My site (bottom in my sig) looks like shit in firefox, any ideas what I can do to fix it? If you look at it in ie, that is the correct look. Thanks.
It doesnt actually work correctly in IE 6 either the right column is forced below the end of the main content. Just from a quick look, you need to go look up the 'float' and 'clear' css styles and experiment a bit with them on your column divs. You may also want to visit the w3.org validator and clean things up to validate before you do anything else. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthyhumanbeing.ca%2F&ss=1&outline=1
It also doesn't display properly in Safari. I would suggest taking time to revise your CSS style sheet. If you don't know how to do this, find someone from DP that can revise your style sheet.
I am using mozilla, the whole right side is messed up, and the google ads at the top are overlaying the words. Try moving the top strip of google ads until you have sorted the whole site out. Can you go back to the people you got the template from and ask for help?
thanks for all the feedback. I am useless at this coding stuff, I've posted a thread in "services" so we'll see. Thanks again.
Looks good in IE. What other browser is there? LOL Seriously though if you are not a coder or a stylesheet guru stay away from the w3.org validators for CSS and HTML. Let’s not misunderstand. Poorly formed HTML can be a hassle to update. It may be a factor in search engine optimization (whose “standards†change often, to the chagrin of SEO subject matter experts). In some cases, it can cause content to load slowly (or appear to load slowly). Validators are great for quickly spot-checking possible deal-breaker gaffes among copious volumes of markup. But validators are servants, not masters. W3C badges are effectively academic badges of honor. Such validation is an admirable enough goal, but is not always worth the return on investment in a production environment. Far more important is to ensure that markup is efficiently written. Let’s see if the big boys agree. Google and Yahoo! handle some of the thickest traffic on the market. As of this writing, neither site complies with the W3C validator. How about heavy-hitters CNET and eBay? Failed. Adobe’s and Macromedia’s websites? Failed. What about php.net and python.org? These are the home bases of open-source developers who themselves rely on evolving quasi-authorities like the W3C … but no; these sites fail, as well. How about netscape.com? Staffs of Netscape Communications Corp. are members the W3C, after all, and Netscape is responsible for JavaScript, one of the worlds’s most widely used client side technologies. Yet their site does not comply. Surely useit.com, the site of the esteemed usability guru, Jacob Nielson, is compliant. Surely! Guess again. W3C validation is not the web developer’s Holy Grail. Validation does not guarantee a site will look the same from platform to platform, from browser to browser. Validation does not assure that markup is efficiently written or adheres to a given entity’s assessment of best practices. What it means is that the developer has coded a functional document and used no markup in addition to that specified by the guidelines. Wearing suspenders in addition to a belt isn’t illegal, it’s just … extra. No harm in that, is there?
I didnt mean to imply that just because it validates w3c that it would be a miracle fix, its just easier to weed out mistakes, thats all i was suggesting. Many many sites dont pass validation, the very cross browser problems that the OP is looking at are typical reasons the big boys do forgo validation. The fix is often not compliant but the option is ugly validating sites . Since you arent a coder though, rickvidallon is correct a validation tool isnt going to fix the problem for you nor is poking about you need a bit of expert help / tutoring. @rickvidallon You say it worked in IE? the right column didnt align correctly in IE either... or is it just me?
LOL yeah what he said.. i see rickvidallon already made my point in his last paragraph... teach me to scan instead of read.
Hi 1) "Health is everything" make this logo little smaller so right side banner would come in frame or in red area at top. 2) you put robot tag but you did not add robots.txt file.
Looks fine now. In both browsers. Well in IE and firefox, i didnt check safari or opera. The top google link ad is a tiny bit too far to the left in IE but not too bad. maybe a pixel off into the border.