Hi,
hi I’d like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang
web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)
(and linux of course) and many if not (almost) all visitors of Ruby’s
website are probably aware that IE isn’t such a great browser but
still IE is the dominant web browser.
/Christoph
So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
Great idea!
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:47:44AM +0900, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
hi I’d like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang
web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)
(and linux of course) and many if not (almost) all visitors of Ruby’s
website are probably aware that IE isn’t such a great browser but
still IE is the dominant web browser./Christoph
–
Daniel Carrera | Aleph-0 bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-0 bottles
PhD student. | of beer. Take one down, pass it around, Aleph-0
Math Dept. | bottles of beer on he wall…
UMD, | Aleph-0 -- from Wolfram MathWorld
The site looks the same to me in both IE and Mozilla Firebird …
IE version: 6.0.2800.1106
Firebird version : 0.7
– Wes
Daniel Carrera wrote:
So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
Great idea!On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:47:44AM +0900, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
hi I’d like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang
web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)
(and linux of course) and many if not (almost) all visitors of Ruby’s
website are probably aware that IE isn’t such a great browser but
still IE is the dominant web browser./Christoph
Daniel Carrera wrote:
…
So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
Great idea!
Yes, most definitely:-)
Since two other replies are suggesting that the website
looks okay under i.e. I included two desktop snapshots of
the upper left corner of the front page of ruby-lang.org.
(IE 6.0.2800 and firebird 0.7 release).
It seems that IE (on my XP lapttop at least:-) still has problems
with absolute positioning - here is the relevant snippet from
Ruby’s css file.
div.sidebar {
position: absolute;
top: 130px;
left: 0px;
width: 129px;
…
}
Overall the rendering under ie 6 looks okay soo - under
the server 2003 IE it looks different again, in fact
much worse.
/Christoph
Daniel Carrera wrote:
…
So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
Great idea!Yes, most definitely:-)
…
It seems that IE (on my XP lapttop at least:-) still has problems
with absolute positioning
Clearly IE is not ready for the desktop.
Regardless, absolute rendering is evil and it should be fixed. It is a
basic accessibility guideline that rendering should be proportional (ie.
use “em” or %). If you use absolute rendering the page will only look
right for people who have the same monitor size as the dude or dudette who
wrote the page.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera | Aleph-0 bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-0 bottles
PhD student. | of beer. Take one down, pass it around, Aleph-0
Math Dept. | bottles of beer on he wall…
UMD, | Aleph-0 -- from Wolfram MathWorld
I just applied all the latest patches to this version of IE, and windows
2K
and it is now so broken it can not handle any secure site.
Anyone else with similar problems?
Anyone with an idea of how to get IE working again?
Had to install Netscrape just to config my firewall and ISP’s update
page.
Regards
Ian
In message 3FB3AEF7.5050401@klickit.com, Wesley Moxam wmoxam@klickit.com writes
The site looks the same to me in both IE and Mozilla Firebird …
IE version: 6.0.2800.1106
–
Ian - posting to a Newsgroup. Please remove everything to reply.
Absolute positioning is not evil.
div.sidebar { position: absolute; top: 130px; left: 0px; width: 129px; }
This will make column’s width is as wide as the image above it. Using
proportional rendering would not achieve acceptable rendering as easily.
Second, this uses the same technique as below, allowing non-visual users
to more quickly skip to content.
#header { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 2em; }
#main { margin-top: 2em; }
#footer { … }
This setup is more accessible than a non-positioned page, especially
in the absecence of CSS support. Non-visual users skip straight to the
content, and don’t have to wade through the massively nested ul stuck in
#header to do nested menus.
Daniel Carrera (dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote:
Regardless, absolute rendering is evil and it should be fixed. It is a
basic accessibility guideline that rendering should be proportional (ie.
use “em” or %). If you use absolute rendering the page will only look
right for people who have the same monitor size as the dude or dudette who
wrote the page.
–
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
All messages signed with fingerprint:
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
<topic=“absolute positioning” />
Second, this uses the same technique as below, allowing non-visual users
to more quickly skip to content.
[snip].........This setup is more accessible than a non-positioned page,
What does this have to do with absolute positioning. XHTML,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0800, Eric Hodel wrote:
–
Daniel Carrera | Top 100 things you don’t want the sysadmin to say…
PhD student. |
Math Dept. UMD | 19. hey, what does mkfs do?
Eric Hodel wrote:
…
Absolute positioning is not evil.
div.sidebar { position: absolute; top: 130px; left: 0px;
width: 129px; }This will make column’s width is as wide as the image above
it. Using proportional rendering would not achieve
acceptable rendering as easily.
Well at least as long as you are not using IE and too much
text ``pushes’’ these absolute boundaries. Ruby-lang is
one of few website I visit frequently, actually at the top of
head I cannot think of another one, were my large fonts setting
has these such a strong effect. (Okay, this is a give away but
but did not banish IE For firebird - yet)
/Christoph