Should i check in all? or in any one is enough because all share same rendering engine Webkit.
My question is related to HTML CSS rendering.
I know one difference Safari for windows and MAC both have Font smoothing (anti -alisaing)
Is there any other differences?
There's definitely a difference between Chrome and Safari due to Safari's font rendering. In Safari text tend to be a bit bolder due to the anti-aliasing algorithm and can sometimes take up a few extra pixels on the screen.
Also keep in mind that Safari uses the SquirrelFish javascript engine while Chrome uses V8.
I have found a difference in the way Safari and Chrome select SELECT boxes. I think Chrome seems to ignore line-height whereas in Safari line height seems to make a difference.
Safari Windows 5.1.7 v's Chrome Windows Version 22.0.1229.94 m
I think this is to do with the default user agent style?
I would check, yes.
Whilst the browsers all use the same rendering core, they're not necessarily on the same version (and there are multiple versions of Safari out there in any case).
Also, as slebetman says, font rendering is quite different depending on OS and anti-aliasing settings too, so you need to be aware of that.
Shadows are fast&ugly in chome; slower&prettier in safari (and firefox). IIRC there was some difference in CSS3 transitions too - but really, these details are still in flux anyhow and change from version to version.
In practice, I only check one of the two regularly, which is generally fine. Before putting major changes online, it's obviously not a bad idea to check again, but during development, it's not worth the hassle; they're so similar anyhow...
There are major and minor differences. Do check!
Minor: full support for CSS3 border-radius in Chrome. I've read about, but can't find, this in Safari.
Major: zooming in Chrome zooms everything. (This is the behavior in almost every browser.) Zooming Safari zooms text but leaves other things unchanged. Your ever-so-carefully-laid-out form is highly likely to be trashed if the user zooms in. Leave lots of extra space.
Related
I recently updated to Safari 7.0.2 (comes along with Maverick) and noticed a significant change on colors on my webpage. Namely the grey tones are darker and the css generated gradients show ugly steps, no longer fluid. Colors with Chrome under Maverick are still the same, no longer comparable to Safari. So I have to define different CSS colors to have the same results on Chrome and Safari? Weird. Never had this problem of different colors not even among other browsers (Firefox and so on, all the same)
www.stefanseifert.com
Maybe I’d have to add that I am using a custom monitor color profile.
Edit:
Thanks Unmut for your quick answer and your interest! What you showed me is interesting, in fact I didn’t know about this. Leaned something. Unfortunately, yet, this is not the case here. First because it isn’t about the colors within images but about the ones defined by css. (which is very very bad in my eyes)
I will try to attach 3 pics to explain. Second, yes, the difference is not big but it is significant enough for me as a designer. On the bigger pic you see 3 screenshots. The grey color as I defined it in css should be #787878. All browsers display it correctly (as also Safari did before Maverick!) Safaris grey now is deeper.
color_difference http://www.stefanseifert.com/Color_difference.png.
And what’s even worse are the gradients created in css (plus transparency) that show very well on all browsers (as in the first pic), but with slightly visible scales in Safari (also NOT so with Safari before Maverick) as in the last pic.
gradient_1 http://www.stefanseifert.com/gradient_Chrome_andOthers.png.
gradient_2 http://www.stefanseifert.com/gradient_Safari_7.0.2.png.
I retain this a serious problem. All around I read about Mavericks improvement of color, for me this is a great disadvantage for it doesn’t give reliable # css colors. Someone with help?
I figured one problem out, at least. I work with a customized own color profile on my iMac. And it seems that this creates the confusion. If I turn to the standard iMac profile all browsers look the same and the screenshots give the right hex color values. Yet, this is what I don’t want to do. So no real solution here for me. Somewhere I read that it depends on srgb that are not used by Safari 7, don’t know if this is true but it maybe a useful hint for someone.
For what regards the less fluid css gradients, another problem that remains. New Safari is bad at this! Much more preferable Google Chrome now, but the sad thing is that one can’t force users to use Chrome instead of Safari. All standard Mac users will use Safari I am afraid.
Second I observed performance problems in Safari with complex css transitions. It helped a little force elements around to hardware acceleration or introduce back face visibility hidden all over the place, but this is not very satisfying and good part of the lousy performance remains even with it. I thought Apple wanted to better performance of its browser, but for me it seems worse now. Everything was just fine with Safari 6 and css transitions instead. A petty.
I think it has got a problem about Color Rendering & Color Profiles.
Why don't you check these links:
http://css-tricks.com/color-rendering-difference-firefox-vs-safari/
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
http://news.cnet.com/Safari-ushers-in-better-browser-colors/2100-1012_3-6191815.html
Note: I checked it Mac OSX Mountain Lion, Safari 6.03 and i didn't see big difference.
I found this:
Apple Safari Safari supports both v2 and v4 ICC profiles.
Unfortunately, it has no control over color on other page elements.
Tagged images look right, but every other page element has
over-saturated colors on a wide gamut LCD.
on
http://cameratico.com/guides/web-browser-color-management-guide/
Seems that Safari forces the webpage to use the full range of Monitor LCD while others like Chrome don’t. So if you changed your monitor color profile it is ignored by Safari or at least differently managed.
If you could influence on the way Safari interprets images color by tagging the images this is not possible with the rest of the elements as divs defined by CSS values.
Hi I have this problem on font spacing for different OS on Chrome.
This is the screenshot from MAC Chrome,
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0382ihbwa3
This is the screenshot from Windows Chrome,
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0752ihdi26
Is there anyway to make them look the same?,
I don't have any problem with slight differences on content spacing on MAC vs Windows but this one affects the Main nav sections alignment.
Any help would be really appreciated, thanks!.
Chrome will soon be transitioning to use DirectWrite for font rendering, instead of GDI. This means it'll be able to use proper subpixel rendering of webfonts, like other Windows applications (inc Firefox and IE). It's a known bug that has been around for a long time: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=124406.
You can enable DirectWrite rendering now on Chrome Beta/Canary, but it's at the price of security because sandboxing is disabled. It's nice to know it's coming though: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137692#c109
For some reason IE9 renders Arial font bolder than other browsers such as: IE7, IE8, Chrome, and Firefox. I have looked for the reason in the CSS but couldn't find anything wrong.
Another thing that happened is that I had word-spacing of 1 or 2 pixels in most of my website, but IE9 showed it too wide, so I made conditional css for it with normal word-spacing.
You can see the difference in the attached screenshot, and also find it in this temporary link:
http://pat.co.il/shirg/matanuziel.com/
Any ideas will be appreciated.
Thanks
The problem is the browser, not your site.
Internet Explorer 9 uses sub-pixel positioned ClearType to render text by using DirectWrite. This can cause rendering differences compared to other browsers and is expected behavior. It can cause text to blur slightly more, just as you're seeing.
As a side note, you should consider using TypeKit if you want to use non-standard fonts and have them render (resonably) well for all users. Note that there will still be minor rendering differences across browsers, probably on the same order of magnitude as what you're experiencing here.
And as Alan stated, using normalize.css is a good idea.
It might be worth looking at normalize.css. I don't know if it'll address your specific issues, but I've found that it's a nice starting point.
Good morning all.
Today I'm struggling with the following code: source on jsFiddle
What I have been trying to achieve is a seemingly simple image rollover effect where 'a mirror' of an image covers the original one using some css3 effects.
Chrome 12 transforms the image perfectly
Firefox 5 stops transformation when the image runs into mouse cursor
IE9 - there is no transformation at all, the image is just shaking
Opera - not checked
How do I do this cross-browser compatible?
I think I got it to work in Firefox 5 the way you want. See http://jsfiddle.net/X2eN6/7/
According to CanIUse.com, IE9 doesn't support CSS3 Transitions, so I guess that's why it's not working for you in IE9.
The browsers that support the feature are Firefox (from v4), Chrome, Safari and Opera. But it's worth pointing out that transitions currently require a vendor prefix in all browsers that support them.
A vendor prefix means one of two things: either the spec is not finalised yet, so the feature is subject to possible change in syntax, or else the browser's own support for the feature is not yet considered complete.
Chrome has been supporting transitions for ages, so it's no surprise that everything works there. Firefox has only recently added it, so since they require a vendor prefix, you should take that as a warning that things may not be guaranteed to work 100%.
Webkit is an awful renderer in my opinion. As a web designer/developer, I take into account how my design looks at every magnification. Webkit handles this extremely poorly. Margins, padding, and borders all get rendered extremely poorly across various magnifications and there is no CSS you can use that is "cross-zoom" compliant in WebKit. Zoom in and out of any webpage in IE, Firefox, Opera and it is consistent. Take a look at this site, for instance:
http://development.mminc.co/davidphotos/
Try using the carousel at the bottom at different magnifications in IE or Firefox. Works fine, right? Now try the same thing in Chrome or Safari. BOOM! A developer's nightmare! Please, if anyone knows of any tricks of the trade to get Webkit to behave with something that even Trident is able to successfully do I'd like to hear it. I've heard of a jQuery zoom plugin, but that is sort of a last resort. I've looked everywhere for the issue but no one even mentions Webkit zoom issues. It's like it's taboo or something. Personally I think it's one of the biggest blunders of the modern browser era, especially when such a (otherwise) great browser like Chrome is giving me more trouble with presentation issues than IE7.
EDIT: I feel I should be more general and use an example where it is obvious only HTML and CSS are implemented.
http://www.gamespot.com/
Webkit forces a line-break with the top menu w/ zoom tests, but other browsers don't. It is a major issue with the engine and if there are any concrete solutions I'd like to hear them. If there isn't then I think this issue should be addressed and resolved immediately; it is an eyesore to users and a nightmare for developers. The fact that it isn't addressed anywhere on the net is troublesome.
This isn't answering how to fix WebKit zoom issues in general, but it should help with your specific problem.
You're using jCarousel.
Even the simple demo shows the same problems you describe.
So, that plugin is simply broken when it comes to zooming with WebKit browsers.
You could either ask the author of the plugin for advice, or find a different carousel plugin.
For instance, this one doesn't seem to have any problems when you zoom in using a WebKit browser:
http://www.thomaslanciaux.pro/jquery/jquery_carousel.htm (look at the "dispItems" demo)