Paragraph tags different in Mozilla

J

Joel Shepherd

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
I use mustard on my doughnuts, and dip my cheeseburgers in *Pepsi*!

Okay: now _that_ is _weird_.

That's it! I'm moving to Canada!
 
T

tshad

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Sounds like a good reason to dump it. :)


I always use 100% and have no problems at all. You must be doing something
else wrong. Or, rather of course, FrontPage is doing something else wrong.

Have we mentioned that IE users will not be able to resize your fonts if
they have vision problems?


A graphic image of text? Why not just use text? Unless you're showing
mathematical formulae, or need a particular emphasized header, there is
little reason to use a graphic of text.


Screen size is unimportant. Browser window size is. My 1024 monitor
usually has a browser window around 750-850px wide.


Again, screen resolution is not important.


The page still has the complete doctype. In fact, I think I recall that an
incomplete doctype will still toss browsers into quirks mode.


..and there are still no units on your paragraph margin.
Still 15 cheeseburgers.
 
T

tshad

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Sounds like a good reason to dump it. :)


I always use 100% and have no problems at all. You must be doing something
else wrong. Or, rather of course, FrontPage is doing something else wrong.

Have we mentioned that IE users will not be able to resize your fonts if
they have vision problems?


A graphic image of text? Why not just use text? Unless you're showing
mathematical formulae, or need a particular emphasized header, there is
little reason to use a graphic of text.
Buttons, for one thing.
Screen size is unimportant. Browser window size is. My 1024 monitor
usually has a browser window around 750-850px wide.
I build all my screens using 1024 and the text looks fine. As I mentioned,
we have ours screens set up to mimic government forms or just to get as much
information on one screen as possible without cluttering it. Some take 2 or
3 columns with text followed by text boxes. We have enough problems getting
the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font. If you
make the fonts bigger, the whole page will look wrong. We spend a lot of
time just getting a particular look to the screen (much of it data entry
screens), if the browsers start mucking with it - the look is gone.

I know I am in the minority here and may take a different approach later but
when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser and
a mess in others. We have have no end of problems just trying to deal with
the differences between the browsers. On some pages we have to use
transitional and others strict to get the screens to look the same in
Mozilla vs IE, as some others here have pointed out.
Again, screen resolution is not important.


The page still has the complete doctype. In fact, I think I recall that an
incomplete doctype will still toss browsers into quirks mode.

That my be the case, but it worked as expected once I dropped the loose.dtd
designation. Again it worked fine in one browser and not in the other when
loose.dtd was there.
..and there are still no units on your paragraph margin.
Still 15 cheeseburgers.

Again, FP. Am slowly getting rid of that. Also, moving all font sizing to
css to allow me the option of going to relative sizes later on, when I have
a chance to really look at the impact on the site.

Tom
 
K

kchayka

tshad said:
We have enough problems getting
the text and boxes to look right is all browsers using a fixed font. If you
make the fonts bigger, the whole page will look wrong.

Are you saying it doesn't matter whether the visitor can read it or not,
as long as it looks OK (to you, not necessarily the visitor)?
when we tried using relative sizing, it would look great in one browser and
a mess in others.

Then your design is broken.
 
T

tshad

kchayka said:
Are you saying it doesn't matter whether the visitor can read it or not,
as long as it looks OK (to you, not necessarily the visitor)?

No.

I can always make it only one column long and make a real long form. Of
course, it won't look like the original form we were trying to replicate.
Then your design is broken.

My design is wrong?

Of course, the different browsers not working the same is not the problem !

I could make my boxes only 10 columns long for addresses, then it won't
matter what the font ends up being.

For example on one line I might have (x's are the boxes) - 1st column is a
line from High School information, 2nd column is from References. I have a
window set with an outside border of about 1/16 inch of shading. So
everything has to fit in that window.

Name: Address: Business name:
Phone:
Type of Degree/Diploma Received? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

This is off a form and just fits the screen when set to 10px. If you set it
to 12px, either it will shove the left part of the from to the right, or it
will move the Phone box to the next line.

Forms are forms. Space is space. If you can wrap content, then changing
the font size is no big deal. But if you are limited to making the Form
look like the original, I'm not sure how you can free form the size of the
text and make it fit in a limited space.

Maybe, I am wrong here, but I don't see how you can do it. I don't want it
running of the screen to the right. That just drives people crazy that have
to use the form (to scroll left and right constantly when inputing).

Tom
 
K

kchayka

tshad said:

Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.
I can always make it only one column long and make a real long form. Of
course, it won't look like the original form we were trying to replicate.

Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper

If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task. Regardless, a web
version of a paper form does not have to look identical to the original.
Whoever said it does is lying, or maybe just uneducated regarding how
the web works.
My design is wrong?

Yup. :)
Name: Address: Business name:
Phone:
Type of Degree/Diploma Received? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

This is off a form and just fits the screen when set to 10px.

Maybe for you it does. You are presuming the visitor will have both a
viewport large enough to fit that in one line, and be able to read a
10px font. So what happens when either or both of those assumptions turn
out to be false? Is the content still usable for those visitors?

By your counts, it gets totally hosed up. That's a sign of poor web
design. People *will* need different text sizes and *will* use different
window sizes. It's a fact. You can't control it. It is your
responsibility as a web developer to account for it, not try to prevent
it (which you can't do, anyway).
But if you are limited to making the Form look like the original,

That is a bogus limitation. Was that requirement made by a clueful web
designer, or some management or marketing type? I can already guess the
answer.
I'm not sure how you can free form the size of the
text and make it fit in a limited space.

I'll repeat: web != paper

Adaptability to different browsing environments, which includes varying
text and window sizes, is a fundamental property of the web. If you stop
trying to force a web page do something against its very nature, you'll
have much more success and much less frustration.

Free yourself of the print mindset, eh?
 
T

Travis Newbury

kchayka said:
If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task. Regardless, a web
version of a paper form does not have to look identical to the original.
Whoever said it does is lying, or maybe just uneducated regarding how
the web works.

Or just has a different viewpoint than you do.
 
T

tshad

kchayka said:
Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.

Actually, that is the point. I am trying to make as readable to as many
people as possible. If this works for 90% of the people, I am not going to
try to make it work for the other 10%. Would be counter productive.

Just as many people don't try to build their sites to handle every possible
version of every possible web Browser.
Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper

No.

I use the Web as another way to accommodate my clients. It is another tool
to allow people better access to our services. The fact that is NOT paper,
doesn't mean I can't make it as pallatable as well as interesting to my
clients as possible.
If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task.

You obviously haven't dealt with PDF for forms on the Web much. I can tell
you from many that I have talked to, it is very frustrating. It is fine if
you are just trying to print some forms. But it is quite a different matter
if you are trying to set up an interactive page using PDF.
Regardless, a web version of a paper form does not have to look identical
to the original.

It does, if the client wants it that way.
Whoever said it does is lying, or maybe just uneducated regarding how the
web works.

Only one way, huh?

Tom
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Actually, that is the point. I am trying to make as readable to as many
people as possible.

As many people as possible = 100%
If this works for 90% of the people, I am not going to
try to make it work for the other 10%.

Then you are not achieving your aim as stated above.
Would be counter productive.

How so?
Just as many people don't try to build their sites to handle every possible
version of every possible web Browser.

Learn from the lemmings. ;-)
No.

I use the Web as another way to accommodate my clients. It is another tool
to allow people better access to our services. The fact that is NOT paper,
doesn't mean I can't make it as pallatable as well as interesting to my
clients as possible.

No one is saying that at all. What kchayka *is* saying is that trying to
impose the limits of one medium (paper) onto another completely
different medium (the web) is doomed to failure.
You obviously haven't dealt with PDF for forms on the Web much. I can tell
you from many that I have talked to, it is very frustrating. It is fine if
you are just trying to print some forms. But it is quite a different matter
if you are trying to set up an interactive page using PDF.

kchayka is talking about reproducing a paper layout in HTML. It simply
cannot be done. So you can either use PDF to recreate that layout, or
you can use HTML and it will look however it looks according to the
settings on your visitor's browser. You can't have it both ways.
It does, if the client wants it that way.

Then PDF is the best tool for the job. If it needs to be done in HTML,
it is your job to explain to the client that it won't look identical to
the paper version.
 
T

tshad

Mark Parnell said:
As many people as possible = 100%

So you program for Netscape 1 or 2 or 3 and IE 2 or 3 and all the Javascript
and Jscript differences?
Then you are not achieving your aim as stated above.

I guess not. Possible is defined as reasonable, in my perception (obviously
not yours)

As I mentioned above, trying to get every possible Browser (and versions),
scripts (and versions) - would be difficult. Even trying to get it right
for all the variations between just the current Browsers with the different
Doctypes (strict, Transitional, loose etc). When, as people have pointed
here, browsers tend to follow some standards but not others, etc.
Learn from the lemmings. ;-)


No one is saying that at all. What kchayka *is* saying is that trying to
impose the limits of one medium (paper) onto another completely
different medium (the web) is doomed to failure.

I agree. But that doesn't mean you have to toss it out altogether.
kchayka is talking about reproducing a paper layout in HTML. It simply
cannot be done. So you can either use PDF to recreate that layout, or
you can use HTML and it will look however it looks according to the
settings on your visitor's browser. You can't have it both ways.

Probably true.
Then PDF is the best tool for the job. If it needs to be done in HTML,
it is your job to explain to the client that it won't look identical to
the paper version.

If you don't have the interactive version of adobe, as most people don't (at
least not that I know of), how do you do interactive forms in PDF?

Tom
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
So you program for Netscape 1 or 2 or 3 and IE 2 or 3 and all the Javascript
and Jscript differences?

<nitpick>HTML isn't programming</nitpick> ;-)

Not specifically, no. But my web sites do still work in those browsers
(and yes I've checked). It may not look the same, but it still works and
the content is accessible. That's the important thing.
I guess not. Possible is defined as reasonable, in my perception (obviously
not yours)

No, we just have different definitions of reasonable. Or more to the
point, you have other aims (i.e. making it identical to a paper version)
that conflict with making it readable to everyone.
As I mentioned above, trying to get every possible Browser (and versions),
scripts (and versions) - would be difficult. Even trying to get it right
for all the variations between just the current Browsers with the different
Doctypes (strict, Transitional, loose etc). When, as people have pointed
here, browsers tend to follow some standards but not others, etc.

Yes, browsers differ, they have bugs, etc. Obviously no one is disputing
that. But the reason it affects you *so* much is because you want it to
be identical down to the last pixel in every possible environment. With
HTML, that is never going to happen. You need to let go, and accept that
as long as it looks OK in all browsers, it doesn't matter if they differ
slightly.
I agree. But that doesn't mean you have to toss it out altogether.

Absolutely not. You can still use the same basic layout/design, you just
can't expect it to be pixel perfect.
If you don't have the interactive version of adobe, as most people don't (at
least not that I know of), how do you do interactive forms in PDF?

You don't; that's what I'm saying. If you want interactivity, then HTML
is the way to go. But you can't then expect it to look identical to the
paper version.
 
K

kchayka

tshad said:
It does, if the client wants it that way.

And if the client were fluent in web authoring, he'd probably be
developing the site himself. Where web design is concerned, the client
isn't always right.

It is your responsibility as a "subject matter expert" to educate him on
which of his ideas are good and doable, and which are not so good.
Trying to implement his whims without question will only result in a
reduced quality product and a lot of frustration, which is apparently
what you have now.

If you put it in a respectful way, clients *will* listen. Assuming they
aren't pig-headed dolts, anyway.
 
K

kchayka

Mark said:
What kchayka *is* saying is that trying to
impose the limits of one medium (paper) onto another completely
different medium (the web) is doomed to failure.

Indeed. I wasn't suggesting PDF forms be used instead of HTML, just that
PDF is better suited to maintaining an exact layout. It simply cannot be
done reliably in HTML.
 
T

Toby Inkster

tshad said:
So you program for Netscape 1 or 2 or 3 and IE 2 or 3 and all the Javascript
and Jscript differences?

Last time I checked, my website was usable in Netscape 1 and IE 2.
 
T

tshad

Toby Inkster said:
Last time I checked, my website was usable in Netscape 1 and IE 2.

Thats fine.

But there are things you cannot do in Netscape 1 and IE 2. Otherwise, you
wouldn't have sites tell you that you need to use this version or that
version or later.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

tshad said:
But there are things you cannot do in Netscape 1 and IE 2.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have sites tell you that you need to use
this version or that version or later.

Author needs training. :)

No one should expect a good-looking site (in a modern browser) to
appear the same in an ancient browser. The trick is knowing how to
structure the site so the *content* is still available in those old ones.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,479
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top