It is a very, Very, VERY bad idea to put me on the case.

First off, MySpace coding is oddball in so many ways, it's hard to say whether what works there would work here the same way. Plus I've only managed to change stuff by a laborious process of edit-check-edit-check-edit-check-edit-check, until it works in Firefox. I'll think I have it nailed, then find occasionally that it's VERY different and not at all the way I want things to look when I do a test view in Safari.

I've learned just enough to keep the intartubes from winking out of existence when I make changes.

Add to my ineptitude the fact that I can't directly go through my edit-check process, and the shameful fact that I can't explain what needs to be done in words. And I have no idea of the structure of the UBB software.

I'll bet I could manage to do it, but only if I had the software installed here and with a gallon of coffee by my side.

Hey now Phos...that's how it's done most of the time even by pros. The browser incompabilities and genuine disrespect of W3C standards *COUGH*IE*COUGH* is a designer's nightmare sometimes.

Especially when you're editing a premade css on a web-service or something, and just about the only times you can see what you did right and what went wrong is when a 3rd guy on the line somewhere uploads the css you edited onto the server...very professional sounding, eh?

But yeah, MySpace is a whole different beast. Or actually maybe not. The css I've been now working on, just might have about an equal amount of styles in it as MySpace has, but MySpace defaults are hard to override and go around with the editing capabilities it has been giving. Besides, I found it to be such a hassle and too much hacking, that after I got my profile to this stage I decided to give up on it. Now I'm doing that kind of stuff - editing a big-ass css file, but I'm getting paid for it. Besides, this time I know which field defines what and what the given style is called, so it's not quite the same blind-firing.

And I'm a little confused as to how the image padding and the space between text and images would not be set in the css. Anyways, Blogger, for instance has a nice way of using images. But I wouldn't worry too much about it just now, if it is such a hassle and risk at the moment.

Doneski! Yeah, that's my dj handle, actually. And I've had so many idiots requesting friendship to spam or advertise porn I got tired of it.

Cool, Man...I'm there.

I was tweaking around last night, sprucing up my profile layout (I put the "•••Intakes & Outros•••" in the right-column into a scrolling <div>) and now every time you roll-over an image/link, the stuff around it jumps a wee bit. I have NO idea what I changed to make that happen, and I was pretty careful about my code changes.

See? That's why nobody with a gram of sense would take my advice about how to fix CSS!

Hmmm...It doesn't do that jumping in Windows on either Firefox or Safari (for Windows). So even different OS/platform versions of the same versions can interpret css slightly differently. And one of the worst parts is, because of all this, there may be one way that works in some browser, but takes another way on another, or sometimes you find a third way, that incidentally works pretty much the same on most of them. I also see many sites having a whole different css for IE alone...then there's actually some nifty hacks you can do on IE (windows mainly, though), but rarely on any other browser does it work, so better to leave them out completely. And then there still is that backwards-compatibility issue usually going back at least one browser generation... It's such a grand profession to be a web designer.

I jumped back in, poked around and fixed it.



I have IE 5.1.3 which I can fire up in the Classic enviro, but as a hobbnyist, I really don't give a crap what people visiting with IE see.


It's not worth my time to worry about. If it works in FF and Safari, I'm cool.