Jump to content

dbrimlow

Members
  • Posts

    712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by dbrimlow

  1. LOL! You did it again! You have fallen into the "DIV as a logical block level tag" trap ... A DIV is ONLY and SOLELY a placeholder ... it is not a replacement for any proper semantic, logical block level tag, markup (paragraph, lists, headers, etc.). Text MUST be contained in the proper context. Don't think of DIVS as replacement for paragraph. It is just a blank container that does nothing but allow you to group proper markup elements together. This is WHY I mentioned that using "div" in your css and saying you have a "div" that isn't working right is a bad habit to fall into. A lot of css beginners get stuck in this trap. Unfortunately, that said, your whole css layout is seriously flawed. After messing around with it for 15 minutes or so, I realized that you are making a "relatively easy to accomplish" layout MUCH more difficult than it has to be. You need to rethink the whole thing over.
  2. For starters, you need an HTML 4.01 doctype declaration (instead of just "html") - use this: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> 1. Lose the "DIV" in your css; its a bad habit to get into. A "DIV" is NOT a css element at all; it is only an html markup level container within the body tag that should be styled (like any other markup tag) using either an #id or #class select element - designating "div" in your css before an ID or class requires that they only be used within a "div" tag in the markup. Don't limit them so. 2. avoid using the term "div" when referring to ids or classes in your markup, for example: Now, this is wrong: position:relative; top:-250px; left:20px; z-index:2; For "relative" position there is no top, left or z-index because it is within the flow of the html and has no 3rd dimension. You can try position:absolute" if that's what you meant to do. Since #topintro uses position:relative and would contain #topintro_fullwidth_textblock - using position:absolute would make #topintro_fullwidth_textblock RELATIVE to #topintro (instead of the window size). That's one of your major issues here. Without a doctype and incorrect css, your page is invalid and strictly in "quirks" mode.
  3. First, scottybwoy, you have three errors in your css - 2 related to typos in the css floats. You should fix these before trying to spend hours debugging actual element settings. And, just an aside on the advice from Game Yin about the css style tag, it MUST have the designated media type associated to it (except for IE, of course). so: <style type="text/css"> Without the media type it is not a valid css designation.
  4. This is a good chart to start with for converting relative pixel sizing to percentage: Global Font Sizes -------------------------------------------------------- The following code is to help achieve scalable and consistant font-sizes across major platforms. To set a font-size in the CSS, use one of the percentage values from the table below. This code is courtosy of the fine folks at Yahoo, Code is licensed under the BSD License: http://developer.yahoo.net/yui/license.txt -------------------------------------------------------- 77% = 10px 85% = 11px 92% = 12px 100% = 13px 107% = 14px 114% = 15px 122% = 16px 129% = 17px 136% = 18px 144% = 19px 152% = 20px 159% = 21px 167% = 22px 174% = 23px 182% = 24px 189% = 25px 197% = 26px -------------------------------------------------------*/ It is not exactly accurate, but very close with respect to the relative values above the base that you set. For example I set my body at 75% which seems to be closer to 12px to me. I then use either the same percent as above for all the rest, or convert them to ems - with 1em being equal to the body's 75%. I just tried it for the first time in a fixed width 2 column layout I have and it works like a charm. Dan Cederhome's "Bulletproof Web Design recommends using the font size of small, smaller, large, larger - but I haven't actually tried his complete flex-layout technique yet.
  5. Actually, that's EXACTLY how everyone SHOULD start when creating a new web page. It is SO much easier to craft a layout using css to an existing, perfectly semantic text-only document. I advise my interns to not even THINK about how a page will look with styles; create the page using nothing but headers, paragraphs, lists, etc. as if it were a word presentation. Begin with H1 for the site title, H2 for the page title, UL for the navigation, P for text, H3 for sub-headers and ul for footer lists with p for copyright and company name. If you can't understand what the page is about using text only ... than neither can Search Engine bots or people with disabilities. It is EASY to add the most elaborate graphic intensive style in the world to an existing text document ... not so if the document was conceived, designed and crafted only by how it will look using graphics. The killers of many business sites are "conveyance over content" and "form over function". No business would agree to ignoring ANY potential client/customer just because it is inconvenient for the contractor to build an office that accommodates everyone.
  6. A "DIV" is simply an HTML placeholder element ... CSS doesn't apply styles to DIVS, it applies styles to elements using "Selectors" like class, ID, type, universal, etc. I see this over and over in Forums when beginners talk about css - "I have a Div that has a background of..." and so on. I think we, as helpers, need to nip this in the bud as soon as we see it so they can lose that habit and start to learn how to think of css as using selectors to style elements. I know for me it was a huge breakthrough in understanding the difference in html, css and semantic markup. One should actually avoid using DIVs whenever they are unnecessary. If you can have the same effect simply by adding a class to a tag element (like p or h2 or ul) , you don't NEED to ALSO wrap it in divs. Divs simply allow you to group elements within a common container. The mistake beginners make seems to be thinking of Divs as the actual method of applying css to an element - whereas it is just another html element in and of itself. How many beginners do we see who limit selects that could be universal by naming them with div as a prefix in the css? I think this is the reason ... they don't see div as apart from CSS.
  7. After looking at this in depth, there is only one way to answer this problem ... this template is a REALLY bad concept in the whole design execution layout. It can only be fixed with a lot of cross-browser manipulation that I don't have time for (after fighting it for @ two hours). It needs to be "re-engineered" ... trying to keep the liquid elements with graphics in alignment with the fixed elements with matching graphics is blowing it up ( the "#page select being a big culprit). The layout was quite obviously created and tested exclusively in IE6 (while in quirks mode, no less) ... it SO uses the wrong doctype. It is not compatible with modern browsers as coded at all. Frankly, it is a mess. Sorry. I wish I could tell you differently, but this very simple looking design is a MONSTER the way it was converted to web layout. Something important about why this is even worse because it uses Frames in general and HOW it uses frames specifically: First, by "frames" we mean that this template uses three web pages to make two (or more) view at the same time. Second, there is a special HTML and XHTML doctype DTD (instead of "strict" or "transitional") used specifically for frames called ... yup ... "frameset". Frameset DTDs include everything in a transitional DTD plus frames as well. Right off this shows that frames are deprecated. Third, this was created by someone who is completely clueless about XHTML (as are 90% of the people who use xhtml at all) because it incorrectly uses and grossly abuses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype (Agghhh, I won't get started on XHTML abuse!!). The Frameset DTD that SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED is: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd" Now, since the template is using the wrong DOCTYPE, the page does not validate and falls into Quirks mode. This just compounds the problem because once in quirks mode there is no telling what can be causing browsers to act differently. So far as the specific problem with the image here, frames, quirks mode, etc are not the reason, they just show how the designer was not even looking in any modern browser while testing. BUT!! As mainewoods mentions, frame pages are poor Search Engine Optimization ... here's why ... THIS is what a search engine bot sees when it comes to a page created by this template: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Template Preview (decorative) - Free CSS Templates</title> <meta name="keywords" content="" /> <meta name="description" content="" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/site/style.css" /> </head> <frameset rows="93,*"> <frame scrolling="no" src="/preview/x/decorative" /> <frame src="/preview/y/decorative" /> </frameset> </html> THAT'S ALL. PERIOD. Because the pages with all of the text content (needed for the bot to first spider, then index) are in two external documents, in two completely different folders on the server; in this case: "/preview/x/decorative" and /preview/y/decorative" . My advice to you is to either find another template, or recreate this one yourself using wither liquid or fixed layout techniques independent of each other.
  8. Without knowing the context of how LemonInflux wants to use the images it is fruitless to speculate on techniques and/or offer tips or solutions. CSS positioning is a fickle thing - all selects and tags in the markup impact upon the other; without seeing the context in which a given question here is used recommending a solution is futile. LemonInflux, can you provide an example of screenshot of what you are trying to achieve? There are some cool techniques to simulate multiple background images. Position:fixed is not cross-browser compatible; it doesn't work in IE. And while Stu Nicholls created a brilliant hack to get it to work in IE6 (stu nicholls position fixed, it precludes the use of "position:relative or absolute" in the document.
  9. dbrimlow

    Font color

    This is the css thread ... font tags and other "markup styling tags" don't work here. And at the risk of promoting the heavy handed use of acceptable "inline styles" (still better than markup style tags), while still wanting to help you now, your solution would be: <option value=\"\" state="disabled" style=\"color:#FF0000\">$d</option> You really NEED to at least learn the most basic and fundamental css. Your code must be a mess of echoing fonts all over the place. With a few lines of css in your head tag you could eliminate 70% of the lines in your code that echo "fonts" and "colors" and "borders".
  10. That will not work. Without either floating or absolute positioning the ID, they will just stack, one atop the other. within a table cell or select (div) container. You need to explain what you want this for, to help you can construct the proper css.
  11. This debate always either gets heated from both sides, or one side begins getting nasty and sarcastic (forcing the HTML side into responding the same). So I'm not going there. Just let me point out that I never said "HTML 4.01 Strict is 'more strict' than XHTML 1.0 Strict". And, yes, I admit I was intentionally being misleading when I left out XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional. Because the whole point I am trying to make is that people are led to believe that just because they use XHTML , it is automatically more strict than HTML. When the reality is that when served as text/html, XHTML, in essence, IS HTML 4.01 with the "optional" features of HTML turned off (and the closing single tags added). There is virtually no difference in content display or functionality between equal doctypes of XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 (transitional and strict respectively). Come on ... you know better than that. Ignoring the specification of SHOULD NOT will send the document into quirks mode and there is no telling WHAT it will do with respect to cross browser - cross platform compatibility (although IE will love it). ????!!! Why would you possibly do THAT? What purpose does it serve? If you send another media type, it will not work at all in IE. Or if you use a browser sniffer to send the correct media type to modern browsers and text/html to IE, it will be in quirks mode in IE because XHTML 1.1 "SHOULD NOT" be served as text/html ... see the problem? Well, I suppose if you are using a browser sniffer you could also tell IE to use XHTML 1.0 and text/html. This way you actually do stay within the specifications and your pages will validate. ... or you can just make it html 4.01 Strict in the first place. I'm done. And here is what I recommend to HGeneAnthony, who started this thread because he likes the concept of XHTML. Those of us who also liked the XHTML concept a few years ago realized that we could actually adhere to the same exact concept of rigid rules of structure, coding and content ... so we apply that concept when coding, but use the HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE. And if you want to parse XML ... just parse it to HTML because IE will not display an XHTML document served as "application/xhtml-xml".
  12. LOL! I LOVE this issue because some people always roll out that catch all response without understanding the issue itself. they just don't want to face the xhtml dead-end. Sure it's "okay" ... so are "transititional doctypes" - even though the actual code has nothing to do with the version specification and proves the coder is either lazy or unprofessional. The whole reason I even stand on this soapbox every now and then is that I already see tons of "why doesn't my page work?" in the forums, only to see because people are using xhtml 1.0 strict, but coding for html 3, and now I see them using xhtml 1.1 served as text/html and the pages aren't working at all - or blowing up quite nicely. Yup ... because like I said, it "MAY BE" served as such - "only to accommodate non-modern browsers". Here is the exact chart from the w3c showing that only xhtml 1.0 may be served as (html), which proves xhtml to be a dead end as a replacement for HTML 4.01 strict, since only xhtml 1.0 will ever be permitted to be served as html: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/#summary What it basically shows is that XHTML 1.1 SHOULD NOT and XHTML 2.0 MAY NOT so, you will forever be using xhtml 1.0 as the only xhtml (as html) for your website, forever. Period. Yeah ... which is what started the whole mess in the first place - the home page structure was written in 2004. They never do get around to updating, even their content ... the w3c tutorials for html are no longer even 4.01 valid. AND notice I didn't mention anything in my post about "valid" xhtml 1.0 strict"? What I said was: If anyone is going to start using xhtml. They better know what they are getting into.
  13. This needs to be cleared up here, ASAP. Nothing has been more damaging to web standards understanding and proper markup syntax than the whole "xhtml is the future html wave" that started @ 5years ago. XHTML 1.0 transitional/strict was created to parse XML using the mime type (media type) of "application/XHTML-XML". However, the w3c stated it "MAY" be used as HTML when using the mime type of text/html (PROVIDED IT CAN ALSO BE SERVED USING "application/XHTML-XML"). I think this was a stroke-job to appease Microsoft because IE 5.5 didn't know what the hell the mime type (media type) of "application/XHTML-XML" was, and they were already in beta testing for IE 6 (which was also clueless). Meanwhile, everybody JUMPED all over the "MAY BE SERVED AS TEXT/HTML" provision and started churning out book after book on xhtml being the friggin' sliced bread of web code ... um, of course leaving out that whole "techie/annoying thing" about XML and application/xhtml-xml. So everyone who started to learn web design was spoon fed xhtml instead of HTML. They even grouped it together with css as if xhtml/css MEANT table-less layout and HTML was table based. AND they made it seem as if XHTML was the conservative, strict, law abiding grandson of that liberal, hippy, smelly HTML - who ran around naked, with no morals, rules or structure. But guess what? When NOT used to actually parse XML, and served as "text/html" all XHTML does is become converted by the browser to HTML (with strange closing tags and somewhat stricter rules than the optional rules of HTML). In fact, it turns out that HTML is just as happy with the well formedness, and struture rules of xhtml. All Lowercase? fine. Closing tags? No problem - except for those pesky single tag slashes like for img, br, meta. AND, HTML 4.01 Strict is tougher on validation standards than xhtml 1.0. When IE 7 also didn't support xhtml as XML, the w3c said "enough"! XHTML 2.0 will not be allowed to be served as "text/html". Which means it will not work at all in any IE up to 7.0 - and most likely 8.0. XHTML 1.1 strict served as text/html is wonky in IE. So why use xhtml at all? You can use the same basic format of markup formatting as you do in xhtml (except for single closing tags). As a matter of fact, HTML 4.01 strict is absolutely unforgiving of anything that doesn't conform to the HTML 4.01 specification. It is even stricter than xhtml 1.0! When I look at a web page that validates and see HTML 4.01 strict as the doctype, I KNOW that site was done by a true professional who knows better AND is serious. When I see XHTML 1.0 transitional served as text/html, I know the person is just a beginner or they are copying code from a book or template. When I see XHTML 1.0 strict served as text/html AND it doesn't validate, I know the site was done by someone who knows enough to not understand it. When I see XHTML 1.1 strict served as text/html, I know the site was done by someone who just doesn't get it at all. And I cringe whenever I see someone who wants to start using xhtml. I know they will not understand when I tell them they shouldn't. Because I didn't two years ago when I started using xhtml. And I know they have a lot of work ahead of them when they finally DO understand and have all those pages to convert to HTML 4.01 strict, like I am in the process of - because once you think you are rules tough because you used xhtml, you will find out what rules tough really is when you try to convert them to html 4.01 strict.
  14. LOL, oh you will ... to both! The technique I proposed (using negative margin for the img) is more an art than a science. But it should provide the effect you are looking for. I am actually curious to see how it works, as well. I used it on a few of my sites' text based lists to align the bottom of the text based navbar with a color block of the main container background image to provide a "tabbed" effect when "onpage". These sites all use it for the navbar: stocknyc maiproperties.com dbrimlow bluesmandeluxe.com And each one has a separate IEonly.css file that has to tweak the amount of the negative margin for IE.
  15. Have you tried it without the top frame? Frames are a nasty piece of work as well as being frowned upon by any who care anything about SEO.
  16. Also, just noticed this: <p class="comments align-right clear"> <a href="index.html">Read more</a> : <a href="index.html">comments(3)</a> : 1.25.08 </p> what is - class="comments align-right clear"? Is it the html output of php or jscript or some other script/language tag?
  17. Well, before even beginning to help find a solution for your dilemma, I can tell you that you are using "span" incorrectly - which is surprising since otherwise you use quite well formed semantic markup. You are using the span element as a block level TEXT container and "styler" instead of using a proper text container ("block level logical tag"). Span is not a block tag. It is a style element. Span is just a quick style insert tag used only to alter the appearance of a section or "span" of text - within a given paragraph, list (or other such "block-level logical tag") - from the styling of the paragraph's main select (class or id) ... like so: <p> <strong>Nethnet.com</strong> is a free online archive of <span class="someclass"> loerm ipsum dolar sit amet</span>, consectetuer adipiscing... </p> Text must be constrained within proper "logical block level tags" (p, li, etc.) and never just left naked and flappin' in the breeze within a select, table cell or just in the body. In your case I would suggest using a list and include "display:inline" in the css for the li. And since you are already using very clean well formed semantic markup, avoid unnecessary additional code in your markup and "DIVitus" by using the class within the tag itself (instead of "div"). The markup would be something like: <ul class="center"> <li class="desktop"><img src="images/repository.png" /> Repository</li> <li class="desktop"><img src="images/tutorials.png" /> Tutorials</li> <li class="desktop"><img src="images/news.png" /> News</li> <li class="desktop"><img src="images/documentation.png" /> Documentation</li> </ul> THAT said, you should also avoid the naming conventions in your css of designating "div.someclass" or "span.someclass"; this just forces you to use "div" or "span" exclusively for those selects and they would not work with the example above. Whereas if you just designate the select itself ".someclass", you can use it for any tag within the markup ... including div or span. Also, why limit those choices to your select id "#main"? I don't know where this type of naming convention came from, but it is too common and just tends to cause more and more confusion and frustration among css beginners and people who help them. CSS is about removing limitations, not reassigning them. In engineering the best solution is the simplest. Just name your selects independent of each other unless there is a specific reason not to. #main is a column container. In future you may have many more base tag level style changes you want to make, so instead of naming the previous .center and .desktop to just ul and li under #main, create a one time id for the navbar. So your css basically changes to this: /* main column */ img {border:none} #main {float: right; margin: 0; padding: 0;width: 545px} #main h1 {margin: 10px 0;padding: 4px 0 4px 8px; font-size: 105%;color: #FFF; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: #CC0000; letter-spacing: .5em <!-- there is no .5px, use em or % -->} .center {text-align: center}<!-- this can now be used anywhere, anytime in your document. --> /* Nav Bar */ #navbar ul {margin:0; padding:0} #navbar li { list-style-type:none; display:inline; margin:0 .5em; padding: .25em; font-size: 105%:font-weight: bold;border: 1px solid #333; text-align:center;} <!-- removed height from navbar li because you use % for the font, and the effect you want can be done with negative top margin for the img tag. IE 6/7 and modern browsers display this differently so you may want to find a happy medium or you can change the valuse using an for IE only"conditional comment" - this will use a different value for any IE from the proper valuse in the css that all modern browsers will use. --> #navbar img {margin:-8px 0 0 5px} <!-- And of course, you are using a float ... floats MUST be cleared. Let's add the clear to your css for the list. --> /* FLOAT CLEARING ----------------------------------- */ /*for modern browsers*/ #navbar:after {content: "."; display: block; height: 0;font-size: 0; line-height: 0; clear: both; visibility: hidden;} /* HasLayout fix for IE7 only*/ *+html #navbar {min-height: 1px;} /* HasLayout fix for IE6 only*/ * html #navbar {height: 1%;} Now the markup is even simpler. <div id="main"> <div id="navbar"> <ul> <li><img src="images/repository.png" /> Repository</li> <li><img src="images/tutorials.png" /> Tutorials</li> <li><img src="images/news.png" /> News</li> <li><img src="images/documentation.png" /> Documentation</li> </ul> </div> <p><strong>Nethnet.com</strong> is a free online archive of lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat.</p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat</p> <p>Consectetuer adipi elitagna veni!</p> <p class="comments align-right clear"> <a href="index.html">Read more</a> : <a href="index.html">comments(3)</a> : 1.25.08 </p> </div> Okay. The START of the necessary css components are in place (so far as I know without seeing the rest of all the markup and css) for the #main select column. Certain things can be tweaked to taste or adjust layout. This is (or at least should be) fully cross-browser/platform compliant.
  18. No matter what you do until you use a proper doctype, there is no telling what may happen - because you are in quirks mode. But once you DO use a proper doctype and validate your code, you need to clear your floats to eliminate that IE bug. But until you validate the page, no one can help debug it for you.
  19. It will not be exactly the same as most examples because as bronzemonkey pointed out, IE 6 doesn't support li:hover (and I hate using markup level conditional comments).
  20. When I started rewriting it, I first eliminated the classes ".navigation" altogether and just used the secondary list levels of "ul ul li" or "ul ul ul li" with the main select id (#navigation ul, #navigation ul ul li, etc.) I just wanted to get an initial handle on the css. I then eliminated the pseudo level a tags (a:link, a:visited and a:active) and just used "a" and li:hover & li a:hover. I then gave them has layout. This fixed the haslayout in IE 6 and the second and third drop down levels showed but, of course, it threw off the whole inline scheme of the initial top level select. That's when I realized that all of the select's elements needed to be re-written because they were interfering with each other. It was at that point that I realized this was going to be a monstor fix and complete re-write. HOWEVER! getting full cross-browser drop down menus like this to work is absolutely crucial for css to replace javascript. Way too many people give up because of IE 7. I'm going to play with this some more.
  21. First, you are using invalid xhtml. This is another reason why xhtml is dangerous. If you changed your doctype to html 4.01 strict, and removed the xhtml closing tags, your code would be valid. If you insist on using XHTML (particularly strict), then you better KNOW and FOLLOW the rules. Unlike html (which is more forgiving of things like this), in xhtml ALL markup tags must be lowercase - the following invalidates the page: <DIV ID="Container"></DIV> Basically that's like putting a full Bixby tailpiece on a Strat, or a Fender Tremelo bridge on a LesPaul ... it just doesn't work. That said, it isn't you're problem though (it happens in IE6, too). You have a "HasLayout" issue. But the way you coded all those id and class #navigation ul and li selects confused the hell out of me when trying to fix this quick - and I spent a good half hour trying! Came close, but that was nearly rewriting the whole code. bronzemonkey is a wiz with spotting HasLayout and could probably see your main issue at a glance. I'll IM him and point him here. Um ... wait! If I fix it do I win a '59 LesPaul Standard? Okay, I'll settle for a re-issue.
  22. ASMITH, you don't need external links to OTHER site. You need external from others to YOURS. For example, I need to have links to my real estate sites in online business directories under the Real Estate by region category. Advertising in online Real Estate Trade journals is also key - better still, for me , if they are specific to Manhattan or NYC. THAT's where Google's PageRank number comes from ... the amount of relevant links in sites that link to YOUR site. P.S. Do you have any music online - like acidplanet, jamwave, etc? Actually, that's where I hotlink my tunes on mu bluesmandeluxe site (LOL, I was too lazy to upload the mp3s/wmas onto my own server)
  23. It is without question management's fault. There should be a proper "corporate structure" of responsibility in place to ensure quality control: Manager/Director, Supervisor, Team Leader, Coders Manager/Director instructs the Supervisor of deadlines and requirements, ultimately signs off on the project and when completed reports to the other Managers/Directors. Supervisor instructs the team leader of what is required, oversees the project's overall progress, provides specific guidelines to the team leader and, when necessary, resources needed to move the project along. Team Leader as well as coding, coordinates the other coders - assigning who does what, checks the progress daily, chairs a weekly meeting to determine potential trouble spots and brainstorm any troubleshooting needed. When it is all about "now, now, now", it is more important (and ultimately saves time, stress and hassles later), if the coders communicate at least weekly, and put aside at least a few hours a week to test and help debug each other. Nothing kills my progress more than rushing. When under such stress, I know I personally take quick shortcuts (just to get it working "for now") that I intend to fix later on when I have a little time ... but ultimately I never find the time and it all just piles up until those little quickie shortcuts become a huge integrated mess that bleeds into everything else and requires re-writing nearly everything over again.
  24. whooops: "rankquest.com" P.S. asmith, funny you should use the music example. I've been playing blues/rock guitar since 1972 and never learned to read music ... I just wanted to PLAY. Now I wish I actually knew WHAT I was playing - knowing just enough to realize how much I don't. :}
  25. Actually, you don't need javascript for image preloads, you can do the same in css. I learned this trick from Boris Cherny's classic "abitliquid" template (the best true cross browser 100% liquid layout I've ever seen) - just replace his page container class ".wrap" with whatever your main page container ID or class is: /* The background-image's for the .wrap below are for preloading all the page's images, just add your own images to the pattern */ /*** Preload media ***/ .wrap { background-image: url("media/arrowwhite_left.gif"); background-image: url("media/arrowblack_left.gif"); background-image: url("media/dualarrowgold.gif"); background-image: url("media/brush.gif"); background-image: url("media/camera1.jpg"); background-image: url("media/camera2.jpg"); background-image: url("media/camera3.jpg"); background-image: url("media/ebay.gif"); background-image: url("media/shadow_leftontaupe.jpg"); background-image: url("media/shadow_rightontaupe.jpg"); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: -5000px -5000px;} /**** end preload images ****/ [/url]
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.