spectere.net
The Chatterbox => Computing => Topic started by: Alice on June 12, 2008, 12:56:38 PM
-
ul.nav {
list-style: none;
margin: 0px;
margin-top: .5em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
padding: 0px;
}
ul.nav li {
width: 128px;
height: 48px;
display: inline;
margin-left: 1.2em;
margin-right: 1.2em;
border-top: .3em solid #600;
border-left: .3em solid #500;
border-right: .3em solid #200;
border-bottom: .3em solid #200;
color: #700;
font-family: arial;
font-size: 1.0em;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: italic;
background-color: #500;
}
ul.nav li:hover {
border-top: .3em solid #700;
border-left: .3em solid #600;
border-right: .3em solid #300;
border-bottom: .3em solid #300;
background-color: #600;
}
ul.nav li:active {
border-top: .3em solid #100;
border-left: .3em solid #100;
border-right: .3em solid #300;
border-bottom: .3em solid #500;
color: #400;
background-color: #300;
}
ul.nav a {
text-decoration: none;
color: #d58;
}
ul.nav li:hover a {
color: #f8a;
}
ul.nav li:active a {
color: #a26;
}
So you think the <li> things would be 128x48, right? NO THEY AREN'T WHAT THE HELL
or maybe they are and my web browser sux? :( (http://kuroneko.spectere.net/comic/)
-
SEE, THIS IS WHY I DON'T DO WEB DESIGN.
If I had to take a guess, I'd say that UL only covers text, not backgrounds. What you could try doing is either using DIVs to do the same thing, wrapping UL tags around a sized DIV (not sure if that would work) or wrapping sized DIV tags around the ULs.
HTML/CSS ARE BITCHES THAT DESERVE TO ROT IN HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
-
UR RITE LOL LETS ROUND UP THE ANTI-BARKNESS KREW AND WAGE WAR AGAINST HTML/CSS
Ah, that makes sense I guess (NOT REALLY, FUCK YOU CSS). So, if I put a DIV inside all of the LIs, do you think it would work? :-D
Actually, doing that would fix some of my already existing issues (maybe). I think I'll do that. Thank you sir! :-)
-
UR RITE LOL LETS ROUND UP THE ANTI-BARKNESS KREW AND WAGE WAR AGAINST HTML/CSS
I STRONGLY AGREE SIR
Ah, that makes sense I guess (NOT REALLY, FUCK YOU CSS). So, if I put a DIV inside all of the LIs, do you think it would work? :-D
Maybe. It's the best chance you have, though.
Actually, doing that would fix some of my already existing issues (maybe). I think I'll do that. Thank you sir! :-)
Awesome. I hope that works and you don't wind up having to swim through any more exciting W3 documents to fix it. ;)
-
Well sir it did not work so I just went back to the way I had it before, but thank you anyway! I just changed the words on the buttons so they were more evened up, and decreased the padding, so that a user would have less of a chance to miss the link. Stupid CSS.
-
Aw pookyfuckers =(
SORRY I STEERED YOU WRONG, LUV
-
ITS OKAY I STILL <3 YOU :-*
-
gay
That explains everything. Maybe you should make your website more gay to match the code, maybe that will fix it.
-
That explains everything. Maybe you should make your website more gay to match the code, maybe that will fix it.
Nah, that'll only fix it on IE versions 7 and under (or 8 with IE7 emulation enabled).
-
Nah, that'll only fix it on IE versions 7 and under (or 8 with IE7 emulation enabled).
two wrongs make a right. I guess. Or some completely nasty frankenstein bullshit.
-
Or some completely nasty frankenstein bullshit.
Funny you should mention that -- that's precisely what pre-IE8 page hacks look like. CSS support in IE6/7 is quite broken -- it's the Netscape 4 of the modern browsers.
It's good to see that IE8 might actually be competitive; I might actually become somewhat interested in web design/programming again if this keeps up (and if I do I'll make it a point NOT to design for IE6/7).
-
I'd just write a page that says if you don't have FF, don't expect my site to work for you, because I'm a lazy bastard, and IE sucks.
-
IE is used by over 9000 percent of internet users
giving them the bird is like giving the entire internet the bird
it's better to spend a few more minutes making something work on everything instead of telling the majority of the internet to fuck off
-
The way I see it, just because the majority of people do something, doesn't mean they should. I'd rather proactively change the internet (even if it's only in a very small way) than sit back and let the majority of people have their way, just because there's more of them than me.
It's not like I'm sending them a page saying "get Firefox" and then redirecting them to the FF download page. I'm just saying that I honestly don't care if IE is a piece of shit, and I'm not going to waste my time catering to people who don't have the sense (or knowledge that it exists) to get FF or any other standards compliant browser.
As spectere said, the CSS support (and other quirks) in IE6/7 are quite painful at times, and require some pretty mangled code to work, at times. I'm not going to waste my time writing code that no self-respecting coder should ever have to write, just to cater to people who aren't concerned about using a standards compliant browser. If it breaks on them, maybe they'll see the light and chose a browser that doesn't suck.
Not to mention that IE 8 fixes quite a few of those nasty issues in the IE rendering system, so by the times that comes out and is in widespread use, there'll be no need for those ridiculous hacks.
-
OK, this is going to be long... From my HTML/CSS experience, I'd say forget the ul.nav class bull. Try this out:
#nav, #nav ul {
//Preferences for all lists here IE:spacing etc
}
#nav li{
//preferences for the actual list items here IE:color
}
#nav li:hover #nav ul:hover {
//For when you hover over the item
}
So... your html code should look something like this:
<div id="nav">
<li> item
<ul> item </ul>
<ul> item </ul>
</li>
</div>
But, as said before, :hover doesn't work in IE. For that you'd be better working with javascript (which is the tag language equivalent to trying to ride a bull). Tell me how that works out for you, getting kinda tired but I'm pretty sure it'll work.
-
Double post for great justice: javascript.
Here's a simple code I wrote that'll help you satisfy IE as far as hovering goes:
<!---style.php---!>
<!--Stylesheet--->
<!--------------->
#nav, #nav ul { /* all lists */
border-style:none;
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
list-style: none;
line-height: 1;
}
#nav a {
border-style:none;
margin:0;
display: block;
width: 10em;
}
#nav li {
border-style:none;
float: left;
width: 10em; /* width needed or else Opera goes nuts */
}
#nav li ul { /* second-level lists */
border-style:none;
position: absolute;
background: #FFFFFF;
width: 10em;
left: -999em;
}
<!---Make sure to add li.jhover here---!>
#nav li:hover ul, #nav li.jhover ul {
border-style:none;
left: auto;
}
<!---index.html---!>
<!---HTML code--->
<!----------------->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<LINK REL=StyleSheet HREF="style.php" TYPE="text/css"/>
<title>Dropdown test</title>
<!---Javascript Code---!>
<!---------------------->
<script type="text/javascript"><!--//--><![CDATA[//><!--
jHover = function() {
var a = document.getElementById("nav").getElementsByTagName("LI");
for (var i=0; i < a.length; i++) {
a.onmouseover=function() {
this.className+=" jhover";
}
a.onmouseout=function() {
this.className=this.className.replace(new RegExp(" jhover\\b"), "");
}
}
}
if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload", jHover);
//--><!]]></script>
</head><body>
<table align="left" width="400">
<td>
<ul id="nav">
<li><a href="#"><img border="0" src="http://www.spectere.net/smf/userav//avatar_1.png"></a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#"><img border="0" src="http://www.spectere.net/smf/userav//avatar_9.gif"></a></li>
<li><a href="#"><img border="0" src="http://www.spectere.net/smf/userav//avatar_29.gif"></a></li>
<li><a href="#"><img border="0" src="http://www.spectere.net/smf/userav//avatar_16.gif"></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</table>
</body>
So... I run a few web sites at UMBC so here's a link to the final product:
http://www.umbc.edu/fm/test site/test/ (http://www.umbc.edu/fm/test site/test/)
I'll keep it up for a few days but I'll have to take it down after a bit so they dont find out ;D
-
lol thx sir
but let the thread die already, geez :D
-
So... I run a few web sites at UMBC so here's a link to the final product:
http://www.umbc.edu/fm/test site/test/ (http://www.umbc.edu/fm/test site/test/)
Dang.
Y'know, pretty much all of the comments here remind me of exactly why I hate web development. :P What doesn't break Firefox breaks IE, what doesn't break IE breaks Opera, and what doesn't break Opera breaks Firefox.
Well, that's not entirely true, I guess. To be perfectly honest the only thing I've ever had problems with is IE7 and under. Go figure.
-
To be perfectly honest the only thing I've ever had problems with is IE7 and under. Go figure.
Unfortunately, many people still don't write in open standards.
I've found that it's basically IE-Internet and Standardized-Internet. All of the crappy things work fine for IE, but screws the rest of the browsers. Fortunately, compliant websites work awesomely with compliant browsers. And Opera seems to work fine for me on pages FF has a difficulty handling. (Pogo, yahoo games, funky java/javascript stuff in general)
I'm not trying to be all "web-2.0", as I still like to do web pages with tags and tag attributes. xD
-
Is IE8 compatible with standardized internet stuff? I would hope that Microsoft had got the clue by now, and design their browser to force, you know, sensible code. Lol.
-
Yeah, IE8 will pretty much be compliant.
-
No, IE8 pretty much is compliant. The only issues I've been having with the beta is that the old IE6/7 hacks break the renderer. Not too surprising, really.
Windows Update, unfortunately, doesn't play nicely with IE8 yet (I have to set it to IE7 emulation mode to use it). Not a big deal, really...it'll work fine by the time the final release comes out. Also, that's only a real big deal with my laptop, which still runs XP MCE.
-
I bet IE8 is better than FF3
-
I hate you. Also, I highly doubt it. FF3 managed to make their memory management code kick serious ass.
-
You hate me because I've made a few jabs at FF? Lol
-
It was mostly jokingly, and it was more for your support of IE than stabs at FF. If you were saying Opera was better, I'd hate you less, but because IE has been one of the worst browsers on the market, and has had a history of sucking immeasurably.
-
Kuro's just a helpless Opera fanboy. :3
Also, IE8 doesn't suck. Use it prior to passing judgment, kthx.
-
Ok, lets just end this bickering and finally agree that safari is the best browser and anyone who doesn't agree is actually just overwhelmed with jealousy.
I'll always be an Opera/FF fan because I'm a big fan of open source (and getting my code to work within a reasonable time period). I've been avoiding IE8 like the plague but I have been hearing good things about it. It's only given me mixed feelings because after working with web development I have a grudge against IE I might never get rid of.
-
Also, IE8 doesn't suck. Use it prior to passing judgment, kthx.
I wasn't referring to IE8 there, I was saying IE has a history of sucking. Opera has a history of generally being good. Saying IE is better than FF is more insulting than saying Opera is. I'd like to see IE manage to match and/or beat FF's current memory management system. IE7 has no real memory management system. It leave everything you've ever viewed in that session in memory till IE closes. Unless they really reworked that and made it better than FF's memory management, I'm gonna say FF is likely the most memory friendly of the browsers, and will likely continue to be for quite some time.
-
Ok, lets just end this bickering and finally agree that safari Konqueror is the best browser and anyone who doesn't agree is actually just overwhelmed with jealousy.
Fixed.
I wasn't referring to IE8 there, I was saying IE has a history of sucking.
IE4 and IE5 were the best browsers around when they was released.
IE7 has no real memory management system. It leave everything you've ever viewed in that session in memory till IE closes.
IE never EVER did that. Where on earth did you hear that?
It's not the best when it comes to memory usage, but it would never work on low-end systems running XP (think systems with 128-256MB of RAM) if that were the case.
-
How do you explain this graph?
(http://pavlovdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ff3-ff2-ie7.png)
This graph was generated by one of the FF devs in testing to see which of those browsers cleans up it's memory well. You can clearly see that IE7 does not clear anything, and just continually eats up more memory. Sure, it doesn't tell you the amount of time it took to get there, but anyone who browses for a few hours can manage to view a LOT of pages, over quite some time, and that could almost match the sort of use they were trying for here.
http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/
-
text
oshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. I read the majority of it. Great stuff. Thanks for the link, bobbeh
-
Yeah, found that when I was looking for more info on why FF3 was gonna be so great.
-
This graph was generated by one of the FF devs in testing to see which of those browsers cleans up it's memory well. You can clearly see that IE7 does not clear anything, and just continually eats up more memory.
Tell me, how exactly do you know what's going on? Did you see the source? Analyze it yourself with a memory viewer? No, you saw a graph representing the memory usage of a browser and drew your own wild, totally off-base conclusions.
The problem is not that IE7 is "keeping web pages in RAM," it's because of the way IE handles multiple browser objects. If IE kept all pages in RAM, previous versions would have killed the very systems it was supposed to run on very quickly (when I first started using Windows 2000 back when it came out I used IE5 as my daily browser on a P2-400 with 128MB of RAM), not to mention the memory usage would build up a lot faster than it does.
When it comes to very basic usage, IE has always been easier on memory than Firefox without exception (and with Firefox 3 and IE8 that's still the case, only there isn't AS MUCH of a difference now -- only around 10MB). The only reason Firefox is better at it as a whole is because it's always managed tabs and windows better. The main "issue" with IE is the way it handles new sessions of the browser -- it creates new IE controls with every tab/window that gets opened if I remember my Windows-ese correctly. The issue isn't that the browser is keeping pages in memory, it's that it doesn't clean up immediately after it releases the controls.
The numbers fluctuate far more than the blog post shows, too. I put heavy load on my system (which took a lot of work -- namely, Crysis x64 and 12 instances of EVE Online, which took up a total of about 3.2GB of memory...my system took it surprisingly well, with Aero only dropping to about 5 fps or so) and, surprise, it started garbage collecting like most built-in Windows components quickly do when memory is low (and, after that, I performed the surprisingly quick task of closing everything I'd opened and my system thanked me).
Given enough time, most Windows applications do release the memory that closed controls use. It generally does this when the application is in the background for a while.
-
so im reading the title of the thread, and subsequent replies-- and lolling.