Redesign in Progress - Page 4

User 187934 Photo


Senior Advisor
20,190 posts

Let me take another look.;)
I can't hear what I'm looking at.
It's easy to overlook something you're not looking for.

This is a site I built for my work.(RSD)
http://esmansgreenhouse.com
This is a site I built for use in my job.(HTML Editor)
https://pestlogbook.com
This is my personal site used for testing and as an easy way to share photos.(RLM imported to RSD)
https://ericrohloff.com
User 603315 Photo


Registered User
938 posts

Steve wrote:
Very interesting Eric. If i change the :

a, blockquote, button, div, dl, form, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, img, ol, p, table, textarea, ul {
margin: 7px 0px;
}

to margin: 0px 0px; it fixes the wow slider however it takes all the margins away making everything squished to the top. If I add this

ul{
margin:0px 0px;
}

right under that first block of code it has no effect at all.


Is Eric actually saying change 7px to 0px, or just 0 there is a difference between 0px and 0 a big difference in some things.
User 187934 Photo


Senior Advisor
20,190 posts

I think the browser interprets both as 0. It's user preference.
I can't hear what I'm looking at.
It's easy to overlook something you're not looking for.

This is a site I built for my work.(RSD)
http://esmansgreenhouse.com
This is a site I built for use in my job.(HTML Editor)
https://pestlogbook.com
This is my personal site used for testing and as an easy way to share photos.(RLM imported to RSD)
https://ericrohloff.com
User 603315 Photo


Registered User
938 posts

Eric Rohloff wrote:
I think the browser interprets both as 0. It's user preference.


No Eric they dont all work the same way. I always have Chrome.as default so for eg your doing a footer using 0px for the bottom you can get caught out by it as I do sometimes whereas 0 will be absolute forbwant of a better word and is more accurate. Also when designing layouts and you want your layout to be touching something its better to use 0
User 187934 Photo


Senior Advisor
20,190 posts

I think that's a browser issue not a standard.:)
I can't hear what I'm looking at.
It's easy to overlook something you're not looking for.

This is a site I built for my work.(RSD)
http://esmansgreenhouse.com
This is a site I built for use in my job.(HTML Editor)
https://pestlogbook.com
This is my personal site used for testing and as an easy way to share photos.(RLM imported to RSD)
https://ericrohloff.com
User 603315 Photo


Registered User
938 posts

Eric Rohloff wrote:
I think that's a browser issue not a standard.:)


It's certainly a pain from time to time Eric that is for sure. Sometimes you can look at code and think that it won't make a difference and then bingo. There was a site I was working on a few month ago and to my eyes it was perfectly fine the code, did that thing with 0 instead of 0px and it worked. I don't know why it should be the same thing, but it doesn't matter how much I do this thing I always learn and just playing around can reap dividends, sometimes theory is wrong. CSS is strange old thing it's not like HTML or Javascript it has a mind of it's own :cool:
User 38401 Photo


Senior Advisor
10,951 posts

You don't really need or shouldn't even use the "px" after a 0 setting in CSS. If you use anything that has a 0 you just put 0 and nothing else.

I've actually accidentally forgotten to remove the px after changing a number to 0 in a setting and have had it interpretted incorrectly so it's definitely an issue for some browsers. The standard though is to remove that px when using 0.
User 603315 Photo


Registered User
938 posts

Jo Ann wrote:
You don't really need or shouldn't even use the "px" after a 0 setting in CSS. If you use anything that has a 0 you just put 0 and nothing else.

I've actually accidentally forgotten to remove the px after changing a number to 0 in a setting and have had it interpretted incorrectly so it's definitely an issue for some browsers. The standard though is to remove that px when using 0.


Yeah that's what I do now Jo Ann, I think it's better.
User 2088758 Photo


Senior Advisor
3,087 posts

Thanks for the suggestions guys and gals,

I am pretty sure it has something to do with the css. I have used this same wow slider in VSD with no issues at all. As I mentioned before when I change the 7 to a 0 in the first section of code posted above the issue with wow slider is corrected.

I have even tried to override the ul css in-line and it didn't help.

I'll keep playing around with it and let you know if I figure it out.
Taking over the world one website at a time!

Steve Kolish
www.misterwebguy.com

YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL8qVv … ttneYaMSJA
User 1948478 Photo


Senior Advisor
1,850 posts

The overall wow-slider container seems to be stable and well-positioned while the div holding the images in the container, i.e. <div class="ws_images">, starts out with the undesirable top margin of 7px and in a much delayed fashion resets the margin to zero. So, to set the margin to zero as early as possible, you may want to try something like this:

As line 2 in wireframe-theme.min.css, add this rule:
.ws_images {margin: 0 0 0 0;}

The first two rules in wireframe-theme.min.css would then be:

a,blockquote,button,div,dl,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,img,ol,p,table,textarea,ul{margin:7px 0}
.ws_images {margin: 0 0 0 0;}


Worth a try...? :)

Have something to add? We’d love to hear it!
You must have an account to participate. Please Sign In Here, then join the conversation.