered.

 

[Doug Miller]

freemont wrote:

Thank you for the report. I had it fail on several of my Firefox
machines, tunneled into my office and deliberately remote-desktop'ed to
a rarely-used machine, and had that one fail as well. That's when I
posted. So I'm thoroughly baffled.

Have you installed the AdBlockPlus plugin in FireFox?

I can't see the image in FireFox either -- and that's why.

 

[Neredbojias]

Firefox 3.0.7 is failing to show it here. HTTP headers don't show any
request for the image.

Viewing the image URL works fine. Nothing obvious in the HTTP headers
for it.

Now the bizarre bit - viewing the DOM ("Generated source" through Web
developer's toolkit) shows a style="display:none;" which explains why
there's no image, but doesn't explain how it got there.

What about the inline img element appearing ~directly~ in the body
element (-or technically between the <center></center>, but...) or is
transitional loose enough for that? I don't think so and do rather
think that the validator is erroneous in this case.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I run a small site for a bicycle club. I've recently started
encountering an issue in which various images don't display at all in
Firefox but have no problems in IE. Validation goes OK.

As a preposterously small example, here's a 19-line page that shows the
problem: http://www.ocrebels.com/images/ad/pic1.htm (It will only be up
for a week.) The page that links to it via a thumbnail is showing the
same issue with the thumbnail.

Could some kind soul put me out of my misery and perhaps laughingly tell
me what I'm overlooking?

Modernizing your markup will not only allow the image to display, but
simplifies it as well

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">

<title>Colnago</title>

<style type="text/css">
body { color: #000; background: #c0c0c0; }
h1, div { text-align: center; }
div img { display: block; margin: 1em auto; }
</style>

</head>
<body>
<h1>Colnago</h1>
<div>
<a href="../../index.htm#ad">Back to Home page</a>
<img src="one.jpg" alt="Image 1 of 1 - 168 kB">
<a href="../../index.htm#ad">Back to Home page</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>

 

[Arthur Shapiro]

Thanks for all your reports and suggestions so far, everyone. I'll
digest all your thoughts this evening and try and deal with the issue.

I guess I'm totally lost as to why this code (crummy or not!) usually
works and is only failing once in a blue moon, such as in the case in
question.

Art

 

[Arthur Shapiro]

Have you installed the AdBlockPlus plugin in FireFox?

Yes, I'm an AdBlockPlus user, which is specifically why I reported
tunneling into work and connecting to a "foreign" machine - it doesn't
have any add-ons and still exhibited the problem. I was concerned about
the add-ons and wanted to eliminate that issue before bothering the
newsgroup.

Art

 

[Arthur Shapiro]

Have you installed the AdBlockPlus plugin in FireFox?

Sacre Bleu!

I'm at work, and just checked the "foreign" machine - to my surprise, it had
AdBlock, just like all my own machines.

When I disabled the add-on, the image appeared correctly. Ditto for my main
office machine.

I suspect that AdBlock is keying on the directory "ad" and killing things.
I'm going to change it from "ad" to "gorbenfranz" when I get home.

I appreciate everyone's help on this issue. I'd love to have more impressive
code, even for these silly little picture pages, but really need to have some
means of automatically generating them - I'm talking 30-90 linked pictures
twice a week, as you can see on the Photos page of that site. I'm sure this
is a common requirement - how have some of you addressed the issue?

Art - grateful for all the input

 

[freemont]

Sacre Bleu!

I'm at work, and just checked the "foreign" machine - to my surprise, it
had AdBlock, just like all my own machines.

When I disabled the add-on, the image appeared correctly. Ditto for my
main office machine.

I suspect that AdBlock is keying on the directory "ad" and killing
things. I'm going to change it from "ad" to "gorbenfranz" when I get
home.

I appreciate everyone's help on this issue. I'd love to have more
impressive code, even for these silly little picture pages, but really
need to have some means of automatically generating them - I'm talking
30-90 linked pictures twice a week, as you can see on the Photos page of
that site. I'm sure this is a common requirement - how have some of you
addressed the issue?

Art - grateful for all the input

Photo gallery software. Coppermine or similar.

 

[Arthur Shapiro]

Solution confirmed - AdBlockPlus doesn't like a folder named ad, unless
a specific inclusion rule is added for a given site.

I renamed the folder, changed the link, and all is well (crummy code or
not.)

Thanks, everyone - quite a mystery without the benefit of hindsight.

And I'll look at some of those better photo gallery programs as time
permits.

Art

 

[dorayme]

Solution confirmed - AdBlockPlus doesn't like a folder named ad, unless
a specific inclusion rule is added for a given site.

I renamed the folder, changed the link, and all is well (crummy code or
not.)

Thanks, everyone - quite a mystery without the benefit of hindsight.

And I'll look at some of those better photo gallery programs as time
permits.

How I kicked myself for not spotting this considering I have been caught
by the very same thing! I had more than one complaint about a commercial
site and worked out it was because of the name of the folder (I think it
was, rather than the name of the file in my case) and ad blocking
software. The softwares don't always work quite the same on different
browsers...

 

[Allodoxaphobia]

Solution confirmed - AdBlockPlus doesn't like a folder named ad, unless
a specific inclusion rule is added for a given site.

I renamed the folder, changed the link, and all is well (crummy code or
not.)

privoxy will probably handle it the same way.