Andrea

https://www.google.com/search?q=bluehost+review&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Thanks Eddie, no need to waste time. Still makes no sense to me, so.

I was too impatient to wait for a reply here, so I sent an email to our website people, saying this looks like a mistake to me, but if it's something new, I'd love an explanation, and this is the response I got: So there you have it, folks

Just finished the video - you didn't talk about the mystery code, but I could confirm that I understand IE Conditional Comments. Knowing where the code comes from, my first guess is that it's somebody's mess, but I didn't want to point out a mistake to find out it's actually just fancy coding. It seems to work ok in IE11, but it's a huge site, and I'm not even sure if I'm looking at the right page. But to sum it up - can you confirm these 2 points: There is no reason to have a link close ONLY in IE7 and greater? There is absolutely no point in the red stuff: <!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->

This code is part of a navigation list I'm trying to work on (somebody else's work, very complex site) <!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]--> I get the first part and the end - but what in the world is this: <!--></a> That is, the closing 'a' would be if the browser is IE8 or higher, then we want to close the a tag. Why would I only want to close a link in IE8 or higher? Why not in FX, Chrome, or IE7? And what could this <!--> possible be good for? And what about the <!-- before the actual end if part? Does that have any kind of purpose, or did whoever wrote this thing simply mess up?

What is the icon font? Surely, wherever you got it from, there should be a diagram? If not, just try them all out and make your own.

It's probably a bit late - this issue is a year old, and the OP hasn't been active on this site since.

I like to say 'I'm barely 30 -- at my age, you're about as barely 30 as you're going to get.'

I am happy to hear I'm not the oldest one here after all. I'm much younger than you, Eddie -- I'm not even quite 53 yet. For a couple more months, anyway.

Okay, Stef -- how old is he? It's ok -- I'm pretty sure most of you here are younger than I am. Statistically, most he current living world population is younger than I am

Thanks Eddie, I'll try that Monday.

This is so weird. I am at home and on my home IE11, it looks just fine. I just logged into work and looked at it on IE11 on my work computer, and not only is the main content pushed 150 px too far to the right which pushes the sponsor sidebar down and to the very left, I also see a different color scheme which I have set up for IE versions less than 10. What in the world could be causing this? I get different browsers read things differently, but this is the same version just different computers. Bizarre!!!

11

http://alturl.com/tgne4 On the Organizers' page - I have this CSS #organizers #content { margin-left: 150px;} and that shows the page right in Firefox, but pushes my #content too far right in IE. If I remove the left margin, IE is fine, and FX messed up. HELP!!!

Either that, or my Photoshop skills have improved And I'm one of those who followed you over from the old MSN forum. Back then, I was just beginning to learn how to center a table for layout. SLS came later, wasn't here very long, and the most recent time I saw her she pointed out an error I had but never came back when I asked her for detail.... Les pops in occasionally. Then there was Eric Watson, Susie, Graeme pops in every now and then.

If I remember correctly, he resurfaced briefly a couple or so years ago, but has been mia again since. There were a few more dedicated folks here back then who have just disappeared. If I could remember who they all were, I'd probably really miss them...

I'm not that old, coollew. But I still remember how much I cried back when all the dinosaurs died.

Look closer - I'm 99% sure that is the same photo - same jacket, same light/water over your shoulder, same bag strap. Make that 100%.

He tried. But since there is always a chance we're dealing with a future contributing spammer, I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hi

Yes, but there is no standard header size, that just depends on one's design.

That depends on your design. However, it is always best to size it to what is needed, not display a larger image smaller. To be clear, you could display a 1000 px by 1500 px image in a 100 x 1501 px size, but you'd still be loading the huge image. It would be the better approach to resize your image in a graphics program to the size you'll be displaying it.

Consider this: Monitors/resolutions these days are pretty huge. I have two, my big one is at 1600px wide, and there are plenty monitors out there with even higher resolutions. Websites that extend over all that are really hard to read, you almost have to turn your head to follow a line of text. And, if your wrapper extends, everything inside kind of has to follow along, too, or you run into layout problems. I'm not saying it's not doable, it's just not my preference. And since I prefer my sites with a set width, I have no experience with fluid ones. With the middle image issue, I assume you're referring to our problem with losing the transparency when adding the background color which we need to fill in under it, right? Yeah, I don't have anything on that yet, either. Let me ask the experts.

It works - I changed your a:link stuff to .navhome a:link { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: url("zeitgeist_images/buts/nav-home1.png"); height: 80px; width: 157px; display: block; } I haven't had a chance to research all the other background settings you had, but they don't appear to be needed.

Kadigan, Ben, one of the Admins here, suggested to add height, width, and dispay: block to the a tag. I will try that this evening.