14 replies to this topic

[Chris82]

I am in the process of creating a website design from scratch. I am almost done with it and the whole time I have been testing it in Firefox. The design validates as both XHTML 1.0 and CSS. I opened it up in IE6 for laughs and I was horrified. I just feel bad for the people using such a shitty browser. It probably displays correctly in IE7/8 (haven't tested) and I'm sure it will in Opera and Safari, but goddamn.

How it looks in FF (correct):



How it looks in IE6:



tl;dr fuck you if you use IE6

[monster]

Oh, just as an explanation for why they look different, every browser uses a Layout Engine to interpret the markup and display it on the screen. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia....i/Layout_engine

I remember one of our assignments in a web development class was to create a complex page, and replicate it exactly (to the pixel in some cases) in 3 different browsers (IE, Firefox, & Opera). It was a pain in the ass because every browser interprets things differently, but there was always a way to make them align with each other, you just have to do a lot of testing.

Edited by monster, 22 March 2008 - 02:22 AM.

[dar_tana]

Is that Latin?

[Chris82]

I know monster, that's what I'm saying is so bad about IE: the version of Trident in IE6 doesn't support a lot of advanced CSS (which I use) nor does it support .pngs with transparencies. (wtf)

I know it will work with Opera because Dreamweaver, which I use to write the pages, displays the pages using Opera's engine in layout mode. Not that I ever use layout mode but it looks fine so yeah.

Is that Latin?

Lorem Ipsum text, you use it to simulate content so you can see what the layers will look like if they're longer.

[balls deep]

lol...I just typed "chrismods" in google and I got "did you mean christmas?"

[matthew0155]

so this whole post was to b*tch about internet explorer?

[Chris82]

Yes, pretty much, I think it was well-deserved.

[Ezekiel]

Chris, you're better off simulating a transparency then making a real transparency in this case. Usually it's easier in most cases anyway.

[Chris82]

Nah, fuck IE users, it looks fine in IE7 and I use .png transparencies all the time, even my sig has one.

Besides like hell it would be easier to simulate a transparency.

[mattymatny]

been a long time since i posted, but i had this same problem with a site i was working on a while ago. Try opening it in IE7 or some other browswers. I once made a site that looked different in each of 4 different browsers(IE6,IE7,FF,Safari(windows)). I eventualy had to settle and use gifs instead of pngs.

[Chris82]

Interesting, yes it should look fine in IE7, but as far as I'm concerned, IE6 users can go fuck themselves, so I'll keep using .pngs because of how much better they look than .gifs or even using .jpgs to simulate transparencies.

[DarkShadow]

png's aren't very effective for websites anyway tbh, the quality is good, yeah, but the file size is way to big

[Chris82]

That's true, that banner when saved as a .png is 360kb, but is only 96kb as a .gif. But the .png looks so much better and honestly, if you have even a slow broadband connection you should have no problem downloading that.

It all depends on the circumstances, for buttons and small images of course .gif is the way to go but .pngs look a lot better for the large header.

[DarkShadow]

why not just use JPG and call it a day, seriously only idiots use PNG for website images, or are forced to do so via forum themes and such

[mattymatny]

yea back in the day i edited all of the pngs over to other formats for both size and compatability.

As far as IE6, im still a user. Tho FF is my main browser i still need IE for some sites, and back in the early days of IE7 it was buggy as all hell.

And even though it may be tricky, a good webdesigner would make sure his site worked on all the browsers he could find.
When you get paid to make em you have too. But in the case of a personal site, FireFox or GTFO.