Best way to containing floated images in articles?
I've downloaded the Standalone IE versions for Windows NT (since I'm using XP) and extract them...and they worked right away. That was a lot easier than I expected it would be.
Also applied the Taming Your Multiple IE Standalones method to improve the title bars:
1600 x 1200, 364kB.
It has worked a treat. Thanks!
Should point out that some features in the standalone versions, such as the Favourites list, cause them to crash. I've kept my original IE6 as my "main" IE install, so I can just copy addresses from that. I havn't got IE7 alongside these, but that renders imuch like a modern browser.
Now time to do some prodding to see if there's a hackless workaround to the layout issues in IE5. There probably won't be, so what's the best method of blocking stylesheets from IE5.x/Win?
Share: 
| Cerbera wrote: |
| Now time to do some prodding to see if there's a hackless workaround to the layout issues in IE5. There probably won't be, so what's the best method of blocking stylesheets from IE5.x/Win? |
| Code: |
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="base_styles.css" type="text/css" /> <!--[if gte IE 6]>--> <link rel="stylesheet" href="ie6_or_above_styles.css" type="text/css" /> <![endif]--> <!--[if !IE]>--> <link rel="stylesheet" href="any_decent_browser_styles.css" type="text/css" /> <!--<![endif]--> |
see here for more info http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp
have fun!
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| ..........What are the workarounds for these issues in IE5.x? ........ |
Begs the question - should you be worrying? Do your webstats show anyone using IE 5.x? Commercially, I have found it dead.
Share:
| Quote: |
| Begs the question - should you be worrying? Do your webstats show anyone using IE 5.x? Commercially, I have found it dead. |
Yes, you should be worrying, even on a tech savvy site like w3schools there are still around 5% of users using a 5.x browser
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Never exclude anyone, thats the whole point of building an accessible website, it doesn't matter if they're browsing in IE3, they should still be able to navigate, read content and use any functionality that is core to the purpose of the site.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| Begs the question - should you be worrying? Do your webstats show anyone using IE 5.x? Commercially, I have found it dead. |
IE 5.x problems are relatively easy to fix with conditional comments, so you may as well cater for them in my opinion.
Share:
| jim barter wrote: | ||
|
Well, first of all, sites broken in IE 5>x may not be inaccessible, their layout may just a bit odd. Secondly, where do you draw the line? Do we have to make sure that all sites are readable in Mosaic? A quick glance at my company's webstats shows no hits with IE5.x in the last 3 months. So, measurably, no IE5.x user was in practice disadvantaged. It does not seem reasonable to spend company time fixing a problem that is not there.
Of course, webstats will show IE5.x hits for some sites. I imagine the BBC, with its wide target audience, gets a significant percentage, an so should cater for that. A school? I don't know. Hence my question about the webstats.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| I thought about captioning the images, but they already have alt text. It's difficult to think of a second text description for every image without cutting text out of the main articles. |
Simon Pieters
Share:
| Torsten wrote: | ||
IE 5.x problems are relatively easy to fix with conditional comments, so you may as well cater for them in my opinion. |
Well, I have only been using CSS since IE6 came into favour. Used to use tables exclusively for layout before. Therefore I have no experience in coding for IE 5.x quirks. So far, I have not been able to cure the problem I spotted in (and only in) IE 5.x). This browsercam page shows the problem with the company home page - though I am not sure it will once the 24 hour subscription is over.
Share:
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| Well, first of all, sites broken in IE 5>x may not be inaccessible, their layout may just a bit odd. Secondly, where do you draw the line? Do we have to make sure that all sites are readable in Mosaic? A quick glance at my company's webstats shows no hits with IE5.x in the last 3 months. So, measurably, no IE5.x user was in practice disadvantaged. It does not seem reasonable to spend company time fixing a problem that is not there.
Of course, webstats will show IE5.x hits for some sites. I imagine the BBC, with its wide target audience, gets a significant percentage, an so should cater for that. A school? I don't know. Hence my question about the webstats. |
good points...
i prefer to give older browsers no or minimal style and no obstructive client side scripting, this usually ensures maximum accessibility (provided the usual WAI guidelines are followed!)
as for school websites, well they are particularly important, what with them being publicly funded and given the fact that technology in education is usually far from state of the art...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| jim barter wrote: |
| ........i prefer to give older browsers no or minimal style and no obstructive client side scripting, this usually ensures maximum accessibility (provided the usual WAI guidelines are followed!)... |
That's a good way round it, I think. I'll have a look at that. Thanks for the comment.
Share:
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| Well, first of all, sites broken in IE 5>x may not be inaccessible, their layout may just a bit odd. Secondly, where do you draw the line? Do we have to make sure that all sites are readable in Mosaic? A quick glance at my company's webstats shows no hits with IE5.x in the last 3 months. So, measurably, no IE5.x user was in practice disadvantaged. It does not seem reasonable to spend company time fixing a problem that is not there. |
I don't want to second guess him, but I suspect what Jim meant was that older browsers should still get the content, just minus any advanced styles. I tend to cater for IE 5x because it's relatively easy to do so, but I wouldn't dream of trying to cater for IE4/NN4.
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| Of course, webstats will show IE5.x hits for some sites. I imagine the BBC, with its wide target audience, gets a significant percentage, an so should cater for that. A school? I don't know. Hence my question about the webstats. |
If, through analysis of your existing stats, you can say for a certainty that your site visitors aren't using IE5.x then fine, ditch it. Of course, when you first design a site you can't be sure. You can make an educated guess, but given the relative ease of bug squashing in IE5x, why take the chance?
Edit: Oops, too slow. That's what happens when you get interrupted mid-post
Share:
| Torsten wrote: |
| I tend to cater for IE 5x because it's relatively easy to do so... |
CSS and HTML should degrade gracefully in devices which don't support all their capabilities. I want to avoid vendor-specific markup adding to page filesizes. The ideal would be that all 6.x browsers get the current interoperable styles and everything else would get an unstyled page.
I think I remember reading that old browsers don't support @import, so I could use that instead of <link> and old browsers wouldn't know to load the CSS?
We don't have stats logging on Calthorpe's website. The 2006 Project Cerbera stats show ~1.5% of hits to it came from user agents identifying themselves as IE5.x, so doesn't seem as dead as one would hope. As Jim points out, since Calthorpe Park School is a site funded using public money, I'd like it to be very accessible. An unstyled page is often more accessible than a mangled page.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| What would be the CSS to fix this issue? I've started poking it in the standalone versions but whenever I float the .picture class the page explodes. The squashed list items in IE5.01/Win are a major accessibility barrier to everyone using that browser, so the CSS to fix them would be cool. |
I tend to fix IE5 problems as I go along. Fixing somebody else's work is not nearly so easy unfortunately; however, I will take a look at it when I get a chance. The broken box model is the most obvious problem to fix, with most other bugs (double-margin, peekaboo etc.) being the same as you get in IE6. A quick Google should give you all the information you need.
| Cerbera wrote: |
| I think I remember reading that old browsers don't support @import, so I could use that instead of <link> and old browsers wouldn't know to load the CSS? |
Hide style-sheets from IE/NN4 using:
| Code: |
| @import "styles.css"; |
If you want to hide from IE5/Mac as well, you could try:
| Code: |
| /* hide from MacIE \*/
@import "styles.css"; /* end hack */ |
though I've not tested it.
Share:
ie5.x on XP supports @import
see http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| jim barter wrote: |
| ie5.x on XP supports @import
see http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/ |
That's why you still need CCs.
Share: