On 4/28/06, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:

Changing the text size (upward, not downward) does make the button available, although the relationship among the screen elements is still badly messed up. It appears that there's some sort of graphic frame that's not properly aligned with the text. Try the Amtrak website (www.amtrak.com) and see what you get.

Thanks (to you and others) for your help.

Paul

I did try that site before I replied and again now. I still get the same: Decreasing the text size made the "Next" buttons appear within the border and also pulled in the "calendar" words to within the border. Not sure what you mean by "upward". If you mean holding the ctrl while rotating your mouse button up (away from you) that decreases the text size - which is what I suggested. Sorry I couldn't help, all I can say is it works for me. We obviously have a difference some where. Rich

On Friday 28 April 2006 23:33, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: <snip> Just for your edification, the variables at the surfer's end (screen size and aspect ratio, OS and fonts) are so great that most site designers aim for a middle ground in an attempt to satisfy a majority of the site's visitors: at 640 x 480, two scroll bars and the graphics are way too big at 800 x 600, two scroll bars and the graphics are a bit too big at 1024 x 768 (largest share of surfers) one scroll bar, graphics in proportion at 1280 x 1024, maybe no scroll bars, graphics OK but a bit small at 1600 x 1200, no scroll bars, graphics tiny, lots of 'white space' I run my desktop at 1600 x 1200 and if I design a page while working at that setting, I frequently have to make adjustments when I'm viewing the same work in the more common resolutions of 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024. It is possible but usually not economically feasible to accommodate all possible combinations. This means if you're having trouble viewing a site, try viewing it at a more common resolution before complaining too fervently. :-) Carl Carl

On Saturday 29 April 2006 11:32, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:

I tried using Ctl-Alt-+ to cycle through the various screen resolutions. None of them changed the relative placement of the graphic elements.

In the first place, I never implied that cycling through various screen resolutions would change the relative placement of graphic elements. That would be absurd. It *does* change the relative *size* of graphics to the screen and surrounding text, which is the effect I actually outlined in my previous post. Secondly, your test is too simplistic. It completely ignores the impact of the effect that I described. * Is your desktop set to 72 dpi? 96 dpi? 120 dpi? * Are you running at a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio? * Are you set to 16, 24 ("true") or 32 bit color? * What are you running for default fonts? (typefaces *and* point sizes?) Every page you view is *rendered* ... meaning the code is being interpreted and the result displayed by *your* system... which is comprised of the user agent (Lynx? Konqueror? Firefox? Opera?) and OS. Each of these combinations may or may not be configured to display a specific page correctly. Once you have a firm grasp on how these factors add up you are much less inclined to level potentially baseless criticisms at a site developer. The other side of the coin is that making pages "work" correctly on every platform and in every user agent is a very high bar to meet. It takes a great deal of advance planning and knowledge followed by a considerable amount of cross-platform and cross-user-agent testing. Some {employers or customers} of developers aren't willing to make that investment. They {the "paying customer"} are happy as long as the site displays correctly in common consumer Mac and Windows boxes. It really isn't fair to criticize them if their site is targeted primarily to that audience. They are, after all, paying for the site while you (and I) are choosing to explore the Internet using software that still has a relatively small footprint in the desktop market. When Linux dominates the desktop :-) you're likely to find many more sites displaying without such breakage. Carl Carl

On Saturday 29 April 2006 09:03, Leendert Meyer wrote:

www.amtrak.com

Just tried Seamonkey on there it works no problems (latest version 1.01 i think) not found a site it wont work with yet .. -- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM