-
Hi folks
Been trying a redesigned home page:
http://www.petestack.com/testindex.html
It's valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional, looks OK in IE 5.5, Opera 5 (except for the hyphen where there should be a dash) and Netscape 6 (except for the non-alignment of the 'What's New' animation and the heading opposite), but it's not at all pretty in Netscape 4.7!
What I wanted was to have the new graphic header and icon strip expanding to the same width as the text below as the window was enlarged, but the text to reformat to obviate horizontal scrolling in windows narrower than the heading image. I could have:
<ul>[*]Used narrower tables for Netscape 4.x, but spoilt the appearance for all the better browsers. (So I really don't want to start on this browser detection/script/multiple version lark — it shouldn't be necessary!)[*]Tried CSS divs and positioning, but current inconsistencies in interpretation might have thrown a spanner in the works.[*]Made everything a fixed width, but that wasn't what I wanted![/list]
And, if it wasn't for N4.x's problems with 100% table widths and failure to interpret relative (and often absolute!) URLs correctly for CSS, I could have been home and dry...
Which brings me to the real point of the question (even if anyone's got any crafty solutions I've missed), which is:
How long do we go on fudging things for some outdated but inexplicably still popular browsers like you know what? Do we just bite the bullet and forget about them (as some have done), or do we start including sensible, but potentially offputting, warnings like 'if you're still stuck with Netscape 4.x and this page looks crap, it's time to get a decent browser'?
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
-
Hi folks
Been trying a redesigned home page:
http://www.petestack.com/testindex.html
It's valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional, looks OK in IE 5.5, Opera 5 (except for the hyphen where there should be a dash) and Netscape 6 (except for the non-alignment of the 'What's New' animation and the heading opposite), but it's not at all pretty in Netscape 4.7!
What I wanted was to have the new graphic header and icon strip expanding to the same width as the text below as the window was enlarged, but the text to reformat to obviate horizontal scrolling in windows narrower than the heading image. I could have:
<ul>[*]Used narrower tables for Netscape 4.x, but spoilt the appearance for all the better browsers. (So I really don't want to start on this browser detection/script/multiple version lark — it shouldn't be necessary!)[*]Tried CSS divs and positioning, but current inconsistencies in interpretation might have thrown a spanner in the works.[*]Made everything a fixed width, but that wasn't what I wanted![/list]
And, if it wasn't for N4.x's problems with 100% table widths and failure to interpret relative (and often absolute!) URLs correctly for CSS, I could have been home and dry...
Which brings me to the real point of the question (even if anyone's got any crafty solutions I've missed), which is:
How long do we go on fudging things for some outdated but inexplicably still popular browsers like you know what? Do we just bite the bullet and forget about them (as some have done), or do we start including sensible, but potentially offputting, warnings like 'if you're still stuck with Netscape 4.x and this page looks crap, it's time to get a decent browser'?
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
-
Since I PREFER Netscape 4.x over IE, which continually crashes, no matter how many updates are done (in fact, it crashes more and more with each new update), and I know quite a few other people who have nothing but problems with IE, Netscape 4.x will be around for quite a while. No one is upgrading to Netscape 6 because it's so buggy. What do you expect with AOL owning it, then trying to sign a deal with Microsoft to bundle IE with their software?
I like the redesign of your site very much, but you might want to lighten the pic behind "petestack" or darken the text. You can barely read it.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Thanks Smorg
I've been back (revised HTML uploaded c.4pm talkgraphics time), ditched some unnecessary table cells and got that 'What's New' thing to line up in Netscape 6 (which couldn't seem to handle 'valign' properly as part of the table). But I've still some major gripes with what 4.7's doing to the page (see attachment and captions here), and I'm curious to know what browser(s) you tried it in?
- Table background controlled by CSS to fill out the space in larger windows, but 4.7 leaves the space (could be that 4.7 'relative URL' thing but I haven't checked yet).
- Captions controlled by CSS to be navy and 60% size, but 4.7's struggling with these too.
- No matter how big the window, the combination of CSS margins and 100% table widths causes 4.7's tables to overflow and you have to balance the page with the horizontal scroll bar.
No similar problems with IE, Opera or Netscape 6!
Interested to hear what anyone else has to say about the 'Petestack' title... (I quite liked it like that, but we'll see.)
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
-
IE 5.5, which just crashed big time while trying to login and post a reply; this happens to me constantly. It's the iExplorer.exe which keeps causing faults in every .dll (I know it's a hardware driver conflict, but my hands are tied because it's not my computer). My brother has been having spectacular crashes and system freezes with IE 5.5, especially since he used Windows Update and had to go back to a previous system restore. I refuse to update on my home computer because it's working.
I don't know what to tell you about your NS 4.x problems; most people aren't rushing to update to 6 because of the bug reports flying around the 'net, so they're sticking with 4.x..
I liked the effect you attempted on the title, too (the sails looked almost like flames coming out of the letters); just couldn't read it clearly [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
-
Contained the tables in 100% width divs (class="netsbugdiv"!) and they can now be proportioned up to 100% within the CSS margins, even in Netscape 4.x. So it's all been uploaded to its proper location (http://www.petestack.com/), complete with modified heading graphic. (Never thought of the sails as flames, but saw the text as a kind of window into the pic.) So the 'sea' background still might not expand sideways in N4.x (it's not the relative URL bug), but at least the page looks balanced without compromising its appearance in the other browsers...
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
-
Far from being an IE fan, I must say that on my system it never crashes. In fact, except from seeming to fall asleep from time to time, it works nicely. So, without wanting to say that Microsoft is innocent, your system seems to be at least part of your problem.
Peter, as I use the browsers you use to check your site, of course it shows up quite nice. Personally, I don't care about NN4 or any other browser anymore. I don't consider IE5.5 the best (it's certainly not the fastest, and IE6beta isn't worth the"6": it should be 5.55), but it is the most versatile, and it is used by some 90% of the surfers. I do include of course some necessary tags for NN, but never let myself be hindered by these silly "wars" anymore. I never use IE specific tags either.
Opera is a prudish virgin but a fast downloader. Its hospital like need for perfection is its downfall as the Net isn't perfect at all, and the browser that "digests" most faults and shabby coding is the one I use most.
For example: in Opera I can't upload an attachment on this forum. Perhaps this is indeed a mistake in the forum's coding, but all I want is to upload, so I use IE.
PS: In my opinion, your update is an improvement.
If you don't work against time, time often works for you.
-
Perfecto mundo, Pete! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Thanks, Erik. I don't get these kind of crashes at home. The computer that does has a new CD-Writer that has caused nothing but trouble since the owner installed it (missing audio driver, error message that files have moved and need to be fixed manually, etc., etc.), so I just plug along until they can fix it; they're out of town for the summer.
I'm getting a cable modem at home this week, so I'll only use this one for work.
-
The seastrip background doesn't appear for more than one reason!
- the relative URLs problem (use absolute paths)
- can't reliably apply background images to tables from CSS (put it on the td)
- sometimes thin backgrounds don't display in N4 (use wider tiles if this is the case)
Meanwhile, the text in the menus isn't being applied because font properties don't inherit into table cells on N4. Apply the styles to td instead or tr.
HTH!
-
Thanks everyone...
Off sailing for a bit, but hope to catch up with you all when I get back.
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
-
Thanks for the advice, Andrew...
Menu text now fixed.
Tried absolute paths for style sheet (no joy), tried table background in td (worked, but doesn't validate), haven't tried wider tiles (might yet out of curiosity, but prefer to keep file sizes small). Now updating rest of site to incorporate logical top-of-page menus and dispose of the optional frameset.
So pleased everyone likes the new home page!
Cheers
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
-
Try applying the td background from CSS rather than HTML. It's valid and works in N4.
-
Thanks, Andrew! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
