Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SLEUTH now has cases!
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Stumps
Just to let all know, since the other thread kinda got off-topic and baried, that the SLEUTH files now have two cases uploaded.

A short story is on it's way, I am awaiting editing from my wife on that.

And again...I still need more submissions.
As of right now...I'm riding on almost empty again.

You can submit either a blooper case
You can also submit a simple account (not naritive please) of a run that you would like for me to write up in short-story format as well.

Hope you guys enjoy!

(takes medication)
Jason Farlander
For some reason, I can't read any of the text other than the headline when I view the page using Firefox, but it works just fine in Internet Explorer. FYI, I guess.
Sabosect
"No, they're talking about what explosives to put in the damn cube!"

I've got to work that into a game sometime...

Funny, funny stuff.
Backgammon
yeah, firefox makes black text over black background. You can highlight the text to see it, though.
Kanada Ten
Yeah, I can't see it with Netscape 7.2 either, though I don't see anything wrong in the source file and can actually read the story there...

[edit] Same as Backgammon.
Rayston
QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
For some reason, I can't read any of the text other than the headline when I view the page using Firefox, but it works just fine in Internet Explorer. FYI, I guess.

Im getting the same problem, but I noticed the text is there its just black on black. So if you highlight it you can read it.

Thanx

Rayston
Jason Farlander
Thats some impressive simultaneous posting, there.

And yes, the problem I'm having is the same black text/black background thing as the others here have mentioned.
Ol' Scratch
Yeah, the problem's with his CSS.

Stumps, when adding hex color tags to your CSS, you need to add the # symbol in front of it to make sure it works properly. So instead of color: ffffff you need to change it to color: #ffffff. Otherise quality browsers just look at you like you're a retard and ignore what you put in.
Stumps
Yeah, I fixed it I think.

Tell me if you guyes are still having any problems.

It was in the Stylesheet and various little areas else where.
(I got lazy...IE doesn't care if you have clean code...my bad)
Whizbang
hmm...*wonders if hers is the short story, or if it just didn't qualify...or just got lost in the email*
Stumps
Oh...and I'm trying to find an artist to work up small artwork for the cases and more glamorous work for the short stories.

If you guys happen to know anyone who's pretty damn talented, and might be interested, send them my way would ya?
(I've already posted at the SR-artwork group on yahoo)

[edit](Whizbang, I sent a PM to you about that...sorry about the mess up.)
HMHVV Hunter
Text is still black-on-black for me.
Stumps
On what page?
HMHVV Hunter
The stories.
Adam
Black on Black in Safari, too.

Fuck designing/testing with IE.
Jason Farlander
I continue to have the problem on both the main page and the story pages
Austere Emancipator
Same thing, black on black in the Case pages. Mozilla 1.6b. Had to select the text to read it.
Ol' Scratch
The problem is that you're now adding quotation marks. Strip them out. As mentioned above, it should look like this: color: #efefef;
Stumps
just downloaded firefox so I can test properly

I think the problem is code support.
I don't think that these other browsers support this code in a css

TD.1
{
padding-left:30;
padding-right:30;
padding-top:30;
padding-bottom:30;
color: "#efefef";
font-family: courier new, arial;
text-align: justify;
background-image:
url('http://www.exigine.com/sleuth/images/office02.jpg');
background-repeat:
no-repeat;
background-position:
center;
background-attachment:
fixed;
}

[edit]I removed the quotes

The original looked like this:
TD.1
{
padding-left:30;
padding-right:30;
padding-top:30;
padding-bottom:30;
color: #efefef;
font-family: courier new, arial;
text-align: justify;
background-image:
url('images/office02.jpg');
background-repeat:
no-repeat;
background-position:
center;
background-attachment:
fixed;
}
Ol' Scratch
See above. You can also save a bit of bandwidth by getting rid of all four of those seperate padding codes and just using: padding: 30; I'd probably add a px count to it, too (ie, 30px;), but that's just me. You don't need the single quotes in the URL bit, either.

Oh screw it, try this on for size.

CODE
TD.1
{
    padding: 30px;
    color: #efefef;
    font-family: courier new, courier;
    text-align: justify;
    background: #000000 url(http://www.exigine.com/sleuth/images/office02.jpg) no-repeat center fixed;
}
Adam
Also, anywhere in your code where you have &nbsp you should actually have  

The paragraph tag is a container tag - each paragraph should technically begin with an opening <p> tag and end with a closing </p> tag.
Stumps
Did that Doc...no dice
Edward
Mozilla shows black on black as well.

Edward

Edit. Also I donít like the popup new window for the case flies.

Edward
Ol' Scratch
Bah.
CODE

A  {color: #d6ce8c; text-decoration: none;}
A:hover  {color: #ffa500; text-decoration: underline;}

.title  {color: #efefef; font-size: 36; font-weight: bold; font-family: courier new, courier;}
.casetitle {color: #000000; font-size: 36; font-weight: bold; font-family: courier new, courier;}
.text  {color: #efefef; font-family: courier new, courier; font-size: 14;}

TD.0
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;
color: #efefef;
font-family: courier new, courier;
text-align: left;
}

TD.1
{
padding: 30px;
color: #efefef;
font-family: courier new, courier;
text-align: justify;
background: #000000 url(http://www.exigine.com/sleuth/images/office02.jpg) no-repeat center fixed;
}

TD.2
{
padding: 30px;
color: #efefef;
font-size: 14;
font-family: courier new, courier;
text-align: justify;
background: none;
}

TD.3
{
padding: 30px;
color: #000000;
font-size: 16;
font-family: courier new, courier;
text-align: justify;
background: url(http://www.exigine.com/sleuth/files/images/casebg1.jpg) repeat fixed;
}

TD.4
{
padding: 10px;
color: courier;
font-size: 12;
font-family: arial;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: justify;
background: #fefd8e;
}

Try that. If that still doesn't work the problem's probably hidden somewhere in your HTML.
Stumps
That still doesn't work...this is driving me nuts.

Basically I've narrowed it down to saying one thing for sure.
It's not the style.css.
Reason: nothing in any of the TD.x codes are working.

This means that it's not being called properly.
I'm trying to find out why right now.
Stumps
Ok folks...
I'm going to keep working on this problem as over half of you visiting the site use a browser other than IE.

Right now, I'm at an impass and I'm dead ass tired. It's 6am and I need sleep.
I'll get right on this first thing tomarrow.

I apologize.
Adam
I have a fixed version locally, although I fixed it simply by ripping the page down it's bare elements and re-building. I'll rebuild the entire thing and upload it somewhere for you to check out, Stumps.
Stumps
Thanks...but...what the hell was I doing wrong?

*just couldn't sleep with a bad page on my mind*
Kagetenshi
I have a friend who figured out the problem and a fix about a week ago, but never told you because he was trying to find a way to say it that didn't sound like "I hate you and hope you die". I'll try to get his input over here.

You did, however, fix the problem with the links on the sidebar. Good on ye'.

~J
Crimsondude 2.0
Case #1 was black on black with Firefox 1.0PR.

But then I loaded one of my own CSS sheets via WebDeveloper. God, this thing pays for itself.
Wounded Ronin
Seems to work fine for me with IE.
Kagetenshi
Yep, we've known it worked fine with IE from the beginning. IE is essentially the problem.

~J
Wounded Ronin
I guess that means I'm part of the problem and not part of the solution? rotfl.gif
Adam
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
God, this thing pays for itself.

Given that it's free... yeah. smile.gif I still prefer Safari overall on OSX, but when I'm doing web work, Firefox and various plugins are a godsend.
Jason Farlander
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Yep, we've known it worked fine with IE from the beginning. IE is essentially the problem.

~J

I dont think thats particularly fair. IE certainly has its problems, but I hardly think that being able to make sense of poorly written code can be considered one of them. If anything, thats actually one of its positive aspects.
Ol' Scratch
Positive in that it positively encourages the behavior.
Jason Farlander
Again, I don't think it *encourages* the behavior so much as simply allows it. And if we *all* used IE, we wouldnt have had any problem in the first place. Which, of course, is probably the reason said functionality exists... but thats beside the point. The point is that IE manages to perform functionally in situations where other options are not functional, and that is a good thing.
Kagetenshi
The last version of IE ever made for the Macintosh does not work with that code. Because IE for Windows works with that code, someone put a page up on the net that does not work properly with an entire OS, probably two. It allowed this, it enabled it. If the person had been testing with a browser that did not allow broken code, it would not have gotten uploaded.

That is why IE allowing broken code to work is bad, because we can't just all use IE when a page breaks.

More importantly, we shouldn't have to. Should we be expected to all have off-road capable vehicle in case a road hasn't been built or maintained properly?

~J
Ol' Scratch
Once again, it's only a good thing in that it encourages (and it most certainly does encouarge it) the behavior. It retards people from learning proper coding practices by allowing them in the first place. It's the frelling Ebonics of the World Wide Web.

In effect its also no different from proprietary code. It encourages websites that only IE can view (by allowing code that shouldn't work at all, thus is no longer a baseline).

If you want to fool yourself into thinking that it's a good thing, fine. Just don't expect anyone with half a clue to agree.
toturi
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 8 2004, 10:40 AM)
Once again, it's only a good thing in that it encourages (and it most certainly does encouarge it) the behavior.  It retards people from learning proper coding practices by allowing them in the first place.  It's the frelling Ebonics of the World Wide Web.

In effect its also no different from proprietary code.  It encourages websites that only IE can view (by allowing code that shouldn't work at all, thus is no longer a baseline).

If you want to fool yourself into thinking that it's a good thing, fine.  Just don't expect anyone with half a clue to agree.

This reminds me of a famous Chinese quote:

Deng Xiaoping: It doesn't matter if it is a white cat or a black cat. If it catches mice it is a good cat.

Mao Zedong: Which emperor said that?

It does not matter if it is IE or not, as long as it surfs the Web and can view pages it is a good program.
Ol' Scratch
Then feel free to go back to using Mosaic 1.0 if you like. smile.gif
Adam
Just because it's famous does not make it correct. smile.gif
Jason Farlander
Well, I could continue to argue the point, but it doesnt really matter. I, personally, also do not use IE anymore - I use Firefox. Its pretty goddamn incompetent to allow a jpeg to compromise your system. However, at the same time, it does piss me off every goddamn time I encounter a web page that doesnt load properly, and I would be overjoyed if they built functionality into Firefox that would allow it to read sloppily-coded pages properly, without sacrificing the enhanced security that was my reason for switching to it in the first place.

Continuing with the car analogy: no, you should not expect everyone to have an off-road vehicle to navigate city streets. However, building a car without any shocks because the roads *should* be pothole-free would not be considered a positive thing, and, well, is actually pretty stupid.

But I'm done derailing the thread. Good luck fixing the code, Stumps.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Once again, it's only a good thing in that it encourages (and it most certainly does encouarge it) the behavior. It retards people from learning proper coding practices by allowing them in the first place. It's the frelling Ebonics of the World Wide Web.

In effect its also no different from proprietary code. It encourages websites that only IE can view (by allowing code that shouldn't work at all, thus is no longer a baseline).

If you want to fool yourself into thinking that it's a good thing, fine. Just don't expect anyone with half a clue to agree.

Frankly, I think proper code has long since been railed by the use of web page editors. A lot of people don't even know how to code in the first place.



To my credit, I have never used a web page editor. Since I've never actually used one, I don't actually know how they work.

Back when I was in high school I learned some simple HTML code and all the pages I ever put up were coded by hand by me.

But that was years ago and I actually forgot all my HTML by now.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
Continuing with the car analogy: no, you should not expect everyone to have an off-road vehicle to navigate city streets. However, building a car without any shocks because the roads *should* be pothole-free would not be considered a positive thing, and, well, is actually pretty stupid.

Safari and MozillaFox in my experience have done perfectly well on quite a lot of invalid HTML. However, IE allows some horribly broken things to work. We're not talking potholes, we're talking craters. The potholes you probably don't even notice.

~J
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Adam @ Nov 7 2004, 08:07 PM)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ Nov 7 2004, 08:42 PM)
God, this thing pays for itself.

Given that it's free... yeah. smile.gif I still prefer Safari overall on OSX, but when I'm doing web work, Firefox and various plugins are a godsend.

Yes, but by some twisted design the Hand of Fate has left me without OSX.
Kagetenshi
I feel your pain.

~J, zealot since 1987
Stumps
So everyone can rest.

Adam re-did the page and made it work fine.
Then I compared it to mine to see what was different.

Most of it was harmless things that weren't involved in keeping the black on black problem.

That, however, Adam had solved as well.

Aparantly, only IE accepts numeric values as class names for CSS.

TD.3 won't work when called as <td class="3"> in any browser but IE.
TD.text will work when called as <td class="text"> in any browser.

It's about that simple. I use numbers all the time in my css because I like the easy organization to it, but it turns out that this very common practice on my part was why I couldn't figure out what was wrong.
It works fine now.

[edit]Oh, and btw. If anyone notices errors in any of my sites or pages, let me know. Don't be afraid of sounding like an ass. Even if you're rude, I'll still get the notice that somethings wrong. I'd rather know than think it's all fine.
Especially when 51% of you guys are using a browser other than IE. That's pretty important.[/edit]
Fix-it
QUOTE
GM: (Eeep.) Roll Intelligence, TN 2.
Take: Heh. Eight successes.
GM: You see a doorbell.


TOO FUNNY.
just loaded the page in firefox an' it works fine.
Kagetenshi
One more problem: you've got an extra e in November smile.gif

~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012