Amorphous
fuzzy wuzzy
Vaguely feline.
 Offline
Gender: 
Stabmonton
Posts: 50
|
 |
« on: July 25, 2008, 02:07:42 AM » |
|
My site, designed and built by me to promote my photography: Urban ObscureLet me know what you think. Also, any web designers: my Flash galleries don't work in IE. It's probably an issue with my CSS. Would anyone care to take a look and suggest a fix? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
--Robert Burns
|
|
|
Seamus
fluffy beast
Navy Fur
Offline
Gender:
Washington St. USA
Posts: 273
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2008, 11:17:09 PM » |
|
i don't understand how i keep running into you but i do XP like the design, not "flashy" but thats a good thing, it really makes the photography the main focus. I like the simplicity of it all, unfortunately don't know too much about CSS but you can send me the code and i'll take a look at it for a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow to feel inspired, to fathom the power,to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.
|
|
|
Benjamin
Administrator
downright shaggy
Miigwetch for not littering!
anthropomorphic liger
Offline
Gender:
Garson, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1070
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2008, 02:16:07 AM » |
|
Nice, simple site. Good stuff.
As for the Flash material, I'm not sure how to fix that. I really haven't messed around with Flash stuff yet. Perhaps it is the CSS that's making it break, yeah.
Benjamin
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mtnlion
rather fluffy
Mountain Lion
Offline
Gender:
Niagara Region, ON
Posts: 212
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2008, 11:46:23 PM » |
|
Ugh... flash for photo galleries. You could always simplify things and use something of a php based gallery, or I even have a javascript system I wrote from scratch.. gotta dig it up. CSS shouldn't be killing your galleries in IE. Usually IE is the browser that ALWAYS works (unless dealing with PNG pic format). I've noticed over the years that Mozilla (pre-firefox), and FireFox are the most picky. And I took a look through the CSS [obscure.css and the embedded css on your photos page), and everything looks good. Im a dial up user, so when I build my sites for others and myself, I avoid using flash/shockwave or anything like that at all costs. Especially since with the new xhtml/css support and javascript, you can do amazing things (read DHTML) What Im thinking could possibly be the problem is how the different browsers interpret JS code, and where its placed in the page. in your Scotland/index.html, you have this line in the body element: <script type="text/javascript" src="flashobject.js"></script>
try moving it into the <head> element at the top, and see if that helps. PS - why are you using that flashobject detection instead of just embedding a plain flash window like normal? Just seems like a bit more work than is really needed for a gallery. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karma
new furball?
Arctic Fox
Offline
Gender:
Toronto
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2008, 03:39:28 AM » |
|
Usually IE is the browser that ALWAYS works Haha, that depends a lot on one's point of view. Most beginning webmasters take the first browser they cut their teeth on as gospel, but as far as rendering CSS and parsing HTML and JavaScript to the standards (the true benchmark), FF has consistently beaten IE in the ACID tests, see the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 for more information. That does not however make it any more than a godawful browser. It also does not make it more 'picky' than not, it makes it more correct than it otherwise could be. While Safari ranks higher than opera, in practice it is one of the worst browsers for multilingual web developers; I say this on experience and hearsay alone not benchmarks mind you. Opera is a fantastic cross-platform browser that usually makes critical markup errors unforgivingly obvious (a.k.a. correct), but there is no substitute for the w3c markup validation services offered at http://validator.w3.org/ , http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ and so on. They are the authors of Standard and the very DTDs that common sites are built upon. The fact is that nothing short of a cross-browser, cross-platform test is required to legitimize websites. No matter what the standards-du-jour are, a well thought-out website will function and display uniformly across all major browsers; because it is both possible and the quintessential target. Im a dial up user, so when I build my sites for others and myself, I avoid using flash/shockwave or anything like that at all costs. Luckily dial-up is no longer a real consideration for North American web developers, however one must take into account several factors when using flash - the most important being search engine optimization. Googlebot and company do not and probably will never due to its very nature parse flash (actually google is trying to right now as a beta service but they're failing, and probably will never succeed due to the dynamic nature and non-document structure of the format) . Flash is meant to enhance a website (and one must admit in ways that 'D'HTML could and can never compete), but not be its principal constituent (i.e. content manager). Your photos will only ever get indexed by image-search capable engines if they are embedded in a markup language and in the case of html have ALT and/or TITLE attributes (the former is actually a mandatory part of the modern DTDs). Your links will also never get followed if they don't exist in the markup somewhere. There are several work-arounds, like hidden content DIVs, but one must keep in mind that as bot technology advances, 'dishonest' techniques bring one closer to blacklisting. Sitemaps are a promising technology to reveal 'hidden' content like images but they are difficult to create manually and don't seem to be on equal footing with so-called 'organic' crawls. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 06:15:05 AM by Karma »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karma
new furball?
Arctic Fox
Offline
Gender:
Toronto
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2008, 03:51:09 AM » |
|
I should also append that on the ideological end, IE uses many of its own proprietary CSS declarations (transparency/alpha is one glaring example where the standard is broken completely), further distancing the gap between Microsoft and the Rest Of The World; this has been going on since the advent of JScript (not to be confused with JavaScript) which popped up when they couldn't buy or threaten Netscape (mozilla). This has left a lot of modern CSS full of retarded !important declarations and various hacks to overcome the abysmal failure of IE to adhere to the box object model (nevermind the even more critical Document Object Model), in a global attempt to assemble some sort of cross-platform coherence. Don't even get me started on the devastating 'guillotine' bugs. It's an old fashioned tactic to make their way the right way, and as a veteran I'm disgusted to still see 'Best Viewed In' notices in this day and age. (but that's really only the webmasters' fault  ) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 05:52:19 AM by Karma »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karma
new furball?
Arctic Fox
Offline
Gender:
Toronto
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2008, 04:14:39 AM » |
|
Either I keep clicking quote or there's a bug with the edit button D:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mtnlion
rather fluffy
Mountain Lion
Offline
Gender:
Niagara Region, ON
Posts: 212
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2008, 09:12:08 AM » |
|
Ill definitely agree that FF is the most pure and true, and best when it comes to standards, but because IE can fill in missing tag closings, syntax, etc, as it sees fit, it usually displays simple pages perfectly (until you change 1 thing, and your fackups catch up with you !) And you nailed it right on the head, the way MS bastardized the Box Model has done nothing but cause any web developer problems. I've been spending the last few days of spare time fixing parts of a customized Joomla template of these problems and misalignments. It's good that you mention the W3C validator, as I find it so hard to believe how many sites out there use so many of IE's proprietary BS (transparency, div animation, etc), don't validate, then wonder why? I can understand why so many people do that, I disagree with them, but I can understand as IE still has like 60%+ market share (unfortunately). The problem with flash and quicktime (ack!), and other proprietary media like that being embedded into a site, is that, yes, dial up as a web developer isn't much of an issue, but this is Canada, and high speed (64Kbps+) connections only have about a 65% penetration, considering the large area of land mass, with most of it being remote areas. Even where I am, I live between a few fair sized cities (75K+), including St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Hamilton, we still do not have high speed access available. Hell, even Bell's wireless internet service is not available. Actually, North America as a whole has the most active internet community, but the least penetration of broad band access services. And I completely agree that Flash is meant as an enhancement, but TOO many people these days are using it for entire site layout, design, and deployment. Or even worse (imho), is the people who use Flash to do absolutely simple things like rollover buttons, or have very simple scrolling text or something. That to me is the biggest waste of resources out there. It was this that I was implying could be taken care of using DHTML (and I'm aware I write that as if it is it's own markup language, and I'm quite aware it isn't). And don't get me wrong, I know it's not the professional web development people out there that do it. What happened to the good old days of TheDraw ANSi graphics, and BBSing. Or just using simple inline tags to get a page to look right! At least when dealing with that stuff, it was straight forward. If you forgot to close a tag, whoops - now everything is bold! Lol. And I think you keep clicking quote. For a guy who knows his shit, you need to learn how to work a mouse  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 09:17:35 AM by mtnlion »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karma
new furball?
Arctic Fox
Offline
Gender:
Toronto
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2008, 03:09:27 PM » |
|
And I think you keep clicking quote. For a guy who knows his shit, you need to learn how to work a mouse I was drunk  Ill definitely agree that FF is the most pure and true, and best when it comes to standards Well, I didn't exactly say that. It's the lesser of two evils but that's making a bifurcation; it is still a piss poor browser. high speed (64Kbps+) connections only have about a 65% penetration Well 65% of what, exactly? Total netizens or population? Statistics are liars anyway; running an ISP that offers both broadband and dial-up my microcosm paints a very different picture. Even where I am, I live between a few fair sized cities (75K+), including St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Hamilton, we still do not have high speed access available. Hell, even Bell's wireless internet service is not available. Directional 802.11 ISPs are all the rage in the boonies, you should see if one serves your area - and there ought to be a bunch knowing the situation in central Ontario. If your cell phone can surf the web in your parts you can also take advantage of the new 3g networks and get an evdo-or-whatever card. I can pull a meg down over the cellular network on a bad day in the boonies and you don't even need a laptop to do it, there are a number of routers being made these days that take connection cards directly. It's important to note that what I'm talking about is NOT 'sympatico unplugged' Actually, North America as a whole has the most active internet community, but the least penetration of broad band access services Don't lump us in with the Americans, over 98% of Canadians have lived within 20 minutes travel of broadband access in one form or another since about 2000; where it wasn't available before it was made a mandate of public libraries. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 07:59:43 PM by Karma »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mtnlion
rather fluffy
Mountain Lion
Offline
Gender:
Niagara Region, ON
Posts: 212
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2008, 11:27:36 PM » |
|
I've checked for many different wireless type connections, and they're all either a) ridiculous expensive, and not feasible because of this, or b) Microwave / Line of sight based, and I live in a very tree covered area.
You're definitely an odd one out, considering the impact FireFox has had on IE's market share. Ill agree that Opera is a good browser, and cannot comment on Safari, as I have never had any in depth experience with it, but I always found Opera to be behind the pack, not in terms of compliance and standards, but in just terms of response and features that just make FireFox my browser of choice. I know it has been getting better over the past little bit, but I've grown to love FireFox.
The 65% was referring to households that have broadband access.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Seamus
fluffy beast
Navy Fur
Offline
Gender:
Washington St. USA
Posts: 273
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2008, 09:57:22 PM » |
|
XP Opera has had all the features that IE and Firefox are adding for years now. If you look at Firefox as it is now, as far as features go that was opera 5 or 6 years ago (take that as an extremely vauge comparison). the problem is they haven't kept pace I remember tabbed browsing in opera when I was in middle school, I was nerding it up in style |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow to feel inspired, to fathom the power,to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.
|
|
|
|
