The new site design is...

azleifel · 2008-01-15 22:34:39

zenlord wrote:

Zer0 wrote:
surprised no one has posted a screenshot of what it looks like in IE6.
If IEs4linux / wine is ok, here goes:
- IE 5.0
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/797/ … pa4.th.png
- IE 5.5
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5836 … eh0.th.png
- IE 6
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/120/ … kg8.th.png
- IE 7
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/783/ … la0.th.png
It looks like the problem has been solved OR IEs4linux doesn't use the same renderer.
Zl.

The forums page doesn't work so well in IE7:

Last edited by azleifel (2008-01-16 20:29:29)

cu3edweb · 2008-01-16 01:28:42

azleifel wrote:

zenlord wrote:
Zer0 wrote:
surprised no one has posted a screenshot of what it looks like in IE6.
If IEs4linux / wine is ok, here goes:
- IE 5.0
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/797/ … pa4.th.png
- IE 5.5
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5836 … eh0.th.png
- IE 6
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/120/ … kg8.th.png
- IE 7
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/783/ … la0.th.png
It looks like the problem has been solved OR IEs4linux doesn't use the same renderer.
Zl.
The forums page doesn't work so well in IE7:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/5752 … umbgp2.png

The forums also look like that in IE6. Unfortunately all I get at work is IE6

skottish · 2008-01-16 03:27:29

This may not be be an option for all of you stuck at work with IE, but you can install Firefox through PortableApps without admin privileges.

rson451 · 2008-01-16 04:33:40

I personally love the new layout, but this IE incompatibility worries me. Doesn't this make the distro seem less professional to outsiders?

Cerebral · 2008-01-16 04:38:03

Thayer's mentioned he'll be looking at the IE problem in the next few days. The guy's a trooper.

rson451 · 2008-01-16 04:40:20

/me salutes thayer.

thanks for the good news cerebral.

MrWeatherbee · 2008-01-16 07:02:01

Cerebral wrote:

Thayer's mentioned he'll be looking at the IE problem in the next few days. The guy's a trooper. :)

Look in the Forums html (specifically, the Google #ads element):

Original code (element = <div>):

<div id="ads">
     <iframe name="google_ads_frame" src="index_1.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="60" scrolling="no" width="468"></iframe>
</div>

Modified code (element = <span>) :

<span id="ads">
     <iframe name="google_ads_frame" src="index_1.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="60" scrolling="no" width="468"></iframe>
</span>

Here is the 'before' shot in IE7 using the <div> element (all pages show the same corruption, so I'll only post the Forum Index):

And here are the 'after' shots using the <span> element:

Forum Index

Forum New Posts Search Results:

Forum Posts:

Using the <span> element does not modify the site's appearance when loading with FireFox 2.* nor does it impact Opera 9.25 (Firefox and Opera accept <div> and <span> in this context equally well). Those are the only browsers I could test for now.

By the way, this seems to be the cleanest solution, though I was able to get a few acceptable results with CSS-only mods. However, the CSS mods were a little tricky getting all browsers to render exactly the same.

thayer · 2008-01-16 16:26:22

MrWeatherbee wrote:

Cerebral wrote:
Thayer's mentioned he'll be looking at the IE problem in the next few days. The guy's a trooper.
Look in the Forums html (specifically, the Google #ads element):

Great stuff! That just saved me the hassle of digging through the punBB stylesheets. The question is why in the heck *does* it work?! LOL Oh well, I don't really care because the fix works great for IE6 and 7, and doesn't mess with Firefox and Opera--I think that covers our bases.

On a side note, drop me an email when you get the chance to thayerw at gmail... thanks again, it's much appreciated!

neotuli · 2008-01-16 17:03:53

perhaps IE respects absolutely positioned spans and not so much divs. I don't know. This is interesting (and about to get commited) though. Thanks mrweatherbee.

libby · 2008-01-16 17:17:10

Looks great from here... IE 6.0 @work.

Zer0 · 2008-01-16 19:11:26

thayer wrote:

.... The question is why in the heck *does* it work?! ...

I laughed my ass off at that question.. Hell how does anything work/not work in IE? It's one of the mystery's of the world. I remember the days when I would render a site to standards compliance, perfect my png's then come back and look at in in IE6 and swear up and down at how things like PNG transparency wouldn't work etc. You really learn to hate IE when you design sites and any good web developer knows that you shouldn't go the "go away your browser sucks" route. IE's userbase is just too big to shut out, even if you hate it with a passion! So what do you do? Bend the compliance a little? Which came first.. chicken or the egg?

Basn · 2008-01-17 07:43:32

Okay, the forums look nice now, now its just the wiki that is borked.
http://gold.lan2k.org/~basn/wiki_ie6.png

btw, it looked worse before the forum fix, so that fixed some of the problems.

Last edited by Basn (2008-01-17 09:37:40)

cactus · 2008-01-17 16:52:12

Basn wrote:

Okay, the forums look nice now, now its just the wiki that is borked.
http://gold.lan2k.org/~basn/wiki_ie6.png
btw, it looked worse before the forum fix, so that fixed some of the problems.

basn, is that ie6? (edit. I can read urls! it *is* ie6. lol)
It seems to look fine under ie7 (I peeked over someone's shoulder at work, I swear!).

I think I might have a fix that can resolve that... I will do a bit of testing sometime this evening (many hours away).

Cerebral · 2008-01-17 18:39:40

I just took a look around in IE7 at work here. Everything looks spot on, except for a small gap between the tabs and the content frame in the wiki:

Mr Green · 2008-01-17 19:04:46

Whats IE7?

Basn · 2008-01-17 19:22:38

cactus wrote:

Basn wrote:
Okay, the forums look nice now, now its just the wiki that is borked.
http://gold.lan2k.org/~basn/wiki_ie6.png
btw, it looked worse before the forum fix, so that fixed some of the problems.
basn, is that ie6? (edit. I can read urls! it *is* ie6. lol)
It seems to look fine under ie7 (I peeked over someone's shoulder at work, I swear!).
I think I might have a fix that can resolve that... I will do a bit of testing sometime this evening (many hours away).

heh, yeah ie6 my work pc.. i cant really install mozilla or anything...

gummibaerchen · 2008-01-17 23:00:48

I really like the design and love to see it, but can't this fixed farly easily?

phrakture · 2008-01-17 23:15:58

gummibaerchen wrote:

I really like the design and love to see it, but can't this fixed farly easily?

Woah... what? I'm looking at this... and I can't even tell what you're talking about.

thayer · 2008-01-17 23:24:17

phrakture wrote:

gummibaerchen wrote:
I really like the design and love to see it, but can't this fixed farly easily?
Woah... what? I'm looking at this... and I can't even tell what you're talking about.

I think he's referring to a slight warping of the 'head' figure; a side effect of resizing the initial logo. I'll clean it up this weekend, but admittedly it's low on my list of priorities.

gummibaerchen · 2008-01-17 23:40:49

thayer wrote:

phrakture wrote:
gummibaerchen wrote:
I really like the design and love to see it, but can't this fixed farly easily?
Woah... what? I'm looking at this... and I can't even tell what you're talking about.
I think he's referring to a slight warping of the 'head' figure; a side effect of resizing the initial logo. I'll clean it up this weekend, but admittedly it's low on my list of priorities.

Ok, so at least the right person noticed (wasn't sure to file a bug though).

And yes, it is not a big issue, but as Arch takes the arch as an arch (quite confusing, heh?) like the 'arch of triumph', how much of it's stability would that loose if such a stone was missing

@phrakture: I explained that in more detail in the now closed Arch Logo Winner thread.

MrWeatherbee · 2008-01-20 00:45:39

Firstly, glad my post above was helpful.

Secondly, sorry for the late reply. I haven't been on Arch's forum in several days and was greeted just now with 9 pages of unread posts.

Thirdly, in response to the whys and wherefores of the fix and without being very concise or technical, the fix boiled down to the impact of block elements versus inline elements on browser rendering in the particular context. A <div> is a block element by default and a <span> is an inline element. In my limited experience, inlines are generally more forgiving to box flow. For example, if you were writing a script to remove / replace advertising elements (<div> elements), you probably would have more luck across browsers by writing a rule that replaced the <div> with a <span>. Of course that may not always be true as with anything else.

To confirm that it was / is indeed a matter of inline vs. block elements, you could also use this CSS code (without changing the HTML <div> to a <span>) which sets the <div> element to an inline element and therefore behaves as if the HTML <div> had been changed to a <span>:

Original CSS code:

#ads { z-index: 0; position: absolute; top: 40px; right: 10px; }

Modified code:

#ads { dispay: inline; z-index: 0; position: absolute; top: 40px; right: 10px; }

For another CSS only fix, this code could have been used where the absolute positioning is replaced with 'float':

#ads { z-index: 0; float: right; margin: 20px 20px 0px 0px; }

I came to believe all the above fixes worked, and the original code didn't, because of some possible [seemingly] unrelated kludge or missing information in the original CSS. I was basing this on the "fact" that, in most circumstances, IE7 can handle absolute positioning as well as Firefox. For example, there are several other absolutely-positioned elements within the Arch pages that do work.

After digging around a little more this afternoon, as it turns out, IE7 needed more explicit information regarding the main 'header' containing block (#brdheader div.box). In the original code, '#brdheader div.box' had no height set, and after all the absolutely positioned and hidden elements were removed from the normal flow, in IE7, '#brdheader div.box' collapsed to the height of the only remaining block in the box flow which was '#brdwelcome' (the element that shows login information, last vist info, etc.).

In Firefox, '#brdheader div.box' did not collapse because of this code:

#brdwelcome { margin-top: 175px; }

which moved '#brdwelcome' down 175px and expanded its containing block, '#brdheader div.box', as a consequence. IE7 ignores the above line of code, but I'm not so sure this is incorrect under the circumstances. For IE7 (and it works in FF and Opera as well), you have to explicitly set the height of the containing block (#brdheader div.box) and position '#brdwelcome' within the containing block with explicit positioning.

So, all it took to get IE7 to work with the absolutely positioned <div> advertising element (leaving FF and Opera unaffected) was to:

In http: // bbs.archlinux.org/style/Archer.css:

Delete or comment-out:

#brdwelcome { margin-top: 175px; }

And add:

#brdheader div.box { height: 220px; }
#brdwelcome { position: relative; top: 175px; }

I won't post screenshots this time, but it works in IE7, FF, and Opera.

Although any of the above will work, I thought it might be helpful to identify more fully how / where IE7 was responding differently than FF to the original code.

Arch Linux

#151 2008-01-15 22:34:39

Re: The new site design is...

#152 2008-01-16 01:28:42

Re: The new site design is...

#153 2008-01-16 03:27:29

Re: The new site design is...

#154 2008-01-16 04:33:40

Re: The new site design is...

#155 2008-01-16 04:38:03

Re: The new site design is...

#156 2008-01-16 04:40:20

Re: The new site design is...

#157 2008-01-16 07:02:01

Re: The new site design is...

#158 2008-01-16 16:26:22

Re: The new site design is...

#159 2008-01-16 17:03:53

Re: The new site design is...

#160 2008-01-16 17:17:10

Re: The new site design is...

#161 2008-01-16 19:11:26

Re: The new site design is...

#162 2008-01-17 07:43:32

Re: The new site design is...

#163 2008-01-17 16:52:12

Re: The new site design is...

#164 2008-01-17 18:39:40

Re: The new site design is...

#165 2008-01-17 19:04:46

Re: The new site design is...

#166 2008-01-17 19:22:38

Re: The new site design is...

#167 2008-01-17 23:00:48

Re: The new site design is...

#168 2008-01-17 23:15:58

Re: The new site design is...

#169 2008-01-17 23:24:17

Re: The new site design is...

#170 2008-01-17 23:40:49

Re: The new site design is...

#171 2008-01-20 00:45:39

Re: The new site design is...

Board footer