Page Check/Assistance - IE only

[Yellowbird]

Anyone up for a challenge? If you have some time to spare and don't
mind helping someone who is in the dark, I have some questions related
to an IE-only page layout.

Note that this page is part of an internal site for users with IE5.5+
only (I know, I know...). So, I am well aware that it falls apart in
Mozilla, etc. My questions are strictly related to the page as viewed
in IE.

The goal is for all columns to align, but this may not be possible
with the current cobbled-together code. We may add additional columns
in the future, but this is the form for now. Suggestions for
improvement are welcome.

My questions are as follows:

* Is there a way to have the scroll box appear the same width as the
Set Defaults and Owner/Operators areas and still have all columns
align? I'm sure this is something obvious I've missed.

* There appears to be some extra space between the MI column and the
Local column, but I'm not sure why. Is there a way to "close the gap"?

* In my printed version of the form, I'd like the longer field names
(such as Last Name) to display all characters. For example, I only
display 10 characters on screen but allow up to 30 characters as part
of input. Is there a way to expand the column just in the printed
version?

In addition, I'm sure things can be cleaned up (CSS-wise), so any
suggestions here are greatly appreciated.

My test page is up at http://www.icius.com/testpage/testform.html

The css is at http://www.icius.com/testpage/ERFmain.css

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Nancy

[kaeli]

In article <63************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
ye************* @hotmail.com enlightened us with...

In addition, I'm sure things can be cleaned up (CSS-wise), so any
suggestions here are greatly appreciated.

My test page is up at http://www.icius.com/testpage/testform.html

The css is at http://www.icius.com/testpage/ERFmain.css

I'm looking at it, but my first suggestion is that your users are screwed if
they need to increase the font size or use the more common 800 by 600
resolution. You're using absolute font sizes, which won't resize, and my
bottom scrollbar isn't showing up.
This page doesn't come close to meeting the Americans With Disabilities
guidelines.

--
--
~kaeli~
A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[kaeli]

In article <63************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
ye************* @hotmail.com enlightened us with...

* Is there a way to have the scroll box appear the same width as the
Set Defaults and Owner/Operators areas and still have all columns
align? I'm sure this is something obvious I've missed.

Put it in the same table the others are in.
The two others are in a table. That one isn't in there.

</tr>
<!-- end of table heading row -->
</table>
<div class="scroll">

That's the easy solution.
There's probably a complicated CSS solution. *g*
* There appears to be some extra space between the MI column and the
Local column, but I'm not sure why. Is there a way to "close the gap"?

See above. That might fix it. It doesn't look like you meant for that div to
be outside the table.
--
--
~kaeli~
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they
taste funny?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Yellowbird]

Hi Kaeli,

Thanks for taking a look. Yeah, one of the items on my list of "needed
improvements" is to size the text using ems to deal with the broken
IE/Win text resizing issues.

I'll keep plugging away...

kaeli <ti******@NOSPA M.comcast.net> wrote in message news:<MP******* *************** **@nntp.lucent. com>...

I'm looking at it, but my first suggestion is that your users are screwed if
they need to increase the font size or use the more common 800 by 600
resolution. You're using absolute font sizes, which won't resize, and my
bottom scrollbar isn't showing up.
This page doesn't come close to meeting the Americans With Disabilities
guidelines.

--

[kaeli]

In article <63************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
ye************* @hotmail.com enlightened us with...

Hi Kaeli,

Thanks for taking a look. Yeah, one of the items on my list of "needed
improvements" is to size the text using ems to deal with the broken
IE/Win text resizing issues.

I have found that the best sizing is with percents, not ems.
I forget exactly why. *embarrassed grin*

Oh, one more hint for you - event handlers don't need the "javascript " in
front.
onClick="javasc ript:someFuncti on()"
^^^^^^^^^^^
not needed
onClick="someFu nction()"

Handlers are inherently script. Unless you're using a script other than
javascript (IE only), in which case you could do
onClick="vbscri pt:someSub"

The only time the javascript pseudoprotocol is needed is in things other than
handlers, such as links
i.e. <a href="javascrip t:mailto:me@myA ddy.com">mail me!</a>
(the above not recommended for general internet use for a variety of reasons,
but is fine for IE-only intranet stuff)
HTH

--
--
~kaeli~
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishab le
from magic.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Andrew Thompson]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:07:08 -0500, kaeli wrote:

I have found that the best sizing is with percents, not ems.
I forget exactly why.

AFAIU, some UA's will cascade an 'em' size of
..9 recursively, making sub-elements .9 of .9,
etc. OTOH, specifying sizes in '%' does not
trigger this same error. (..AFAIU)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[Neal]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:37:08 GMT, Andrew Thompson <Se********@www .invalid>
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:07:08 -0500, kaeli wrote:

I have found that the best sizing is with percents, not ems.
I forget exactly why.

AFAIU, some UA's will cascade an 'em' size of
.9 recursively, making sub-elements .9 of .9,
etc. OTOH, specifying sizes in '%' does not
trigger this same error. (..AFAIU)

That's not an error, it's on purpose, and it occurs with % as well.

Ems and % are fine except when you set body {font-size: 1em;} some
browsers won't allow resizing. Using body {font-size:100%} allows
enlargement of text.

[Neal]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:44:22 -0400, Neal <ne*****@yahoo. com> wrote:

AFAIU, some UA's will cascade an 'em' size of
.9 recursively, making sub-elements .9 of .9,
etc. OTOH, specifying sizes in '%' does not
trigger this same error. (..AFAIU)

That's not an error, it's on purpose, and it occurs with % as well.

Here's the reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#computed-value

[kchayka]

Neal wrote:

Ems and % are fine except when you set body {font-size: 1em;} some
browsers won't allow resizing.
No, the problem with ems is specific to WinIE - it has a bug that causes
bizarre scaling at any View->Text Size setting other than "Medium". So
1em at Text Size "Largest" is enormous, at "Smallest" it's just dots
across the screen - totally out of proportion.
Using body {font-size:100%} allows enlargement of text.

This is actually the work-around for em scaling problems with WinIE.
Other than that, em and % units are interchangeable where font-size is
concerned.

But why bother with multiple units? Just use % and you're good to go.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Neal]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:52:59 -0500, kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

Neal wrote:
some

browsers won't allow resizing.

No, the problem with ems is specific to WinIE

I can't tell if your objection was with 'some" or "browsers". I can see an
argument for both. :)