PDA

View Full Version : One website image not displaying in IE 5.5 or IE6.0



Billy T
02-04-2007, 01:20 PM
Hi Team

A good friend of mine operates a very new website (http://www.mummywraps.com/about.php) that is not displaying a particular image on any of the four computers I operate on IE6.0, or the two I operate on IE5.5. All other site images display ok on both browsers.

The programmer says nothing is wrong, but I can't see how that can be quite right since this is the only site I visit that doesn't display all images correctly on any of my computers. If I see one, I see them all, and I visit many sites in the course of a week.

This is sort of an informal survey then, so please click on the link above and if you see a blank space instead of an image below the "How does it work" title, please reply with No and browser type/version number, (or OK and the same info if you do see it) so that I have some corroborative data to send back for the programmer.

I tossed up whether this was a PF1 or Chat issue, and decided that since it was a browser compatibility problem, it belongs here.

Your assistance would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

CYaBro
02-04-2007, 01:25 PM
OK in Firefox 2.0.0.3

No in IE tab within Firefox

No in IE 6

It is strange as IE knows the picture is there, as I can right-click where it should be and save it to the desktop as a jpg which when viewed is fine.

sal
02-04-2007, 01:28 PM
Which image doesn't display sometimes?

Speedy Gonzales
02-04-2007, 01:30 PM
The image under how do they work doesnt appear in IE 7 either.

Its there in FF 2.0.0.3 tho. Don't have IE 6 installed.

Firefox Snapshot (http://www.imagef1.net.nz/files/ff2003.jpg)

IE 7 Snapshot (http://www.imagef1.net.nz/files/ie7.jpg)

Billy T
02-04-2007, 01:34 PM
Which image doesn't display sometimes?
The one that should be in the small space below the subheading "How do they work". To the best of my knowledge the model usually shows OK.

There should be two images on that page.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

JonB
02-04-2007, 01:35 PM
Billy

Displays OK in Firefox but does NOT display in IE7

JonB

Rob99
02-04-2007, 01:46 PM
The programmer says nothing is wrong, ....

Your assistance would be very much appreciated.
The doctype tag has a leading ' this should not be there, also there is a leading / missing before the image, this may or may not make a difference.


'<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>

<img src="images/fabricprotection.jpg" align="left">
.....<snip>....
<img src="/images/my2blackandwhite.jpg" height="344" width="250">

JonB
02-04-2007, 01:48 PM
The only error I can see is a missing forward slash before the word "images" on the link that does not display. Maybe IE is being picky about that?

Greg
02-04-2007, 02:02 PM
The only error I can see is a missing forward slash before the word "images" on the link that does not display. Maybe IE is being picky about that?Correct.

Billy, tell him to replace:

<img src="images/fabricprotection.jpg" align="left" >

With:

<img src="images/fabricprotection.jpg" />

plod
02-04-2007, 02:10 PM
ok safari osx

TGoddard
02-04-2007, 03:14 PM
I see the image (Firefox 1.5.0.10 NetBSD) and find it utterly hilarious. If this is an April fool's joke then you're a bit late. The device advertised is simply a tin foil hat for the unborn. In fact it would be less effective because it doesn't form an enclosure at all so it doesn't even approximate a Faraday cage.


Such hats are very uncommon in mainstream society, as the injuries they might guard against are highly speculative, and their effectiveness in preventing such harm would be dubious even if the danger were plausible.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat

Billy T
02-04-2007, 06:35 PM
The device advertised is simply a tin foil hat for the unborn. In fact it would be less effective because it doesn't form an enclosure at all so it doesn't even approximate a Faraday cage.
Actually you not quite right in your assumptions there TG, the fabric used is quite an effective suppressor of HF emfs, and although it cannot emulate a true Faraday shield, it can definitely minimise exposure. It is a product in use by the military in some countries and by industry in many.

Regardless of its efficacy, one of the most potent sources of harm for the unborn is stress in the mother, and if wearing such a garment gives the mother peace of mind, then it would have achieved its purpose even if it had no shielding capability at all. However, as I said it has been tested and found effective, and although I am not personally associated with the product, I have sighted official letters arising from military testing and personally I'm satisfied that it is effective within technological limits, and will be beneficial to the users, though I have no requirement for it myself. I have also tested a sample made into a pouch and it is not possible to establish contact with a cellular phone when it is shielded by this material.

As for tinfoil hats for the unborn, I had not seen that proposal, however following your link I noted these comments:


The belief that a tin-foil hat can significantly reduce the intensity of incident RF radiation on the wearer's brain is not completely without a basis in scientific fact.

Of course this is a selective quotation, as was yours, and I believe that it is best to allow people to seek out and employ whatever resource they believe can offer them security. I drink tap water, others believe it is poisoning them. To each his (or her) own.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

Metla
02-04-2007, 07:08 PM
If its only use is to calm the paranoid fears of the mother then it is indeed the equal of a tin foil hat, and it can be said that variations of such hat are used by the miltary and industry.

Personally, If Mrs Metla strapped on such a garment, we would be having a little chat about her state of mind.

godfather
02-04-2007, 08:41 PM
If Mrs gf looked as good as that I would be chatting promptly as well.

Billy T
03-04-2007, 10:44 AM
Thank you all for the constructive comments, they have been forwarded to the site owner who has in turn passed them on to the programmer.

The owner wishes me to express his sincere appreciation for your assistance. He was very impressed to see 17 new site visitors from around the country and 7 repeat visits, and in a matter of a few hours you gave him the confirmation and information needed to eliminate a problem that has been ongoing for several months. All he needs now is for the programmer to knuckle down and fix it.

Just for the scoffers and doubters, in addition to established military applications, clothing incorporating this material has been tested and ISO certified in Europe for protection when working on live radio transmitting masts and in other hot RF environments. Despite the compromises over a true Faraday cage, it is nonetheless effective and efficient.

The material and the products produced from it have nothing to do with the loony fringe of foil-cap wearers and other fruit-loops who (judging by their forum posts) mainly seem to be trying to prevent mind control by hostile people and/or aliens, so Mrs Metla is safe for the present. :D

Personal shielding products are without doubt targeted at a niche market, but that market is large enough to sustain some fairly big manufacturers so who are we to judge the health concerns, buying decisions (or mental status) of others?

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

Metla
03-04-2007, 01:30 PM
Excellent, The next time Mrs Metla is pregnant AND climbing a live radio transmitting mast I will insist she wears such a garment.

Billy T
04-04-2007, 06:51 PM
The website developer claims to have fixed the problems overnight, but I see no difference in IE 5.5 or 6.0. Would Rob99, JonB or Greg mind looking again please, and post again if you can see what's wrong now?

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. My lack of knowledge here is only exceeded by that of my friend who owns the site, so he is totally reliant on external advice such as yours when he goes back to the developer. It works OK on his Mac, which uses IE5.0.

Cheers

Billy 8-{) :groan:

Jen
04-04-2007, 07:11 PM
Could be wrong seeing as I know little about webpage design, but I notice that the missing image html coding is missing a forward / slash infront of the image path.

eg:

<img src="images/fabricprotection.jpg" align="left" alt="">
instead of:

<img src="/images/fabricprotection.jpg" align="left" alt="">

Other browsers may handle this missing / better than Windows IE. I can see the image fine in Firefox. :)

Further edit: I see Rob99 mentioned this missing / a few days ago.

Speedy Gonzales
04-04-2007, 07:15 PM
It works in IE 7 now tho.

Graham L
04-04-2007, 07:41 PM
That was mentioned by a few posters yesterday, so I didn't bother.

The difference between "/images/..." and "images/..." is significant, and is not something which different browsers should handle differently. The two forms specify two directories called "images" which, in general, are in different places. They are explicit file specifiers in the web site's file system on the server. Consider a web site stored as

site.com/index.html
site.com/htmlfiles/page1.html
site.com/htmlfiles/page2.html
site.com/htmlfiles/images/pic1.jpg
site.com/htmlfiles/images/pic2.jpg
site.com/images/pic1.jpg ; may be different from the other pic1.jpg
site.com/images/pic3.jpg
If the /htmlfiles/page1.html files contains references to /images/pic1.jpg and images/pic1.jpg the one with the leading "/" refers to a file in the root of the site tree, the other refers to a file in the images directory at the same level.

If the /index.html contains references to both, the site.com/images/ directory is specified by both forms of the address.

If there is no /images directory or if there isn't one at the same directory level as the calling .html file the server should return a "file not found" error. I suppose a browser might try adding or removing a leading "/" and retrying the request in the same way that some browsers have tried adding a "www." prefix to a site's address, or even adding a ".com" suffix. But it's a bit flakey. This would be the browser trying to fix bad coding in the web site. Modifying user entries might be permissible, being "user friendly". But the web site programmer should see an error while testing and fix it. A browser which "tries to help" is doing harm.

JonB
04-04-2007, 09:50 PM
Yesterday IE7 did not display the image, today it does!
The code is the same <img src="images/fabricprotection.jpg" :rolleyes:

also the code for the gif image <img src="images/mummywraps3.gif" has no leading forward slash but seems to display OK, does this display in earlier IE browsers? It may not be obvious unless you know it should be there.

The code for the other image is <img src="/images/mummy2blackandwhite.jpg"
complete with leading forward slash which seems to display OK in all browsers.

At least inserting the missing forward slashes will confirm or otherwise if that is the problem.

JonB

Greg
04-04-2007, 10:17 PM
Billy - tell him to get rid of align="left".

Rob99
05-04-2007, 12:05 AM
The slash issue as pointed out already should probally be sorted out first if the images cannot be viewed. I cannot test this as I have no access to the server.

Other corrections:

The page itself

<div class="central">
<table width="760px" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border: solid 1px #7F7D59;">
<tr>

<td class="header" colspan="2">
<img src="images/mummywraps3.gif" width="255px" height="60px" alt="MummyWraps" border="0">
should be changed to

<div id="central">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border: solid 1px #7F7D59;">
<tr>

<td class="header" colspan="2">
<img src="http://www.mummywraps.com/images/mummywraps3.gif" alt="MummyWraps" border="0">Please note I had to use the full path to images when I tested, as have no access to the server.

Also the css file

.central { change to
#central {

Rob99
05-04-2007, 12:25 AM
Just had a thougt, the correction to the css is for that page only, they would need to change all the other pages that use <div class="central"> to <div id="central">

Graham L
05-04-2007, 03:16 PM
Just a thought from me ... The terminology for the leading slash/noslash would be "absolute" or "relative" addressing. The images directory is at the root level, so it's probably OK with either format iff the page code is also at the top ("root" :D ) level, as long as the code remains there. If in some "improvement" of the site the code or the images directory is moved there will be problems.

Billy T
08-04-2007, 09:18 PM
Well, the site is not fixed yet and I get the feeling that there is a certain lack of professionalism being exhibited by the developer. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that my friend is in the hands of a 20.15.19.19.5.18 or possibly even a 23.1.14.11.5.18. However, I am not into such hasty judgements so I will await further developments.

All your suggestions and advice have been forwarded in full, the site owner is very grateful, and I live in hope of ultimately achieving a satisfactory resolution!

Cheers

Billy 8-{) :illogical

JonB
08-04-2007, 10:58 PM
The source code for each of the jpg images now has the leading forward slash in place and they display OK in my IE7. Although the gif image for the MummyWraps banner does not have the leading forward slash in the source code it does display OK, but in the interests of consistent code, should'nt it also be in there?
JonB

Billy T
10-04-2007, 11:52 AM
Site is still not fixed in terms of IE5.5 and IE6.0, though I believe most of your recommendations have been implemented.

There are also further functional problems with the site in the payments section and I believe that the site owner will soon be looking at legal action against the developer if all issues are not rectified forthwith.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

Billy T
12-04-2007, 11:00 AM
Well, thanks to your skilled and much appreciated assistance, as of this morning the site is finally functional in IE5.5 and IE6.0. I would appreciate any comments you may wish to make about the repaired code because I do see image size and placement variations between 5.5 and 6.0, but I guess I shouldn't be too picky, at least it is now working.

The site owner again conveys his sincere appreciation for your assistance and he has commented on the huge increase in hits from NZ that the site has taken since this thread was started.

He has one question that he would like me to ask, and that is whether or not there is any self-regulatory body of webmasters to whom he might refer his concerns about the performance of this particular web designer. Clearly he will be seeking some redress but he is unsure if there is any organisation he can approach for advice.

Thanks again to all who helped, you well deserve a three-thumbs award for your valued contributions.

Cheers

Billy 8-{) :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Greg
12-04-2007, 12:20 PM
He has one question that he would like me to ask, and that is whether or not there is any self-regulatory body of webmasters to whom he might refer his concerns about the performance of this particular web designer. Clearly he will be seeking some redress but he is unsure if there is any organisation he can approach for advice.
No, and neither should there be.

There is an organisation who proffess to be a standards body for the industry. But they're a group of schmucks who've joined a schmuck who's not honestly intent on representing the industry but is looking at getting himself a cash cow.

If your client/friend wants to express his disapproval in the developer's work it's easy enough to walk away - cancel the service.

Rob99
12-04-2007, 12:39 PM
The code is still not that flash, but would appear to work in most browsers which is the main thing I spose.

Overall the site looks good, and I'm guessing it works well.

When was/is the "go live" date, if the site was completed before then I guess there is nothing to complain about, completed after I would ask for some free hosting or discount.

Greg
12-04-2007, 01:06 PM
When was/is the "go live" date, if the site was completed before then I guess there is nothing to complain about, completed after I would ask for some free hosting or discount.The site is live - has been for at least nearly two weeks, at least since PF1 was made aware of it.

Fair point though - if the site was created without an approval before publishing then the end-customer may have valid reason for complaint. Still doesn't matter too much to me though - the customer and/or their agent has gone out of their way to rectify things.

If the end result is what the developer/designer intended and meets more or less what the customer requires, then there's little room for complaint.

Billy T
12-04-2007, 01:30 PM
The site has been live for months, but was extensively delayed in getting to that stage by extraordinarily slow work performance from the developer. Back then even I recommended that he change horses but he is too nice for his own good and not knowing anything about what was involved or reasonable time-scales he want to give the guy a fair go.

I advised him of the image issues several months back, but he could see them all (he has IE5.0 on his Mac) and when he asked a variety of his contacts they all said it was OK as well. Problem is, they are an unknown quantity and possibly use ancient browsers too. Even if they used IE5.5 or 6.0 I doubt that they would have realised anything was wrong.

My friend is patient and tolerant to a fault and if I had not decided to seek your assistance I could never have convinced him that it wasn't working properly. Believe me, I tried! He was aware that the E-commerce part was shonky though, but only found that out recently as well.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)