|
|
Posted by kchayka on 12/17/99 11:30
sagejoshua wrote:
>kchayka wrote:
>>More likely than a bug is the excessive absolute positioning and all
>>those px dimensions. There is no need for most of it.
>
> What is unneeded?
<URL:http://www.snakebirdstudios.com/nojs.php>
Off the top of my head, it is unnecessary to absolutely position either
#wrapper or #footer. Both should be static, or relatively positioned if
need be. If I spent more than a couple minutes looking at it, I'm sure I
could point out all kinds of stuff.
> I was under the impression that for a FIR or
> FIR-derivitive you need to specify the exact dimensions of the
> containing block. Could you be a little more specific?
All image replacement methods are bad, some are just less bad than
others. Did you happen to look at your page with image loading disabled
or listen to it in a screen reader? I suspect not. The method you chose
to use (looks like the original FIR) is one of the more bad variety.
Very inaccessible, indeed.
I'm not sure why you even bother using FIR for subheadings in the
content area. It's not like you're using a fancy font or anything. :-\
>>open your page in the moz/FF DOM inspector
>
> I've never used it before. It seems really buggy. (Maybe its my CSS).
> But something simple, like the 760px wide wrapper, it gets wrong. It
> only blinks over the right half of the wrapper.
If it doesn't blink where you expect, that's usually an indication your
code isn't doing what you thought it would. The code is much more
suspect than the tool.
> I used negative margins for centering,
There is no need for this, either. Google for margin:auto.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|