Sent by Arlen Walker on 26 May 2003 03:03
I usually don't get involved in things like this, but Ryan's rant isn't
a new one, and maybe I have something useful to contribute on it.
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 05:53 PM, Ryan wrote:
> I just did the trail at browsercam.com (really cool if you like to be
> disappointed). Am I the only one that gets pissed off that my sites
> fall apart in different browsers?
> How do you accomadate all browsers?
You work at it. I'm serious. If it were as easy as picking up CSS The
Definitive Guide and just typing away, anyone could do this job. Web
design is a complex skill set; that's why the position exists as a
separate position from graphic designer or programmer. I hear your
frustration, but be prepared to be frustrated often; that's life in the
trenches. Every bug you fix makes you that much more skillful, and that
much more valuable to hire. Knowledge is currency in this field; acquire
> Do I have to search for every browsers support and read through tons
> of information just to figure out what I can and can't do for each
> I mean god, these people have had 11 years to get their standards
> straight. Microsoft seems to be the only that has it right, my sites
> always layout correctly in IE.
The last statement doesn't follow from the one before it. In point of
fact, IE/Win has poorer CSS compliance than the other major browsers.
The fact that what you lay out only works for you in it points to a
separate problem. If IE renders a page one way and another browser like
Gecko or Opera renders the page another way, my experience has led me to
expect that IE is getting it wrong. This is not *always* the case, I
hasten to add, but as a general rule of thumb, it's a pretty good one.
> So... honestly, what is the solution... i'm looking for help here. Is
> there anywhere that lists what CSS works in what browsers?
Here's a good place to start:
> I mean, when do we actually get to focus on creativity instead of
> support issues?
Never. I'm only half joking there. New devices are being created almost
daily, and they all bring their own sets of bugs to the party. We should
never lose track of the fact that we rely on computer software to make
what we do visible, and that currently computer software has the worst
quality assurance of anything in the consumer space. Why that may be is
a discussion that's *way* off-topic for the list, but suffice it to say
that if any other piece of electronics in your house had the performance
bugs that computers have, you'd have switched it off and put it out in
the garage sale long ago.
> I was so excited about designing a CSS site and it went pretty smooth
> and I was proud of what I designed, until I saw it in other browsers.
We've all been there and can empathize. BTW, don't be so quick to extol
IE. The design breaks in IE/Mac, as well.
> I've spent a lot of time and hard work trying to get this working,
> like i'm sure most of you have with your designs. Anyway, this is my
> site... http://www.visual-storm.com maybe someone knows what the
> problem is. I know it would work with tables, but isn't css better?
Yes. But for reasons that don't include superior cross-platform
performance to table-based designs.
Where to start:
1) Validate the HTML. You're conflating two standards in your coding --
you're ending single tags with "/>" when you don't need to for HTML 4
Strict (that's only XHTML). You've also got some bad attributes in your
script tags for HTML4 Strict. These are *not* the source of your
problem, AFAICT, but often you can find other problems by bringing your
page code into compliance with the standard.
2) Some extra reading:
Sorry about the generalities, i'm a dead dog tonight. I may have some
more time tomorrow, and if so I'll take a look at your CSS and see
what's going on. It's slightly broken in IE5.2/Mac but horribly mangled
in Gecko (it looks like the document flow is all mangled).
In God We Trust, all others must supply data
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/