Noob asking for help!

[Travis Newbury]

but I don't know why anyone would want to since they won't see what the
author has produced.

I agree with you that someone that changes their settings will not be
seeing what the author produced, in the manner the author wants it to
bee seen. The user does have the ability to change it. But you have
to remember that reguardless of what you are I think, there ARE some
out there that change things. And for these people your design may not
look the same ("poof" end of challenge). The company has to determine
what impact those people will have on the success of the site.

My challenge still stands.

Your right, it stands to fail.

 

[Toby Inkster]

is a text-based browser. If you'll actually read what I posted, I said
graphical browsers.

Actually, in the post I responded to, you said "in any browser" -- you
didn't mention "graphical browsers" until a few hours after my challenge.

Besides which, w3m is a graphical browser.

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/w3m-screenshot

 

[William Hamby]

Oh yeah? A user stylesheet with

h1, h2, h3 { background-image: none !important;}

h1 *, h2 *, h3 * {display: inline !important; text-indent: 0
!important; margin: 0 !important; position: static !important;}

Yeah, because image replacement does not have to be a background image.

Because often what the author has produced is hard to read and use for
some portion of the audience.

Very true. However, a skilled coder / designer could avoid that problem
- again, by using web and accessibility standards.

 

[William Hamby]

Your right, it stands to fail.

Like I said, provide the valid markup and I'll prove you wrong.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Yeah, because image replacement does not have to be a background image.

Image replacement normally refers to using CSS to insert an image in
place of some standard HTML text. There are only two ways to include
an image via CSS: background-image and content. As content isn't
supported by IE that leaves background-image.

Techniques that use a <img> element are not normally considered as
image replacement except in the minority of case where the <img> is
dynamicaly inserted by JavaScrip in place of some HTML text - and such
cases are much, much rarer than the CSS cases.

So I think that the vast majority of image replacement does use
background images.

What alternative did you have in mind?

Very true. However, a skilled coder / designer could avoid that problem
- again, by using web and accessibility standards.

Even if all the standards in the world are followed a site can still
be hard to use for some users. Test for 100 accessibility issues and a
visitor with issue 101 will come along...

And users who need to over ride authors' bad styling on the majority
of badly built sites (which aren't going away any time soon) will
probably not know that your site is one of the good guys and so will
probably leave their overrides switched on when they first visit your
site. And why not? If it's accessible either way then it doesn't make
any difference to the user or the site owner.

Steve

 

[William Hamby]

Image replacement normally refers to using CSS to insert an image in
place of some standard HTML text. There are only two ways to include
an image via CSS: background-image and content.

Not true.

What alternative did you have in mind?

I'm glad you asked. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/

Pick a font. Any font. Works in every browser.

 

[Toby Inkster]

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/w3m-screenshot

PS: It's even more scary if you're running it on a VC without
X windows.

 

[kchayka]

It's completely possible to make any website look the
same in any browser, albeit using some hacks. As for different fonts on
different O/Ss, it's easy - image replacement.

Different fonts on different O/Ss aren't so much the issue as font-size
and general legibility on screen. This is a serious problem with using
images for text.

Why would I care if it looks the same if I can't read it?

Back to your challenge... If you don't use graphics for text, there is
no way you can claim a page will look the same in any 2 browsers, let
alone *all* graphical browsers. And if you do only use graphics, you've
pretty much made a page that's inaccessible to a lot of people, so why
bother?

Besides, I have a hard time believing that, except for a bare-bones
page, Netscape 4.x will come even close to a more modern browser.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Not true.

Which of my statements isn't true?

"Image replacement normally refers to using CSS to insert an image in
place of some standard HTML text."

Or...

"There are only two ways to include an image via CSS: background-image
and content."

Which of those statements isn't true?

I'm glad you asked. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/

And you think this is anything other than "much, much rarer" case I
mentioned in my post?

Pick a font. Any font. Works in every browser.

Every browser? I assume you mean every browser with JavaScript
enabled, a sufficient level of DOM support and image loading enabled.

Also doesn't respect the user's chosen text size so isn't very
accessible (though could be made more accessible by changing the
JavaScript).

And looking at your ridiculous challenge it seems that you would be
willing to use this technique to replace _all_ the text on a page.
Really?

Steve

 

[Travis Newbury]

Like I said, provide the valid markup and I'll prove you wrong.

Everyone here has shown you over and over how you are wrong. the only
way you are correct is if you provide the settings for my browser.
unfortunately you don't have that ability.

I, like many here, like a good argument, but this is hardly a good
argument. Keep on believing what you want.

 

[William Hamby]

Everyone here has shown you over and over how you are wrong. the only
way you are correct is if you provide the settings for my browser.
unfortunately you don't have that ability.

That's only your opinion.

I, like many here, like a good argument, but this is hardly a good
argument. Keep on believing what you want.

You do the same, Travis.

 

[William Hamby]

Different fonts on different O/Ss aren't so much the issue as font-size
and general legibility on screen. This is a serious problem with using
images for text.

I wouldn't be using images to change the text size.

Why would I care if it looks the same if I can't read it?

You would be able to.

Back to your challenge... If you don't use graphics for text, there is
no way you can claim a page will look the same in any 2 browsers, let
alone *all* graphical browsers.

Not true.

And if you do only use graphics, you've
pretty much made a page that's inaccessible to a lot of people, so why
bother?

Also not true.

Besides, I have a hard time believing that, except for a bare-bones
page, Netscape 4.x will come even close to a more modern browser.

You'd be surprised what even NN4 can render.

I sense an overall negative vibe or suspension of disbelief from many
in this newsgroup as to what valid markup and css using web standards
can accomplish. It's apparent to me that very few here have a lot of
experience with either. With that, I'll continue to post what I know is
fact (only because I've done it before).

 

[Toby Inkster]

only because I've done it before

If you believe you've created a page that looks identical in all graphical
browsers, then please put us out of our misery and post the URL.

Until you do that, I will continue to believe that it is not possible (nor
desirable in most cases).

 

[Oli Filth]

William Hamby wrote:




If you believe you've created a page that looks identical in all graphical
browsers, then please put us out of our misery and post the URL.

Until you do that, I will continue to believe that it is not possible (nor
desirable in most cases).

Check out his homepage, that should look identical in most browsers...
http://www.williamhamby.net/

 

[tm]

William Hamby wrote:

If you believe you've created a page that looks identical in all graphical
browsers, then please put us out of our misery and post the URL.

Until you do that, I will continue to believe that it is not possible (nor
desirable in most cases).

Did you check out http://williamhamby.net?
Looks pretty damn identical in all my browsers.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Check out his homepage, that should look identical in most browsers...
http://www.williamhamby.net/

Well, depends on how "most" you consider "most" to be. In some
browsers it's an empty white page, in others it's an empty grey page,
in mine it's an empty cream page.

Steve

 

[Travis Newbury]

Check out his homepage, that should look identical in most browsers...
http://www.williamhamby.net/

THAT was the best laugh I have ahd all week long!

 

[Toby Inkster]

Check out his homepage, that should look identical in most browsers...
http://www.williamhamby.net/

Doesn't here. Netscape 4.0 displays it as a plain grey page; Internet
Explorer 4.0 displays it as a plain white page; w3m displays it as a plain
black page.

Now, are you going to argue that black is white?

 

[Lauri Raittila]

True.

Image replacement normally refers to using CSS to insert an image in
place of some standard HTML text. There are only two ways to include
an image via CSS: background-image and content. As content isn't
supported by IE that leaves background-image.

and list-style-image. That is very unlikely to be overriden, by
userstylesheet. Especially for H1... But how to use it is not simple all,
especially if you are after pixel perfectness... Why not just use image
with alt text. Or use suitable background image with text. Image
replacement techniques are usually used to fix inexisting problem (css
zen garden leads example).

List-style-image has been used for image replacement since dark ages of
CSS. I used it first and time on 1999 IIRC. (in print stylesheet... to
fix bad ordering in my document...) Worked in Opera and/or NN4, can't
recall anymore...

 

[Lauri Raittila]

Did you check out http://williamhamby.net?
Looks pretty damn identical in all my browsers.

That is propably because you are usign same settings on all your
browsers. That is mistake most authors do when they test pages. (you only
need to have correct settings for the browser you actually use...)

And default settings aren't alwasy white either. NN used gray for long
time. Opera uses system default color from moment it was installed.