Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.
My son is here for the holiday... and I posed the problem of web site colors to him.
This is what we found.
The Snitz forum html code declares colors for some of the subscreens such as in this message composer window as navy blue. The problem is that Mozilla browser and likely Netscape don't understand navy blue and render it black instead. The black background makes reading dark blue text almost impossible.
Html discipline has evolved and newer code such as used with version (3.4.03) as depicted on the Snitz web site has changed to using hex code for the colors instead of color names and thus solves the rendering problem for Mozilla and Netscape. Mozilla can do navy blue just fine... but only when it is identified by the navy blue hex number rather than by the words navy blue.
Here is what I hope can happen... Either upgrade Snitz version from 3.3.03 2000 to 3.4.03 2002(probably the easiest) or edit the code of the current version in use. We copied the html code from the current version and ran a test by simple changing the word navy blue to the hexnumber for navy blue and viola...normal color with Mozilla browser.
Can we fix this? I bring it up here instead of sending to you direct... because there may be others who may wonder why the colors are messed up. I don't want to go back to IE browser as Mozilla seems much better to me.
There might be some other advantages of upgrading to a newer version of Snitz... I noticed that the composer window has a faces tool bar that is considerably easier and faster to use than the faces subroutine of this version which has to be opened and closed to grab a face.
There may be other improvements as well.
If needing to stay with current version... I can supply the locations and hex codes for an edit to fix the color problem.
Just can't fall into line behind Bill Gates, huh Arlyn? <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> I know of so many sites, particularly commercial ones, that don't even support Netscape... I'll speculate that Bill added that color just to get you and Mozilla!
Dave Bristle - 1985 C-25 #5032 SR-FK-Dinette-Honda "Passage" in SW CT
Of all the colors...only one does not render properly in Mozilla... and that would be navy blue... the color that Snitz used in their code. I think that has to be more than a coincidence. To further add to that... the text color is a very dark blue...which renders it just about impossible to see against the black background that results in Mozilla. Some one intentionally created that dillema.
I'm not anti Bill Gates... I like Mozilla for no other reasons than what it offers.
It has tabbed windows... its very easy to open several web sites and tab back and forth between them...which is far better than IE.
It has a built in pop up blocker.
It has a built in web page publisher that is quite good and produces error free html code.
It allows integration of many tools such as a spell checker, Google task bar, Checky tools...etc.
The good news is that html code discipline has made it a cheap shot to continue that tactic... hence probably why Snitz has changed their coding to hex. Its very possible that this was one of the issues that Bill gates had to stipulate too to avoid anti trust issues.
I'd bet a gold guinea that Bill Gates made a sizable contribution to the Snitz programmning effort... and in so doing, suggested he liked navy blue background with dark blue text.
If Bill was trying to Snitz Mozilla he shot himself in the foot.....I use Internet Explorer (OK, so it's on a MAC) and the purple? text on the dark (blackish) background of the member's profiles is not legible to me.
Spike's bandaid was to hit "select all" from the edit menu. This highlights the text against a different color and makes it legible. With the keystroke short cut it goes quickly. But I'm probably telling you something you already knew.....
This has turned out to be even more interesting... Mozilla has a bug reporting environment called Bugzilla. A search of navy blue there shows that this was reported to be a bug. The developers however, responded and said that it wasn't. That their code was to standards and the inability for it to parse the navy blue word was not their problem.
Someone reminded them that a previous version did not display the black color... and they offered that to be true, that a previous version had an algorithm that provided a substitute color but that it was not a proper match. The current code does not contain that algorithm but defaults to hex zeros when it cannot parse a color, which is black.
This was countered with, why not continue that algorithm for a while longer until html discipline is further along.
The reponse was (and this was very recent), ok... we'll put it on the bug to fix list but as a very low priority.
I think what this means is that... Mozilla has worked very hard towards an international web browsing standard... and they likely feel that others should do so as well... and that this has smackings of cyber political issues. It seems possible that Mozilla is flexing its muscles as it rapidly climbs in popularity to push for these standards... one of which is better html code on the web which includes using hex codes for colors rather than conventional names that in the past have been proprietary.
And, it seems that such effort is paying off... hence perhaps why Snitz has changed their coding in their new version.
Oscar, it would be interesting for you to run the color test from the web site listed above. It will run the test by using the color word and then the hex code. See if navy blue renders properly in your browser when its using hex compared to navy blue. Or, go to the Snitz web site and and attempt to compose a message and see what happens with the background color.
Ran that test...interesting. "Navy Blue" was the only discrepancy, its hex equivalent "9FAFDF" was lighter, which, if I understand all this, is exactly the opposite of your problem...oh well. Gotta go drill holes in a boat...more fun.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I think what this means is that... Mozilla has worked very hard towards an international web browsing standard... and they likely feel that others should do so as well... and that this has smackings of cyber political issues. It seems possible that Mozilla is flexing its muscles as it rapidly climbs in popularity to push for these standards... one of which is better html code on the web which includes using hex codes for colors rather than conventional names that in the past have been proprietary. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Well, for Bill, there's only one acceptable kind of standard, and that's the one that requires his software to operate under. The battle will be won on the corporate market playing field, where IE has just about locked things up. Many commercial Web-based systems, including major ERP products, support only IE 5.x and above, based on some of the plug-in interfaces that Bill & Co. have "innovated."
I wish Mozilla luck--Netscape didn't have much...
Dave Bristle - 1985 C-25 #5032 SR-FK-Dinette-Honda "Passage" in SW CT
The hex code which displayed the lighter color you saw was very likely the correct navy blue color and is the color intended produced by the forum. It is supposed to provide a light blue background for a dark blue text and is easily read.
The darker color is the browers inability to handle "navy blue" code and causes a dark background with dark text and is nearly impossible to read.
Ha! I've no misgiving about Microsoft locking up the commercial market. He's after the money, and hence why they have entertained the cheap shots of causing compatibility issues.
Notice that the color issue is a problem even for IE on the Mac.
In fact, Microsoft will no longer provide stand alone upgrades for IE. Future upgrades will only be a part of future operating systems. This means that Mac will not have a future IE. But, sympathies are not necessary for Mac... their doing fine. They have a rock steady platform... their stock is rising.
Mozilla on the other hand, is primarily a volunteer team of interested programmers who do so for the creativity.
That creativity has produced a browser significantly beyond IE. I doubt if they care if it becomes a compeditor for american corporate computers. I think they simply want to offer a better mouse trap for the masses... worldwide. Perhaps similar to Linux wanting to offer simply a rock steady operating system. Both are free, offered simply that others might enjoy the benefit of good, quality code that (like Apple) just works...which they view as and art form to be appreciated.
OK, you talked me into it. Tonight the last thing I'll do is click on the "download now" button and I'll try Mozilla.
There are two web sites which, due to the amount of eye candy and the way data is retrieved, take forever to load their pages through my measily 28K They are a real estate MLS and my work Crew Scheduling. Unlike e-bay and Amazon they are no longer trying to work on dial up connections. The MLS because they just assume every office has a broad band connection (they ignore the little guys at home) and my employer because they are, IMHO trying to force the troops to all get broad band. Some of our training can now be done at home with the interactive web site, but it requires speed. The more folks do it at home, the more money they save.
So, I'll give it a shot. Maybe it'll improve performance.
Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ. The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.