note | im now 99% sure that this blog is compatible with most browsers. its always been ie-friendly, but at the reminder of wvs, i finally got off my ass and debugged it for netscape/mozilla/firefox also. mac-platform browsers…well, ill assume they work fine too. tho i cant personally vouch for it. the webmonkey post reminded me about how waaay back in the mid-to-late 90’s, i actually made a concerted effort to make my sites multi-browser friendly. i used to be a hardcore mosaic/netscape user back in “the days” (bwahaha)…and coded everything netscape-friendly (with notepad, then frontpage…heehee…then dreamweaver). ie-friendliness was always a minor afterthought. netscapes coding however slowly went poo, and i grudgingly hopped onboard the ie platform when its features eventually caught up (and were more friendly to my sites)…and ive since used ie. with the jump also went my desire to code for two platforms. during that time, id occasionally try out netscape, load up one of my sites, and watch as images just fly off the page. rock. netscape still bugs me sometimes when i code even relatively simple html, but im starting to make an effort again. anyhoo, all is kosher now…i think. any problems, shoutbox it…
ooh, and coo history of netscape…
> netscapes history
> netscape
> mozilla/firebird(fox?)
did you make the width of your entries a fixed width? because if you did, that’s kind of annoying.
annoying? how so?
Tien’s site is more text based, so variable width entries seems to work better. But here, in the land of m3ntal contraband, I think fixed width entries work because of the graphic heavy nature. you’re just asking for a layout nightmare if you don’t, since pictures will be wider than tables and all hell will break loose!!
pictures are pwetty.
yea, what greg said. fixed widths are just easier to design layouts for…from a graphical perspective. besides, the content is frickin’ 1000 pixels wide. readability cant be an issue. the average blog is still pimpin’ 800 widths. and if stretching to the min was your concern, the current content width is set to the max image size i use anyhoo…so you would usually have to stretch the window to this size at least to see everything correctly.
this is true. in the past, your images would bunch up and run into your text on the side. but now, you’re just giving me that annoying scrollbar on the bottom. whatever, it doesn’t really matter. i guess i could just make full use of my screen, but that would make it look like i’m doin even less work.
i’ll agree that i prefer a narrower layout, but the trend seems to be wider and wider. yes, people have bigger higher-res monitors these days, but I’d rather have several skinny windows on my screne than one fat one. But…the width of a website is left up to the designer, and i’m cool with it as long as it’s done well.
what really sucks is sites that intentially make you scroll horizontally. damn them. i saw this one girl’s page that was probably 3000×600 (no kidding)
heehee, i think i did the horizontally-scrolled website once…briefly. it was painful.
and admittedly, this site (along with all my other sites) are for 1024×768 min. im considerate like that.
This site’s always looked good in Opera (version 7.23). My screen rezzes at 1280×960. No problems there.
vp, your site is looking better than ever now. I browse with IE and FireFox and now this looks awesome in both. I also love the fixed size, the way you want it to be shown. you’ve got the best looking blog by far, keep it up.
hey…thanx alot sam. ive learned alot since my first layout. still learning as i go…