Jump to content

Background Images

Shop99er

By Shop99er
in Website

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Toron

Toron

Posted
Posted

What do you mean by "fixed"?

 

FWIW, I switched mine from earlier today from html in the description to a straightforward URL in the new designated spot. No problems (though I would still like to see the borders be adjusted--not trying to raise that horse in this topic, just couldn't help myself) .

Link to comment
Team GPSaxophone

+Team GPSaxophone

Posted
Posted (edited)
I tried out the new feature when I posted this event today

 

Now about the margins... <_<

So, how do I fix the background?

HTML :angry:

:unsure:

 

You're such a big help, Saxy. <_<

 

Ok, now that we have to put the url for the background into the little box provided, how can we use html? :blink:

Ok fine, add bgproperties="fixed" inside your brackets

 

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" background="background.gif" bgproperties="fixed">

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted

Ok, this is where I am confused.

 

That is exactly the html that I had in the text of my cache pages before. But now Jeremy says that we have to put the background in the little box that he has provided. I cannot put html in that box, because it will say, "you do not have a valid background image url". If I just put in the url of the background in that box, it is happy. But then it is not fixed. <_<

Link to comment
Team GPSaxophone

+Team GPSaxophone

Posted
Posted
Ok, this is where I am confused.

 

That is exactly the html that I had in the text of my cache pages before. But now Jeremy says that we have to put the background in the little box that he has provided. I cannot put html in that box, because it will say, "you do not have a valid background image url". If I just put in the url of the background in that box, it is happy. But then it is not fixed. <_<

This is why you shouldn't mess with the background images <_<

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted
Ok, this is where I am confused.

 

That is exactly the html that I had in the text of my cache pages before.  But now Jeremy says that we have to put the background in the little box that he has provided.  I cannot put html in that box, because it will say, "you do not have a valid background image url".  If I just put in the url of the background in that box, it is happy.  But then it is not fixed.  <_<

This is why you shouldn't mess with the background images :unsure:

Ok. Does this mean that in your example, you weren't using the little box that Jeremy provided?

 

And don't try to disparage my backgrounds. They're what make my pages great. <_< (Or at least they were, back in the days that you could see them.)

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted (edited)
Since you can see so little of the background, does it really matter if it is "fixed" or not?

Yes. <_<

 

I looked at two of my caches, one had a fixed background, and one did not. You can see enough of the background to see that fixed is better.

 

I really am fine with either way, when it comes down to it, I had just thought that Saxy had some brilliant way of fixing it (no pun intended!) that I didn't know about. <_<

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment
Team GPSaxophone

+Team GPSaxophone

Posted
Posted
Just a reminder that background images that are not moved into the new field will be stripped out at some point in the future.

 

Also adding my standard comment that the new, clean, wider look to the cache pages is fine by me. I'd rather see more data on the screen at once and forego pretty background images.

Good. No more "fixed" backgrounds that make you dizzy when scrolling :(

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted
Just a reminder that background images that are not moved into the new field will be stripped out at some point in the future.

 

Also adding my standard comment that the new, clean, wider look to the cache pages is fine by me.  I'd rather see more data on the screen at once and forego pretty background images.

Good. No more "fixed" backgrounds that make you dizzy when scrolling ;)

You're beginning to really get to me. (And not in a good way.)

 

:):(

Link to comment
Monkeybrad

+Monkeybrad

Posted
Posted
I'd rather see more data on the screen at once and forego pretty background images.

 

But do we need the blank grey panel beneath the advertising that does nothing but obscure bkgs?

 

There's no data there and it's not pretty!

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

I have to agree there is a lot of dead space around the edges that is not showing data but is covering the background.

Link to comment
Prime Suspect

+Prime Suspect

Posted
Posted

Since one could assume that when someone provides a background image, they consider it important, perhaps the system could switch to a narrower page layout when a background URL is proivded, and use the wider one when there's no background.

 

That would also encourage people to edit their cache page to use the background URL entry.

Link to comment
jeff35080

+jeff35080

Posted
Posted

Thats a good idea PS. I typically use a background 'color' and really enjoy some cache pages that include a splash of color or an image. It allows the cache hider to somewhat express themself. Anyways, if there's anyway to allow a bit more of a background color or image it definitely has my vote!

Link to comment
southdeltan

+southdeltan

Posted
Posted
That would also encourage people to edit their cache page to use the background URL entry.

Do you mean encourage them to do it properly, or encourage more people to use background images?

 

I personally don't like them and hope Jeremy will consider an user option that automatically sets the background to the default green.

 

I'm sure somebody will point out that browsers can do this - by cutting off ALL background images I think - I just want the backgrounds on GC.com to be normal - not on every website I visit.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
Teach2Learn

+Teach2Learn

Posted
Posted
That would also encourage people to edit their cache page to use the background URL entry.

Do you mean encourage them to do it properly, or encourage more people to use background images?

 

I personally don't like them and hope Jeremy will consider an user option that automatically sets the background to the default green.

I am still hoping for a better balance where the backgrounds can again be viewed. Taking away some of the space was fine, but the current amount seems to be an extreme minimum.

 

The proposed user option is fine because I realize some don't like backgrounds, but I would really miss seeing many of the cache pages that use backgrounds creatively and appropriately. The current gray bar isn't attractive, just wasted space, and would allow for the return of some of the background. The radical change has been disappointing for me. I still love caching, but some of the at-home fun is gone, even if that's not the primary setting for caching.

Link to comment
caderoux

+caderoux

Posted
Posted

I did some experiments on a cache page I'm gradually building for a mystery cache, and you can use an absolutely sized <div> with background-color or background-image - WITHIN your page. This would also mean that you can also do nested divs to get an effect of a box within a box, where the inner box has a simple background-color, while the outer box has a background-image. And you would be able to control the perceived ratio of text to image that way.

 

It does also look like there is no scripting allowed - so you can't navigate the DOM and resize an element on the page to fit your layout needs.

 

Having said that, there are already/still caches where the layout is being altered by unclosed HTML tags - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c8-17cc84893cdf

Link to comment
Alan2

+Alan2

Posted
Posted
Since one could assume that when someone provides a background image, they consider it important, perhaps the system could switch to a narrower page layout when a background URL is proivded, and use the wider one when there's no background.

 

That would also encourage people to edit their cache page to use the background URL entry.

Amen.

Link to comment
Markwell

+Markwell

Posted
Posted
Could you make the font a little smaller? I can still actually make out a few of the letters.

Must be your settings. I have not specified any font size in my html.

The use of "comic sans ms" as a font face might be the problem. Seems to me that's not a standard web font, and if the user doesn't have comic sans ms on their computer, their browser will replace it with another available font. Prime's replacement font must be a tiny one.

 

Is there a list of standard acceptable fonts?

Link to comment
Poindexter

+Poindexter

Posted
Posted
The use of "comic sans ms" as a font face might be the problem. Seems to me that's not a standard web font, and if the user doesn't have comic sans ms on their computer, their browser will replace it with another available font. Prime's replacement font must be a tiny one.

 

Is there a list of standard acceptable fonts?

Yes, I thought that might be the problem as well, but if his computer doesn't have that font, then it should use it's default font. Perhaps he needs to change his default font to something he can read. I thought comic sans ms was pretty common as I have it on four different laptops at home and on my tower at work. I also use it in my e-mail and have never heard a complaint, but then not everyone uses html in their e-mail apps. I don't know of a list of acceptable fonts. Anyway, I just had a thought come to me out of the blue that you could use backgrounds in a table so I tried it out on the cache page. I'll probably switch back to the "normal" format.

Link to comment
BooBooBee

+BooBooBee

Posted
Posted

Wow! Alrighty...I've altered every one of my 30 cache pages to the new format. I understood GC.com was going to disable (ferret out) all the background HTML in favor if their new background option, so here are the steps I took:

-I located the image source for every background I was using.

-downloaded images not originally from my own computer TO my computer

- uploaded the images to the corresponding cache page at GC.com

- determined location (address) of the image on the GC.com server

- edited the cache description to include a direct link to the image as saved on GC.com server.

 

Very cumbersome to change all the old pages over to the new format this way. But, perhaps I was mistake and just made a bunch of busy work for myself. At any rate, the pages load faster now because the images are on teh GC.com server, not some outside server over which none of us has any control. AND when posting new caches, the new method may be easier than the old (though a few more steps).

 

Just thought I'd share.

Link to comment
Prime Suspect

+Prime Suspect

Posted
Posted
Wow! Alrighty...I've altered every one of my 30 cache pages to the new format. I understood GC.com was going to disable (ferret out) all the background HTML in favor if their new background option, so here are the steps I took:

-I located the image source for every background I was using.

-downloaded images not originally from my own computer TO my computer

- uploaded the images to the corresponding cache page at GC.com

- determined location (address) of the image on the GC.com server

- edited the cache description to include a direct link to the image as saved on GC.com server.

 

Very cumbersome to change all the old pages over to the new format this way. But, perhaps I was mistake and just made a bunch of busy work for myself. At any rate, the pages load faster now because the images are on teh GC.com server, not some outside server over which none of us has any control. AND when posting new caches, the new method may be easier than the old (though a few more steps).

 

Just thought I'd share.

All you really needed to do was move the image URL from the body tag to the background entry box.

Link to comment
Prime Suspect

+Prime Suspect

Posted
Posted
The use of "comic sans ms" as a font face might be the problem.  Seems to me that's not a standard web font, and if the user doesn't have comic sans ms on their computer, their browser will replace it with another available font.  Prime's replacement font must be a tiny one.

 

Is there a list of standard acceptable fonts?

Yes, I thought that might be the problem as well, but if his computer doesn't have that font, then it should use it's default font. Perhaps he needs to change his default font to something he can read. I thought comic sans ms was pretty common as I have it on four different laptops at home and on my tower at work. I also use it in my e-mail and have never heard a complaint, but then not everyone uses html in their e-mail apps. I don't know of a list of acceptable fonts. Anyway, I just had a thought come to me out of the blue that you could use backgrounds in a table so I tried it out on the cache page. I'll probably switch back to the "normal" format.

No, actually it has to do with the ways that different browsers can interpret the CSS code controlling the page formatting.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...