I'm not saying dont design for all. But its usually good practice to focus on the one format people use most, then make exceptions for other consoles...
With Hyma's example, it looked ok in Mozilla, but when it came to IE it looked poor. My point is that it should be the other way round by default, make it look best on IE then cater for the rest...
And how about non Windows systems? Microsoft are discontinuing IE on the Mac apparently. You not accepting Mac users' business in your online shop due to the wrong browser or wrong operating system?
IE Mac is going as the free software however MSN Mac is replacing it as part of a subscription to MSN web access.
Plus IE Mac is totally different than IE Windows. IE on the Mac uses a rendering engine called Tasman which was the first ever standards compliant engine whereas IE on Windows uses the old Trident engine which is very old and patched to buggery.
Plus IE is going on Windows aswell or at least the old versions.
martinDTanderson posted:
With Hyma's example, it looked ok in Mozilla, but when it came to IE it looked poor. My point is that it should be the other way round by default, make it look best on IE then cater for the rest...
*stares at the right hand side of that image I posted before and still can't see any difference*
EDIT --
I've altered the thing anyways looking at it in IE now. The grey bars for TVR+ are not as tight as they used to be but IE seems to slacken things off more than Mozilla. Ah well.
Updated revamp Original (before latest update)
Stop fighting over one site, if you want bad coding look here. www.bailonline.co.uk its not a plug for my site, but if anyone wants to help remove the millions of bits of excess code... have a look you'll see what I mean.
Stop fighting over one site, if you want bad coding look here. www.bailonline.co.uk its not a plug for my site, but if anyone wants to help remove the millions of bits of excess code... have a look you'll see what I mean.
Hmm, I do question the excess presence of this sort of stuff:
Likewise for cells with images on the background. (Netscape 4 refused to show a background image in a table cell if there was no content in it)
Apart from that it isn't as bad code wise as some sites, although the same arguments can be applied here on the FONT tags as I outlined earlier in this thread.
Apart from that it isn't as bad code wise as some sites, although the same arguments can be applied here on the FONT tags as I outlined earlier in this thread.
Well it isn't monstrously complex but there are some shocking things in that code. I take it you used an old version of FrontPage.
First of all do as Neil suggested and replace all the font rubbish with CSS. Secondly get rid of the coloured sidebar. It only works in IE and can cause usability problems. Finally add a doctype to the very top of the page before the <html> tag.
The validator will (currently) bring up 150 errors in the code however several of those are due to a limitation in the checker itself not understanding bits of Javascript.
However all those font tags mean your website which is a simple design has a frontpage the same size as The TV Room which is a very complex design.
EDIT - What the hell is this?
[code:1:dc2a6c79a8] <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540000" id="ShockwaveFlash1" width="205" height="60">
<param name="_cx" value="5080">
<param name="_cy" value="1588">
<param name="FlashVars" value="-1">
No wonder I can't see the flash - that is some IE Specific monstocity. Try this instead
[code:1:dc2a6c79a8]<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="205" height="60">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.dazecoop.co.uk/bail/bailonline/images/logo.swf">
That is a classic case of Frontpage. Bail has obviously used the correct code. But opened the options for the object in frontpage, frontpage then adds all that nonsense.
For somebody who is so particular about website design and "standards compliance", it's a shame the rest of your work doesn't share this same ethic. I mean your signatures for instance, usually littered with spelling mistakes, and correct me if I'm wrong but your current sig doesn't make any sense either. Read it again.
*reads it again* Makes sense to me - considering I usually change those things in the middle of the night (or at least do the picture then) it's quite good. (That one won't be there long - I just wanted rid of the old one).
Hi! You know today I've been reading this topic and I cannot see anything wrong with The TV Room site or that Bail Online site. Now I don't know if it's just my computer but I can't see any HTML code on those sites at all! Unless I'm talking nonsense, well if so sorry but just wanted to let you all know.
Hi! You know today I've been reading this topic and I cannot see anything wrong with The TV Room site or that Bail Online site. Now I don't know if it's just my computer but I can't see any HTML code on those sites at all! Unless I'm talking nonsense, well if so sorry but just wanted to let you all know.
To view HTML code:
Go to a web page, right-click and choose "View Source", or appropriate option. Try it now.
The HTML code is not supposed to be seen as such (although that in itself doesn't justify those annoying "no right click" scripts), it's just code to tell the browser how to show the page.
Sorry, what I meant was that I can't see bits of code on the actual TV Room site but some people can. That's why I'm guessing people are complaining about that site. I don't mean that I can't see the source.
The HTML code is not supposed to be seen as such (although that in itself doesn't justify those annoying "no right click" scripts), it's just code to tell the browser how to show the page.
I think less clever Geocities type people try to stop people stealing their images (which have all been websnatched or came from clipart in word).
On sites that do that you can see the code from the Page Source option in the View menu.
