You are now looking at the new formulation of clagnut. The underlying HTML has swapped for more meaningful markup and the resulting style sheets completely rewritten. So far I’ve only tested on Mozilla and IE6 on Windows, so any further input from other platforms will be gratefully received.
I’ll be adding a few more pointers soon, and shortly after I’ll release the promised build specification detailing exactly how the markup and style sheets have been put together.
George wrote:
looks just peachy on moz 1.3a on linux
hth
george
Johan wrote:
Same here, Mozilla 1.2.1/Linux.
Is this “restructure your site” week? Seems about half the blogs I read are making changes this week…
andrew wrote:
Truely excellent design – but the seach layer of content overlaps the main area, at least in IE5.5
Erik wrote:
Looks a-ok in Safari. The type is tiny, but that’s how I like it.
Nathaniel wrote:
Add one more name to the list of those envious of your design…
I do have some questions, though. Concerning the reformulation of the underlying HTML, what exactly is your reason for making each entry its own separate UL LI? I could see making the page one giant UL and then putting each entry as a separate LI inside it, but I’m not getting the one-UL-per-entry thing. Also, shouldn’t the title for a given entry be inside its corresponding LI? I’m not asking any of this in a what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you-man kind of way or anything, just curious – and hoping I’ll learn something new.
Again, beautiful site.
P.S. Opera 6.05/WinXP checks out fine, with only some minor indenting problems (although you can’t tell they’re problems unless you view the site in a different browser, so perhaps they’re not really problems) on the entry titles.
Sean "XariusX" Maddison wrote:
all of those are on windows. well overall it looks good… Wonder why the W3C’s OWN browser never works properly? Ah well…
newsection
“HTML will displayed, not rendered.” – Wrong grammar again, missing the “be” again mate .
(Hopes the comments feature parse character codes)
Guy McCusker wrote:
The revamped site doesn’t work in IE for Mac OS X. I think you’ve run into some of the bugs that it has with respect to block widths.
More info if you want it.
cicero2002@centrum.cz wrote:
Good Signor,
Are you sure you’ve tested your “reformulation” in IE6 ? Rather, are you content with your test ? Rather, is it possible all this time I’ve been under the false impression I’ve had IE6 on my system ? Rather, is it possible your IE6 is different from my IE6 ?
In my IE6/Win2K, the “reformulation” looks horrible. The major portion of the entries are obscured by a ‘column’ – I’ve no patience to poke around your code to identify the culprit – headed with ‘search blog’.
Screenshot available upon request.
Rich wrote:
cicero2002 – The problem you were seeing was due to my weather include failing and generally screwing everything up. I’ve removed it for the time being.
Rich wrote:
Nathaniel – The UL LI thing for each post is because I view each post as a list of ‘topics’.
More often than not each post will only have one topic which is why it looks a bit redundant. But where there’s more than one topic, I want these demarked by a line break. Wrapping each topic in an LI achieves this in the most meaningful way I could come up with.
Some people say that as a matter of semantics, each of my topics should be marked with a subheading (a la www.tantek.com).). But as a matter of writing (more important IMO) I don’t want to do this. I’m not going to adapt my writing just to fit the markup.
Nathaniel wrote:
“I’m not going to adapt my writing just to fit the markup.”
Roger that, Rich. As well you shouldn’t.
And thanks for shedding light on the UL LI thing. It makes a lot of sense, given your perspective.
Chris wrote:
I came to your site via Scott Andrew. Home page looks great on Mac OS X using Safari 1.0b51, Chimera 0.6, Mozilla 1.3a, Opers 6.0 and IE 5.2 – although IE has problems with Conttents menu – list stratches full width of window. Fails on Omniweb 4.1.1 and iCab 2.8.2 (unsurprisingly on both counts) – just about usable on the latter, but overlapping DIVs on former.
Nice looking design – and will dd the ste to my daily reads. Well done.
Chris Cannam wrote:
Works fine for me in Konqueror 3.0.2, Mozilla 1.0 and Lynx on FreeBSD.
The text really is painfully small, though. It seems worse than before: I now have to zoom twice in Konqueror to read it at all. (I guess I’m one of those people who thinks you should write body text at 1em Because That’s What The User Wants. Anyway, you’ve heard all that stuff far too often before.)
The Search Blog box is a bit wide for the column it’s in, at the window sizes I generally use. Probably not something you can really legislate for.
Otherwise, good. Not that I ever had a problem with it before.
Guy McCusker wrote:
Site now looking fine’n’dandy on IE for OS X. Was it really just the weather that was messing that up? Sheesh.
Looks lovely now.
Dan the Goose wrote:
Looks like crap.
No, wait, I’ve reconsidered.
Looks amazing!
martin wrote:
ie5.5/win2k
ok with a big browser window but…
after resizing vertically, the result tables overlap the other text.
when resizing horizontally, the side columns overlap the content text.
Ian Murphy wrote:
Looks good with opera 7b2 under XP… all except for this comment box Im filling in here, which is coming up brown on a brown background and brown edges… i.e you cant see it except for the grey scrollbar on the right.
Brooks Williams wrote:
Looks great in Phoenix 0.5 in WinXP
Alun David Bestor wrote:
Looks niiiice. Came to your site via Meyer (natch), and I have to say I’ve never seen a finer use of indent and outdent borders. Are the days of the painfully trendy border-style: dashed numbered? A few points:
– the background image has a bit of an ugly wrap at 1280×960 – perhaps right-align it and remove the repeat-x, or fade out the left and right edges? If you go for the fade option you can hide the fade on the first tile off the edge of the canvas with some clever offsetting. – Your ul/li markup makes a lot of sense, but have you considered grouping each post in a dl and using dt for the overall heading and dd for each subgroup? There’s debate as to whether it’s appropriate to pair more than one dd to a dt, but it would more tightly attach the heading to its content (and you could still use h2 inside the dt). The same goes for the comments listings as well, really.Guy McCusker wrote:
Comments page for blog/151 is now looking wrong in IE 5.2 for OS X:
the form overlaps the content column in all but the widest windows (1000px or so), and the form itself is laid out strangely, with the “Comment” title placed on the left of the comments text area, rather than above, and the text area itself out of alignment with the rest of the form.
Let me know if you would like a screenshot.