| SitePoint Sponsor |
Need some help. One of the visitors to my site has an I-Mac and says he was unable to view one of my pages (the others worked fine). The page is http://www.wellingtonsquare.com/academy.htm
If you have an I-Mac, could you visit this page and see if you run into the same problem? I'm stumped on how to even begin to solve this.
Thanks.
This is not a problem with the Macintosh.
That page is not valid HTML.
Why do so many people think that a valid HTML document is one that looks OK in the browser that they have installed on their PC?
Run your page through the validator at http://validator.w3.org and clean it up until it's legal HTML, then look at it through a browser that pays attention like IE 5.n on the Mac, and you will be a better HTML author becuase of it.
-t
argh!!!!! my post wasn't submitte dbefore my browser crashed.
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
anyway, I'll cut it short. argh! (see how frustrated i am)
only problem with mac compatibility i know : css background image
background : url(images/test.gif); is correct
background : url('images/test.gif'); is wrong.
the one thats wrong works on win NS and IE, but fails on MAC browsers.
One note. Get your pages/code to validate properly. make sure it displays on IE and NS browsers properly and you shouldn't have the problem of displaying on MAC browsers.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
-- Albert Einstein
thewitt...
While I am wholeheartedly for validated pages, a page CAN display the same between browsers/OS's and NOT be perfectly valid HTML.
Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes
Here's what I'm getting on a PowerMac 9600/300
All browsers - no background colour is being set.
IE5 - I'm guessing that it is displaying as you intended. Nothing strange about the page and the "crowd scene" image is there in the top-right corner.
Netscape 4.7 (navigator 4.0.8) - same as IE5
Mozilla 0.8.1 -"crowd scene" image is missing.
Also, another thing I noticed is that in that image, there is a guy wearing a dress. We get a lot of that behaviour here in Sydney every year during the Gay and Lesbian Madi Gras when a lot of men seem to slip into frocks.
now thats something! hahaOriginally posted by freakysid
Also, another thing I noticed is that in that image, there is a guy wearing a dress. We get a lot of that behaviour here in Sydney every year during the Gay and Lesbian Madi Gras when a lot of men seem to slip into frocks.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
-- Albert Einstein
Thanks for everyone's help. I'll go to work on the HTML coding. And yes, thewitt, I will be a better HTML author because of it, and I do appreciate your time in helping me.
Now, for the comments about the "dress" -- this is a kilt. When I came upon the original photo (before I washed it out), I liked it so much I decided to use it for the page.
Thanks again for the help.
Tom
Good luck Toml
-t
That gay and lesbian thing, over here it's call the "Heroes' Parade"Originally posted by freakysid
We get a lot of that behaviour here in Sydney every year during the Gay and Lesbian Madi Gras when a lot of men seem to slip into frocks.
right....Originally posted by thewitt
This is not a problem with the Macintosh.
That page is not valid HTML.
Run your page through the validator at http://validator.w3.org and clean it up until it's legal HTML, then look at it through a browser that pays attention like IE 5.n on the Mac, and you will be a better HTML author becuase of it.
-t
<mode +rant>
His HTML code is perectly valid - I hate to say this, but the w3c validator is hardly the be all and end all of web design!
It *is* a problem with the Imac, cos Imacs are total tosh! and If macs were so good, how come a PC can display it right yet a mac (imac specifically) cant?
Get a grip and stop being so anti-PC - oh, and most people dont bother with macs seeing as 99% of the worlds PC's run windows.
thewitt said: [i]"Why do so many people think that a valid HTML document is one that looks OK in the browser that they have installed on their PC?[/]
oooh, well maybe thats because most people buy a PC, and dont know anyone with a mac - why do ya think he was asking? sheesh! God, get a grip on reality.
</here endeth mode +rant>
Pete
Last edited by norfett; May 17, 2001 at 05:23.
Cute norfett. Take a valium. If you don't want your pages to display on anything other than a Windoze PC running IE that's fine with me. Don't complain however when your site looks like crap because Microsoft updated their browser to be more sensitive to poorly coded pages. IE on a Mac uses a more strict parser than IE on the PC. Your time will come eventually, and if you have coded junk, it will look like junk.
If you believe that code failing the W3C validator is perfectly acceptable, you will continue to make work for people who have to come along and clean up after you.
I recently hired a web development company to come in and do nothing but clean up after another development company who chose not to create valid HTML. Their layout and contextual design work was top notch, however they had a lead developer with your attitude. They did not get paid the full value of the contract, and will not ever get another contract with my firm. We had, fortunately, contracted for only valid HTML.
It's important for my business that my pages are viewable in any browser that can handle standard, legal HTML, not that it looks good in the browser running on my desktop at the moment.
-t
I think that both of you need to chill out. Regardless of compatibility, IE for the PC is the DOMINANT browser. Accept.
Now, having said that, I really like IE 5 for the Mac. It's a good browser and the parsing and rendering engine is top notch. However it still has plenty of flaws.
I agree with thewitt in that you need to make sure that your pages are valid code. I also agree with norfett in that a "validated" page and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee. It's good to know that your pages are valid, but in the end, as long as the pages display properly in all browser it doesn't really matter.
Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes
I know - but stirring up a Scot is always funOriginally posted by toml
Now, for the comments about the "dress" -- this is a kilt. When I came upon the original photo (before I washed it out), I liked it so much I decided to use it for the page.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that IE6 was written so that it would it could handle the best of both worlds. It can parse sites that might not be totally standards compliant as well as sites that are highly compliant. That having been said, my girlfriend has an imac and many many sites look like total crap on it with IE 5.0. Haven't tried netscape for the mac yet. Is there a 6.0 version of NS out for mac? Perhaps MS will update the mac IE to be like that 6.0 version for the pc that can handle almost anything thrown at it....
I use a Mac and 99.9% of the sites I visit display absolutely fine. If you use html 4 my machine has no problem with you! If you or Microsoft or Netscape make it up as you go along then you will run into problems somewhere along the line regardless of whether there is one platform or 20!
...KartLink...
As far as I go, I check my site in IE, NS6 and NS4 and Opera(All PC), although NS4 is generally ignored, as its impossible to work with. And I cant check on Mac, cos I dont have, nor want one and I dont know anyone with one.
Pete
Last edited by norfett; May 21, 2001 at 04:33.
You have a problem with your PHP for this page. The files required to create the navigation bar aren't being included - you are gettting errors.
http://www.total-albion.com/reports/reports.php
This page does not display so well in IE5 for Mac. The the Nationwide webring and google stuff is marooned down toward the bottom of the page.
http://www.total-albion.com/olinks.php
Yet this page (which has more or less the same structure) works fine.
http://www.total-albion.com/blinks.php
So you may have a boo boo in your code that causes the page to render strangely on IE for Mac. Note that the page displays fine in Mozilla 0.8.1 on Mac.
BTW, I notice that there are several photographs on your site that show a sphere shaped ball. I would not think that this is a good shape for a football. A sphere is more dificult to tuck under your arm and run with.
All the best
Freaky mate - can you send me screen shots please, so I can see what you mean?
So far, its all ok in Opera, IE and NS6 (looks crap in NS4 - but as its a fansite, and hardly any view with ns4, Ive taken the decision to just do my best with that one)
but as Ive said, I dont know anyone with or that has a Mac.
Any suggestions as to whats causing it to mess up then? and why only in that one browser?
Pete
P.S - worked out why the reports one isnt working
Cheeky Sod!Originally posted by freakysid
BTW, I notice that there are several photographs on your site that show a sphere shaped ball. I would not think that this is a good shape for a football. A sphere is more dificult to tuck under your arm and run with.
Thus, Rugby and Aussie Rules and American Padded blokey thing shall thus from this day forward for all eternity be called:
Egg Chasing!
*giggles*
Pete
Last edited by norfett; May 21, 2001 at 04:54.
Back in the day, I owned the original mac, then we moved up the the se-30, a performa, and now an i-mac. My girlfriend uses the tower g3 macs at her work also. I also sold mac computers for several years. When designing my site, I'm kind of not worrying much about mac compatiblity. I feel the mac is a slowly dying breed. OS X is nice for developers and so on, but I don't think it's gonna really sell more macs to the public at large. What is the percentage of macs out there compared to wintel systems? Something like 3 or 4 percent? Apple used to have a nice little lead in sales to schools, but that has recently fallen by the wayside also. I noticed that compaq just came out with a "very" titanium looking notebook at a lower price than the apple product. Try to get someone excited about buying a mac when they walk into "best buy" or any large retailer and then see how pathetic the Mac software selection is compared to the windows stuff. Of course, there will always probably be a niche market for the mac in desktop publishing. But for the everday tasks that the average consumer wants *word processing, games, internet* it's tought to see how the mac can ever truly offer a better experience. And don't get me started about how "stable" the mac os is compared with windows 98se. Windows 9.0 caused so many problems at my girlfriends work, that they had to revert to 8.6! Of course osx will be more stable, but really you need to compare that to windows 2000 or the upcoming windows xp to be fair...
Last edited by wert; May 21, 2001 at 12:56.
Yeah, I bought mine while well aware there isn't many of us and I make allowances accordingly.
...KartLink...
Valid HTML is another thing that continues to confound me. It didn't used to, but only started to sometime this year. Did you ever run Sitepoint.com through the validator? Tons of errors, but Sitepoint is a big proponent of standards. alistapart.com comes out perfect, but I can't read their text without eyestrain, and can't make it bigger so I rarely go there. Can someone ever explain this - slowly, in words of one syllable?
Valid HTML does not guarantee that your design is good, only that you have used HTML tags in a manner that satisfies the specification.
Anyone can write junk and encapsulate it within valid HTML tags...
Few can design a really nice website...
Fewer yet can design a really nice website and implement it with valid HTML tags...
This problem will not go away any time soon. As long as people get to manually tweak web pages and determine what tags should be used where, they will violate the standard in order to make their pages look good in the browser de'jour. Eventually, their page will look like junk and someone else will have to come in and fix it.
We can expect this to change with the introduction of technologies that take your information and make usable presentations out of them for any format data viewer, with the designer spending time on templates for each different display concept (including voice only on the telephone), and not on tweaking each specific page for their favorite rendition of IE or Opera or Netscape on their favorite platform.
Talk is ongoing in these areas, but nothing moves very quickly. The standard will not be HTML. The data may be tagged with XML or some XML derivation. The style sheets will not be built by hand, but will be built in a virtual display GUI. The target display devices will be ever expanding, with different features and restrictions. We'll never be able to keep up with them all
-t
(sorry, I can't write in one syllable words, or even in a concise manner, though I did write it slowly)
Thank you for typing slowly. I'm having trouble getting my mind around the thinking that set some of the current standards. And I do get confused by the discussions of them, when people talk as if there are currently browsers that are truly standards compliant. In actual practice that doesn't seem to be the case, at least when it comes to the two major browsers. Or at least they're not complying in the same way. Most people really can't afford to have their sites adhere to standards at the expense of the actually user's experience right now. So..not being able to keep up, I can understand. What we're actually supposed to be doing now..I'm still a bit at sea, at least for small sites that really can't be doing multiple versions, and so on.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks