Corvid Dragon ([info]corviddragon) wrote,
@ 2004-02-06 15:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: infuriated
Current music:nada

Augh!
Jesus, dude. Fuck Mozilla in its ear. I finally got the sidebars to look right, except in fucking Firebird, where for whatever reason this happens:



I don't have a rule saying "make the sidebar so long that the last paragraph doesn't reach all the way to the bottom of it," I swear.

*sigh*

On the plus side, no one uses Firebird anyway, and it looks fine in IE and Opera. I'm going to go play some Star Chamber now.

And finish the laundry.

And then maybe I'll come back and figure out why my style sheet specifies 799EC4 as the background color, but the browsers give me 709FC0 instead. And why the .png files have 799EC4 as the background color, until they actually get served from the page, and then they're B0CFE0, which is completely different. It's not even remotely similar, in fact.


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]daisho
2004-02-06 02:30 pm UTC (link)
Hmm. I was contemplating a switch to Firebird from IE6, which seems to have become rather unstable on my PC. Maybe I'll reconsider...

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]corviddragon
2004-02-06 03:47 pm UTC (link)
No, no. Firebird beats the pants off IE. I'm just ranting, from a designer point of view, about all these inconsistent CSS rendering engines.

I use Opera, myself, and prefer it to Firebird. Those uncomfortable with ad banners should probably pass, though. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]daisho
2004-02-08 05:20 am UTC (link)
I've tried Opera in the past, and find it a of a fiddle to use, both on EPOC32 and Win98. As I said in my post, though, Firebird is shaping up nicely. It hasn't yet failed to do anything I asked of it -- and hasn't crashed, either. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wyrm
2004-02-06 02:58 pm UTC (link)
Just a thought, but you haven't got only 256 colours or something like that set for your desktop? Just because you specify a specific colour does not actually mean that that colour will be used (apart from the standard system colours) by the viewer's browser - and you still can't yet assume that everyone uses true colour (i.e. use transparency).

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]corviddragon
2004-02-06 03:38 pm UTC (link)
Nope, I'm using 16-bit color, though that's a good point, and one of the first things I thought of. The only thing is, if it were reverting to an 8-bit color, it would be something like 7799CC -- as far as I know, though I haven't worked out the math, those are the codes that fit into the 256-color spectrum.

Also, that's what Photoshop suggests as the "web-safe" version.

Anyway, the point is that the image on the screen is literally different from either the color specified in the stylesheet or the exact same image I have on my hard drive before it's served.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wtcher
2004-02-06 03:24 pm UTC (link)
A lot of people use Firebird - or rather, a lot of people use Gecko, which renders for Firebird.

The list includes:

Mozilla
Netscape Navigator (all versions >4.x)
Firebird
A version of the AOL browser
Galeon
Some others I can't remember right now.

Also, IE 5 and 5.5 don't display PNGs properly. The render PNGs as darker than they should be. Even Netscape 4.x rendered PNGs better than either IE 5 or 5.5. IE 6.0 does much better, only failing to render the alpha transparency (as far as I know; I don't use IE 6).

Also, I can't seem to see what the problem is in your screenshot.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]corviddragon
2004-02-06 03:46 pm UTC (link)
I know about Gecko... I was using hyperbole. (Being hyperbolic?) Also, the particular site I'm designing for has IE with 95% browser share, but I still don't actually think it's a trivial issue. The problem in the screenshot is that the bottom border of the box is being displayed higher than the actual bottom of the box, so part of the box's background shows up below the horizontal line. See what I mean? Presumably that means that the div whose background is the bottom border graphic doesn't stretch to the bottom of its containing block, and if I add some borders, that's exactly what's happening. Except it doesn't happen in Opera or IE (anymore), and I'm out of ideas on what to fix.

I didn't know, though, that IE had a problem with colors in PNGs. I'm using IE 6, and you're right, there's still a noticeable difference between the graphic and the border it's laying on; I'm not using transparency, either. I guess I'll have to use GIFs for the graphics then?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re:
[info]corviddragon
2004-02-06 03:53 pm UTC (link)
Er.. I meant "background it's laying on," and I also meant to say that my color comparisons were from screenshots taken with Opera, which to my knowledge doesn't have any problem displaying PNGs. And, in fact, if I change the page background to match what Photoshop's eyedropper tells me the graphics are (once they're served), the page is now seamless. But the wrong color.

Additionally, it isn't seamless in Firebird, which pretty much seals the deal for PNGs, I guess.

I'm probably using Photoshop wrong in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…