The look of things

[den]

Something makovette said in a forum made me realize I'd forgotten something important when designing the Bugs website. I checked to make sure it worked under Firefox (it did) and IE (it did after some editing), but I forgot to change the settings to see if it worked at less than 1024x768.

It doesn't. Well, it does but there is a considerable amount of side-scrolling required. Bugger.

I also don't know how it looks with other browsers. Can any Opera, Netscape, Mac, etc. users let me know if there's a problem with the site?

I know IE reports an error-on-page, but that's IE's problem. The Dreamweaver templates I used (I yam bereft of HTML skills) all validate to W3C HTML and CSS tests.

Comments

[ngarewyrd.livejournal.com]

Using opera, Bugs looks okay even though in 800x600 mode, the background matches the browser width, even though the picture itself is somewhat wider and hangs off the page to the right.

But that's sorta due to the physical size of the picture, if there was a way to scale the picture size to the browser width, then the problem might be (or would be) solved. but then, I don't know CSS that well enough to offer a suggestion as to how to do that

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

that's the 800x600 thing. The only way to fix that is to make the strips smaller in pixel size, but then they'll be too "busy" and everything would be harder to see. Right now they're usually 640 across, but yesterday's was much larger: closer to 800.

I forgot about this. I designed it all for 1024x768.