Viewing in Different Browsers

Greetings everyone.

I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that looks
good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox.

Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible?

All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript solutions
or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

"LayneMitch" wrote in message news:7bd2bd19e5315@uwe...
> Greetings everyone.
>
> I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that
> looks
> good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox.
>
> Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible?
>
> All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript
> solutions
> or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting
it wrong.

Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode.

Test in Firefox first.

Next validate at http://validator.w3.org

Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have
to hand.

Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.

--
Richard.

In article ,
"rf" wrote:

> "LayneMitch" wrote in message news:7bd2bd19e5315@uwe...
> > Greetings everyone.
> >
> > I'm new to the webdevelopment game and I developed my first site that
> > looks
> > good in IE but crappy in Mozilla/Firefox.
> >
> > Any advice on making my site browser to browser compatible?
> >
> > All I know so far is HTML/CSS, so I won't fair well with Javascript
> > solutions
> > or any other scripting language. I'm going to conquer those next.
> >
> > Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
> If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting
> it wrong.
>
> Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode.
>
> Test in Firefox first.
>
> Next validate at http://validator.w3.org
>
> Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have
> to hand.
>
> Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.

There are two issues. There's the html first. Does it make sense
without the least bit of added style? Will it allow a visitor to
get by and read your content, see your pics ok, get to your
links? Never mind the no frills look (it is quite a breathtaking
relief from some of the contortions some sites manage with their
styling. Make sure yours looks useful when it is naked.)

Next, time to style the html beyond what is barebones provided by
the browser itself. You will save yourself a lot of trouble if
you do not insist on results being identical across browsers.
Different browsers have different default settings for how they
render things.

The more you want the same, the more trouble you have to go to,
from supplying css to override the different defaults to learning
to either design for where the differences are not so noticeable
to the extreme of knowing each bug and variation and taking steps
to provide some browsers with different style instructions to
others via a variety of techniques.

--
dorayme

On 27 Nov, 04:54, "LayneMitch" wrote:

> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

* Begin by making valid code that looks good in FF _first_. This will
usually look good in IE too, without further effort.

* If it does need work to fix it in IE, then make sure you don't break
validity and correct display in FF. Re-check afterwards.

* Whenever you post questions to this newsgroup, include a URL. It
helps people see what you;'re talking about. Never post a fragment
more than a couple of lines long.

Andy Dingley wrote:
>> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
>* Begin by making valid code that looks good in FF _first_. This will
>usually look good in IE too, without further effort.
>
>* If it does need work to fix it in IE, then make sure you don't break
>validity and correct display in FF. Re-check afterwards.
>
>* Whenever you post questions to this newsgroup, include a URL. It
>helps people see what you;'re talking about. Never post a fragment
>more than a couple of lines long.


Thanks for the advice. Validating it in FF seems to be the most common answer
I'm getting.
Right now I don't have a host, so my site or work isn't online. But, I'll
work to get that done as well. Thanks.

--
Message posted via WebmasterKB.com
http://www.webmasterkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/css/200711/1

rf wrote:
>> Greetings everyone.
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
>> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
>If there is a difference between Firefox and IE the invariably IE is getting
>it wrong.
>
>Provide a valid strict doctype so everybody is in standards mode.
>
>Test in Firefox first.
>
>Next validate at http://validator.w3.org
>
>Then check in IE6, IE7, Opera, Safari and whatever other browsers you have
>to hand.
>
>Then, after tweaking for various browser quirks, validate.
>

Thanks for the advice. I checked the validator and it found that I had 38
errors in the home page alone. I don't think my site would show in most
browsers with 38 errors. So I'm going to fix these first. Thanks.

--
Message posted via http://www.webmasterkb.com

On 27 Nov, 13:14, "LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com" wrote:

> Right now I don't have a host, so my site or work isn't online.

You need to fix that. Sometimes weird behaviour related to HTTP
headers (usually crazy HTTP headers) doesn't show up until you see the
pages on a web server, not jut through the filesystem.

It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
quid for a network cable and a hub.

Andy Dingley writes:

> It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
> Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
> will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
> quid for a network cable and a hub.

If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
VirtualPC will suffice.

sherm--

--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

On 27 Nov, 16:34, Sherman Pendley wrote:
> Andy Dingley writes:
> > It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home running
> > Apache, and that isn't the same PC as your Windows desktop. An old PC
> > will do, just install Ubuntu on it. Shouldn't cost more than a few
> > quid for a network cable and a hub.
>
> If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
> VirtualPC will suffice.

That takes memory though. I've an endless supply of old PCs that are
fit for nothing else than being a low-load non-production web server,
but I always find it hard to squeeze extra memory onto old
motherboards that require some weird format you can't find any more
and are running out of spare slots.

Sherman Pendley wrote:
> Andy Dingley writes:
>
>> It's also well worth having a simple Unix server at home
>
> If space and/or funds are limited, an instance of Linux running under
> VirtualPC will suffice.

If space and/or funds are limited, the free space provided by your ISP
or any number of free hosting services out there will suffice for a
quick test page. Running a server at home is a must for other testing,
though.

--
Berg