By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,627 Members | 1,870 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,627 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

BGCOLOR only in Opera, not other browsers (valid page)

P: n/a
I have a small, validated page that uses "bgcolor" in
<body... and several <td... 's
The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox.

http://frontal-lobe.info/link2pdf.html

I've been away from html for the last year and am re-learning it.

Any ideas? Thanks,

Mason C
Jun 27 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
37 Replies


P: n/a
Scripsit Mason C:
I have a small, validated page that uses "bgcolor" in
<body... and several <td... 's
The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox.

http://frontal-lobe.info/link2pdf.html
Which difference(s) you are referring to? Both Opera and IE 7 show the
background colors. There's a difference: on Opera, there is a white
stripe, resulting from an empty cell, whereas IE 7 ignores it. If this
is the problem, you just need to decide: remove the cell or put
non-blank content, such as &nbsp;, into it (if you want it to appear for
some odd reason).
I've been away from html for the last year and am re-learning it.
Then start afresh. Read a good tutorial on basics of HTML, and never
re-learn the ugly presentational side of the language; instead, learn
basic CSS from a good tutorial.

How come a page doesn't fit into my browser window (it's almost half of
my screen!), despite not containing any relevant information but a link
to a PDF file? You're trying too much. But if you want to create boxes
with background colors, use just heading or <divelements (as
appropriate) and background properties in CSS. Using bgcolor in HTML
isn't among the top ten sins, but neither is among the top 100 things
you should learn about HTML, and the CSS counterparts are much more
flexible and powerful.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 27 '08 #2

P: n/a
On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:11:55 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi>
wrote:
>Scripsit Mason C:
>I have a small, validated page that uses "bgcolor" in
<body... and several <td... 's
The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox.

http://frontal-lobe.info/link2pdf.html

Which difference(s) you are referring to? Both Opera and IE 7 show the
background colors. There's a difference: on Opera, there is a white
stripe, resulting from an empty cell, whereas IE 7 ignores it. If this
is the problem, you just need to decide: remove the cell or put
non-blank content, such as &nbsp;, into it (if you want it to appear for
some odd reason).
>I've been away from html for the last year and am re-learning it.

Then start afresh. Read a good tutorial on basics of HTML, and never
re-learn the ugly presentational side of the language; instead, learn
basic CSS from a good tutorial.

How come a page doesn't fit into my browser window (it's almost half of
my screen!), despite not containing any relevant information but a link
to a PDF file? You're trying too much. But if you want to create boxes
with background colors, use just heading or <divelements (as
appropriate) and background properties in CSS. Using bgcolor in HTML
isn't among the top ten sins, but neither is among the top 100 things
you should learn about HTML, and the CSS counterparts are much more
flexible and powerful.
Jukka, I appreciate your comments. I use CSS but for that little page
I was in a hurry and used bgcolor. I validated the page. The color
doesn't show in MSIE or Firefox. Why?

The link page is there because I am concerned that the logging engines
and search robots may not log a pdf page -- that's another thing I need to
learn about. ( I'm going through web life change forced by being kicked
off Earthlink for excess traffic..)

But in the meantime I'm puzzled by the unexpected color failure.

Mason C
Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a
Scripsit Mason C:
On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:11:55 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
- -
>Which difference(s) you are referring to? Both Opera and IE 7 show
the background colors. There's a difference: on Opera, there is a
white stripe, resulting from an empty cell, whereas IE 7 ignores it.
Did you actually read even that part of my message, or did you just
quote everything without reading anything?
The color doesn't show in MSIE or Firefox.
Which color?

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 27 '08 #4

P: n/a
In article <pi********************************@4ax.com>,
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
I have a small, validated page that uses "bgcolor" in
<body... and several <td... 's
The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox.

http://frontal-lobe.info/link2pdf.html

I've been away from html for the last year and am re-learning it.

Any ideas? Thanks,

Mason C
What colours? Why have you got a row and cell with nothing in it but a
white bg at the top?

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #5

P: n/a
On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:53:54 +1000, dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
>In article <pi********************************@4ax.com>,
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
>I have a small, validated page that uses "bgcolor" in
<body... and several <td... 's
The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox.

http://frontal-lobe.info/link2pdf.html

I've been away from html for the last year and am re-learning it.

Any ideas? Thanks,

Mason C

What colours? Why have you got a row and cell with nothing in it but a
white bg at the top?
Design choice -- to give some space at the top.

The question was:

The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?

I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.

Mason C
Jun 27 '08 #6

P: n/a
rf
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote in
news:t6********************************@4ax.com:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:53:54 +1000, dorayme
<do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>In article <pi********************************@4ax.com>,
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
The question was:

The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?

I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.
The background colours are identical in Opera, Firefox, IE6, IE7, Seamonky
and FWIW Netsacpe and IE5.5. They are a blue background, a table with a
white cell, a pink one, a blueish white one, a plale blue one and a darker
pale blue one. The sole exception is that the empty white cell collapses in
IE browsers.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are not reading the replies to your
posts.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Jun 27 '08 #7

P: n/a
On Mon, 05 May 2008 05:34:20 GMT, rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
>Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote in
news:t6********************************@4ax.com :
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:53:54 +1000, dorayme
<do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>>In article <pi********************************@4ax.com>,
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
>The question was:

The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?

I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.

The background colours are identical in Opera, Firefox, IE6, IE7, Seamonky
and FWIW Netsacpe and IE5.5. They are a blue background, a table with a
white cell, a pink one, a blueish white one, a plale blue one and a darker
pale blue one. The sole exception is that the empty white cell collapses in
IE browsers.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are not reading the replies to your
posts.
What am I not reading? But thanks for your observations.
Let me add more tests on my PC computer:

Safari (PC) displays the colors.
Opera ok
Netscape Communicator displays correctly except the "white" bar at the
top shows body color.

MS IE 6 and 7 show no colors and top white cell is missing
Firefox shows no colors.

The page passes WDG validation. Why does my computer do this
on Firefox and IE 6 and 7 (freshly installed 7) ? (Popular browsers.)

What am I not reading? Am I missing some replies?

I have 2 from Jukka
1 from Neil
1 from dorayme
1from rf

I'm sensing anger and annoyance from what seems to me
a simple question. I suspect the answer is *not* simple and
probably needs response from a browser program expert, not an
html expert. I'll seek elsewhere.

( I also suspect that WDG validation is of doubtful significance.)

Anyway, thanks for your time if not your tender loving care.

Mason C

Jun 27 '08 #8

P: n/a
On May 5, 4:20 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 05:34:20 GMT, rf <r...@x.invalidwrote:
Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote in
news:t6********************************@4ax.com:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:53:54 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>In article <piiq141v482e34vauqbf89btkqb91qv...@4ax.com>,
Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
The question was:
The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?
I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.
The background colours are identical in Opera, Firefox, IE6, IE7, Seamonky
and FWIW Netsacpe and IE5.5. They are a blue background, a table with a
white cell, a pink one, a blueish white one, a plale blue one and a darker
pale blue one. The sole exception is that the empty white cell collapses in
IE browsers.
I'm beginning to suspect that you are not reading the replies to your
posts.

What am I not reading? But thanks for your observations.
Let me add more tests on my PC computer:

Safari (PC) displays the colors.
Opera ok
Netscape Communicator displays correctly except the "white" bar at the
top shows body color.

MS IE 6 and 7 show no colors and top white cell is missing
Firefox shows no colors.

The page passes WDG validation. Why does my computer do this
on Firefox and IE 6 and 7 (freshly installed 7) ? (Popular browsers.)

What am I not reading? Am I missing some replies?

I have 2 from Jukka
1 from Neil
1 from dorayme
1from rf

I'm sensing anger and annoyance from what seems to me
a simple question. I suspect the answer is *not* simple and
probably needs response from a browser program expert, not an
html expert. I'll seek elsewhere.

( I also suspect that WDG validation is of doubtful significance.)

Anyway, thanks for your time if not your tender loving care.

Mason C
As far as I can see, you were advised to put in a &nbsp; into the
empty cell (by Jukka Korpela) to stop the collapse mentioned clearly
by rf. If this is not what is wanted why don't you say something about
it and something very specific?
Jun 27 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:41:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
<pa**************@gmail.comwrote:
>On May 5, 4:20 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 05:34:20 GMT, rf <r...@x.invalidwrote:
>Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote in
news:t6********************************@4ax.com :
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:53:54 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>>In article <piiq141v482e34vauqbf89btkqb91qv...@4ax.com>,
Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
>The question was:
> The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?
> I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.
>The background colours are identical in Opera, Firefox, IE6, IE7, Seamonky
and FWIW Netsacpe and IE5.5. They are a blue background, a table with a
white cell, a pink one, a blueish white one, a plale blue one and a darker
pale blue one. The sole exception is that the empty white cell collapses in
IE browsers.
>I'm beginning to suspect that you are not reading the replies to your
posts.

What am I not reading? But thanks for your observations.
Let me add more tests on my PC computer:

Safari (PC) displays the colors.
Opera ok
Netscape Communicator displays correctly except the "white" bar at the
top shows body color.

MS IE 6 and 7 show no colors and top white cell is missing
Firefox shows no colors.

The page passes WDG validation. Why does my computer do this
on Firefox and IE 6 and 7 (freshly installed 7) ? (Popular browsers.)

What am I not reading? Am I missing some replies?

I have 2 from Jukka
1 from Neil
1 from dorayme
1from rf

I'm sensing anger and annoyance from what seems to me
a simple question. I suspect the answer is *not* simple and
probably needs response from a browser program expert, not an
html expert. I'll seek elsewhere.

( I also suspect that WDG validation is of doubtful significance.)

Anyway, thanks for your time if not your tender loving care.

Mason C

As far as I can see, you were advised to put in a &nbsp; into the
empty cell (by Jukka Korpela) to stop the collapse mentioned clearly
by rf. If this is not what is wanted why don't you say something about
it and something very specific?
Oh, for God's sake. Yes, I needed something, an &nbsp; in the top cell.

That has NOTHING to do with my question.

It is incomprehensible to me why this question cannot be understood.
I am now certain I'm posting it in the wrong group.

On my computer:
My page has *bgcolors* in the body and in the <tdcells.
On MS IE 6 and 7 colors are not displayed.

On my computer:
My page has *bgcolors* in the body and in the <tdcells.
On MS IE 6 and 7 colors are not displayed.

On my computer:
My page has *bgcolors* in the body and in the <tdcells.
On MS IE 6 and 7 colors are not displayed.

Screw anything else wrong with the page. (*%$^&@Q&^(*

Mason C
Jun 27 '08 #10

P: n/a
Mon, 05 May 2008 00:07:17 -0700, /Mason C/:
On my computer:
My page has *bgcolors* in the body and in the <tdcells.
On MS IE 6 and 7 colors are not displayed.
Oh, man. I got sick of reading over and over people telling you
they see the colors all right in IE 6 and Firefox on their computers
- just check your configuration. Do you observe the "missing"
colors only on that page of yours using those browsers? Have you by
accident played with those browsers' accessibility features
regarding colors? Check these options:

IE 6:
Tools -Internet Options... General: Accessibility...
[ ] Ignore colors specified on Web pages

Firefox:
Tools -Options... Content: Colors...
[x] Allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections
above

--
Stanimir
Jun 27 '08 #11

P: n/a
Mason C wrote:
The question was:

The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?

I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.
Well, since you won't tell us which colours don't show for you I decided
to try guessing. The page appears essentially the same for me in Opera,
Firefox, IE6, Safari and IE8 (Beta). If you see a significant difference
you should go see an optician. They'll have a sign in the window saying
"If you can't see what you want, you've come to the right place".

The only difference is that IE6 and IE8 chose to show no row at all
where you had no content. That's reasonable. If you want to force the
"white" row at the top in IE, then add at least <BRor &nbsp; to your cell.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Jun 27 '08 #12

P: n/a
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:25:55 +0100, Steve Swift <St***********@gmail.comwrote:
>Mason C wrote:
>The question was:

The colors show ok in Opera but not in MSIE or Firefox. Why?

I'm beginning to suspect I'm asking in the wrong group.

Well, since you won't tell us which colours don't show for you
I assumed that an "authoring.html" group would know what was meant
by "bgcolor" and by "no color" and by "white"

But I've found the problem and will post it here and now....
I decided
to try guessing. The page appears essentially the same for me in Opera,
Firefox, IE6, Safari and IE8 (Beta). If you see a significant difference
you should go see an optician. They'll have a sign in the window saying
"If you can't see what you want, you've come to the right place".

The only difference is that IE6 and IE8 chose to show no row at all
where you had no content. That's reasonable. If you want to force the
"white" row at the top in IE, then add at least <BRor &nbsp; to your cell.
Jun 27 '08 #13

P: n/a
OK, it's time to call everyone together and reveal that the butler did it.

In Windows XP: Control Panel -- Accessibility Options -- [X] Use High Contrast

It was checked in Chapter One, long ago, and we all missed it.

I *always* use a good browser, Opera, which ignores that WinXP option.

Only when I tested on my computer with other browsers did I have
the problem.

The browsers and html were not guilty. The butler did it.

I'm sorry if this detective story wasn't fun for you. Nor for me.

Mason C

P.S. I only found it because my new printer talked Turkish to me and
I had to go find the Turk in my Control Panel and stumbled on the culprit.


Jun 27 '08 #14

P: n/a
Mason C wrote:
I assumed that an "authoring.html" group would know what was meant by
"bgcolor" and by "no color" and by "white"
Of course we do. Do note that, even when asked several times, you never
posted a screenshot to show everyone what you saw, and what everyone
else did *not* see.
It was checked in Chapter One, long ago, and we all missed it.
We? How many of us were sitting around your computer looking over your
shoulder? <lol>

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Jun 27 '08 #15

P: n/a
In article <f4********************************@4ax.com>,
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:

As far as I can see, you were advised to put in a &nbsp; into the
empty cell (by Jukka Korpela) to stop the collapse mentioned clearly
by rf. If this is not what is wanted why don't you say something about
it and something very specific?

Oh, for God's sake. Yes, I needed something, an &nbsp; in the top cell.

That has NOTHING to do with my question.

It is incomprehensible to me why this question cannot be understood.
I am now certain I'm posting it in the wrong group.

On my computer:
My page has *bgcolors* in the body and in the <tdcells.
On MS IE 6 and 7 colors are not displayed.
Except that many of us *are* seeing colours where you are not. Swapping
groups will not help. There is no special mysterious colour css
behaviour in this group. We are just your average colourful acrimonious
lot.

You started by saying the colours did not show in MSIE or FF. But they
did show to others. I have not seen a specific and really relevant reply
to rf's:

"The background colours are identical in Opera, Firefox, IE6, IE7,
Seamonky and FWIW Netsacpe and IE5.5. They are a blue background, a
table with a white cell, a pink one, a blueish white one, a plale blue
one and a darker pale blue one. The sole exception is that the empty
white cell collapses in IE browsers."

Like, for example, a screenshot.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #16

P: n/a
On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:55:38 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.net>
wrote:

I'll snip the long post -- it can be read in the original post.

I asked a simple question. Later realized that the nature of the problem
belonged in a browser group, not in an html group. My error. It turned
out to belong in a Windows XP group -- I never imagined that.

I asked a simple question and got all sorts of abuse for things about
my example page that had *nothing* to do with the question.

The simple "no color" statement seemed never to be understood.
I am at a loss to understand this. I should post a picture of *no color* ?

All that said, I do appreciate Jonathan's demonstration
of a modern code for the example page.

Believe it or not I do know something about css and use a .css file on my
web site. Most of the site long predates css and even has some ascii graphics
to conserve download time (!) I do not have time to translate all of it to
this century.

I will be updating and burying much of it if time permits.

I hope never again to have a *simple* question.

Let all my problems be BIG problems.

Thanks you all and bye bye.

Mason C

no color no color no color sheeeeez !
Jun 27 '08 #17

P: n/a
Scripsit Mason C:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:55:38 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lw*****@central.netwrote:

I'll snip the long post -- it can be read in the original post.
That's a foolish quotation - an attribution of nothing. If you don't
like to play by Usenet rules, please go away.
I asked a simple question.
In the most confusing way.
I asked a simple question and got all sorts of abuse for things about
my example page that had *nothing* to do with the question.
Get real. This is a discussion forum, not a helpdesk. You post
something, we discuss its implications. If it happens to answer a
question you asked or you had in your mind, that's coincidental.

Besides, the page you posted needs a rewrite, not fixing, especially
since the thing you saw as a problem was just a browser configuration
problem (as you would have learned very fast if you had described the
problem properly).
The simple "no color" statement seemed never to be understood.
I am at a loss to understand this. I should post a picture of *no
color* ?
No, just a URL of such an image. You did not actually see "no color",
any more than you can see the air as such. You probably saw white or
some shade of gray; they're colors. But this was just a tiny part of the
confusion you created.
All that said, I do appreciate Jonathan's demonstration
of a modern code for the example page.
Well, it was wrong in a couple of ways, and off-topic (CSS, not HTML),
so you had better start from a modern book on web authoring.
I hope never again to have a *simple* question.
There are no simple questions.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 27 '08 #18

P: n/a
Mon, 05 May 2008 12:24:31 -0700, /Mason C/:
OK, it's time to call everyone together and reveal that the butler did it.

In Windows XP: Control Panel -- Accessibility Options -- [X] Use High Contrast

It was checked in Chapter One, long ago, and we all missed it.

I *always* use a good browser, Opera, which ignores that WinXP option.
How does not supporting/honoring certain OS feature makes Opera a
better browser? If you say Safari is better in the same regard - I
dislike pretty much the inability to set preferred languages when
requesting pages (the Accept-Language header) in Safari on Windows.
I've read Safari on Mac uses the system user preferences for this
purpose but on Windows it always defaults to English (as far as I've
observed).

--
Stanimir
Jun 27 '08 #19

P: n/a
On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:47:59 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi>
wrote:
>Scripsit Mason C:
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:55:38 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lw*****@central.netwrote:

I'll snip the long post -- it can be read in the original post.

That's a foolish quotation - an attribution of nothing. If you don't
like to play by Usenet rules, please go away.
>I asked a simple question.

In the most confusing way.
>I asked a simple question and got all sorts of abuse for things about
my example page that had *nothing* to do with the question.

Get real. This is a discussion forum, not a helpdesk. You post
something, we discuss its implications. If it happens to answer a
question you asked or you had in your mind, that's coincidental.

Besides, the page you posted needs a rewrite, not fixing, especially
since the thing you saw as a problem was just a browser configuration
problem (as you would have learned very fast if you had described the
problem properly).
I don't won't to leave an error here. It was *not* a browser configuration
problem. It was a Windows XP configuration problem. I had at some
time long ago set XP (not a browser) accessibility to high contrast.

It was not an html problem. It was not a browser problem. However,
the differing reactions among the browsers caused confusion.

Standards, where are they?

bye bye

Mason C
>
>The simple "no color" statement seemed never to be understood.
I am at a loss to understand this. I should post a picture of *no
color* ?

No, just a URL of such an image. You did not actually see "no color",
any more than you can see the air as such. You probably saw white or
some shade of gray; they're colors. But this was just a tiny part of the
confusion you created.
>All that said, I do appreciate Jonathan's demonstration
of a modern code for the example page.

Well, it was wrong in a couple of ways, and off-topic (CSS, not HTML),
so you had better start from a modern book on web authoring.
>I hope never again to have a *simple* question.

There are no simple questions.
Jun 27 '08 #20

P: n/a
Scripsit Mason C:

[ a fullquote, often a useful indication of cluelessness, arrogance, or
sloppiness ]
I don't won't to leave an error here. It was *not* a browser
configuration problem.
Whatever. What you regard as "browser configuration" is quite irrelevant
to HTML authoring for the WWW.

Thank you for making it so clear that at least by now, everyone should
killfile you to avoid seeing any more pointless babbling from you. Thank
you indeed. Please do not change your forged From field before you have
a clue. Thank you in advance.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 27 '08 #21

P: n/a
On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:31:56 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi>
wrote:
>Scripsit Mason C:

[ a fullquote, often a useful indication of cluelessness, arrogance, or
sloppiness ]
>I don't won't to leave an error here. It was *not* a browser
configuration problem.

Whatever. What you regard as "browser configuration" is quite irrelevant
to HTML authoring for the WWW.

Thank you for making it so clear that at least by now, everyone should
killfile you to avoid seeing any more pointless babbling from you. Thank
you indeed. Please do not change your forged From field before you have
a clue. Thank you in advance.
"Forged From Field" ? Am I supposed to shut up and go away after
such a remark? "foreged"? Anti-spammed, yes. But "forged"?

The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.

The unexpected intrusion of Windows XP into the appearance of
a web site is worth knowing about. Now you know.

And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned
me about it as a cause of my problem.

Have *fun* kids,

Mason C
Jun 27 '08 #22

P: n/a
Mason C wrote:
And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned me
about it as a cause of my problem.
Someone might have, if you had posted the requested screenshot.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Jun 27 '08 #23

P: n/a
In article <hp********************************@4ax.com>,
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrote:
The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.
pssst... Mason... I have big fat dossiers on *everyone* here, saucy
details that go from their mental states, their wealth to the very
furnishings of their killfiles. Interested in some excerpts? $US7.50 for
a taste. You can purchase the full profiles at rates that will be
communicated to you.

Btw, if you want them in colour, please add $US5.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #24

P: n/a
On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:33:27 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
>Mason C wrote:
>And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned me
about it as a cause of my problem.

Someone might have, if you had posted the requested screenshot.
Oh, ok. I am learning. This is the age of Television. No longer the age of
Radio and Reading. Seriously, I do some writing and this is not trivial.

Simply stating "there is no color" is not enough. The words cannot be
visualized by people raised on TV. The imagination exercised by
reading is lacking today. --- but there's Harry Potter coming to the
rescue -- at least for some kids who read and don't just go to the movies.

And: "there is no color" depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

My book uses a lot of illustrations for just this reason, as do the two short
"My Cat" stories. All at: http://frontal-lobe.info

Oh, come to think, that must be a forgery.

Mason C
Jun 27 '08 #25

P: n/a
Tue, 06 May 2008 17:24:41 -0700, /Mason C/:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:33:27 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
>Mason C wrote:
>>And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned me
about it as a cause of my problem.

Someone might have, if you had posted the requested screenshot.

Oh, ok. I am learning. This is the age of Television. No longer the age of
Radio and Reading. Seriously, I do some writing and this is not trivial.

Simply stating "there is no color" is not enough.
[...]

You could have at least answered my first question I've posted in
another reply: "Do you observe the 'missing' colors only on that
page of yours using those browsers?" Also, you've repeated "no *bg*
colors" quite a few times which initially led me to think you see
your customized text colors, just not the background ones.

--
Stanimir
Jun 27 '08 #26

P: n/a
Mason C wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>Mason C wrote:
>>And, obviously, it *was* unexpected or someone would have warned me
about it as a cause of my problem.

Someone might have, if you had posted the requested screenshot.

Oh, ok. I am learning. This is the age of Television. No longer
the age of Radio and Reading. Seriously, I do some writing and this
is not trivial.

Simply stating "there is no color" is not enough. The words cannot
be visualized by people raised on TV.
Are you saying everyone who replied to you in this thread is young? I've
been retired for seven years.

Like everyone else, I looked at your page and saw colors all over the
place, in several browsers. A simple screenshot would have shown us all
there was some messed up setting on your computer. Heck, even you
looking using another computer would have proved that.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Jun 27 '08 #27

P: n/a
The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.
This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search through
previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to ask
questions. You'll receive more commentary about your posting style
(particularly quoting styles, as you noted) and your failure to account for
the entire Earth's population before one of the helpful posters comes
around. There are far better and efficient places to ask questions.

That said, it's still worth it to scan the threads now and then to pick up
some tidbits - and perhaps laugh at the absurd flame wars that just keep
coming around here.

Just bear in mind that responses are almost entirely geared towards
accessiblity with issues such as development time, target audience, design
aesthetics, etc. all trivial in comparison. As such, for private ventures,
the advice often fails the "real world" test. Think "academia": there's a
wealth of knowledge (and arrogance) but chances are you'll need to tweak
what you read/learn to make it useful in the real world. Don't take the
replies in here as gospel, despite the convictions of those posting.

Jun 27 '08 #28

P: n/a
steve wrote:
>The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.

This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search
through previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to
ask questions.
It's a good place to test your Buddhist detachment from things that
don't matter. I find it most useful in that respect.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Jun 27 '08 #29

P: n/a
Scripsit steve:
This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search
through previously answered posts, but that's it.
And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
sometimes _looks_ useful).

A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
real.
It's not a place to ask questions.
Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.

Moreover, the odds are that if you have resisted any temptation to read
tutorials and FAQs, you will just get more confused. In this group, you
just learn that faster than elsewhere.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jun 27 '08 #30

P: n/a
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:40:03 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi>
wrote:
>Scripsit steve:
>This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search
through previously answered posts, but that's it.

And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
sometimes _looks_ useful).

A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
real.
But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
robot spammers from hitting you. Some time ago there was (and is?) a
virus called "swen" -- news spelled backwards -- which used
addresses collected from newsgroups here. I had the misfortune of
getting it by carelessness in displaying my address.
>
>It's not a place to ask questions.
an exception to my usenet experience (Mason C)
>
Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.

Moreover, the odds are that if you have resisted any temptation to read
tutorials and FAQs, you will just get more confused. In this group, you
just learn that faster than elsewhere.
Jun 27 '08 #31

P: n/a
On Tue, 6 May 2008 18:43:17 -0700, "steve" <an**@anonxxxxyyyyyy.comwrote:
>The spirit of this group amazes me. Anger. Attacking trivia.
What's going on? This would be a place for a psychologist to study.

This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search through
previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to ask
questions. You'll receive more commentary about your posting style
(particularly quoting styles, as you noted) and your failure to account for
the entire Earth's population before one of the helpful posters comes
around. There are far better and efficient places to ask questions.
Regarding html and css problems, please suggest some place.

Mason C
>
That said, it's still worth it to scan the threads now and then to pick up
some tidbits - and perhaps laugh at the absurd flame wars that just keep
coming around here.

Just bear in mind that responses are almost entirely geared towards
accessiblity with issues such as development time, target audience, design
aesthetics, etc. all trivial in comparison. As such, for private ventures,
the advice often fails the "real world" test. Think "academia": there's a
wealth of knowledge (and arrogance) but chances are you'll need to tweak
what you read/learn to make it useful in the real world. Don't take the
replies in here as gospel, despite the convictions of those posting.
Jun 27 '08 #32

P: n/a
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrites:
But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
robot spammers from hitting you.
One of the few good things Hotmail is good for - spamtrap addresses. :-)

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jun 27 '08 #33

P: n/a
Mason C <ma*******@XXXfrontal-lobe.infowrites:
Oh, ok. I am learning. This is the age of Television. No longer the age of
Radio and Reading. Seriously, I do some writing and this is not trivial.

Simply stating "there is no color" is not enough.
What are you going on about? You said yourself, the problem wasn't with the
page, it was caused by a Windows setting on your computer. No one else could
see what you meant by "there is no color" - hence the requests for a screen
shot.
The words cannot be
visualized by people raised on TV. The imagination exercised by
reading is lacking today. --- but there's Harry Potter coming to the
rescue -- at least for some kids who read and don't just go to the movies.
This isn't writing or art we're talking about - we're talking about debugging
an HTML page. It's a technical process, not a creative one, and such things
demand precision. Would you tell a mechanic "my car won't start," then yell
at him for not "visualizing" properly when he wants to see the engine? Would
you tell a doctor "my head hurts," then claim her "imagination is lacking"
when she wants to do a CAT scan?

Honestly, you're *way* overreacting. A screen shot is not difficult, nor is
it at all unusual to ask for one, but you're carrying on as if someone had
demanded a kidney from you. Get a grip.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jun 27 '08 #34

P: n/a
Mason C wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:40:03 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi>
wrote:
>A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
real.

But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
robot spammers from hitting you. Some time ago there was (and is?) a
virus called "swen" -- news spelled backwards -- which used
addresses collected from newsgroups here. I had the misfortune of
getting it by carelessness in displaying my address.
Been using my real email for at least a decade. Same email address as
well. Get so spam but not as much as most folks, SeaMonkey filters most.
Biggest trigger to catch spam I have found is to go to the "wrong"
websites... Now that my kids are gone and there are no teenagers in the
house the spam load is a fraction of past levels...
>Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.
Learn to ask you questions better. Give a URL, and learn to be more
accurate in your description and your results may improve.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #35

P: n/a
>>This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search through
>>previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to ask
questions. You'll receive more commentary about your posting style
(particularly quoting styles, as you noted) and your failure to account
for
the entire Earth's population before one of the helpful posters comes
around. There are far better and efficient places to ask questions.

Regarding html and css problems, please suggest some place.

Mason C
Give http://www.codingforums.com/index.php a try. I've had positive
experiences there.

http://www.webmasterworld.com *was* probably the best, prior to it moving to
a subscription model. I've heard the occasional comment that it's still
worth it, but I can't claim to know much about the present paying community.
Still appears very active.
Jun 27 '08 #36

P: n/a
And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
sometimes _looks_ useful).

A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is real.
In my opinion the authenticity of a poster's name is not a valid indicator
of the usefulness of the post.

Far more relevant is the context from which the author is speaking. Some
posters are indeed experts and provide very accurate information about HTML
(or CSS, in the other group), yet move far beyond their scope of knowledge
and add unsolicited criticism and advice about design and UI decisions. Far
too often the advice is horrible, particularly when the OP's objective is
revenue or lead generation versus the newsgroup's seemingly pre-defined goal
of content delivery.

This is an interesting newsgroup to discuss theory, and perhaps learn best
practices for sites destined to serve a public interest. For the authors of
sites serving commercial interests, following the (technically accurate)
advice offered on this group is often a horrible idea. It's better to find
an online community that caters to webmasters working within a similar
context, in contrast to what is found here.
Jun 27 '08 #37

P: n/a
In article <48***********************@news.sonic.net>,
"steve" <an**@anonxxxxxxxyyyyyyy.comwrote:
And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
sometimes _looks_ useful).

A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is real.

In my opinion the authenticity of a poster's name is not a valid indicator
of the usefulness of the post.
Are you saying you base your judgement on what is being said rather than
the name of the author? Now that is quite staggeringly novel! That is my
view too!

But Korpela is a bit of an idiot on all this stuff and will never get
it. He is best ignored when he talks about anything but actual
technicalities. Outside his special field, he is an ignorant fool and a
coward who hides behind his name to make gratuitous insults on all sorts
of people.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #38

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.