ruby-lang web site & ie

[Christoph]

Hi,

hi I'd like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang
web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)
(and linux of course) and many if not (almost) all visitors of Ruby's
website are probably aware that IE isn't such a great browser but
still IE is the dominant web browser.


/Christoph

[Daniel Carrera]

So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
Great idea!

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:47:44AM +0900, Christoph wrote:

> Hi,
>
> hi I'd like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang
> web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)
> (and linux of course) and many if not (almost) all visitors of Ruby's
> website are probably aware that IE isn't such a great browser but
> still IE is the dominant web browser.
>
>
> /Christoph
>

--
Daniel Carrera | Aleph-0 bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-0 bottles
PhD student. | of beer. Take one down, pass it around, Aleph-0
Math Dept. | bottles of beer on he wall...
UMD, | [url]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-0.html[/url]

[Wesley Moxam]

The site looks the same to me in both IE and Mozilla Firebird ....
IE version: 6.0.2800.1106
Firebird version : 0.7

-- Wes

Daniel Carrera wrote:

>So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
>Great idea!
>
>On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:47:44AM +0900, Christoph wrote:
>
>

>>Hi,
>>
>>hi I'd like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang
>>web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)
>>(and linux of course) and many if not (almost) all visitors of Ruby's
>>website are probably aware that IE isn't such a great browser but
>>still IE is the dominant web browser.
>>
>>
>>/Christoph
>>
>>
>>

>
>
>

[Robert McGovern]

>>> [email]chr_news@gmx.net[/email] 11/13/03 03:47pm >>>
hi I'd like to point out that IE has problems in rending the ruby-lang

web site. It look just fine under windows with mozilla (firebird)

>>> [email]chr_news@gmx.net[/email] 11/13/03 03:47pm >>>

looks fine in IE 6.0.2800

what pages cause you problems?

rob

[Ian Hobson]

In message <3FB3AEF7.5050401@klickit.com>, Wesley Moxam
<wmoxam@klickit.com> writes

>The site looks the same to me in both IE and Mozilla Firebird ....
>IE version: 6.0.2800.1106

I just applied all the latest patches to this version of IE, and windows
2K
and it is now so broken it can not handle any secure site.

Anyone else with similar problems?

Anyone with an idea of how to get IE working again?

Had to install Netscrape just to config my firewall and ISP's update
page.

Regards

Ian
--
Ian - posting to a Newsgroup. Please remove everything to reply.

[Michael Campbell]

Christoph wrote:

>
> Since two other replies are suggesting that the website
> looks okay under i.e. I included two desktop snapshots of
> the upper left corner of the front page of ruby-lang.org.

....

> Overall the rendering under ie 6 looks okay soo - under
> the server 2003 IE it looks different again, in fact
> much worse.

I don't get that strange cell offset your screenshot shows on my IE
(6.0, XP Pro), nor on IE 6.0 on Win 2003 server. It looks fine (that

is, it lines up right just as in your firebird SS) on both platforms
for me.







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[url]http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree[/url]

[Peter]

> I don't get that strange cell offset your screenshot shows on my IE

> (6.0, XP Pro), nor on IE 6.0 on Win 2003 server. It looks fine (that
>
> is, it lines up right just as in your firebird SS) on both platforms
> for me.

It looks OK for me on both IE and FireBird. But if I change the
accessibility options for IE (check "ignore font sizes specified on web
pages"), then it looks exactly like in Christoph's screen shot (also same
difference in font sizes between IE and FireBird; that was my lead on
checking the font sizes BTW).

Peter

[Daniel Carrera]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 04:53:49AM +0900, Christoph wrote:

> Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
> ...

> > So you are suggesting that we put up a link to the Mozilla website?
> > Great idea!

>
> Yes, most definitely:-)

...

> It seems that IE (on my XP lapttop at least:-) still has problems
> with absolute positioning

Clearly IE is not ready for the desktop.

Regardless, absolute rendering is evil and it should be fixed. It is a
basic accessibility guideline that rendering should be proportional (ie.
use "em" or %). If you use absolute rendering the page will only look
right for people who have the same monitor size as the dude or dudette who
wrote the page.

Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | Aleph-0 bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-0 bottles
PhD student. | of beer. Take one down, pass it around, Aleph-0
Math Dept. | bottles of beer on he wall...
UMD, | [url]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-0.html[/url]

[Christoph]

Peter wrote:
...

> It looks OK for me on both IE and FireBird. But if I change
> the accessibility options for IE (check "ignore font sizes
> specified on web pages"), then it looks exactly like in
> Christoph's screen shot (also same difference in font sizes
> between IE and FireBird; that was my lead on checking the
> font sizes BTW).

You are right - I actually mused about that it might have
something to-do with my higher than standard resolution however
I never bothered to go through the advised reboot which also
which also changes the font size.

/Christoph

[Eric Hodel]

--CfiwpigK2vfmwpN3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Daniel Carrera (dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote:

> Regardless, absolute rendering is evil and it should be fixed. It is a=

=20

> basic accessibility guideline that rendering should be proportional (ie.=

=20

> use "em" or %). If you use absolute rendering the page will only look=20
> right for people who have the same monitor size as the dude or dudette wh=

o=20

> wrote the page.

Absolute positioning is not evil.

div.sidebar { position: absolute; top: 130px; left: 0px; width: 129px; }

This will make column's width is as wide as the image above it. Using
proportional rendering would not achieve acceptable rendering as easily.

Second, this uses the same technique as below, allowing non-visual users
to more quickly skip to content.

#header { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 2em; }
#main { margin-top: 2em; }
#footer { ... }

<div id=3D"main"> ... </div>
<div id=3D"header"> ... </div>
<div id=3D"footer"> ... </div>

This setup is *more* accessible than a non-positioned page, especially
in the absecence of CSS support. Non-visual users skip straight to the
content, and don't have to wade through the massively nested ul stuck in
#header to do nested menus.

--=20
Eric Hodel - [email]drbrain@segment7.net[/email] - [url]http://segment7.net[/url]
All messages signed with fingerprint:
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04


--CfiwpigK2vfmwpN3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/upPpMypVHHlsnwQRAhWbAKDLJ1YpgXifaIciedQFhsnUt2kZ3A Cg0d8C
mNfZAx7N5Ewps833yW5uz1E=
=PsKf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--CfiwpigK2vfmwpN3--

[Daniel Carrera]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0800, Eric Hodel wrote:

<topic="absolute positioning" />

> Second, this uses the same technique as below, allowing non-visual users
> to more quickly skip to content.

[snip]

> <div id="main"> ... </div>
> <div id="header"> ... </div>
> <div id="footer"> ... </div>
>
> This setup is *more* accessible than a non-positioned page,

What does this have to do with absolute positioning. XHTML, <div> and CSS
are good for non-visual users. Absolute positining adds nothing to
non-visual users. Don't mix these up.

--
Daniel Carrera | Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say...
PhD student. |
Math Dept. UMD | 19. hey, what does mkfs do?

[Christoph]

Eric Hodel wrote:
...

> Absolute positioning is not evil.
>
> div.sidebar { position: absolute; top: 130px; left: 0px;
> width: 129px; }
>
> This will make column's width is as wide as the image above
> it. Using proportional rendering would not achieve
> acceptable rendering as easily.

Well at least as long as you are not using IE and too much
text ``pushes'' these absolute boundaries. Ruby-lang is
one of few website I visit frequently, actually at the top of
head I cannot think of another one, were my large fonts setting
has these such a strong effect. (Okay, this is a give away but
but did not banish IE For firebird - yet)


/Christoph