View Full Version : FF/IE Scroll Bars

12-01-2005, 11:37 PM
Hi, I am workin on this site: http://www.secyrb.com/myspace_overlay.htm

When you view it in FF the Scroll box looks just fine compaired to the background image! But when you view it in IE the scroll box looks very small? I am creating this site in Dreamweaver and i was wondering if anybody could help me out so that its looks good in both browsers??

12-02-2005, 12:54 AM
I didn't experience that problem when viewing your site in IE and FF. Are you still having this problem? And, I don't think it's possible to change the size of the scrollbar unless you download a program like cool scrollbar or use flash.

12-02-2005, 01:06 AM
I think he means the actual size of the box which scrolls. ;)

(Sorry but I don't have time to look at the problem now.)

EDIT - Deary me! I just looked at your source - I think you need to sort that out and get it valid before you start worrying about stuff like the size of the box. Needs doctype, proper <html><head></head><body></body></html> format, CSS should be external really, etc. Once you have code which validates you will often find most of your problems will be fixed.

12-02-2005, 01:59 AM
Actually I just put that up there so that you guys could preview it. I'm making a DIV overlay for my myspace http://www.myspace.com/secyrb sorry i dident clear that up in my first post. :D:confused:

12-02-2005, 05:22 AM
That doesn't make up for the fact that proper code is hard enough to debug without having to wade through the 567 errors on this "preview". Fix it, then come back.

12-02-2005, 07:10 AM
That doesn't make up for the fact that proper code is hard enough to debug without having to wade through the 567 errors on this "preview". Fix it, then come back.

Citing validation errors doesn't actually "help" anyone with their problems. Furthermore, it perpetuates the myth that validated markup is the end-all solution to HTML woes. (This is to everybody who does this): Please stop writing off all problems to this and taking the easy way out everytime a new person comes to the forums.

12-02-2005, 07:26 AM
Did anyone know that FF checks to see if some tags have the closing > on them if not it puts it in the html? Okay to secryb try removing that div that is in your aboutme div. Then remove the padding from the css for the aboutme div. Since you are going to put this on myspace the doctype won't really help, but because there isn't one, IE is reading the margins and padding incorrectly. If you change some CSS in IE to make it look right it messes up FF, and vice versa so you are going to end up having to do something like this

.AboutMe {
border:2px inset #666666;
* html .AboutMe {

12-02-2005, 07:39 AM
Three things:

1. I totally agree with jkd; attributing every validation error as the root of all evil is just annoying. Even though validation is A Good Thing, it's not the end-all of all HTML problems.

2. I'm on a Mac, so it's pretty hard for me to debug for IE.

3. Now that that's all said, I think I know what the problem is, and I think validation would help. :D Looks like it's a box-model problem. The ".AboutMe" div has a width of 410px and a height of 170px with padding of 5px. The w3c box model says that total dimensions are (from end to end):


So the total width of the box is really 424px (2+5+410+5+2), the height 184 (2+5+170+5+2). That's how FF interprets it.

Without a strict DOCTYPE (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/), IE uses Quirks mode, and interprets the box model differently, where width=width-(total padding+total border+total margin).

Hope this helps...

That'll teach me to start typing before I check to see if Aero hasn't already answered. :D

12-02-2005, 02:05 PM
Citing validation errors doesn't actually "help" anyone with their problems. 1) There were 567 errors.
2) Valid code is good programming practice.
3) Saying code with errors is 'OK' is bad practice.
4) Why we won't help you. (http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you)

12-02-2005, 09:57 PM
What if I built my site using IE as a reference (for shame, I know), I didn't use the strict doc type and it's messed up in Firefox.

I just added strict doctype to my page and it messes up my links. Is there a happy medium?

12-02-2005, 10:58 PM
by messing up my links, I mean, I use background images for the links so that they change smoothly when I change my CSS. I put in the strict, modified my div size and now I'm stuck with no images in IE. Do you guys have a suggestion?


12-03-2005, 01:10 AM
Thanks for helping me guys! Aero was correct it was the padding that was the problem!! I'm sorry for not having the correct validation codes. I didn't even think about it when i uploaded it to my website. What were the errors because when i check in Macromedia it says there are zero errors? Thanks to everybody who helped out!

12-03-2005, 01:20 AM
Echos, I think you meant to post a new thread? :confused:

Secyrb - http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secyrb.com%2Fmyspace_overlay.htm

12-03-2005, 01:29 AM
Thanks dident know about that. But i'm only getting 44 errors??

12-03-2005, 01:35 AM
Yup not sure where 567 came from. :confused:

I wouldn't worry about that page validating for now, if it'll be in a MySpace page with proper formating it would be better - but I doubt anyone can get a MySpace page to validate anyway with all the cr*p they place in it!

12-03-2005, 04:02 AM
571 Validation errors. (http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.myspace.com/secyrb)

12-03-2005, 04:49 AM
571 Validation errors. (http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.myspace.com/secyrb)
Okay, yes, validation is important. But you're overlooking a few things:

1. This is a myspace.com site, meaning most of thie site is out of his control as far as validation.

2. Validation is simply making sure your document is doing what it says it's going to do. The doctype lays out the rules, then the document should follow them. There's no doctype on the page, so there's nothing to validate against.

In other words, most of those 571 errors are moot and have nothing to do with the original problem. Pointing out validation errors for the sake of being dramatic and important isn't helpful, it's annoying.

My two cents.

12-03-2005, 06:47 AM
There's no doctype on the page, so there's nothing to validate against.And if there is no doctype then he has another problem. IE goes into quirks mode which is a set of rules that are followed. But if he codes to standards then his code won't work right.

If your page doesn't validate then you have errors in your code according to the rules you say should be followed by the browser. If you don't follow the same rules the browser is following then your page may display incorrectly. In any case, your code is in error. Any errors can create unpredictable results although handling errors is specified in the standard. If you can't code your page to the rules the validator thinks you are trying to use, how can you know what a browser will do?

Did you not read the "Dive into Mark" column?

An error is a mistake. Validation is not some frosting on the cake. Validation is error checking. Errors are never good. Debugging valid code is difficult enough without trying to debug code filled with errors. It's hardly being dramatic. How can you say different? How can you say a page with hundreds of errors does not matter to the final result?!

And the fact that it is on a myspace page does not matter either. An error which results in a nondisplayable page is still an error and nondisplayable no matter where it is put.

I can't believe I have to explain something like this.

12-03-2005, 07:13 AM
I can't believe I have to explain something like this.

Because my comment has gotten this thread off-topic, please (everybody) post all follow-up discussion about validation being an end within itself here:

12-03-2005, 08:33 AM
I think the confusion here is some people don't even know what myspace is. Its nearly impossible to have valid code on myspace. Half of the errors were from html that myspace adds in itself. I have given the OP a solution that will work in the situation that they are in. No need to continue arguing about this.