feedback

[dorayme]

Hi Gurus and others...

I have recently completed a website with about five hundred subscribers.

Most of them are happy, but about twenty of them complain that they can not
see their page properly.

I have tested with:

windows XP/2000 with the latest versions of
- IE
- Firefox
- Opera
- Netscape
- Mozilla (1.0.2)

Apple McIntosh OS9 with
- IE 5
- Mozilla (version?)

Apple McIntosh OS10 with the latest version of
- Safari

All of them seem to work fine.

What should I do next? What other combos are know to cause problems or are
known to be used. I am unable to find out what the users software setup is
as they do not want to look this up and do not know how to.

An example is:

http://www.friars.co.nz/listing.php?t=F&p=baw

page validates as strict html, stylesheet also validates.

Thank you

- Nicolaas

It does not work well on my Mac OS 9.1 with OE 5.1.6, the content has to be
scrolled way to the right on a 1024*768 monitor... But does fine on Mozilla
1.3 Wacom version...

dorayme

 

[windandwaves]

Hi Gurus

I have recently completed a website with about five hundred subscribers.

Most of them are happy, but about twenty of them complain that they can not
see their page properly.

I have tested with:

windows XP/2000 with the latest versions of
- IE
- Firefox
- Opera
- Netscape
- Mozilla (1.0.2)

Apple McIntosh OS9 with
- IE 5
- Mozilla (version?)

Apple McIntosh OS10 with the latest version of
- Safari

All of them seem to work fine.

What should I do next? What other combos are know to cause problems or are
known to be used. I am unable to find out what the users software setup is
as they do not want to look this up and do not know how to.

An example is:

http://www.friars.co.nz/listing.php?t=F&p=baw

page validates as strict html, stylesheet also validates.

Thank you

- Nicolaas

 

[windandwaves]

It does not work well on my Mac OS 9.1 with OE 5.1.6, the content has
to be scrolled way to the right on a 1024*768 monitor... But does
fine on Mozilla
1.3 Wacom version...

dorayme

THANK YOU

 

[windandwaves]

I take it you meant Internet Explorer?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Most of them are happy, but about twenty of them complain that they can
not see their page properly.
I have tested with:

Why not ask *them* what *they're* using?

But here are some ideas:

* Internet Explorer - which versions? Try 5, 5.5 and 6.
* Netscape - which versions? Try 4.8, 6.2 and 7.1.
* Different screen resolutions - try 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768
* Javascript - disabled, enabled
* CSS - disabled, enabled
* Images - disabled, enabled

 

[tm]

I take it you meant Internet Explorer?

It is broken in mac IE.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I have recently completed a website with about five hundred subscribers.
Most of them are happy, but about twenty of them complain that they can not
see their page properly.

What does can not see their page properly mean?

 

[windandwaves]

What does can not see their page properly mean?

Good question - something like - I dont see any images, there is nothing
there, etc....

Lol- I think that I should be looking at Macs, that is where the problems
seem to be.

Cheers

- Nicolaas

 

[windandwaves]

Why not ask *them* what *they're* using?

But here are some ideas:

* Internet Explorer - which versions? Try 5, 5.5 and 6.
* Netscape - which versions? Try 4.8, 6.2 and 7.1.
* Different screen resolutions - try 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768
* Javascript - disabled, enabled
* CSS - disabled, enabled
* Images - disabled, enabled

Thank you, I just tested Netscape 4.07 and I do not even see anything! For
some reason is does not like tables....

 

[kchayka]

I just tested Netscape 4.07 and I do not even see anything! For
some reason is does not like tables....

It is a well-known fact that NS4 has trouble if you leave out any
closing tags in tables, optional or not. Chances are you are missing a
</td> or </tr> tag somewhere.

 

[windandwaves]

It is a well-known fact that NS4 has trouble if you leave out any
closing tags in tables, optional or not. Chances are you are missing a
</td> or </tr> tag somewhere.

That is what I thought, but I checked in that case I should not be able to
validate my page, well, it did. I am going to have another look at it.

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

That is what I thought, but I checked in that case I should not be able to
validate my page, well, it did. I am going to have another look at it.

The closing tag for <td> is optional in HTML, so validation won't
catch a "missing" </td>. It sure will mess up NS 4.x, though.

I will say that hits from NS4.x have all but dissapeared from my site
logs, but nevetheless I still think it's good practice to close all
tags, even if closing is optional.

Nick

 

[windandwaves]

The closing tag for <td> is optional in HTML, so validation won't
catch a "missing" </td>. It sure will mess up NS 4.x, though.

I will say that hits from NS4.x have all but dissapeared from my site
logs, but nevetheless I still think it's good practice to close all
tags, even if closing is optional.

Totally agree that it is a good practice. I use HTML strict, i thought it
would therefore pick up the closing TD thing, but I will check it again....

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:22:20 +1200, "windandwaves"


[...]

Totally agree that it is a good practice. I use HTML strict, i thought it
would therefore pick up the closing TD thing, but I will check it again....

The closing </td> is still optional, even in HTML 4 strict. See:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6>

Nick

 

[dorayme]

I take it you meant Internet Explorer?

I did. Apologies. I think I am losing it... If I had to, I would find the
problem but am slow in these things and have too much work... (for a
change!)

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

Thank you, I just tested Netscape 4.07 and I do not even see anything! For
some reason is does not like tables....

No, I don't think so. NS4 is just blind to so much CSS! The thing to aspire
to - easier than to do - is to see something very nice and sensible when you
turn off the CSS as Toby Inkster suggested as a diagnostic. This is what
should also show up in NS4 more or less. Others here know how to even force
the issue by not letting it see any css (using import and maybe other
things...).

See if you can have that truly plain but meaningful look when all else
fails. To do that, and then to style it to make it look trooly lurvely is
the art!

Your site looks nice in many browsers...

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

That is what I thought, but I checked in that case I should not be able to
validate my page, well, it did. I am going to have another look at it.

Well, I think the point is that if it is optional, it will validate but that
NS4 might still not like that brand of valid code...

dorayme

 

[windandwaves]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:22:20 +1200, "windandwaves"


[...]

Totally agree that it is a good practice. I use HTML strict, i
thought it would therefore pick up the closing TD thing, but I will
check it again....

The closing </td> is still optional, even in HTML 4 strict. See:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6>

Nick

I actually found the problem - it seems - it appears that NS4 did not work
without HEIGHT and WIDTH for an image, even though strict does not allow
that!

 

[Spartanicus]

I actually found the problem - it seems - it appears that NS4 did not work
without HEIGHT and WIDTH for an image, even though strict does not allow
that!

Specifying dimensions with html attributes for an image is normally not
merely presentational, it allows a browser to allocate space for an
external resource allowing it to layout the page without the need to
reflow it after the image has loaded. Specifying dimensions in the
markup is therefore recommended and allowed under strict doctypes.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I actually found the problem - it seems - it appears that NS4 did not work
without HEIGHT and WIDTH for an image, even though strict does not allow
that!

The strict doctypes do allow heights and widths for images. (They're one
of the few presentational attributes that are allowed.)