Not what I wanted but it almost works.

Good morning,

Here's the URL in question: http://www.qcs-rf.com/boldts/template.html

After giving up on using css make the blue and white boxes look the same in
FF2 and IE6, I created jpegs for the background of #specials, #options,
#mainbody and #affiliations.

It's almost where I want it, with a few hangups:

1) There's a 1px horizontal white line at the bottom of #specials.
2) A height of 1px is missing from the bottom of #options.
3) The entire blue border is missing from the right of #mainbody.
4) An obligatory rant about non-CSS-compliant browsers.

If you take a look at the source of template.html, I have some inline css
style statements that apply only to IE - do I have to resort to these
statements for all IE-specific modifications?

--
Isaac Grover, Owner
Quality Computer Services of River Falls, Wisconsin
Web: http://www.qcs-rf.com

Re: Not what I wanted but it almost works.

"Isaac Grover" wrote in message
news:Xns99D8BCF965EDisaacgrovergmailcom@216.196.97.136...
> Good morning,
>
> Here's the URL in question: http://www.qcs-rf.com/boldts/template.html

You use pictures of text *without* the alt attribute for navigation. That's
going to make the site accessible for the visually impaired, not.

If you use real text you can also dispense with that javascript rollover
stuff and use CSS :hover instead.

As to the white line: divitus. Way too many divs. Plus, you are running the
browser in quirks mode so all layout is suspect anyway.

--
Richard.

Re: Not what I wanted but it almost works.

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:10:10
GMT Isaac Grover scribed:

> Good morning,
>
> Here's the URL in question: http://www.qcs-rf.com/boldts/template.html
>
> After giving up on using css make the blue and white boxes look the
> same in FF2 and IE6, I created jpegs for the background of #specials,
> #options, #mainbody and #affiliations.
>
> It's almost where I want it, with a few hangups:
>
> 1) There's a 1px horizontal white line at the bottom of #specials.
> 2) A height of 1px is missing from the bottom of #options.
> 3) The entire blue border is missing from the right of #mainbody.
> 4) An obligatory rant about non-CSS-compliant browsers.
>
> If you take a look at the source of template.html, I have some inline
> css style statements that apply only to IE - do I have to resort to
> these statements for all IE-specific modifications?

Looks very nice. However, when I clicked on the 'gallery' link, I did not
get a picture of a gal in plumbing bibs with her boobs hanging out. Surely
an oversight.

Re. source, what are the (regular) comments for? You can use conditional
comments for ie-specific purposes (if that's the idea).

--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.

Re: Not what I wanted but it almost works.

rf wrote:

> You use pictures of text *without* the alt attribute for navigation. That's
> going to make the site accessible for the visually impaired, not.

Indeed, and the size of, for instance, the image of the word 'Testimonials'
is 25K! Over dialup the page took about two minutes to load.

Oddly, the font used for these images of words is not that different
from real text fonts that are available. The OP should just get rid
of the image-text altogether.

Re: Not what I wanted but it almost works.

Isaac Grover wrote:
>
> http://www.qcs-rf.com/boldts/template.html
>
> It's almost where I want it

Sorry, but it doesn't "almost work". You have fixed heights for all
those boxes. The content does not fit in them like you think. Zoom text
up in Firefox, or set IE's text size to Larger and watch the main
content disappear. :(

You should also learn something about optimizing graphics, including
when to use jpg, png or gif. Most of those jpgs would be a fraction of
their size if they were png or gif instead.

--
Berg