Re: alignment problem in Opera

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Spartanicus, Jan 11, 2004.

  1. Spartanicus

    Spartanicus Guest

    -D- wrote:

    Moved from opera.beta

    >>>Does anyone know how I can correct the following alignment problem that
    >>>occurs in Opera 6 & 7?
    >>>
    >>>referring URL:
    >>>http://www.mattminorandshotglass.com/index.htm


    >>You've got far more important things to worry about, this is what I saw:
    >>http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/img/mattminorandshotglass.com.png


    >Are you using popup blocker software or something similiar?


    Not when I visited your site.

    >I've tested and
    >viewed the pages on multiple browsers and versions (IE 5.0 5.5 6.0, Netscape
    >4, 6, 7, Mozilla Firebird, Opera 6 & 7) and everything is viewing fine.


    Try it sans javascript and sans flash.

    >>>There is a small misalignment that occurss with the iframe and graphic in
    >>>the following page. It also is occuring in the menu. There are larger gaps
    >>>between the menu buttons.

    >>
    >>That's what you asked for by specifying cellspacing="2".
    >>
    >>>I've tried some other newsgroups that deal
    >>>specifically with web development, but have been unable to find a solution.

    >>
    >>I could only find an (afaics unrelated) post from you in
    >>macormedia.dreamweaver
    >>
    >>Follow up set to alt.html
    >>
    >>>I was hoping someone here would know the answer to this problem. Any help
    >>>is appreciated. Thanks.

    >>
    >>If you want other people to look at your code then it's common curtesy
    >>to make a minimized test case, having to trawl through the dreadful code
    >>that you have produced is a lot of work.


    >What is dreadful about the code? I'm using all CSS positioning and
    >formattting.


    It's yet another example of dreadful markup, tables used for layout with
    a bit of css slapped on top it of.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jan 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Spartanicus

    -D- Guest

    Okay, so you have javascript and Flash disabled. I'll loss some viewers
    that have javascript and Flash disabled. The audience base I'm targeting is
    more prone to have both enabled in their browser, so that isn't a major
    concern for me.

    I'm at a loss of what you were referring to with a table layout? The layout
    is built with layers and CSS positioning. There are only two tables used in
    the page. Both tables are within a layer to position the menu buttons and
    the other for the iframe.

    The table cell spacing is only used in the table with the menu buttons, but
    again, Opera renders that with a larger gap. The iframe slight
    mis-alignment uses a table with the cell spacing to zero, so it is something
    else that is causing the alignment problem there.

    -D-


    "Spartanicus" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > -D- wrote:
    >
    > Moved from opera.beta
    >
    > >>>Does anyone know how I can correct the following alignment problem that
    > >>>occurs in Opera 6 & 7?
    > >>>
    > >>>referring URL:
    > >>>http://www.mattminorandshotglass.com/index.htm

    >
    > >>You've got far more important things to worry about, this is what I saw:
    > >>http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/img/mattminorandshotglass.com.png

    >
    > >Are you using popup blocker software or something similiar?

    >
    > Not when I visited your site.
    >
    > >I've tested and
    > >viewed the pages on multiple browsers and versions (IE 5.0 5.5 6.0,

    Netscape
    > >4, 6, 7, Mozilla Firebird, Opera 6 & 7) and everything is viewing fine.

    >
    > Try it sans javascript and sans flash.
    >
    > >>>There is a small misalignment that occurss with the iframe and graphic

    in
    > >>>the following page. It also is occuring in the menu. There are larger

    gaps
    > >>>between the menu buttons.
    > >>
    > >>That's what you asked for by specifying cellspacing="2".
    > >>
    > >>>I've tried some other newsgroups that deal
    > >>>specifically with web development, but have been unable to find a

    solution.
    > >>
    > >>I could only find an (afaics unrelated) post from you in
    > >>macormedia.dreamweaver
    > >>
    > >>Follow up set to alt.html
    > >>
    > >>>I was hoping someone here would know the answer to this problem. Any

    help
    > >>>is appreciated. Thanks.
    > >>
    > >>If you want other people to look at your code then it's common curtesy
    > >>to make a minimized test case, having to trawl through the dreadful code
    > >>that you have produced is a lot of work.

    >
    > >What is dreadful about the code? I'm using all CSS positioning and
    > >formattting.

    >
    > It's yet another example of dreadful markup, tables used for layout with
    > a bit of css slapped on top it of.
    >
    > --
    > Spartanicus
     
    -D-, Jan 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Spartanicus

    Spartanicus Guest

    -D- wrote:

    Top posting is not appreciated in this group.

    >Okay, so you have javascript and Flash disabled. I'll loss some viewers
    >that have javascript and Flash disabled. The audience base I'm targeting is
    >more prone to have both enabled in their browser, so that isn't a major
    >concern for me.


    Your loss, bye.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jan 12, 2004
    #3
  4. Spartanicus

    Cameron Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:

    > -D- wrote:
    >
    > Top posting is not appreciated in this group.
    >
    >
    >>Okay, so you have javascript and Flash disabled. I'll loss some viewers
    >>that have javascript and Flash disabled. The audience base I'm targeting is
    >>more prone to have both enabled in their browser, so that isn't a major
    >>concern for me.

    >
    >
    > Your loss, bye.
    >


    Really, a lot of that stuff could have been done without flash, and SO
    many separate flash files, the site isn't remotely backwards compatible,
    if it's a personal site belonging to someone that's just their choice,
    if it's a web dev job done for someone or some company, well it's less
    than acceptable in my opinion.

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Spartanicus

    Cameron Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    >>What is dreadful about the code? I'm using all CSS positioning and
    >>formattting.

    >
    >
    > It's yet another example of dreadful markup, tables used for layout with
    > a bit of css slapped on top it of.
    >


    I really do hope all these people that swear by CSS are sparing a
    thought for browsers that don't support it and are creating other pages
    that offer a none CSS based layout, as I have pointed out before
    numerous big websites use tables for layout including
    http://www.apache.org, http://www.microsoft.com, http://www.freebsd.org,
    http://www.google.com


    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 12, 2004
    #5
  6. Cameron wrote:
    > I really do hope all these people that swear by CSS are sparing a
    > thought for browsers that don't support it and are creating other pages
    > that offer a none CSS based layout.


    As long as my web site is perfectly usable in older browsers, I don't care.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Jan 12, 2004
    #6
  7. Spartanicus

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <iyvMb.110$>,
    says...
    > > I really do hope all these people that swear by CSS are sparing a
    > > thought for browsers that don't support it and are creating other pages
    > > that offer a none CSS based layout.

    > As long as my web site is perfectly usable in older browsers, I don't care.


    Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1? Is there a point, that you
    would in-fact stop supporting one of these obsoulete browsers?


    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jan 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Whitecrest wrote:
    >>As long as my web site is perfectly usable in older browsers, I don't care.

    >
    > Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    > about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1? Is there a point, that you
    > would in-fact stop supporting one of these obsoulete browsers?


    When did I say anything about not supporting obsolete browsers? I said
    that my site may not be pretty, but it should still be perfectly usable.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Jan 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Spartanicus

    Cameron Guest

    Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > Whitecrest wrote:
    >
    >>> As long as my web site is perfectly usable in older browsers, I don't
    >>> care.

    >>
    >>
    >> Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    >> about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1? Is there a point, that you
    >> would in-fact stop supporting one of these obsoulete browsers?

    >
    >
    > When did I say anything about not supporting obsolete browsers? I said
    > that my site may not be pretty, but it should still be perfectly usable.
    >


    yep, just because a browser is old doesn't mean people aren't still
    using it, just so many people consider it a sin to use tables for
    layout, I have lost count of the messages in this newsgroup saying
    something like "*GASP* you use tables for layout?!", I will keep using
    them at least for the moment, compatibility should be the primary
    concern of anyone writing a website.

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > Whitecrest wrote:
    >> Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    >> about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1? Is there a point, that you
    >> would in-fact stop supporting one of these obsoulete browsers?

    >
    > When did I say anything about not supporting obsolete browsers? I said
    > that my site may not be pretty, but it should still be perfectly usable.


    Sorry, my mistake. You were asking whether I would consider not
    supporting old browsers, not why I wasn't supporting them.

    I might consider stopping support if there was a real reason, but using
    good design techniques lets me support them without doing anything extra.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Jan 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Spartanicus

    Spartanicus Guest

    Cameron wrote:

    >I really do hope all these people that swear by CSS are sparing a
    >thought for browsers that don't support it


    Very few of those still being used at the moment.

    >and are creating other pages
    >that offer a none CSS based layout


    No need, css was devised with backward compatibility as a precondition.
    Properly marked up content with css works fine in non css capable UA's.

    >as I have pointed out before
    >numerous big websites use tables for layout including
    >http://www.apache.org, http://www.microsoft.com, http://www.freebsd.org,
    >http://www.google.com


    As I'm sure was pointed out to you before, the fact that others have
    made the same mistake doesn't make it less of a mistake.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jan 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Spartanicus

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <z%vMb.111$>,
    says...
    > Whitecrest wrote:
    > >>As long as my web site is perfectly usable in older browsers, I don't care.

    > > Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    > > about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1? Is there a point, that you
    > > would in-fact stop supporting one of these obsoulete browsers?

    > When did I say anything about not supporting obsolete browsers? I said
    > that my site may not be pretty, but it should still be perfectly usable.


    Well, since Web stats telling you what browsers people are using does
    not work. You have no idea how many people are really still using IE
    1.0. So is it old or obsolete?

    I am generally interested at what point do you consider an old browser
    an obsolete one? And since you can make a decision of what is obsolete
    and what isn't, is there something wrong with me not supporting Netcape
    4, because I consider that obsolete?

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jan 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Spartanicus

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <s8wMb.112$>,
    says...
    > Sorry, my mistake. You were asking whether I would consider not
    > supporting old browsers, not why I wasn't supporting them.
    > I might consider stopping support if there was a real reason, but using
    > good design techniques lets me support them without doing anything extra.


    So you are telling us that on none of the pages you have created have
    you ever used anything that will not work in IE 1.0?

    Ok. Good for you, I think it is silly, but hey, that is one of the good
    things about the web being so big. Different strokes for different
    folks.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jan 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Spartanicus

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <m56500pcr2c078erqsbnlfqj17n0033n06
    @news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>, says...
    > No need, css was devised with backward compatibility as a precondition.
    > Properly marked up content with css works fine in non css capable UA's.


    But, you forgot to mention that it may look like crap in their browser,
    and that may turn them away too.

    No one solution will make everyone happy. Choosing something as simple
    as a background color might turn someone away. It is all give and take.
    If your goal is to try to please your target audience, then you will
    always win. Regardless of the technology used.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jan 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Whitecrest wrote:

    > Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    > about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1?


    I am currently supporting IE from version 2 (except IE 3 as I don't
    have a copy for testing) and Netscape from version 2 amongst other
    browsers.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Jan 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Spartanicus

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > > Are you ever going to not support a browser? What are your thought
    > > about abandoning say Netscape 2 or IE 1?

    > I am currently supporting IE from version 2 (except IE 3 as I don't
    > have a copy for testing) and Netscape from version 2 amongst other
    > browsers.


    More power to you. I just don't believe in that. But then, that has
    been pretty obvious hasn't it ;-)

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jan 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Spartanicus

    Cameron Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Cameron wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I really do hope all these people that swear by CSS are sparing a
    >>thought for browsers that don't support it

    >
    >
    > Very few of those still being used at the moment.
    >
    >
    >>and are creating other pages
    >>that offer a none CSS based layout

    >
    >
    > No need, css was devised with backward compatibility as a precondition.
    > Properly marked up content with css works fine in non css capable UA's.
    >


    lol backwards compatibility? you mean that if it doesn't support it then
    it will just ignore it? see what that does for page layout when only
    using CSS for it.


    >
    >>as I have pointed out before
    >>numerous big websites use tables for layout including
    >>http://www.apache.org, http://www.microsoft.com, http://www.freebsd.org,
    >>http://www.google.com

    >
    >
    > As I'm sure was pointed out to you before, the fact that others have
    > made the same mistake doesn't make it less of a mistake.
    >



    *Grin* I'm sure that Google and The Apache Software Foundation would
    love to know that you think they can't write HTML.

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Spartanicus

    Spartanicus Guest

    Cameron wrote:

    >>>and are creating other pages
    >>>that offer a none CSS based layout

    >>
    >> No need, css was devised with backward compatibility as a precondition.
    >> Properly marked up content with css works fine in non css capable UA's.

    >
    >lol backwards compatibility? you mean that if it doesn't support it then
    >it will just ignore it? see what that does for page layout when only
    >using CSS for it.


    You seem to be under the misguided impression that decoration is
    important. This is alas a common phenomena amongst designers, I can
    assure you that users have a very different view. And therein lies the
    crux of the problem because folk like you don't care for users, it's all
    about you and the shrine you have created for yourself. Good luck with
    admiring yourself in your carnival mirrors.

    >>>as I have pointed out before
    >>>numerous big websites use tables for layout including
    >>>http://www.apache.org, http://www.microsoft.com, http://www.freebsd.org,
    >>>http://www.google.com

    >>
    >> As I'm sure was pointed out to you before, the fact that others have
    >> made the same mistake doesn't make it less of a mistake.

    >
    >*Grin* I'm sure that Google and The Apache Software Foundation would
    >love to know that you think they can't write HTML.


    Anyone can write HTML, creating quality web documents is alas a rarer
    skill. You even appear to lack the ambition to do so, sad but not
    unexpected.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jan 12, 2004
    #18
  19. Spartanicus

    Cameron Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Cameron wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>and are creating other pages
    >>>>that offer a none CSS based layout
    >>>
    >>>No need, css was devised with backward compatibility as a precondition.
    >>>Properly marked up content with css works fine in non css capable UA's.

    >>
    >>lol backwards compatibility? you mean that if it doesn't support it then
    >>it will just ignore it? see what that does for page layout when only
    >>using CSS for it.

    >
    >
    > You seem to be under the misguided impression that decoration is
    > important. This is alas a common phenomena amongst designers, I can
    > assure you that users have a very different view. And therein lies the
    > crux of the problem because folk like you don't care for users, it's all
    > about you and the shrine you have created for yourself. Good luck with
    > admiring yourself in your carnival mirrors.
    >


    Main priority for creating websites is compatibility, not "decoration",
    not sure where you got the idea from that I placed it as the most
    important factor...

    >
    >>>>as I have pointed out before
    >>>>numerous big websites use tables for layout including
    >>>>http://www.apache.org, http://www.microsoft.com, http://www.freebsd.org,
    >>>>http://www.google.com
    >>>
    >>>As I'm sure was pointed out to you before, the fact that others have
    >>>made the same mistake doesn't make it less of a mistake.

    >>
    >>*Grin* I'm sure that Google and The Apache Software Foundation would
    >>love to know that you think they can't write HTML.

    >
    >
    > Anyone can write HTML, creating quality web documents is alas a rarer
    > skill. You even appear to lack the ambition to do so, sad but not
    > unexpected.
    >



    You do not have a clue about my ambition and have already as I pointed
    out, made an incorrect assumption, I managed to write a site, by hand,
    that first time conformed to the XHTML 1.0 Transitional specification,
    so lets cut out all these presumptions, eh?

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 13, 2004
    #19
  20. Whitecrest wrote:
    > So you are telling us that on none of the pages you have created have
    > you ever used anything that will not work in IE 1.0?


    No, of course not. I've said that (AFAIK) I haven't done anything which
    will make the page unusable in IE 1.0 (I've never tested, but I can't
    see anything which would possibly do that). It won't be as pretty, but
    it will still be usable.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Jan 13, 2004
    #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. ruca

    Opera Authentication Problem

    ruca, Aug 24, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,855
  2. Wayfarer

    Opera/CSS problem

    Wayfarer, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    585
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Sep 23, 2003
  3. Wayfarer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    424
    Toby A Inkster
    Sep 30, 2003
  4. Bob
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,546
  5. Mtmartin71
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    821
    Adrienne Boswell
    Aug 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page