New home page

[ktinkel]

Have updated the home page (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/) (or click on Web Home in the black menu bar). Streamlined the CSS, making a lot of changes in the process. Would appreciate hearing of any irregularities or problems with various browsers.

It was one thing to have oddities when this was just a DTP place; now that we have so many web publishing mavens around, it would really be mortifying. <g>

In particular, there was a weird problem with MSIE 6 that I have seen before — a spurious character appearing at the bottom of the screen (in this case in the right-hand column). Does anyone still see this?

I had complaints that the type size was too large with certain browsers, so with some misgivings I switched the base size to 11px (instead of relying on the viewer’s browser settings). Now I fear the type may be too small. And worse, when I try to enlarge it with browser controls, it breaks the whole layout, and we cannot have that!

So it will probably go back to the old method (or have some other one altogether), but first I would like to hear how it works in a bunch of browsers. So please take a look if you have time.

Thanks.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

a spurious character appearing at the bottom of the screen (in this case in the right-hand column)

A lower case 'd.'? Yes, but only in the reduced view: full-screen it goes away!

I fear the type may be too small

Yes it is: perhaps only for sexagenarians and older, and possibly not if you've got the resolution lower than 1280 pixels × 1020 pixels.

[ktinkel]

A lower case 'd.'? Yes, but only in the reduced view: full-screen it goes away!Oy! Whatever is that about, I wonder. (Thanks).

I fear the type may be too smallYes it is: perhaps only for sexagenarians and older, and possibly not if you've got the resolution lower than 1280 pixels × 1020 pixels.What happens if you use browser controls to increase the type size?

[Cristen Gillespie]

If I increase the text size in Firefox on the iMac, I lose the entire right-hand column and no scrollbar appears.

[ktinkel]

If I increase the text size in Firefox on the iMac, I lose the entire right-hand column and no scrollbar appears.Thanks. That is what happened to me as well.

Maybe a rounding error of some sort. I will go fiddle around. There are worse problems in MSIE 6 that I need to tend to as well.

Of course.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

What happens if you use browser controls to increase the type size?

Nothing. I tried it just now. I suppose it depends on how the type size is specified. I know very little about Web pages (and the more I hear, the less I want to hear), but as you've got about 16 words to a line in the centre column, I'd say that the type is too small for the measure; i.e. about average!

[ktinkel]

Nothing. I tried it just now. I suppose it depends on how the type size is specified. I know very little about Web pages (and the more I hear, the less I want to hear), but as you've got about 16 words to a line in the centre column, I'd say that the type is too small for the measure; i.e. about average!Thanks.

That’s what I figured. I set the type in a way that prevents MSIE users from changing it. I will go back to the old way.

As for how many words a line there are, that depends not only on type size but on the width of your browser window. You can easily control that.

[dacoyle]

Thanks.

That’s what I figured. I set the type in a way that prevents MSIE users from changing it. I will go back to the old way.

As for how many words a line there are, that depends not only on type size but on the width of your browser window. You can easily control that.

Kathleen,

It's imperitive users be able to resize the text. If you set to px, they can't in IE (I think... it's late...). I set my base font to 1em and all modern browsers can resize EMs.

If a user with poor eyesight can't resize the text, it's a serious usability issue. I know a woman at work that makes her font huge (she's nearly blind) and reverses the screen colors.

One more example that Internet design is very different from print design. Your overall design concept has to work at all resolutions, so if it's driven by text size you'll never get it right.

[Ian Petersen]

It's imperitive users be able to resize the text. If you set to px, they can't in IEIt's not as simple as that. For one thing, it is possible for IE users to resize text. It's just that the option is buried in a submenu so many users never find it. Just making text resizable is only a small, and questionably useful, part of true accessibility. Tabindexes, alt-texts, long descriptions, alternative and media specific stylesheets and, not least, well structered markup are all equally, if not more, important to accessibility.

Adding an explicit text size switcher on the page is generally a better idea than just relying on the browser's text-size menu. That way users may actually notice it's there and use it. Also it enables the designer some control over what gets scaled so the layout doesn't break - which it inevitably will if text gets scaled indescriminately in relation to fixed size images and columns.

[dacoyle]

It's not as simple as that. For one thing, it is possible for IE users to resize text. It's just that the option is buried in a submenu so many users never find it. Just making text resizable is only a small, and questionably useful, part of true accessibility. Tabindexes, alt-texts, long descriptions, alternative and media specific stylesheets and, not least, well structered markup are all equally, if not more, important to accessibility.

Adding an explicit text size switcher on the page is generally a better idea than just relying on the browser's text-size menu. That way users may actually notice it's there and use it. Also it enables the designer some control over what gets scaled so the layout doesn't break - which it inevitably will if text gets scaled indescriminately in relation to fixed size images and columns.

Ian, then you still have the problem of the font size driving the design... and one other thing to keep in mind; user style sheets can override your best intentions. So it's best to test all pages not only at various resolutions, but by increasing and decreasing the font sizes.

[Ian Petersen]

then you still have the problem of the font size driving the designI don't really see it as a 'problem' as such. It's simply an integral part of 'designing' a web page at all. I think it is pretty much an illusion to think one can have highly designed pages with multiple columns and fixed size graphics and still hope to have freely sizable text. The things that break with independently sizable text are as much an accessibility problem as not being able to scale the text at all.
user style sheets can override your best intentions Exactly! That's what they're for. It is, IMO, more useful to provide alternate stylesheets, style switchers and encourage the use of user stylesheets and similar accessibility aids than to agonize over whether to use pixels in text-sizes.

[vavroom]

Adding an explicit text size switcher on the page is generally a better idea than just relying on the browser's text-size menu. That way users may actually notice it's there and use it.

FWIW, I think that users should take *some* responsibility in their ability to use websites. Yes, a text/style switcher on your page makes it easier for a bunch of people to resize text. And properly implemented they work well enough. A bad example of implementation is the one on the joomla.org site, (which we're getting fixed soon) It's bad because a) there's not enough contrast so people who would need it can't see it to know it's there!, and b) it's javascript driven with no alternative. I'm just bringing that up to point out that best intentions sometimes don't always translate in effective solutions.

Back to my point about responsibility... I think people with disabilities (or folks with plain bad eyesight from long hours of staring at monitor, or whatever), really need to learn more about the software they are using. Granted, not all have the opportunity to learn (and I'm speaking from a decade of work in the disability rights/services field). But more and more people are learning about what they can do to make it happen. Upping/reducing font size is NOT complicated (even though it's not the most intuitive in IE). Creating a simple stylesheet to override all styles is also not complicated (helped a friend with ADHD create a stylesheet that eliminated ALL styles, and had all text the same size, no images, etc...)

It's important, as the designer, to produce a page that gives the ability to the user to use it. We should make it as usable and accessible as possible. But there's a difference between cutting up food in small bits and actually feeding it to them. :)

By the same token, it's people with disabilities' responsibility to actually contact the webmaster of sites they can't use. Nothing's ever gonna improve until we voice our issues loud and clear :)

As for the homepage redesign, well done. I salute your going without tables. :) I would recommend a couple wee changes:


Review your use of headers... It would be better if you only had one h1, for example. Screenreaders rely on proper structure to convey information to their users
Consider putting a "jump to content" or "skip nav" link at the top of your page. The way your content is organised, a user has to get through a LOT of links and "fluff" before getting to the "meat" of the page. If you're sighted, it's not an issue, your eye can jump there immediately, but when you depend on a machine to read everything until you get to the "interesting" bit, it can get quite long.
My 2 cents.

[Ian Petersen]

I think that users should take *some* responsibility in their ability to use websitesYes, I completely agree. It's far more important for designers to optimise the behind-the-scenes stuff like structured markup and tableless designs, so the accessibility tools that do exist can work for the people who need them. Pixel sizes are, after all, easily overwridden and completely irrelevant if you're using a screen reader.

[ktinkel]

It's imperitive users be able to resize the text. If you set to px, they can't in IE (I think... it's late...). I set my base font to 1em and all modern browsers can resize EMs.

If a user with poor eyesight can't resize the text, it's a serious usability issue. I know a woman at work that makes her font huge (she's nearly blind) and reverses the screen colors.Well, as Ian points out, she could have a user style sheet. Or the site could offer an alternate version with scalable type.

But I also prefer to use ems or %, and will go back to it (probably later today). I was responding to complaints that the type on our home page was too large, but I agree that fixed pixels are a bad idea, and will go back to ems, specifying reduced sizes, and see how that works.

However, I have a few thoughts on the general topic of fonts and readability, which is an enormous problem on the web in general. For example, many pages — including Google and Amazon — are unreadably small on my monitor. On the other hand I find much text, including that in the messages here, to be on the large size, so I do not think it is my settings that are the problem (my default in Firefox is Verdana 12px).

So I find myself bristling at the notion of a universal “imperative,” even in web pages. The objective is to communicate, which involves complex maneuvering of many aspects of a page over which we have only limited control. We do not have techniques yet, not even in CSS 2.1, to affect all the variables satisfactorily for everyone with a single design.

Accessibility is a desirable goal — a critical one in your case, I realize — but it is fantasy to think that any single page design can be perfectly usable for all readers. A place like this is for people who use computers to make their livings, and it attracts few children or adults with serious vision problems. It seems to me that those factors are allowed to be considered.

In pursuit of good pages (as in other walks of life), each of us chooses the rules we abide by and those we ignore. As somewhat of a readability expert, for example, I would never specify Arial or Helvetica for reading on-screen. Even in print these fonts take careful setting. Yet many strict CSS coders routinely specify them. If I were queen, that would be a crime against society!

Anyway, you have plunged us into an interesting topic, and this is a great place to discuss it, where graphic designers, typographers, and web site designers all congregate!

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

that depends not only on type size but on the width of your browser window

That's true, but it is also true that if I don't view the window in the maximum space available (19 in—nominal—in my CRT monitor), I don't see the whole width of the page. I suppose you could call me a 'normal' user.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

I don't see the whole width of the page

I should say, I don't see the whole width of some pages; yours is all right in that respect.

But who's been complaining that the text is too large? And don't the same arguments about text size apply to them?

My corrected sight (I've worn spectacles for 60 years) is perfectly 'normal', because I'm shortsighted, and the accommodation problem with age—it sets in at about 40—doesn't interfere either, because i'm about the recommended distance from the screen.

[ktinkel]

But who's been complaining that the text is too large? And don't the same arguments about text size apply to them?The main point is that we have no idea what others see. Different monitors, platforms, browsers, methods of specifying type size, and so on — as well as width of the browser window — affect this.

We try to accommodate as many people as possible.

[ktinkel]

As for the homepage redesign, well done. I salute your going without tables. :) I would recommend a couple wee changes:




Review your use of headers... It would be better if you only had one h1, for example. Screenreaders rely on proper structure to convey information to their users
Consider putting a "jump to content" or "skip nav" link at the top of your page. The way your content is organised, a user has to get through a LOT of links and "fluff" before getting to the "meat" of the page. If you're sighted, it's not an issue, your eye can jump there immediately, but when you depend on a machine to read everything until you get to the "interesting" bit, it can get quite long.
My 2 cents.Thanks. Interesting.

I have seen advice to use more h1 for SE optimization. Before that, I used it once (with the logo), then used h2 for the column heads and then h3. So color me confused.

To my way of thinking, the links are the meat, intended to help newcomers dive into the forum and, again, to encourage robots and spiders.

But the home page (and others we hope to add) is very much a work in progress. Not positive I quite understand it myself (yet).

Thanks for your comments.

[George]

Kathleen,

I come to the forum with FireFox and I prefer 800x600 resolution. I thought it was odd in your last home page, that a few lines in the left column extended to the center column. Now, in the new design, it looks very neat and professional. But, the type is small though readable, but not my preference for size. If I hit "increase text" one time, the whole layout changes to something peculiar, but it could be followed if some one wanted to.

Regards,

George

[ktinkel]

I come to the forum with FireFox and I prefer 800x600 resolution. I thought it was odd in your last home page, that a few lines in the left column extended to the center column. Now, in the new design, it looks very neat and professional. That protruding type is the correct result when it will not fit in a box (column). It only happens with non-breaking text — a URL, say, or a long word in a narrow space. So it is hard (perhaps impossible) to avoid sometimes.

I am going to go back to adjustable text, however. This way creates different problems. Perfection, it appears, is still not within my grasp!

Thanks for taking a look at it.

[vavroom]

I have seen advice to use more h1 for SE optimization. Before that, I used it once (with the logo), then used h2 for the column heads and then h3.

Seems to me you had it right "before" :) SEO seems to be more of an esoteric art than an actual science ;) I don't think there's any mission critical problem here. In the end, with these things, it is probably "what works for you" :)


To my way of thinking, the links are the meat, intended to help newcomers dive into the forum and, again, to encourage robots and spiders.

Fair enough :)

[jrabold]

I have seen advice to use more h1 for SE optimization. Before that, I used it once (with the logo), then used h2 for the column heads and then h3.

Here's how I think about it: A page is assumed to contain information organized hierarchically. There may be other parts of the hierarchy somewhere else, on the same Web site, or elsewhere in the universe, but the page is still a hierarchy. A single h1, plus one or more h2s, h3s, etc., tells me that the page is about h1. If there are several h1s, I don't know what the page is about because I've got several equally-weighted topics. The real subject of the page may be a higher level in the hierarchy, or there may be no single subject ... the several topics may be unrelated. In the latter case the topics don't belong on the same page. In the former case, the real subject, currently one step up in the hierarchy and unstated on this page, should be h1 on this page, and all the existing hs on this page should be moved down one level.

[vavroom]

John, thanks for that bit. It's exactly how I see it, and you've managed to phrase it in a way I wish I'd done it :)

I may have to re-use it if you don't mind too much :)

[ktinkel]

Here's how I think about it: A page is assumed to contain information organized hierarchically. There may be other parts of the hierarchy somewhere else, on the same Web site, or elsewhere in the universe, but the page is still a hierarchy. A single h1, plus one or more h2s, h3s, etc., tells me that the page is about h1. If there are several h1s, I don't know what the page is about because I've got several equally-weighted topics. The real subject of the page may be a higher level in the hierarchy, or there may be no single subject ... the several topics may be unrelated. In the latter case the topics don't belong on the same page. In the former case, the real subject, currently one step up in the hierarchy and unstated on this page, should be h1 on this page, and all the existing hs on this page should be moved down one level.Okay. Makes (a kind of) sense to me too.

So. I am using h1 for the text above the logo. Does that make sense, in your scheme of things? Or is it a waste of h1?

Then I guess you would recommend that we use h2 for the various topic areas (columns)?

[vavroom]

Heya Kathleen,

I think the h1 above the graphic isn't a waste of it. It firmly tells what the page is about, and starts structuring the site.

Re h2 as you suggest, that would be my approach :)

[ktinkel]

I think the h1 above the graphic isn't a waste of it. It firmly tells what the page is about, and starts structuring the site.

Re h2 as you suggest, that would be my approach :)Thanks. Will certainly think about it!

So: Can Joomla help us with our home page, which is of course attached to vBulletin? (Way over my head here. I have been considering Textpattern for another site, and briefly tested PostNuke before falling on the floor, but I really have not seriously considered a CMS).

[vavroom]

So: Can Joomla help us with our home page, which is of course attached to vBulletin? (Way over my head here. I have been considering Textpattern for another site, and briefly tested PostNuke before falling on the floor, but I really have not seriously considered a CMS).

Well, it really depends what you want to do and where you want to be headed with the site. If your page is really an entry place to direct people to the different fora, you probably don't want to use a CMS. I'm a fan of Joomla (obviously), but sometimes using a CMS is just not worth it.

If you intend to build an article area, with user contributed material, and perhaps a few bios/feature writer, and that kind of thing, then yes, I'd certainly look at a CMS.

Obviously, I'd say Joomla! But there are some other very good systems out there (Drupal being one). There are pros and cons with each. But please, whatever you do, don't use any of the *nuke series, you'll live to regret it ;)

That said, I haven't seen much work done at integrating vBulletin with Joomla. I'm sure it's doable, just haven't seen it. It seems like the community is using Simple Machines Forum (SMF) much more, as it's free. Integration is perhaps not necessary, but if you're doing something with user contributed articles, then it's nice to have the forum users not have to register/login twice.

And a last thought for now. Joomla! is not currently producing standard compliant code. Some people don't have an issue with it. But if it is a problem, you might want to wait for the next major release (1.1). We would like to release it somewhere in November, if all goes well (no promises, don't quote me on it, and the usual disclaimer about releases <grin>)

Feel free to drop me a mail/PM if you want to discuss this further.

[ktinkel]

If you intend to build an article area, with user contributed material, and perhaps a few bios/feature writer, and that kind of thing, then yes, I'd certainly look at a CMS.

Obviously, I'd say Joomla! But there are some other very good systems out there (Drupal being one). There are pros and cons with each. But please, whatever you do, don't use any of the *nuke series, you'll live to regret it ;)BTDT; no more nukes! <g>

That said, I haven't seen much work done at integrating vBulletin with Joomla. I'm sure it's doable, just haven't seen it. It seems like the community is using Simple Machines Forum (SMF) much more, as it's free. Integration is perhaps not necessary, but if you're doing something with user contributed articles, then it's nice to have the forum users not have to register/login twice.Good thought, one I hadn’t even hoped for.

Feel free to drop me a mail/PM if you want to discuss this further.Thanks. When and if, I certainly will. You seem like an eminently reasonable man! :-)

[ktinkel]

Here's how I think about it: A page is assumed to contain information organized hierarchically. There may be other parts of the hierarchy somewhere else, on the same Web site, or elsewhere in the universe, but the page is still a hierarchy. A single h1, plus one or more h2s, h3s, etc., tells me that the page is about h1. If there are several h1s, I don't know what the page is about because I've got several equally-weighted topics. The real subject of the page may be a higher level in the hierarchy, or there may be no single subject ... the several topics may be unrelated. In the latter case the topics don't belong on the same page. In the former case, the real subject, currently one step up in the hierarchy and unstated on this page, should be h1 on this page, and all the existing hs on this page should be moved down one level.I buy that, and will go back to using a single h1 on each page, which means that only the logo will have it. Not dead certain that is the most productive place (since the logo appears on every page anyway), but unless we come up with h0, guess it will have to do!

Thanks. Very clear statement.

[dacoyle]

I buy that, and will go back to using a single h1 on each page, which means that only the logo will have it. Not dead certain that is the most productive place (since the logo appears on every page anyway), but unless we come up with h0, guess it will have to do!

Thanks. Very clear statement.

As long as you have ALT text, the logo is a good place for the H1. Screen readers will read the alt text and see it's the main heading.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Perfection, it appears, is still not within my grasp

Perhaps not (in fact certainly not), but you've achieved a result that is perfectly readable and nicely fills the whole width of the screen: thank you.

I'll add that I'm an unreconstructed Windows and Internet Explorer 6 user (but I voted Labour until Anthony Blair finally went round the bend).

[ktinkel]

As long as you have ALT text, the logo is a good place for the H1. Screen readers will read the alt text and see it's the main heading.The logo has alt text, of course. The h1 (the red type above the image) is set to display as well.

[ktinkel]

… you've achieved a result that is perfectly readable and nicely fills the whole width of the screen: thank you.

I'll add that I'm an unreconstructed Windows and Internet Explorer 6 user …Okay. So tell me, when you hover over the indented links in the main center section of the page, do they jump to the left?

A lot rides on your answer: I will keep my fingers crossed until you let me know! Thanks.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

when you hover over the indented links in the main center section of the page, do they jump to the left?

Yes, about one em or less.

[ktinkel]

when you hover over the indented links in the main center section of the page, do they jump to the left?

Yes, about one em or less.Oh, drat.

I had hoped.

Thanks. (It is clearly not your fault. Well, unless we blame you for using MSIE! <g>

Thanks. Sigh.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

unless we blame you for using MSIE!

I feel like a sane man sent to Bedlam.

[ktinkel]

Yes, about one em or less.Please look again with MSIE 6. Do they still jump?

Thanks.

[gary]

Please look again with MSIE 6. Do they still jump?
Yes. Boy - that IS odd. The links shift left on first hover but do NOT shift back. The jump on my screen is roughly a thin space. The bullet originally starts aligned with the left edge of the first "a" in "manager" then jumps so that it's left edge lines up with the final downstroke of the "m".

Both Windows and Linux have 19" LCDs running at 1280x1024. Interestingly enough on Win2K under either IE6 or FF "Discussion Forum" starts about 1/2-way across the top while under Linux/FF it starts about 2/3-way across the screen.

[ktinkel]

Yes. Boy - that IS odd. The links shift left on first hover but do NOT shift back. The jump on my screen is roughly a thin space. The bullet originally starts aligned with the left edge of the first "a" in "manager" then jumps so that it's left edge lines up with the final downstroke of the "m".Oh, phooey!

This is a known problem — see this discussion on “Quirky Percentages (http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/percentages.html)” at the Position Is Everything web site. Maybe only semi-known, since they are supposed to shift back after hovering.

I have been trying different approaches without getting into hacks. So far, as you see, without luck. (This time I used pixels to indent the links, but the width is specified as a %age, so it still does not work.)

I could just give up and leave the links at the left margin, as indenting is largely an esthetic issue. I’m mostly just being stubborn. Sounds as if it might work all right if I changed the DOCTYPE so MSIE would run in quirks mode, but that could create new and different problems.

There is also a problem with the bullets on the links in the left column.

Both Windows and Linux have 19" LCDs running at 1280x1024. Interestingly enough on Win2K under either IE6 or FF "Discussion Forum" starts about 1/2-way across the top while under Linux/FF it starts about 2/3-way across the screen.Hmmm. Is the type smaller? Or are the spaces between the entries narrower?

Thanks, Gary. Appreciate the feedback.

[gary]

Hmmm. Is the type smaller? Or are the spaces between the entries narrower?It is an issue of the default size for proportional fonts - which I had set to 13 on Linux and 16 (the default) on Windows. When I configure them equally the pages look the same.

Bonnie uses the Win2K system occasionally so I have those fonts set larger than I prefer.

[ktinkel]

It is an issue of the default size for proportional fonts - which I had set to 13 on Linux and 16 (the default) on Windows. When I configure them equally the pages look the same.

Bonnie uses the Win2K system occasionally so I have those fonts set larger than I prefer.Whew. I will not worry about that, then. Thanks.

The other business is difficult. Losing the bullets altogether and leaving the links flush left would avoid the problem. Probably.

Dratted MSIE, anyway! <g>

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

I've been away since Friday, but now (Sunday night) the links still jump (as before). Contrary to Gary's experience—with Linux?—they jump every time I go to the Home page. I'm still using Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6, and am quite satisfied with what I see. Feel free to use me as a normal guinea pig; in that way you'll know how 87% of all browser users see the result of your efforts.

I might add that I did my own modest web page with FrontPage, so that puts me with yobs, I suppose. And funnily enough, Google seems to love yobs—just Google my name. Mind you, it collects quite a lot of other Michael Rowleys.

[gary]

Contrary to Gary's experience—with Linux?
Jumping - IE6 ( Windows 2000 Pro )
Static - FireFox ( Windows 2000 Pro and SuSE 9.3 Linux )

[JVegVT]

On my laptop at 1024 by 768, the page looks almost identical in Linux Opera 8.5 and Linux Firefox 1.07. The fonts are larger in Firefox, but that probably has to do with my own choices of font sizes. I don't use the defaults. The indented links stay put.

I have a desktop computer with a 1280 by 1024 19" LCD, but it's not turned on now and may not be for a couple of days. If I remember I'll check when I have it turned on again.
--Judy M.

[ktinkel]

On my laptop at 1024 by 768, the page looks almost identical in Linux Opera 8.5 and Linux Firefox 1.07. The fonts are larger in Firefox, but that probably has to do with my own choices of font sizes. I don't use the defaults. The indented links stay put.The bouncing links are a particular foible of MSIE, not any other browsers that I know of.

Unfortunately, MSIE6 is still the majority browser on the web, so we need to cater to it if we can. But it may mean doing something draconian. Perhaps I will just let the links sit at the left margin, which should cure it. Makes the page harder to read, but not much. I am just being stubborn for now, trying to find a fix that doesn’t affect anyone else.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

MSIE6 is still the majority browser on the web

Last night I read a preliminary report on the beta of Internet Explorer 7: apparently it's as fast as Foxfire and does several other things that IE's competitors do at present. Of course there's no mention of jumping links.

It'll be quite a while before Vista and IE 7 are released, and the betas may be a poor indication of what's coming.

[vavroom]

Last night I read a preliminary report on the beta of Internet Explorer 7: apparently it's as fast as Foxfire and does several other things that IE's competitors do at present.

That would be Firefox, I assume? :)

And among the several other things, was strict adherance to standards mentionned? If they could get *that* part right, I'd be happy... Skip the feature, make the browser render code the way it's supposed to! :)

[Michael Rowley]

Nic:

was strict adherance to standards mentionned?

I've forgotten whether it was or not; the report was in PCPlus. Ian P. has mentioned that he has seen the beta and has expressed qualified approval, so I assume better recognition of the latest standards is included.

You must be new here. Older members are used to my inversion of program names, which is probably one of the first signs of gagadom.

[Ian Petersen]

Ian P. has mentioned that he has seen the beta and has expressed qualified approvalNo, I've not seen the IE7 beta, but judging by what I have read amongst other places here (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx) and here (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/02/460115.aspx) I am cautiously optimistic that life will be better with IE7. How much better remains to be seen. <g>

[Michael Rowley]

Ian:

No, I've not seen the IE7 beta

Sorry, I thought you had. The beta 1 concerned was actually a beta version of Vista. I've reread the article in this month's PCPlus, and it doesn't mention conformity with the W3C standard; but Microsoft has probably caught up by now—or possibly W3C has caught up with Microsoft.

[Ian Petersen]

Well, according to the IE-blog I linked to, most of the CSS fixes are coming in beta 2. All the bugs Kathleen, for example, has been fighting with on the homepage to this place are apparently already fixed. They also say: I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 ( 2.1, once it’s been Recommended). "Fully complies" - now that has a nice ring to it!

Of course, by the time IE7 actually hits the streets CSS 3 - at least parts of it - should be an official W3C recommendation ...

[Kelvyn]

The problems with writing CSS that "works" with IE will not go away, though, for a number of years. IE7 will apparently only be available to those who use Windows XPSP2.

[Ian Petersen]

Yes, that's true. We're probably looking at three to five years before we can even begin to think about ignoring IE6. It also seems uncertain whether the final version of IE7 will run on XPsp2. I've seen intimations that it is only the beta that will run on that platform. There are still many people (including myself) still on Win2k and older systems ...

[fhaber]

Some additional and probably unneeded data points. On two XP machines, one SP1, one SP2, both at 12x10 and view|textsize|medium in IE, browser windows just short of maximized.....

Opera 8.5 - fine
Moz 1.7.12 - fine
IE6 - shifts.

Seems to be just IE. Oh, well, looking down past my chest, I seem to have rounding errors as well (g).

[dthomsen8]

Why do the bullets in front of links look different in MSIE6 on the left, and those links don't move, while the links in the center and on the right do move?
Maybe that is a clue?

I must say that I like how the home page looks in Firefox 1.04 better than in IE6, though, and the bullets are consistent across the page.

[ktinkel]

Some additional and probably unneeded data points. On two XP machines, one SP1, one SP2, both at 12x10 and view|textsize|medium in IE, browser windows just short of maximized.....

Opera 8.5 - fine
Moz 1.7.12 - fine
IE6 - shifts.

Seems to be just IE. Oh, well, looking down past my chest, I seem to have rounding errors as well (g).Sorry — only today saw your message.

Yes, it is only MSIE that has this problem. We had guests last week with Windows, and I got to see what goes one. I decided that it was far from disabling (and my Windows-using friend agreed), so decided not to worry over-much.

But it is very weird.

[ktinkel]

Why do the bullets in front of links look different in MSIE6 on the left, and those links don't move, while the links in the center and on the right do move?
Maybe that is a clue?Maybe so. Have to try to figure that out.

I must say that I like how the home page looks in Firefox 1.04 better than in IE6, though, and the bullets are consistent across the page.Thanks — me too (in Firefox 1.0.7, anyway).

How come you still use 1.0.4?