Box Model Problem?

Hi

I think I maybe having problems with the Box model issue in IE6 which I have seen mentioned on several websites all over the net. My website is based at

http://www.retrogaminglinks.com/draft/sin4.html

If you compare the page in Firefox and IE you will see I am having a problem with the table overlapping the navigation links in FF. However this does not happen in IE. Can anyone suggest a solution to this problem for me as I have been trying to find a solution online and to a newby like myself of DHTML the websites are not very helpful.

Can someone please show me how to solve this problem in plain simple English so I can be :) instead of :(

Thanks in anticipation.

Jamie

With a page as simple looking as that, there is no reason why you need to use absolute positioning. Without absolute positioning, elements are very unlikely to overlap. If you want to keep absolute positioning, one trick is to use the !important hack:

Code:

---

position:absolute;top:325px!important;top:305px;

---

FF will follow the 325px positioning and IE will use the 305px one. Unfortunately, Opera (the other pc browser) will follow the 325px style but renders more like IE. Not too many folks use Opera though. Yet, another reason to avoid absolute and relative positioning. Save those for special cases. Use padding and margins, widths and heights to get the spacing you desire.

Dear John

Thanks for the info on the hack and the rather easy implimentation of this. I think I will just use this hack for now on my site and get it up and running then probably re-code from scratch and use the later method you suggest. Cross browser compatability is still quite a bit of a joke from what I can see. I think it's about time all the bowser developers sat down and actually agreed to play on a even footing. After all it is in the end of the day us the users who suffer.

Jamie

Quote:

---

I think it's about time all the bowser developers sat down and actually agreed to play on a even footing.

---

That's what the W3C standards are all about. Unfortunately, some people (cough Microsoft) don't care about people who aren't using their products; in fact, they prefer to make life harder for them so that they can persuade people to use their overpriced insecure trash.
</rant> Sorry 'bout that. MS wind me up >.<

Well, I started out thinking "Whatever works." But, as I see new and different browsers and gain a deeper appreciation for what some folks with other than the ordinary windows/ie systems see on some of these pages, I am more and more persuaded that standards of some type are needed. However. I've discovered that the existing w3c standards are either ineffective cross browser or require such a strict level of adherence and such a high level of knowledge that only someone with a programmer's bent of mind could hope to code for them for anything more complicated than a bland looking presentation. They aren't practical for the web authoring public. What's left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

the existing w3c standards are either ineffective cross browser or require such a strict level of adherence and such a high level of knowledge that only someone with a programmer's bent of mind could hope to code for them for anything more complicated than a bland looking presentation.

---

HTML 4.01 isn't too hard to adhere to. XHTML can be difficult. I don't understand why everyone thinks web design should be easy. We're talking massively complex systems here. If you make it too easy (WYSIWYG editors et al) people will start designing with no clue what they're actually doing. This is what's happened with computers in general. A more complex system requires the user to actually learn some of what's happening when they click their pretty buttons, which results in a more experienced user, which results in a better Web. Oh, I know what you'll say: some people just need results, and fast. But that's what professional web designers are for.
"Never let your current goal distract you from the aim of learning about computers."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twey

But that's what professional web designers are for.
"Never let your current goal distract you from the aim of learning about computers."

---

I take it that last bit was sarcasm. Anyways, I enjoy all this kind of stuff (as if you couldn't tell) but, many do not - much less understand it. One of the major appeals of the web is its potential as an "Everyman's/Everywoman's" medium. Making design an arcane art/science detracts from that. I don't know if you remember the old BBS days or not (my age is showing) but back then you could pick a BBS program package and, though they all differed from one another, if it looked good on your machine, generally it was at least legible on all other machines because the BBS packages all used a single standard understood by all com programs, or where they differed, would at least deliver the standard type content if the advanced proprietary format used was unsupported by the end user.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

I take it that last bit was sarcasm.

---

Yes it was :) I have used BBS, though I was introduced to the Internet, sadly, past its era :) I wouldn't say that HTML could ever be an "arcane art;" it's far too simplistic for that. A layman could easily pick the basics up within a couple of hours (as I did), and it's no big step from there to an "intermediate" level (me now). Of course, I don't expect to sit someone down and expect them to come out at Mike-level in a few moments, but someone capable of writing valid HTML4.01 isn't too much to expect. (Basic) Javascript is a little more complex, but not much.