Firefox vs safari alignment

Good evening,

I put a fancy scroll on my page… And it works perfectly. - I had to
do some layering to a background behind the title. Thank you David

Here is my new problem… please…

In safari and the windows simulator that I was recommended to use (Moved
) it looks perfectly in place.

IN Firefox everything is shifted to the left… any ideas, solutions
etc?

http://www.grassrootsweb.net

Thank you

Julie

On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Julie Maxwell wrote:

Thank you Dave

I will try it out this evening after the wee one goes to bed.

Julie
On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:43 PM, DeltaDave wrote:

Hi Julie

Have a look athttp://www.deltadzine.net/fancyscroll.html
for a quick example

The green graphic positioning is the key. Select it and look in the
inspector 1st Tab

In here there is a dropdown option that defaults to Absolute
(positioning) change this to Fixed in Window - Done

David

Sent from my iPhone


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

S**t - I just typed a whole big screed in explanation and ZAP! it was gone.

Anyway I will explain in a shorter version this time.

The ‘Fixed in Window’ positioning that you have used on the header is fine - but - as your page is centre aligned different widths of browser window will move your ‘Page’ relative to the header. Try adjusting the browser width (in any browser) to see them dance! It is not a Safari vs Exploder vs Firefox thing.

If you want to use this method then left align your page.

But I really don’t see the design advantage you are getting as your pages are very short anyway. And you shouldn’t Fix items that really should be part of your page content the way you have done your navigation!

By all means fix that at the top or left side but it looks daft in a resized (width) browser window.

David


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

And besides at 900px wide your site is considered width challenged in these days of 1024 x whatever monitors and above.

Generally reckoned that 960 wide is a good starting point - with that in mind your pages would be even shorter!

D


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Does it look that bad? Ok I will switch it back. Should I change the
width to 1040?

Thank you

Julie

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 11, 2010, at 19:08, DeltaDave email@hidden wrote:

And besides at 900px wide your site is considered width challenged
in these days of 1024 x whatever monitors and above.

Generally reckoned that 960 wide is a good starting point - with
that in mind your pages would be even shorter!

D


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Does it look that bad?

Does what look that bad?

Should I change the width to 1040?

Hello! Where did you get 1040 from?

I suggested 960 would be a good starting point.

D


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Does that graphic / fancy scroll look that bad?

i meant 1024 - the monitor size.

I will start with 960 (missed that for some reason)

Julie
On Mar 11, 2010, at 7:50 PM, DeltaDave wrote:

Does it look that bad?

Does what look that bad?

Should I change the width to 1040?

Hello! Where did you get 1040 from?

I suggested 960 would be a good starting point.

D


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 12 Mar 2010, at 00:08, DeltaDave wrote:

And besides at 900px wide your site is considered width challenged
in these days of 1024 x whatever monitors and above.

I can’t see that really. There’s no compunction to make a site fit a
whole screen, no matter how wide the screen; personally, I don’t see
how screens getting bigger affects site design at all. For years I
designed at a maximum of 640 wide, often still do, although I’m more
likely to go to 800 these days. But when I do, I sometimes find it
hard to keep lines of text below the magic 80-100 character length,
and I find myself making design decisions that don’t necessarily suit
the site, just because I don’t want long lines of text, which is
difficult to read—sticking unecessary images in, just to shorten the
line length, that sort of thing. With the current trend for
horizontal menus and no sidebar, the problem gets worse …

I do believe that bigger isn’t necessarily better.

best wishes

Paul Bradforth
Buy my books at:
http://www.paulbradforth.com/books/


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options