# Aargh. I hate Internet Explorer!!!



## senne (Jan 5, 2004)

I've designed a new website, but it look butt ugly on Internet Explorer!!! And 90% of the world uses IE, so i'm doomed to correct my website.

here's my new website.

It renders just fine in Safari/Camino, but IE just doesn't do the job..

Can anybody tell me what's wrong in the code, or what i have to change in my design?

thanks already


----------



## jonparadise (Jan 5, 2004)

Can't tell you much about the code, but I had a similar experience a while back - I got into Web Design after trying out Dreamweaver on my Mac, it all looked wonderful, then looking at it on a PC it looked quite frankly crap.

There are 2 problems, the first is obviously the code rendering in different browsers, the second is OS X's lovely smooth graphics, which tends to make even the worst websites look nice.

I find the best thing to do if you have a PC, is to design on the PC, test on IE, then test on your Mac.

It's not a good solution, I'd much prefer to work on my Mac all the time, but I find it easier designing for IE then 'fixing' code so it renders properly on Mac Browsers.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2004)

senne said:
			
		

> I've designed a new website, but it look butt ugly on Internet Explorer!!! And 90% of the world uses IE, so i'm doomed to correct my website...
> 
> Can anybody tell me what's wrong in the code, or what i have to change in my design?



Actually I find that making sure sites work in Netscape and Safari seems to work fine for making sure they look good in IE for Windows.

You shouldn't worry about IE for Macs as Microsoft stopped developing it years ago, so it does not support many current web techniques (including CSS). And even if your site works nice in the current IE for Windows, CSS support is not yet universal enough to hit any where close to 90% of web users. That is the risk you've run designing in CSS.

Ask yourself if the people you want to reach (or the people your clients want to reach) are going to be able to view the site. I'm sure you know how to make sure the site works for those people. With CSS be ready for only about 70% web users to see the site correctly (and they'll blame you if they don't... _the customer is always right_ type of thing).



			
				jonparadise said:
			
		

> I find the best thing to do if you have a PC, is to design on the PC, test on IE, then test on your Mac.



Windows is a bad solution for any type of design, including web design... unless you only do text based design in which case any computer would do. 

Recommending that someone switch platforms from one that works to one that doesn't is a bad idea.

But I'm glad you are using Windows though.


----------



## Arden (Jan 6, 2004)

What seems to be the problem?  I see your site fine in IE, aside from the scrollbars in each of your iframes.

I'd recommend steering clear of iframes.  It may look cool, but there are other, better, more compatible ways of including information like that.


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

Arden said:
			
		

> What seems to be the problem?  I see your site fine in IE, aside from the scrollbars in each of your iframes.



that IS the problem!

also the borders of the frames of the menu at the left is set to 1px solid in IE, while the code says it has to be 0px..


----------



## Arden (Jan 6, 2004)

Try looking at this.

Also, you have frameborder=0 when IE might not recognize this.  I'd suggest using CSS to style the border, as in "border: 0px;".


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

ahha, that's a good idea, i'll try that when i'm home (now at school)

thanks!


----------



## octane (Jan 6, 2004)

senne said:
			
		

> ahha, that's a good idea, i'll try that when i'm home (now at school)
> 
> thanks!



My concern is how the hell are you _not_ able to make it work? There's nothing to the design.

Good though it is, instead of trying to be really clever and use iframes, you really ought to have just gone for a simple table structure. That way, everyone sees the site.

User first, design & development second...


----------



## Arden (Jan 6, 2004)

Yes, I was wondering the same thing.  Why exactly did you use iframes for _everything_ when it's much simpler to do it all with table cells or even div's?  Especially the menu... there's really no point in using iframes for that.  You need separate files for each menu item, which is unnecessary and inefficient, when you could simply toss some text into a div and be done with it.  Iframes are more for swapping pages in and out when you want to keep the surrounding content the same, which can be done better with other methods.


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

well, honestly i don't know anything of WebDesign. It's the first time i create such "big" site..


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

ok, i've changed it and now it works with IE too.

website

One more question: how can i set up a site so it doesn't cache itself? So users always get to see the newest version of the website.

Many thanks for your help!


----------



## octane (Jan 6, 2004)

senne said:
			
		

> One more question: how can i set up a site so it doesn't cache itself?



<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

thanks


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

i already had this in my code:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


Do i have to make a new "meta"-line? Like this:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">


Or do i have to do it like this?

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" "Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">


----------



## octane (Jan 6, 2004)

senne said:
			
		

> Do i have to make a new "meta"-line? Like this:
> 
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">



That is correct.

You can have multiple META lines in your html. For instance, you might want these:

<meta name="keywords" content=[place a comma-separated list of keywords in here...]">
<meta content="[place a corporate / personal strap line in here...]" name="description">

To see this in action, go to the Selby College web site and view the source for the page.

This is a site that I have designed and developed [it's what I do in between hanging around forums like this and arguing with my girlfriend].

As you Americans might say, it's a soup to nuts affair...


----------



## senne (Jan 6, 2004)

first of all: i'm not American, i'm from Europe. 

And second: thanks!


----------



## octane (Jan 6, 2004)

senne said:
			
		

> first of all: i'm not American, i'm from Europe.
> 
> And second: thanks!



Assumption is the gift of the unwise! Then I apologize.

Ah, Belgian. I suspected the name Senne of sounding a little Gallic.

Anyway, happy web designing!..


----------



## mdnky (Jan 6, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> You shouldn't worry about IE for Macs as Microsoft stopped developing it years ago, so it does not support many current web techniques (including CSS). And even if your site works nice in the current IE for Windows, CSS support is not yet universal enough to hit any where close to 90% of web users. That is the risk you've run designing in CSS.



First off, IE5Mac was the first browser to be 99.9% CSS1 compliant.  There's bugs, bug there's bugs in every browser afterall...even Safari and Mozilla.  Also, Microsoft stopped developing it last year (2003), not years ago.

There is no reason that a properly designed XHTML and CSS based site cannot be viewed by ANY browser made.  Sure, some of the advanced features and layout may suffer but the CONTENT, which is the actual focus of a website anyway, is still available to every device (even PDAs and Cellphones).

It is actually very easy to create a site that works correctly with IE5, IE5.5, and IE6 on the Wintel platform utilizing XHTML/CSS.  It's also very easy to create a site using 'tables for layout' that breaks in those browsers.  As for the people who insist on using NN4 (those very, very few), well a century has gone buy and they still don't get it...so leave em with standard unstyled html.





			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Windows is a bad solution for any type of design, including web design... unless you only do text based design in which case any computer would do.



Cannot argue with that...<G>


----------



## octane (Jan 7, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> There is no reason that a properly designed XHTML and CSS based site cannot be viewed by ANY browser made.  Sure, some of the advanced features and layout may suffer but the CONTENT, which is the actual focus of a website anyway, is still available to every device (even PDAs and Cellphones).



Can I just point out that this guy has only just started out with web design.

XHTML, CSS, JS, PHP, CRAP .. let's learn to walk before we can run, hey?


----------



## mdnky (Jan 7, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> Can I just point out that this guy has only just started out with web design.
> 
> XHTML, CSS, JS, PHP, CRAP .. let's learn to walk before we can run, hey?



Even better, he has a chance to learn it before becomming bogged down in the old ways. <G>


----------



## octane (Jan 7, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Even better, he has a chance to learn it before becomming bogged down in the old ways. <G>



I like that.

When old equals both simple and compatible, new is rarely a wise route to take...


----------

