SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Panhandle of Florida (White Sand/Brown Skin)
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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-

  2. #2
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Panhandle of Florida (White Sand/Brown Skin)
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!

  3. #3
    Bimbo With A Brain! silver trophy Saz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Kent, United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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??
    Saz: Naturally Blonde, Naturally Dizzy!
    No longer Editor of the Community Crier.

    Don't mind me, I'm having a BLONDE moment!

  4. #4
    Irritability Defined
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    80,000 feet below the surface
    Posts
    1,442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

    Code:
    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.
    My 2 Cents (or is that 2.2 Cents including GST?)

  5. #5
    SitePoint Zealot honging's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    160
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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)

  6. #6
    The Hiding One lynlimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by BC
    That is correct. The correct CSS attribute is

    Code:
    background-repeat: no-repeat
    that code works in netscape for me
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
    -- Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    Irritability Defined
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    80,000 feet below the surface
    Posts
    1,442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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)
    My 2 Cents (or is that 2.2 Cents including GST?)

  8. #8
    The Hiding One lynlimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
    -- Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    Irritability Defined
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    80,000 feet below the surface
    Posts
    1,442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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>>
    Last edited by BC; Apr 22, 2001 at 23:25.
    My 2 Cents (or is that 2.2 Cents including GST?)

  10. #10
    The Hiding One lynlimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
    -- Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Panhandle of Florida (White Sand/Brown Skin)
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!

  12. #12
    Irritability Defined
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    80,000 feet below the surface
    Posts
    1,442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    My 2 Cents (or is that 2.2 Cents including GST?)


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •