Posted by Neredbojias on 07/29/07 13:17

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:32:22
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:

>> > Hmmm well yes, I could see Hatters point as well. But until Flash
>> > has a way of becomeing more accessible (by users with adaptive
>> > technology) I probably won't be designing entire websites with it.
>> > In a lot of cases good old HTML with some CSS for styleing works
>> > fine and means you end up with a site with a consistent look and
>> > feel, even if that "look" is not quite the same in all browsing
>> > environments. The thing is though, even if the site does look the
>> > same in all browsers (as in all visual browsers) through the use of
>> > flash, then it still means that it won't work for those of us
>> > useing aural browsers (so some kind of alternative still needs to
>> > be provided. This means that you then need to update two sites
>> > with the same content, which is why I like the CSS method, as you
>> > can keep all the visual style seprat from the rest of the content
>> > makeing it easier for SE bots and screen readers and visitors to
>> > access the content. This also means that all visual
>> > branding is kept in tact.
>> > --
>> > Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>>
>> Yes, you make many good points. I think the conclusion is that Flash
>> has to be improved, as does html/css, etc. -And the browsers. It's
>> just that sometimes I get a little sick of all the things that
>> _don't_ work under "normal" html auspices. Yesterday I found a
>> beauty of a bug in Firefox. Reload a page of thumbs and the first
>> one disappears... Oh, I'm sure there are conditions. I think the
>> thumb has to be bigger than a certain size, and perhaps centering
>> plays a part, but it's definitely a bug - for something as simple as
>> that. (Probably relates to the cache because it only happens
>> online.) Geesh, will they ever get it right?
>>
> Hmmm, well images on the web are a tricky thing to get right, did you
> miss setting a hight on one of those images by any chance? Cause that
> is what it sounds like.

No way, Jose. -Or in this case: Are you mad, Chad? The heights & widths
are the same for all images and included via css. Markup and css validate,
and there's nothing particularly unusual about the page. Here's one
example of the general template:

http://www.neredbojias.com/opa.html

(Damn, reviewing the source, I see there _is_ some superfluous stuff, but
believe me, those hs's have nothing to do with it. The basic 8-pic, fixed-
top, cleared-content div layout does it. My only other example is adult
material.)

> But as to your question, no I don't think they ever will the web is
> not like paper as they say (I mean it's just impossible to prodict
> anything on the web. Having said that if you write valid code you will
> have a better chance of items working the way you want and I am really
> starting to not be as concerned with IE as a result of this
> (especially as FireFox Opera and all of those type browsers running
> gecho display stuff in a very similar way.

My code is valid - even when it's not. <grin>

Actually, my markup _is_ valid. I don't believe I have any pages left with
exceptions.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]