Im wondering if an experienced designer might help me real quick?

[-SeFu-]

Im building a site for one of my courses (its my final project).

Well... basically my problem is best explained if you simply view my site here...

http://www.cs.uwf.edu/~shinck/

Now... if you view the pages on 800x600... the background image loads just fine
but if u view it 1024 it begins to show its flaw
and if you go even larger like 1100 or more
that flaw isnt tolerable

I would like to know if anyone knows a good fix to that wrapping?

Thank you for your time
-SeFu-

[-SeFu-]

oh yea
also... its a requirement that the site loads in 800X600 without scrolling...

but i wanted my background pic to be able to exend all the way down... should someone have their res set to 1100 or so...

I guess I could just set the wrapping table to a pixel height instead of the 100% and that would prevent the wrapping of the image... but I wanted someone elses opinion on it first =)

Thanks!

[Saz]

Hi,

I don't know much about CSS as I'm only just starting to try and learn it, but I know that you can use coding to show the bg image just once and you can fix it so that it doesn't move when the text scrolls. However, Netscape doesn't support all the bg image commands.

Can any more experienced CSS users explain this a little better??

[BC]

SeFu,

I'm on 1024x768 and the background is coming up fine - I don't see any wrapping.

There is no way to fix the wrapping except to actually increase the canvas size in your background image (so you basically add 200-400 pixels of blank black space).

I know that you can use coding to show the bg image just once and you can fix it so that it doesn't move when the text scrolls. However, Netscape doesn't support all the bg image commands.

That is correct. The correct CSS attribute is

background-repeat: no-repeat

The background image would then default to the top left corner of the page, but you can specify where you want the image to be by using the background-position attribute.

Of course, the above attributes aren't supported by Nutscrape so Netscape users will see your background wrap/repeat.

[honging]

I'm on 1024, and it's not wrapping. But if it *is* wrapping, you may want to use tables (set a table at about 750 pixels width...). However, the downside is that you will no longer have control over how much text you can put (i.e. you can't put *too* much text or else it will wrap... again)

[lynlimz]

Originally posted by BC
That is correct. The correct CSS attribute is

background-repeat: no-repeat

that code works in netscape for me

[BC]

Forgot to mention : in the very latest versions of Netscape (not 6, I mean 4.75/4.76) most of the CSS attributes seem to be well supported.

(thanks Lyon)

[lynlimz]

Weclome BC!
BTW...you mean netscape 4.75/4.76 and 4.08 for example support different css attributes?

I thought 4.75 was just the version of 4.08 with all the extra bloatness.
if so, i'm grabbing 4.08 to test.
can some confirm it please?

thanks

[BC]

Originally posted by lynlimz
<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" class="mfont">Weclome BC!
BTW...you mean netscape 4.75/4.76 and 4.08 for example support different css attributes?

I thought 4.75 was just the version of 4.08 with all the extra bloatness.
if so, i'm grabbing 4.08 to test.
can some confirm it please?

thanks</font>

In fact the latest version of 4.76, which was released a few days after 4.75 due to a crucial Java hole which allowed any malicious coders to code a Java applet and access the file system. I believe it was known as the Brown Cow or Black Cow (my memory is a bit fuzzy) and 4.76 was immediately released to close this loophole.

As for 4.08 vs. 4.75, I'm not sure of that so you may wanna check (I haven't tested in 4.08 as it's really the main version for Macintoshes...). 4.08 was released at least a month before 4.75 (or more - I'll need to check my resources).

It seems that with 4.74 onwards CSS-1 attributes were beginning to be properly supported (after the wonderful lack of support up to 4.6/4.7)..... *shrug*

<<edited to remove non-sensical sentence at bottom>>

[lynlimz]

hmm...icic...
the reason why i use 4.76 is due to the 128 bit SSL support.
else i'll got 4.08

never needed those crappy stuffs. including a folder which contain some AOL stuffs. crap

[-SeFu-]

thats strange that you arent seeing it wrap

when i saw "wrap"... I dont mean that each table cell repeats the image. but rather if you look at the bottom of the page you should see my head begin again hehe

what version browsers are you viewing it in?

Also, as for the CSS method.. I didnt really want to take that route, just so that the page was viewable by more browsers. I figured my professor would prefer it that way


I suppose Ill just increase the hieght of the image.. cant believe I didnt just think of that...

Thanks BC!

[BC]

You're welcome Increasing the height is usually the easiest way, and the extra few bytes is worth it just to avoid the CSS hassle. (and a lot of professional designers don't think of increasing the height, trust me! )

I'm on IE5.5, 1024x768 when viewing your site. The head at the bottom didn't appear for me.... Weird