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

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I can highly recommend Firefox, and it's well worth the download. I still use 0.8. It has a pop-up killer that can be configured to allow certain site's popups, a cookie-blocker if you want, remote site image blocker, tabbed browsing, bookmark importing, download manager, and so on. There are Some Sites that don't display quite right, but only because they WANT you to use IE.

I recommend a change unless there is a reason you're still using Netscape, of course.

[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.

[hedgegoth.livejournal.com]

Will test on my mac in a bit for ya sir

[hendikins.livejournal.com]

You can force Netscape 4.x to display the page without styling: use @import.

At the top of your CSS file (or the style element in your page), add the following line:

@import url("/hide_from_ns4.css");

Then throw all the CSS that buggers up in Netscape 4.x, which is probably all of it, in hide_from_ns4.css (or whatever you want to call it). That way all the other browsers get your CSS, but Netscape 4 doesn't.

[twoolfe.livejournal.com]

Opera 7 is working just fine.
Huggz
T.

[hendikins.livejournal.com]

They say a picture paints a thousand words...

I've just done some testing on my "Mac". These screenshots are using maximized browser windows at whatever resolution was specified. I've done both 800x600 and 1024x768 just for comparison purposes.

Internet Explorer 5.2: [800x600 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/ie5mac-800x600.jpg)][1024x768 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/ie5mac-1024x768.jpg)]
Safari 1.2.3: [800x600 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/safari-800x600.jpg)][1024x768 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/safari-1024x768.jpg)]
Opera 7.5.4: [800x600 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/operamac-800x600.jpg)][1024x768 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/operamac-1024x768.jpg)]
Camino 0.8.1: [800x600 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/camino-800x600.jpg)][1024x768 (http://wolfox.f2o.org/junk/batty/camino-1024x768.jpg)]

All other Gecko based browsers should show the same as Camino does.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[hendikins.livejournal.com]

The learning curve from 4.x to Seamonkey is not terribly large. The whole original point of Seamonkey was to replace 4.x.

I'm using the stable Seamonkey trunk, because I'm not satisfied with Firefox. You'd probably find Venkman and DOM Inspector handy too.

The main things you'll probably notice are the fact websites look correct, tabs, the placement of the URL bar, the multiple account support in mailnews, and the bayesian spam filter. Oh, and some of the extensions.

[hendikins.livejournal.com]

You wouldn't believe how many times that has come in handy. Of all the holes in Netscape 4's support for CSS, that would be the only useful one.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[hendikins.livejournal.com]

If you don't like tabs, you don't have to use them. They're in no way required, in fact, we barely even show they're there by default. Although this is getting quite off-topic...

Grab Mozilla 1.7.3, take it for a spin, and bug me around here if you have a problem. That, or bug us on IRC (irc://irc.mozilla.org/mozillazine) :-)

[pipibluestockin]

It works just fine on Safari (the main Mac browser).

Report from a weird system

[klishnor.livejournal.com]

I use RISC OS 4 at 1024 x 768 and 32K colour. Main browser is Oregano 2 and although the page looks a little bland, it works fine at the above resolution and at 800 x 600.

My secondary browser, Fresco, gives a "globalisation error" in other words you're setting something strangely from its point of view, but clicking OK on that brings the page up but without the background and top bars.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]