, from oldest to newest:
hey, where did you get a copy of Netscape 5? The rest of us have been looking all over for that.
The design looks sweet, really.
Don't go back to tables. CSS really is better.
Posted by victor @ 09/29/2001 07:12 PM pst
~~~
looks great - except on a mac in IE 5, the body text is tiny tiny tiny to the point of being unreadable. I can send you a screednshot if you would like. - otherwise looks great.
Posted by erin @ 09/29/2001 09:20 PM pst
~~~
Chrsitina, looking at the page in IE5.5/Win the left column was breaking into the right: see screenshot at www.campanile.uk.net/lobbypress/screen1.gif
The right column picks up again after the left column ends, but all the content above had disappeared! See www.campanile.uk.net/lobbypress/screen2.gif
Didn't have time to try to figure out what was going on.
Looked fine in NN6/Win and Opera5/Win until you shrink the browser window below about 710 pixels, then the right column slides under the left. See www.campanile.uk.net/lobbypress/screen3.gif
Posted by Keith @ 09/30/2001 07:05 AM pst
~~~
wow, it's breaking in all sorts of interesting ways.... is there a tag for no-overlap? sigh.
this isn't even the final design... I'll have to make it more complex to get that to work. i thought I'd do a simple early version. hmmm. not sure if I should continue....
and victor, sorry, I typed too hastily; thanks for the correction. 4.5 is the last netscape I put on my machine. I suppose I should go grab 6. It's just when I stopped coding professionally, i gave up caring much how stuff looked on other platforms, and I'd just fire up the dog to make sure nothing was breaking. ugly is fine, unusable no good.
reagarding the type: one of my passions is resizable type. I spec'd this as .8 em. which means it's 8/10th your normal font size; meaning those with a small default font get a teeny font. I do not want to use an inflexible font. However, if I could use mark newhouse's skins to have type resize, kinda of like what IHT has going, I'd reconsider points or even pixels.
Posted by christina @ 09/30/2001 08:27 AM pst
~~~
IE6 looks okay. Mozilla 0.9.4 and NS 6.1 looks good also. The only downside is the right column tucking under the left column.
There is the option of using a percentage font size, but it responds like the ems. Stay away from fixed font size as there are many people who like to read this, well at least more than six people. (However if you are tired of living by the font rule you could make them a fixed-size, which was my reasoning).
Overall I like the look.
Posted by vanderwal @ 09/30/2001 05:18 PM pst
~~~
NN5? I have NN6.1, but no trace of NN5... can you even get such a beast?
I am sure it will work fine in IE5.5+ and NN6.1+ if you use standard compliant CSS1... CSS2, of course, is a whole new can 'o worms.
Posted by Nick Finck @ 09/30/2001 07:25 PM pst
~~~
Looks great. A few browser bugs but otherwise, nice layout.
Posted by Paul Nattress @ 10/01/2001 12:46 AM pst
~~~
Hello Christina -
I viewed the new layout on IE 5.5 on WinME (I'm at work okay?!) and it seems that the content table to the right is being pushed under the left nav - the spacing vertically also seems a little off.
Screen grabs available if you need them...
Good luck with the new design and thanks for an interesting and very helpful site.
ChrisFord
Posted by Chris Ford @ 10/01/2001 01:42 AM pst
~~~
in ie 5.0 on win2k pro - your design doesn't look at all correct - which really surprised me. as far as display with the various browser go, i.e. displays what it thinks you're telling it to - which is great, all of our stuff looks great in it. however, ns6.1 (which i've grown to love) displays just what you tell it to, which might or might not look good - but its correct (note: its just like the old days, if it looks good in ns, it'll look great in ie). keep up the good work.
p.s. it *is* netscape 5 (look at your request logs) - the name netscape 6 is all marketing.
Posted by evan @ 10/01/2001 11:39 AM pst
~~~
wow... i have ie 5.5 at work, and it's broken, and ie 6 at home and it's good. blah. What's the browser I can use and trust for testing? opera?
Posted by christina @ 10/02/2001 09:59 AM pst
~~~
I like the new design. A few points though:
The marquee is a couple of pixels too wide, resulting in an unnecessary horizontal scrollbar. The fix is to set the border-style to none on the sides and position the element at zero pixels from the left.
The type is rather small. I recommend just leaving it at the user's default.
If Netscape 4 is giving you trouble I recommend taking advantage of its media bug: When you link to a stylesheet you can set media="screen, notNetscape4" and it will automagically ignore the stylesheet.
colin
Posted by colin_zr @ 10/02/2001 11:11 AM pst
~~~
Hi Christina, me again... Just picking up on your comment about which browser to use and trust for testing.
My own experience indicates that Opera 5 is pretty good for checking if you've implemented a CSS layout correctly: if it doesn't work as you expected it to in Opera, then you've probably got something wrong. However, that doesn't mean that it will be OK in the other supposedly conforming browsers! I was interested to see you had found your layout worked in IE6, but not, as I had found, in IE5.5 -- demonstrating that we still can't rely on recent versions of the major browsers to adopt similar behaviour in reponse to CSS positioning properties.
I've built a few sites recently the "right" way, i.e. without tables. In each case, I found that using what I believed to be correct implementation of CSS (even taking IE5's box model problems into account), I could not immediately achieve a result that worked as wished in IE5+, Opera 5, and NN6. I've succeeded in hacking around (yes, still) with the code (but the CSS this time, rather than the HTML!) to get what I wanted.
It does appear difficult or impossible to eliminate the problem of having DIVs slide under each other when windows are re-sized below a particular limit (which varies, of course, according to your layout). But so far I've been able to make sure that I don't run into trouble if windows go down to 640 pixel width, and I'm content with that. Of course, you can always set the z-index for the "more important" element to a higher level than the other so it stays on top, but that doesn't help if a user's SCREEN (rather than just their WINDOW) really is that small - then they might not be able to access something important, like your navigation menu.
You might like to look at one of my efforts at www.campanile.uk.com which although it has a full-width header across the page top, below are two side-by-side columns that re-size with the screen and avoid bumping into each other at screen/window widths as low as 640px.
In spite of the difficulties that remain, I'm persisting with "proper" CSS layouts and have managed to persuade a couple of new clients that this is the right way to go with their sites. Besides, it's good to build up the skills now, so that when the browser vendors eventually catch up and give us products that fully and correctly implement CSS2 (aren't I the optimist?) we'll be ready to REALLY take advantage of them!
Posted by Keith @ 10/03/2001 05:14 AM pst
~~~
