I'm trying to make different dimension of one modal.
If I resize in the Browser the change is what I want.
But, if I change the Chrome to simulate a mobile environment or if I open the code at my phone it doesn't work.
I the example I tried to make a mobile first approach. My dialog-content is white as default. Then I change to blue if the width is bigger than 750px and to black if is bigger than 1000px. I make other change too but the color is the important one in the examples.
I would like to know why my "default" case is not working for mobile.
The code can be found here.
Try adding viewport meta tag in the head of the document:
<html>
<head>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
</head>
<body>
<!-- ... -->
</body>
</html>
Been trying to debug this for a couple of hours. I've been asked to fix a "responsive" website that is really buggy. I can't share the actual code b/c it's all on localhost on a secured network. Hoping you might see something have a light bulb go off from my description here.
Problem, we have #media (max-width:800px) and it stops affecting page elements around 600px wide.
Another example, i set html{ max-width:1200px} but to make the browser actually fit my 1200 pixel browser window I had to set it to 2250px.
My question is, does this ring any bells for anyone? I'm going through all the CSS and don't see any thing that immediately looks like the issue. These guys really broke responsive design.. bleh
Thanks..
EDIT
here's the meta tags that apply
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">
... bunch of junk...
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> (again)
With some help, I was able to resolve the issue.
Issue was related to pixel-ratio declaration but not in CSS, in minified Javascript...
Eliminating this unnecessary js made the page load as expected.
Core lesson: use javascript for functionality and CSS for design and layout.
Hi might be a simple one for someone.
I have finished working on this website and in ie9 there is a lot of line height issues - i don't even know if line height is the right word - spacing seems to imply letter spacing.
The easiest way to explain my issue is with screen shots.
Why is the 3rd one (ie9) so out?
url for the website is http://www.geckowebsolutions.co.uk
Could it be the font .eot is rending differently to the otf?
If so how can I work around this?
DanSiop
Change your headers to tell IE9 to follow the modern norms :
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />
Do the 3 changes : the doctype, the html element and the meta.
I am not sure why it's happening (trouble shooting in IE sucks) but it's your.breadcrumbs CSS that is being affected. Quick and dirty solution is to add an IE conditional.
<!--[if IE]>
<style>
.breadcrumbs{top:11px;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
Have a look at this JSFiddle. I am trying to get this float layout working in IE7. Works in everything else. The two float rights should be next to each other. But in IE7 it messes up.
Any ideas on a fix? Thanks for you help.
http://jsfiddle.net/c9Wmx/4/
*updated fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/c9Wmx/5/ <-- this works but is there any way to do this without using an empty div?
You can give width to your .page DIV. like this:
.page{
width:480px;
float:right;
}
See this updated fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/c9Wmx/6/
if it only happens in IE you can try putting the following in the head html tags.
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=7" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
Are unused CSS images downloaded by the browser or ignored?
Eg. in CSS rules which don't match any elements.
.nothingHasThisClass{background:url(hugefile.png);}
Or would this be browser-dependant?
This would be browser dependent, since it's how they decide to implement the spec, however in a quick test here:
Chrome: Doesn't
FireFox: Doesn't
Safari: Doesn't
IE8: Doesn't
IE7: Doesn't
IE6: Unknown (Can someone test and comment?)
No, they are not downloaded, not at least in Firefox, IE8 and Chrome.
An easy way to test this:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
.nonexistent {
background: url('index.php?foo');
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<?php if(isset($_GET['foo'])) {
file_put_contents('test.txt', $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']);
} ?>
</body>
</html>
If test.txt is populated with the browser's user agent, then the image is downloaded. This was not the case in any of my tests.
A quick test proved it.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<style type="text/css"><!--
.hasnothing{background-image:url(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ky7aakqvH01qatluqo1_400.jpg);}
.hassomething{background-image:url(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxytwr7YzH1qajh4xo1_500.png);}
--></style>
</head><body>
<div class="hassomething"></div>
</body></html>
The 2nd image, tumblr_kxytwr7YzH1qajh4xo1_500.png, was downloaded but not the other one. This was proven true in Chrome (Developer tools) and Firefox (Firebug).
Firefox and Chrome (Ubuntu 9.10) don't download images for classes/ids that aren't applied in the DOM.
This may be both platform and browser dependant, though.
Sometimes, it depends just exactly what "unused" means. Different browsers define it differently. For example, in Firefox, styles applied to the <noscript> tag are deemed "unused" and thusly, any images won't be downloaded.
Chrome 26 (possibly all of them, not sure), does download CSS images if they are applied to the <noscript> element, even when JS is enabled. (It isn't immediately clear to me why though, perhaps this is a bug?).
It does not download CSS images applied to elements within the <noscript> element, though. (this is expected behaviour, of course).
Example:
CSS:
noscript { background-image: url('always.png') 0 0 repeat; }
noscript p ( background-image: url('nojsonly.png') 0 0 repeat; }
HTML:
<noscript>The CSS background image of this NOSCRIPT-element will always be downloaded in Chrome. Will not be downloaded in Firefox</noscript>
<noscript><p>The CSS background image of this P-element won't be downloaded in Chrome or other browsers, unless JS is disabled</p></noscript>
In this case, if the user has JS-enabled, both always.png and otherbg.png are downloaded in Chrome. If the user does not have JS enabled, then only nojsonly.png is downloaded in Chrome.
I use this technique for measuring traffic-levels from non-JS-enabled users, as Google Analytics fails us here. I prefer using the background CSS image rather than a normal <img...> tag, because I'm working under the (untested) theory that bots are less likely to grab a CSS image than a <img...> image, leaving more accurate counts for the human-visitors.
Almost all browsers do lazy-loading. If an image is not required, it does not download. Use firebug (add-on in Firefox/Chrome) to see load time for resources.
Interestingly, though, Chrome (at least) will download unused.png in the following example:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>test</title>
<style type="text/css">
.unused {
background: url(unused.png) no-repeat;
}
.used {
background: url(used.png);
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="unused used">
hello world
</div>
</body>
</html>