Image blocking with Firefox and IE

    I get the same result with my Firefox 1.0 In relative comparison I had a go with IE6 and...... PIcture 1 is almost the same as what you´d get in IE6 except that view would be spread all the way across the screen by expanding out the central text lines. Picture 2 in IE6 would have the system names listed on the left as in this shot but the center text line space again would be stretched across to fill the screen in such way that the right hand border would be moved justified on the right side of the screen.

    They both look fine to me, however remember that I said that blocking the images would allow the page(s) to load faster. I didn´t even <i>mention </i> the aesthetic rammifications of doing so <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>. It´s a trade-off of course; either purty pictures and slower loading times, or plain text and fast loading times. Take your pick people!

    Why isn´t it two screenshots of the same screen? Why isn´t the second one ALSO of the news posts? (which is afterall why you would be blocking images, to help its load time in the face of 60+ images..........isn´t it?)

    You want to know why they aren´t the same? here is a very simple answer: The person who wrote the HTML did it badly. They failled to follow standards. As such the page should not be considered HTML, and cannot be guarenteed to load in any browser unless explicitly tested. If it was valid HTML both IE and the Gecko engine (Gecko powers FireFox, Mozilla, Netscape, AOL and a few other browsers) would render it properly Proof can be found at the following URLs (external sites, I am not responsible for there content) WDG Validator: http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bi…ctor.org&amp;warnings=yes (encoutered too many errors in document to finish parsing) WC3 validator: http://validator.w3.org/check?…type=Inline&amp;verbose=1 (encountered nearly 700 errors in the file, This is the largest number I have ever seen) WebThing.com http://valet.webthing.com/view…itional&amp;parseMode=web (encountered nearly 1500 errors in document, yes I am supprised by this aswell, I wouldn´t have thought a webpage could contain that much stuff to generate all thoose problems) Main problems are failling to put quote characters i for attributes (minor problem auto-correctrd by most browser) but more majorly vendor tags are used for absolutely no reason (except to deliberatly damage compliant browsers???) vendor tags need replacing with styles (either inline, embedded or CSS) This site has extremely good content but is let down by the poor quality of HTML work, from the HTML I glanced through everything you wanted to achieve could have been done perfectly without vendor tags, yet for some reason the webmaster thought it a good idea to reduce his potential audience by several million.

    Exactly which part of my comment was not factually accurate? Oh all of it was 100% accurate. According to registry check the domain name was registered in 2003, I can assure you I was born before then, however I do suspect it could well have been created before then. Whats your knowledge of internet standards like? To show I wasn´t just complianing I provided evidence to backup my statements, I used 3 seperate validators to check it wasn´t a glitch in my browser, the W3C are the leading authority on this and when they detect 700 errors in a file, it means something bad happened. Minor errors don´t annoy me its when entire pages become unreadable. Do you have any idea how many people run Gecko based browsers? If you would be kind enough to point out to me which bit of my orriginal post you disagree with I will be happy to explian my reasoning. Also I would like to know how exactly you know when I was born. Unless you just made that up, which I expect you did. I also re-iterate, content good, HTML bad. If you disagree with that then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you browse the W3Cs website, and then would you be so kind as to explian to me how you consider the HTML as good? I admit I may have put it a bit bluntly. maybe I should have written: --BEGIN-- I have been browsing your site, however despite the excellent content on it I had major problems viewing many pages of this site in my browser. I quick examination of your HTML source showed multipule errors when run through industry standard validators. [provide above links My browser is highly compliant with international standards as provided by the W3C and runs the Gecko rendering engine (as run by a multipule browsers). The doctype declaration states it is HTML 4.01 Transtional as specified by the W3C DTD (&lt;!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC &quot;-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN&quot;&gt<img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> however it does not seem to comply with the <A href=´http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/´ Target=_Blank>HTML 4.01 Specification</a> I thought it wise to bring this problem to your attention incase you were not aware of the problems. Is there a reason why this site was designed in this manner and if so when is it likely to be changed to comply with industry standards? The lack of standards compliance may reflect baddly on your site and may leave it open to criticism form organizations that support equal rights and accessability. Lack of complaince may be reported. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Signed Andy --END-- I admit this would have been a politer way to convey the same message, but the overal message remains the same. {Edit: Corrected a typo} Edited by - andy101 on 6/11/2005 7:42:34 AM

    Andy, chill. The creators of this site are extremly knowlegable in web sites and their workings. If you don´t like the site, you don´t have to come here. So don´t knock others work. Its easy to go to any site and try to pick it apart and sit back and make sugjestions on how to change it, though I truly doubt you know this site and all that it is capable of handling. Its program my not handle everything that comes down the pike. Also, for your information, a new style, and code is being worked on to upgrade the site so new and additional things can be added. So for the time being, be a ittle more cutious when visiting sites, and chill on the critisisums.<img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Finalday Edited by - Finalday on 6/11/2005 7:53:05 AM

    Proud owner of a MacBook: 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
    2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM 120 GB hard drive
    Mac OSX Leopard 10.5.5


    The time has come, Join The Resistance!

    Is that a threat Andy? Make changes or else sorta thing? As for writing code badly... maybe the standards were different when first written - afterall, they do change... <A href=´http://www.pathfinderstudios.com´ Target=_Blank>http://www.pathfindestudios.com </a>(my site) Nope - it aint W3C compliant; I tried and gave up. Report me if you feel like making threats... I look forward to seeing whatever I should be fearful of by your implied threats. Oh yeah, I don´t speak for this site... mainly cause I don´t know what BP or Eraser think about this <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Mike G on 6/11/2005 9:15:58 AM

    Ok lets clear a few things up. 1. Standards may have changed. If it was designed to work on the old HTML standards why does the homepage carry a 4.01 Doctype declaration? 2. The creators of this site are extremly knowlegable in web sites and their workings. Then surely they should be aware of HTML standards? and what errors can by caused by using vendor tags? 3. If you don´t like the site, you don´t have to come here. I do like the site, as i have siad twice allready I think the content is ecellent, If i didn´t like the site I wouldn´t have bothered pointing out the problems it causes to certian web-browsing technology. 4. Its easy to go to any site and try to pick it apart and sit back and make sugjestions on how to change it, though I truly doubt you know this site and all that it is capable of handling. I didn´t do indepth checking to find obscure problems I performed a simple validation check (which take a supprising time to load, have you looked at the W3 link to the validatior by any chance? And then moving on to mention code and what it can ahndle. How is that of ANY relevence? Program code should be seperate to output anyway. The sites handling of data doesn´t seem to have any problems its just the fial outputting of data to a browser is poor. 5. Its program my not handle everything that comes down the pike The url request to a homepage is a very imple request to send. It does not look like the request makes much differance eithier way the final HTML is not upto the standard it displays in its Doctype header. 6. Is that a threat Andy? Make changes or else sorta thing? Nope I don´t make threats. Note: The changes would not be noticible to any IE users only to users of W3 compliant browsers (FieFox, Mozzila, AOL, Netscape and many more) 7. So for the time being, be a ittle more cutious when visiting sites, and chill on the critisisums I admit the first post I made was rude and for that I appoligise. The second post (or atleast the last part) was ment to be the first post but written nicer. If you have a nicer way to re-write what I said please provide it. 8. it aint W3C compliant; I tried and gave up I´m sorry to here yu gave up

    andy, welcome to TLR <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> TBH I´m not all that surprised that people got a tad angry at you for your first post, no matter how true it was. Point is, Bargib, the creator of this site is held in very high regrd by everyone here, he provided us with a wonderful site. Because of this, people will react violently to any insults made against Bargib or his work. Or even any negative comment. As Finalday said, a remake of the site is in making, this time using DotNetNuke. Will it be better coded? I trust that it will. But if you think you can do better than anyone else, email me and maybe we could use your help(I´ll have to clear it with the admins first, but you never know)

    I did get it compliant, but then I realised the WYSIWYG editor would need fixing to prevent further errors... as well as all the other modules too. Unfort, the way that Mambo works can get very confusing - all dependant upon options chosen in the admin setup - leading to massive and confusing files (They aren´t clearly marked at all). I informed the creator of one of the modules about it, and made a little prompt that it would aid in being cross browser compatible (at first my site suffered the same issue as here... it didn´t work in Firefox). I fixed that issue up, but with all the editors used for news posts etc, I would have to find out where that editor makes its mistakes and correct them. To this date I just don´t have the time... especially since that would only really address the main page. It will take months to straighten out a whole mambo install <img src=smilies/icon_smile_sad.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> At that point (due to other commitments) - I left it, and have no intention of trying to fix it until I have nothing better to do. I wouldn´t be suprised if many websites do the same - because going through all the files finding errors takes months (the average install contains over 200 files!). Unless you are an employed person, there are better things in life to concentrate upon... and to be honest, I have yet to receive any complaints. Isn´t 4.01 supposed to be backwards compatible? Therefore old tags like &lt;br&gt; work fine in your browser, yet &quot;4.01&quot; standards require &lt;br /&gt;. Both work, but the former gives an error as not being compatible. As it stands, if you use a 4.01 tag, you need to declare 4.01 don´t you. It doesn´t mean you change all tags from 3.0 or 4.0 to be the same, due to backwards compatiblity... just the newer tags require the reference. However, all that throws up errors after error. Edited by - Mike G on 6/12/2005 3:19:36 AM

    I have no problems with the server side code (persumably written in ASP unless the .asp extension is used as part of a security by obscurity approach). It seems to work well, I have as of yet seen no erros generated by scripts. It is the final output of HTML to the client machine I think is a little dodgy. However as that HTML is proberly largely dynamically generated changes made to the final HTML output would be pretty useless because it would involve someone incorporating it into the Server side script. If help is needed I might be able to offer advice on what is causing problems and how to patch it up a little. For thoose IE users who can´t see a problem, disable javascript and then go to the homepage <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> And many people disabled javascript in the past because it kills things like popups. This is caused because the &lt;table&gt; tags are written by javascript, from the code it looks like it controls the dimensions based on the browser. (not sure why this is done, but there is proberly a reason). What this means is, no javascript, no &lt;table&gt; tag, which throws off the entire layout, maybe you could use a &lt;noscript&gt; tag, or use an ordinary &lt;table&gt; tag and just use javascript to change its dimensions? or just use 1 size for all browsers? Or use Server Side browser recognition by examining the UserAgent header (though this can be falsified)? I did not mean to insult the creator, He has don a damn good job with the code that must power this site, even written his own forum, now that takes skill. My point was serious problems can be caused if certian browseing enviroments are encountered, and sites should be designed to work no matter what software or settings a user has. After taking another glance through the HTML alot of the problems look easily fixable, putting quotes arround entity values will wipe out quite a few problems, The parser gets kind of confused when it encounters the &lt;script&gt; stuff as it ignores it so it doesn´t get the documtent.write stuff, which means alot of errors could be caused by just one problem. (I once made a typo in a HTML file, 1 character wrong, 12 errors generated lol) I admit I should have been more polite, which was what I attempted to do in the second post. Again I appoligise if I was rude, I am aware that I could have presented my concerns in a much better fashion. I would also like to point out I am not the first person to notice a problem when viewing with non IE browsers. There are over 60 million FireFox users, imagine how much more your community could grow. I have tried to look beyond the graphical probelms experianced with my browser, and have continued using this site due to the excellent content that is provided by both the staff and the community. {Edit} I´ve taken a screen shot of homepage without Javascript enabled, taken on Internet Explorer link: <A href=´http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/TCKUser/LR-Home-No-Script-edit.jpg´ Target=_Blank>Homepage, with no javascript</a> Also a comparision of Freelancer Base list i both browsers link: <A href=´http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/TCKUser/LR-Base-List-IE-edit.jpg´ Target=_Blank>Base List in IE</a> link: <A href=´http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/TCKUser/LR-Base-List-FF-edit.jpg´ Target=_Blank>Base List in FF</a> {/edit} Edited by - andy101 on 6/12/2005 8:42:09 AM

    @ Mike G Erm HTML4.01 is generally backwards compatible, and &lt;br /&gt; is not proper HTML, that is XHTML. &lt;br&gt; is an inline tag and does not require a closing tag in HTML, in XHTML all tags require closing so a self closing tag is used &lt;br

    Andy love your breakdown of the HTML prob. I agree, I love this site too and I read very carefully, I only see a hidden compliment as far as the TLR site goes, not any flames at all. Second I do see some major Microsoft flames going, as far as MS I am not thier biggest fan either, but i do agree IE and many other products are released unfinished and patched on the fly ( sounds a lot like a mod to me) <img src=smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> But man oh man do you ever like to type, you must be an old school coder to be so thorough in your teardown on the HTML, my fingers hurt just reading the post <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> I am not siding with anyone and correct me if I´m wrong u like site...u don´t like MS (IE)...and we all like each other <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Whether you spectate or participate, Life Happens <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

    Hmm, obviously I got confused slightly there - if you actually check my site link provided... it is xhtml1.0 declared - not html 4.01. Late night posting between two sites different codes.. bah. As you can imagine, seeing someone appear on a site, register and then immediately post about how you absolotely HAVE to correct every error on every page becuase they are threatening to &quot;report&quot; you if you don´t isn´t, well - draw your own conclusions. I apologise that I managed to confuse myself, but I still haven´t found anywhere that says to display 4.01 in the header REQUIRES you to use perfect coding. It is only in reference to the language used... Edited by - Mike G on 6/17/2005 9:02:59 AM