Web image - do you see it?

[loubycee]

Hiya

Right, another issue with this one and I wondered if anyone has a little sec to have a look for me please?

solutionfacilities.co.uk - basically, I've added a horizontal image just before the footer but my client says their computer doesn't see it but the ipad does. My laptops don't have any issues with it and they assure me they've cleared the history :|

Can anyone repeat the error at all?

Many, many, thanks

 

[jacobc]

Did you add it in the CSS or the HTML? What is the name of the image?

Regards,

Jacob

 

[anon154650]

The one that's coded with:

<img alt="" src="images/offices_hotels_golfcourses_kitchens_showrooms_schools_villagehalls.png" width="" height="75" /> ?

Yes, it's visible in Firefox under Linux.

The footer is a mess, mind! I can scroll the whole website off the screen and just be left with grey. Has the site been tested in other browsers, or for W3C standards compliance?

 

[Jeff FV]

This is a screen grab of what I can see (towards the bottom of the page):

HTH

J

 

[MikeInTheMiddleAgain]

If its "images/offices_hotels_golfcourses_kitchens_showrooms_scho ols_villagehalls.png" I can see it in Chrome on Windows Vista. Don't forget to add some alt text in there for people using screen readers etc

Have to say html wise - all those nested divs in the content section for the rounded corners probably aren't doing your SEO any favours - I'd just use CSS3 rounded corners and let older browsers degrade to square corners ...

 

[lynxus]

Add a width value?

 

[loubycee]

This is a screen grab of what I can see (towards the bottom of the page):

HTH

J

Thanks J, thats what I see too so not sure on the problem unless is screen sizes etc. Will adjust the width

 

[loubycee]

Did you add it in the CSS or the HTML? What is the name of the image?

Regards,

Jacob

Hi Jacob

Just in the html, this is the image url (a bit wordy but that can be changed!):

http://solutionfacilities.co.uk/ima...s_kitchens_showrooms_schools_villagehalls.png

 

[35173]

Try it on different browsers eg: IE, Opera, Safari, FireFox, Chrome, etc to see if any cross-browser support issues. It's a strange problem to have, images are usually pretty straight forward. Could it be that they were using an old cached version of the css file if the image is controlled from the css file?

 

[JustJohn]

In firefox ver 18, Grey section at bottom is about 8 inches deep.
Okay in Chrome and IE.

 

[woodss]

Like lynxus said above, add a value for the width attribute - you currently have width="" which may be interpreted as 0 by some browsers.

 

[35173]

This is a screen grab of what I can see (towards the bottom of the page):


HTH

J

//
I see the same in Google Chrome

 

[FIZIX Agency]

I see it, why have you sized it so small though, makes it look rough and ugly.

I'd refine the HTML and CSS so you don't have strangeness like width=""; also worth checking on Mac and PC as they can render pages differently.


Oh and the footer and megascroll is bad, I'd sort that out too.

 

[woodss]

Like lynxus said above, add a value for the width attribute - you currently have width="" which may be interpreted as 0 by some browsers.

*cough* of course, you shouldn't have width in your html (content layer) anyway as it is supposed to be in your CSS (presentation layer)

 

[FIZIX Agency]

*cough* of course, you shouldn't have width in your html (content layer) anyway as it is supposed to be in your CSS (presentation layer)

To be fair, when I and I am sure others, looked at the source I decided not to comment on standards as that height/width attributes are only a tiny portion of whats wrong with it and "you have done it all wrong" isn't actually that helpful.

Sorry OP, not being mean.

 

[The Developer]

Just to re-iterate, people are not criticising your work for fun, but because scripting html/css in a standards compliant way is more browser compatible. Which will significantly reduce the chance of problems like this.

An easy way to improve would be to use a service like this: validator.w3.org which will point you towards code that does not meet validation.

Not only will it point out when you are using out-dated methods, but it will also catch errors that might exist (but that modern browsers are fixing on the screen).

 

[FIZIX Agency]

Just to re-iterate, people are not criticising your work for fun, but because scripting html/css in a standards compliant way is more browser compatible. Which will significantly reduce the chance of problems like this.

An easy way to improve would be to use a service like this: validator.w3.org which will point you towards code that does not meet validation.

Not only will it point out when you are using out-dated methods, but it will also catch errors that might exist (but that modern browsers are fixing on the screen).

Good advice and I'd like to second that the comments on the code quality aren't being mean - although it could feel that way.

I'd like to add that there are a load of problems with the code that will validate as standards compliant but are bad practice.

Take the wall of div's and the way the css has been approached, it's messy and shows a lack of understanding about how pages are marked up.

 

[woodss]

I was replying to myself - I told the OP to add the value to the width attribute which (while it might have worked) was actually the wrong way to go around things - in fact, removing the attribute altogether would probably be better.