Need help! Site looks good in FF but horrible in others

Status
Not open for further replies.
taktikz

taktikz

WF Veteran
Oct 22, 2008
1,480
13
0
Tampa, FL
here's the site: DialPartCA_._com

It looks fine in FireFox, but in other browsers looks like crap.

Also, whenever I try changing the font sizes, the whole layout goes out of place...

I'll be willing to pay if some one can help me within an hour...
 


It's also on the right, and bottom dividers... I wanted to add tables to the bottom (near the red text ) but they just wouldn't align correctly....
 
It's a bit messed up in Safari as well.

Start by correcting some of the validation errors.
[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://dialpartca.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

And for the love of god don't use Tables for layouts, switch to using valid XHTML and use CSS/Divs as they are far more controllable when it comes to positioning and size across all browsers, as opposed to tables/cells. And you may find the html markup will be shorter too.

If you had the original photoshop design, I could probably do an xhtml layout of it within an hour.
 
No dude the boobs icon does not mean boobs in 4 or 5 hours. It means now or GTFO.

Less Codage - more boobage.
 
kblessinggr said:
Start by correcting some of the validation errors.
[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://dialpartca.com/ - W3C Markup Validator
Click to expand...


No disrespect or anything. But I thought that was a cool page to bookmark for testing codes. So I ran one of my site pages through it and it gave back 77 errors... I looked at the errors it stated and compared to my html - and 99% of the errors didn't even exist in my html... and my page looks fine in FF and Explorer.

So for the hell of it, I typed in google.com -- and it gives 62 errors! But google looks fine......

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.google.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

So.... what up with that validator checker?
 
allco said:
No disrespect or anything. But I thought that was a cool page to bookmark for testing codes. So I ran one of my site pages through it and it gave back 77 errors... I looked at the errors it stated and compared to my html - and 99% of the errors didn't even exist in my html... and my page looks fine in FF and Explorer.

So for the hell of it, I typed in google.com -- and it gives 62 errors! But google looks fine......

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.google.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

So.... what up with that validator checker?
Click to expand...

Looking fine doesn't always mean valid. Validity is based on the 'rules' of the doctype defined in the header. xHTML is obviously going to be stricter than say Trasitional HTML 4.01. A valid page has a much higher chance of being correctly spidered by various search engines as well as being read correctly by screen readers. Also firefox can be a tad more forgiving than other browsers. But an invalid document has proven to have a higher chance of cross-browser incompatibilities.

Typically correcting the errors can help reveal the underlying problem.

If just 'looking ok' is all you care about then I guess you can stick with a WYISWYG editor, and ignore any browser you don't use. Since it goes beyound just the look, but function. Google is rather simple compared to most sites, and most of their validation errors are because of the advertisers.
 
kblessinggr said:
Google is rather simple compared to most sites, and most of their validation errors are because of the advertisers.
Click to expand...


ah, ok. I just found it odd the largest website in the world, doesn't have a perfect score from that validator. Just to note - there are no advertisements on the google.com home page (only maybe 15 links to other parts of Google services - mail, maps, etc....) I guess they don't care a rats ass though.
 
sorry, but this thread is full of epic fail. I came here for the boobs icon but was let down. I...must....save...



1215467628_Amateur-Bigtits2.jpg


there.

Seriously, dude. Tits or GTFO...:nopenope:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom