Topic: CSS Cross-Platform hell

One thing I would like to try and get away from when converting our designers webpages from graphics to HTML, is tables. I'd much rather end up using CSS/style sheets/etc to position information on the page.

However, quite often I get fusturated, and go back to nested tables to get the thing done. Why? standard situation

---> I get it looking good on WinXP IE 6.0
---> Looks OK in netscape
---> Gets the job done in Opera

Then .. I say "Hey angie, take a look at this on your mac" and boom, things are misaligned, falling off pages and looking like crap.

Even a simple left: -10px; seems to act/look diferently on a MAC IE.

While I know from the logs/etc that the people who goto our websites that about 98% of them are Win-IE users, about 2% are netscape AOL and almost none use macs ... it'd still be nice to get things working across the board with IE/NS/etc for both Windows and Mac and even Linux.

can anyone offer up a suggestion? .. for the next thing I do, I'd really like to accomplish it with CSS/XHTML compliant that works across the board.

Since no one else has suggested anything, let me give you one. The second to last browser on which you should make you site look good is Internet Explorer 6 for Windows. The last should be IE for MacOS. So many other browsers handle standards slightly better than IE that it would be easier to make it look and work perfectly elsewhere, then correcting issues IE/Win has with it. I found it easier that way.

Kaniz: There are many ways the IE/Mac can screw things up but we'd need to see an example to provide any specific advice.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yup, IE5 for the Mac is a bitch.

The good news is that the newer browsers that Apple is developing as well as other non ie browsers for the Mac do a much better job. Microsoft has also said that they will not develop any further versions for the Mac.

Without seeing specifics though, it's impossible to say what your problem may be...

I'd have to agree with cj68collins. I used to think designing for Netscape was a bitch, but as soon as NS6 came out, the playing field was reversed (at least for me). I spend more of my time working out bugs in IE than in any other browser.

However, seeing as Microsoft is killing off both IE/Mac and IE/Win, people will *eventually* have to move to other browsers, and hopefully in a few years we won't have to worry (As much) about things like these.

Note: Yes, Microsoft will still work on IE for Windows, *but* , and this is a big *BUT*... only as part of the operating system. In other words, no more free IE unless you shell out $300 for the next Windows. Those of us content with Win2000 (like me ;-)) can just forget about IE7.


In the meantime, I use Mozilla Firebird as my default browser. Highly recommended.

Almost everyone uses IE..I have not designed a page for a year and in that year NOT ONE THING has changed in browsers..I am not a "web designer" to be forced to write bad work arounds, to be told "your customers will not view your pages" and all the other arrogant BS the browser makers use to excuse their lack of standard conformity to CSS code. I am going to design for IE because IE reads relative positioning..perfectly valid code, correctly..and if everyone would write for IE, then web browsers who want to Sell browsers may have to offer a product that works for ME, the Customer..

Skytytger - I truly hope that some day you realize how ridiculous your statement is.

Just because your code happens to work in IE does not mean that it is correct. IE has had far more standards comliance issues than Opera or Mozilla. It just happens to be very forgiving of sloppy and poorly written code, which has allowed "web desingers" to become very lazy.

A year ago, IE5.5 was the browser that those "bad work-arounds" had to be written for.

In the past year, there have been some very great changes in browsers.

Now, that aside, your statement is made absurdly ridiculous by the fact that the browser that this thread is complaining is internet explorer for the Mac.

So I think you need to *seriously* reconsider your point.

You are mistaking my point DL-44..I know IE is as bad as any, I prefer Opera and it is also very forgiving of code..What I am saying is that most people use IE so if there is one "standard" it is that one and if there is one browser the page MUST WORK in, it is IE. I would love to see all the browsers interpret code the same way. I am a buyer, a customer in the browser market. I want to see the page as the designer conceived it, not how the browser interprets it.

Opera, forgiving of bad code??

Last time I checked, Opera was one of the strictest browsers on the market.

I try to make pages that look good in Opera so it seems forgiving to me. Opera doesn't read some of the more esoteric css, almost dhtml or xhtml coding written in line as spans..but otherwise, for straight code it seems fairly easy to please. But I am NOT an expert, just an amateur..a customer..and Opera has some other features I like.

IE is the most used browser because of agressive and shady business practices...not because it is a superior product.

Standards need to be based on something more solid than the current market share

{edit - typos}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 07-09-2003).]

tsk tsk DL-44 looking a gift horse in the mouth..but you are right..I seem to think IE is free but I probably paid for it in the price of the computer. The graphics rendition in IE aren't good but most people only "shop" online and if the page looks like a Sears Catalog (speaking of bad code, poor layout and smeary image quality) what the heck do they care..it is what is in their mind that they see.. there is a little black and white picture on the page, but the shopper sees white sails and blue water. Most people I know think a "browser" is the four legged critter that eats leaves.

...translation?

Not to be rude... the part about the 4 legged critters was cute... hehe.

quote:

---

tsk tsk DL-44 looking a gift horse in the mouth

---

Gift horse? IE? More like a Trojan horse...

All the major browsers are available free, so I'm yet more confused as to your qualm with the 'free' issue...?

(yes, I know opera has a fee if you want the ads removed, but there are plenty of others that are completely free)

Did I start this firestorm? O:-)

What I meant by my original statement was not that Kaniz should not have developed the page to work fully on IE/Win, but that it should not have been his first choice. Kaniz seemed resigned that it did not work as fully on the other Windows browsers when he should have made more an effort to made it work the same. If he had, the site would work fully for web browsers on MacOS computers, with the probable exception of IE/Mac, which is now 'long in the tooth'.

I am surprised at all this discussion of "standard" page design and not one mention of the w3c consortium.

I thought they are the ones who are setting the standard by which we should code. Am I wrong about that?

If we are supposed to be using the w3c as a standard, then IE is the least compliant to that standard of any of the browsers mentioned.

I try to design my pages to the w3c standard, checking them against the HTML and CSS validators at w3c, then against amya, gecko, opera, and finally IE because that seems to be the order from most to least compliant.

Is this the correct way to do things or does someone else have another idea?




-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

I don't bother actually checking for validity until after it works in a few browsers (or if I need help figuring out why it doesn't work).

Why? Well, validation is nice, but the bottom line is - does it work? If you've got perfectly valid code, but it doesn't work in the major browsers, the validation doesn't mean much.

Once you understand the basics of what is and isn't valid code, you rarely have a problem with writing code that will validate.

Now, whenever I refer to 'standards' I take it for granted everyone understands that it means the standards set by the w3c.

{{edit - for the record, the first browser I check things in is Mozilla, as I code. Then IE6.0, then Opera 7.0 and IE 5.5 when it is satisfactory in Mozilla.

Then I try to get someone to check it on IE5 for the Mac....which is, of course, always the dreaded part....

}}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 07-10-2003).]

Thanks DL-44. It's always good to hear someone else's ideas on different ways to do things. It adds perspective to know why you do things differently than I do.

I will probably change the order I perform my checks a little based on your post.

Thanks.




-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

Yes, if you complain about "browsers" in my neighborhood, you will get lots of good advice about deer fencing. I didn't know browsers were free..going to go download some copies..but feel sorta...thefty..if I am ...test driving without plans of purchase..but..there it is..Thank you for that information

It's not "test driving" when the software is offered by the creator for free.

You can't *have* a plan for purchase when there is no cost for the product....

It's the way it's always been with most browsers as far as I know....



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 07-11-2003).]