problems viewing cart pages on a different computer

[TraceyHand]

Bumpsy, you have tables with % widths, you have some tables with px widths, you have some tables with a mixture of both. You then have some divs and some CSS too. The upgrade although it looks OK, has added some absolute shite into the code which could really do with a clean up to be honest. The page producing your code could probably be reduced by almost half. There are a number of redundant tags doing nothing.

Although you can mix and match with sizes, try and stick to either % or px as you can end up your own ass at times. Convert to %es and see how that fairs and use 100% as much as possible. Try and use padding to reduce the sizes of a
table, don't do 90% centered etc.

ok..point taken. My inner layout area, and AFAIK (for this page anyway) my layouts etc only use %es for table widths, that I can see..which is why I'm a bit stumped as to why is messing up some pages and not others.
I know the overall layout has px widths in the side areas.
It's all just messing with my head today!
Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgable enough to see past the code to that elusive blonde, brunette and redhead!! (Matrix movie reference for anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about)

Its probably easier to see the template than the resultant code.

yes, I know. A big drawback of V8, I think, is the inability to just "copy" a layout for others to see. By the time it's "translated" all the pretty blues and pinks..it might as well be one of those stupid 3d "magic eye" pictures!

[leehack]

Trust me you are not alone, its exceedingly hard to decipher it even for someone who can read code easily, i just did ten minutes i'll go back in a while, your right column made me angry, i need to calm down.

[TraceyHand]

Trust me you are not alone, its exceedingly hard to decipher it even for someone who can read code easily, i just did ten minutes i'll go back in a while, your right column made me angry, i need to calm down.

LOL
I'm sorry!
See, this is what happens when an "end user" messes with their own pages!
With my limited skills, I'm afraid I'm stuck with "if it works, use it" because I don't know any better
I'm trying though, honest

[leehack]

Right i have just been in for another quick stint and on the second row of the outer table there is a mismatch on sizes. It is one row with 5 columns (<td's>), the tds have the following widths (in this order) - 182, 98%, 12, 160 and 10. Now that is not definite to cure the problem, but it is something that should be addressed before you look any further.

[TraceyHand]

Right i have just been in for another quick stint and on the second row of the outer table there is a mismatch on sizes. It is one row with 5 columns (<td's>), the tds have the following widths (in this order) - 182, 98%, 12, 160 and 10. Now that is not definite to cure the problem, but it is something that should be addressed before you look any further.

ok...thats down to how the design has been done in the first place..with both side columns being a fixed width of 182 (although obviously the RHS is split into 3, I'm not totally sure why)
So....if I want my side columns to have a fixed width.. how should the centre section (currently "98%") be defined.

This is all a bit over my head but I'm trying to work it out

Maybe I should just bite the bullet and get it re-done properly after I've destroyed it

[leehack]

Well lets say the site is being viewed on a 1024 screen. We have 5 columns with the following measurements - 182, 98%, 12, 160 and 10.

98% of 1024 = 1004

so mathematically that would leave you 20 pixels to fit in 4 columns of widths 182, 12, 160, 10 PLUS the scrollbar.

Now of course it doesn't lay it out like that as it tries its hardest to make sense of a calculation that in mathematical terms is an anomaly. When it cannot layout as per the sizes specified, the results can be erratic. This is what you are seeing on some pages and not others IMO. It may not be the whole reason though, but is worth sorting out.

The 10 and 12 columns were what made me angry, they appear to be there to just add some space. Could just as easily be a 3 column table with a cellpadding of 10. Less code more consistent rendering.

Set the whole site to be 1001 pixels wide and then add your column widths. Fluid layouts schmuid layouts, i am yet to see a fluid layout looking good on both a 600 screen and a 1900 screen. Fix it at 1001 and cater for 90% of people IMO.

[TraceyHand]

Well lets say the site is being viewed on a 1024 screen. We have 5 columns with the following measurements - 182, 98%, 12, 160 and 10.

98% of 1024 = 1004

so mathematically that would leave you 20 pixels to fit in 4 columns of widths 182, 12, 160, 10 PLUS the scrollbar.

Now of course it doesn't lay it out like that as it tries its hardest to make sense of a calculation that in mathematical terms is an anomaly. When it cannot layout as per the sizes specified, the results can be erratic. This is what you are seeing on some pages and not others IMO. It may not be the whole reason though, but is worth sorting out.

ok...IKWYM...I'll have a look at it.

The 10 and 12 columns were what made me angry, they appear to be there to just add some space. Could just as easily be a 3 column table with a cellpadding of 10. Less code more consistent rendering.

wasn't me, honest guv!
Will see what I can do...oh boy..

that's for tonight, I think

[TraceyHand]

ok..so I'm getting somewhere

main area width changed and now displays ok (woo-fricken-hoo!!)

but..for some reason, all my justified text has gone
It's fine in FF...b*ggered up in IE (story of my life!!) and now my fragments and product details look all messy
probably something I fiddled with that had a side effect I didn't notice at the time..but still.. I *think* the pages are now showing ok...I just need to brave the switch back to 1280 to make sure I haven't completely b*ggered that up in the process!!

So, Lee...despite the mishap with the postie and the foot this morning... THANK YOU

[TraceyHand]

well...widths sorted, I think.
I've checked and re-checked on different browsers and resolutions and they seem ok.

Only trouble I'm having now is text justification in IE but I guess that's easily fixable

I have <td align="justify"> in my code and I thought it always worked in IE..but for some reason doesn't.
Most likely something I've fiddled with today..unless there's a reason why this works in FF and not IE?

Apart from that....fixed and pages looking ok (although I am going to take a look at the RHS column this evening because it's a bit "untidy" in IE compared to FF )

thanks for asking, Louise, you've been a great help today (not to mention keeping me sane...which is no mean feat, I can tell you!!)

[TraceyHand]

hmm..actually, yes..on the index page, the text does justify fine, doesn't it?
However, on this page despite using the same fragment layout, it doesn't
There's probably a simple reason why (she says, optimistically!) I'm going to look at it now.

thanks for the heads up about the new products on the home page. I'll sort that now too

[TraceyHand]

update

ok..I've added some padding on the new products/best sellers on the homepage.
I've also editted the RHS column so it is a single <td> of 182 (same as LHS) and fiddled with it a bit to make it look ok (I think)

I've checked the pages to make sure they're not breaking out of a 1024 resolution and I've also sorted the text justify problem.

Phew!!

I'm still trawling through trying to pick out all the hard coded (or entered in the "edit appearance" option) occurances of my dark colour too..changing them so it's quicker to change all at once when I do.

I'm seeing why CSS is a good thing! Now maybe I need to actually learn how it works!

[peblaco]

Well no they're not the same. On [LINK] you've got <p align="justify"> around all the text at the top of the page so that works fine. But on [LINK] you've only got <p align="justify"> around the text at the top third of the page and that paragraph tag stops after the line "Our new rates are as follows:" and from your "£2 for 1 item" onwards you've got nothing justified.

[TraceyHand]

Well no they're not the same. On http://www.budget-bumps.co.uk/acatalog/ you've got <p align="justify"> around all the text at the top of the page so that works fine. But on http://www.budget-bumps.co.uk/acatalog/FAQs.html you've only got <p align="justify"> around the text at the top third of the page and that paragraph tag stops after the line "Our new rates are as follows:" and from your "£2 for 1 item" onwards you've got nothing justified.

oh pants...ok..will look at that too
I hadn't had time to check all the pages yet...was still converting from product to fragment layouts and fiddling with bits.

I'll check why that's doing that. I have a feeling I know why

Thanks, Louise (again!)

[peblaco]

I was thinking if you use the justified text on several pages then you could always set a CSS style for justified text such as:

.justify {text-align:justify;}

And then just put a <div class="justify"> and </div> around the text variable in certain templates like in fragment templates so you don't have to keep remembering to put <p align="justify"> in each time.

[TraceyHand]

I was thinking if you use the justified text on several pages then you could always set a CSS style for justified text such as:

.justify {text-align:justify;}

And then just put a <div class="justify"> and </div> around the text variable in certain templates like in fragment templates so you don't have to keep remembering to put <p align="justify"> in each time.

thanks Louise
I think it's my <li> tags that are killing my <p> tag (no doubt you coders wil be able to tell me why) so using a div class instead might work better too.

Hmmm...I'll have a play.
Thanks again

editted to say...that worked perfectly!! Thank you

now off to tinker with wherever else it might be hiding!