site check on IE6 please

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Disco Octopus, Dec 22, 2003.

  1. Hi,

    I have checked this site in absolutely every single browser known to man
    kind except for IE 6. Can someone please take a look at this site in IE6,
    and post a screen capture of it please.

    I know, big ask, but I relly do not want to install IE6 on my machine.

    Thank you *very* _very_ /very/ much.
    Disco Octopus, Dec 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Disco Octopus wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have checked this site in absolutely every single browser known to
    > man kind except for IE 6. Can someone please take a look at this
    > site in IE6, and post a screen capture of it please.
    >
    > I know, big ask, but I relly do not want to install IE6 on my machine.
    >
    > Thank you *very* _very_ /very/ much.


    which site you bloody idiot?

    www.choicebeefjerky.com
    Disco Octopus, Dec 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Disco Octopus

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:vhKFb.1539$>
    Disco Octopus said:

    > I have checked this site in absolutely every single browser known to man


    bet you haven't

    > kind except for IE 6. Can someone please take a look at this site in IE6,
    > and post a screen capture of it please.


    its a nice clean design, i like it.
    http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap005.png [1k]

    --
    brucie
    23/December/2003 08:32:31 am kilo
    brucie, Dec 22, 2003
    #3
  4. Disco Octopus

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:ujKFb.1540$>
    Disco Octopus said:

    >> please take a look at this site in IE6, and post a screen capture of
    >> it please.

    > www.choicebeefjerky.com


    full screen 800x600
    http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap006.png [17k]
    full screen 1024x768
    http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap007.png [20k]
    full screen 1152x864
    http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap008.png [21k]
    opera problem
    http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/operacap001.png [4k]

    --
    brucie
    23/December/2003 08:38:54 am kilo
    brucie, Dec 22, 2003
    #4
  5. brucie wrote:
    > in post <news:vhKFb.1539$>
    > Disco Octopus said:
    >
    >> I have checked this site in absolutely every single browser known to
    >> man

    >
    > bet you haven't
    >
    >> kind except for IE 6. Can someone please take a look at this site
    >> in IE6, and post a screen capture of it please.

    >
    > its a nice clean design, i like it.
    > http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap005.png [1k]


    non comprendo brucie.

    WTF do you get nothing displaying?

    These are what I am getting in these browsers, do you have any idea why you
    do not see anything?


    Internet Explorer 5.5
    http://mycoolfish.com/t/ie_5.5.gif [55K]

    Mozilla 1.5
    http://mycoolfish.com/t/moz_1.5.gif [50K]

    NetScape 4.79
    http://mycoolfish.com/t/nt_4.79.gif [51K]

    Opera 7.23
    http://mycoolfish.com/t/op_7.23.gif [55K]

    Opera 7.23 (emulating a text browser) [64K]
    http://mycoolfish.com/t/op_7.23_text_browser.gif

    ta love.
    Disco Octopus, Dec 22, 2003
    #5
  6. Disco Octopus wrote:
    > brucie wrote:
    >> in post <news:vhKFb.1539$>
    >> Disco Octopus said:
    >>
    >>> I have checked this site in absolutely every single browser known to
    >>> man

    >>
    >> bet you haven't
    >>
    >>> kind except for IE 6. Can someone please take a look at this site
    >>> in IE6, and post a screen capture of it please.

    >>
    >> its a nice clean design, i like it.
    >> http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap005.png [1k]

    >
    > non comprendo brucie.


    OIC now :) !
    Disco Octopus, Dec 22, 2003
    #6
  7. brucie wrote:
    > in post <news:ujKFb.1540$>
    > Disco Octopus said:
    >
    >>> please take a look at this site in IE6, and post a screen capture of
    >>> it please.

    >> www.choicebeefjerky.com

    >
    > full screen 800x600
    > http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap006.png [17k]
    > full screen 1024x768
    > http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap007.png [20k]
    > full screen 1152x864
    > http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/screencap008.png [21k]
    > opera problem
    > http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/operacap001.png [4k]




    I wander why it does that in IE6? Any suggestions off the top of your head?
    Disco Octopus, Dec 22, 2003
    #7
  8. Disco Octopus

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:23:08 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >
    > I wander why it does that in IE6? Any suggestions off the top of your head?


    Because IE is broken? Just a thought. ;-)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Dec 22, 2003
    #8
  9. Disco Octopus

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:23:08 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >
    > I wander why it does that in IE6? Any suggestions off the top of your head?


    Try taking it out of the form. :)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Dec 22, 2003
    #9
  10. Mark Parnell wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:23:08 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >>
    >> I wander why it does that in IE6? Any suggestions off the top of
    >> your head?

    >
    > Try taking it out of the form. :)


    Thanks, I will try that, but *should* a <form> cause any presentational
    behaviour at all? I did not think it should.

    Thanks

    --
    This does not exist.
    http://www.thisurldoesnotexist.com
    Disco Octopus, Dec 23, 2003
    #10
  11. Disco Octopus

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:35:06 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >
    > Thanks, I will try that, but *should* a <form> cause any presentational
    > behaviour at all? I did not think it should.


    Forms usually have default padding and/or margins. Perhaps IE also has
    clear: both; set by default on forms or something?

    Either way, there is no need for it to be in a form, so you might as well
    get rid of it.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Dec 23, 2003
    #11
  12. Mark Parnell wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:35:06 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >>
    >> Thanks, I will try that, but *should* a <form> cause any
    >> presentational behaviour at all? I did not think it should.

    >
    > Forms usually have default padding and/or margins. Perhaps IE also has
    > clear: both; set by default on forms or something?
    >
    > Either way, there is no need for it to be in a form, so you might as
    > well get rid of it.


    Actually, for the purposes of the page, there is no reason to put it in a
    form, but for the purposes of how the page is built (for the time being)
    there is no way of me to take it out of the form.

    Can you please tell me if this has fixed it....
    http://mycoolfish.com/t/cbj_1.html

    Thanks
    Disco Octopus, Dec 23, 2003
    #12
  13. Disco Octopus

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:49:42 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >
    > Actually, for the purposes of the page, there is no reason to put it in a
    > form, but for the purposes of how the page is built (for the time being)
    > there is no way of me to take it out of the form.


    Can I ask why? I can't think of any reason that the main text content on
    the page would need to be in a form.

    >
    > Can you please tell me if this has fixed it....
    > http://mycoolfish.com/t/cbj_1.html
    >


    No. :-(

    Personally I find your CSS somewhat hard to read, but it seems overly
    complex to me. I might have a play with it if I get a chance.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Dec 23, 2003
    #13
  14. Disco Octopus

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:17:05 +1100, Mark Parnell declared in alt.html:
    >
    > Personally I find your CSS somewhat hard to read, but it seems overly
    > complex to me. I might have a play with it if I get a chance.


    Here you go:

    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au/usenet/cbj.html

    Validates, tested and working in IE6, Moz1.5, O7.21. I cleaned up the HTML
    a little bit. The CSS is much cleaner now, too. It may not be quite there
    yet (I think I might have missed a couple of classes you use on other
    pages, and I haven't put in your print styles), but it's close.

    You might want to seriously think about putting all those styles in an
    external stylesheet too, rather than having them on every page.

    HTH

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Dec 23, 2003
    #14
  15. Mark Parnell wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:17:05 +1100, Mark Parnell declared in alt.html:
    >>
    >> Personally I find your CSS somewhat hard to read, but it seems overly
    >> complex to me. I might have a play with it if I get a chance.

    >
    > Here you go:
    >
    > http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au/usenet/cbj.html
    >
    > Validates, tested and working in IE6, Moz1.5, O7.21. I cleaned up the
    > HTML a little bit. The CSS is much cleaner now, too. It may not be
    > quite there yet (I think I might have missed a couple of classes you
    > use on other pages, and I haven't put in your print styles), but it's
    > close.
    >
    > You might want to seriously think about putting all those styles in an
    > external stylesheet too, rather than having them on every page.
    >
    > HTH


    Thanks Mark, (note my gratefullness in the manner in which I capitalise you
    name and the "Thanks")

    you went to quite some trouble for that. ta love.

    there are a few reasons that the style sheets are contructed in that
    manner...

    all the pages are built dynamically based on templates.
    these templates have four parts
    - data
    - structure
    - layout
    - colour

    the way that we dynamically built the pages is quite complex, and based on
    many variables, and unfortunately, *for the moment*, the way styles sheets
    are placed is something that may not be changed.

    i will look into it more.
    thanks
    Disco Octopus, Dec 23, 2003
    #15
  16. Disco Octopus

    rf Guest

    "Disco Octopus" <> wrote in message
    news:qXOFb.1567$...
    > Mark Parnell wrote:
    > > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:35:06 GMT, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    > >>
    > >> Thanks, I will try that, but *should* a <form> cause any
    > >> presentational behaviour at all? I did not think it should.

    > >
    > > Forms usually have default padding and/or margins. Perhaps IE also has
    > > clear: both; set by default on forms or something?
    > >
    > > Either way, there is no need for it to be in a form, so you might as
    > > well get rid of it.

    >
    > Actually, for the purposes of the page, there is no reason to put it in a
    > form, but for the purposes of how the page is built (for the time being)
    > there is no way of me to take it out of the form.
    >
    > Can you please tell me if this has fixed it....
    > http://mycoolfish.com/t/cbj_1.html


    Nope.

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/choice.jpg

    Also looks bad in Mozilla.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 23, 2003
    #16
  17. Disco Octopus, Dec 23, 2003
    #17
  18. Disco Octopus

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:19:39 +1000, Disco Octopus declared in alt.html:
    >
    > Thanks Mark, (note my gratefullness in the manner in which I capitalise you
    > name and the "Thanks")


    No worries.

    >
    > you went to quite some trouble for that. ta love.


    Slow day at work. :)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Dec 24, 2003
    #18
  19. Disco Octopus

    rf Guest

    "Disco Octopus" <> wrote in message
    news:fy4Gb.1604$...
    > rf wrote:
    > >> Can you please tell me if this has fixed it....
    > >> http://mycoolfish.com/t/cbj_1.html

    > >
    > > Nope.
    > >
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/choice.jpg
    > >
    > > Also looks bad in Mozilla.

    >
    > thanks rf.
    >
    > what virgin of mozilla?


    1.4

    By bad I mean the content is snug up against the left menu bar (you need a
    little bit of space) and the content also flows under the menu bar at narrow
    canvas width. Both of these issues indicate you have not specified a left
    margin for the content div.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 24, 2003
    #19
  20. in news:sfdGb.63879$,
    rf typed:
    > "Disco Octopus" <> wrote in message
    > news:fy4Gb.1604$...
    >> rf wrote:
    >>>> Can you please tell me if this has fixed it....
    >>>> http://mycoolfish.com/t/cbj_1.html
    >>>
    >>> Nope.
    >>>
    >>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/choice.jpg
    >>>
    >>> Also looks bad in Mozilla.

    >>
    >> thanks rf.
    >>
    >> what virgin of mozilla?

    >
    > 1.4
    >
    > By bad I mean the content is snug up against the left menu bar (you
    > need a little bit of space)


    yes. I know that. not sure how to fix that one yet.


    > and the content also flows under the menu
    > bar at narrow canvas width.


    This is intentional. I thought it looked ok when it did that. No?

    > Both of these issues indicate you have
    > not specified a left margin for the content div.


    But a left margin will stop the 'flow under the menu' effect.

    thanks
    Disco Octopus, Dec 24, 2003
    #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. Ivor O'Connor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    825
    Isofarro
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. Peter Mount
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    929
    Peter Mount
    Jan 31, 2006
  3. KK
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    516
    Big Brian
    Oct 14, 2003
  4. Pugi!
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    227
    Pugi!
    Feb 5, 2007
  5. timothytoe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    139
Loading...

Share This Page