is dillo ready for load_background_images=YES in a release?
Once you know that load_background_images can be toggled from the menu, it's good, but our css/rendering is still incomplete enough that background images obscure text rather frequently. I think load_background_images=YES by default may make the experience of trying out dillo a negative one.
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:22:18PM +0000, eocene wrote:
Once you know that load_background_images can be toggled from the menu, it's good, but our css/rendering is still incomplete enough that background images obscure text rather frequently. I think load_background_images=YES by default may make the experience of trying out dillo a negative one.
I'm running dillo with load_background_images=YES for quite a while now and I like it more than without it. Of course your personal experience heavily depends on what sites you go to. Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes things worse? Cheers, Johannes
Johannes wrote:
I'm running dillo with load_background_images=YES for quite a while now and I like it more than without it. Of course your personal experience heavily depends on what sites you go to. Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes things worse?
I just started turning it on regularly for this persistent connections testing, and had been browsing as much to exercise that code as to _browse_, so I don't remember much at the moment. But I happen to remember that the appearance of the top of http://straightdope.com was dismaying.
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 02:11:14PM +0000, eocene wrote:
Johannes wrote:
I'm running dillo with load_background_images=YES for quite a while now and I like it more than without it. Of course your personal experience heavily depends on what sites you go to. Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes things worse?
I just started turning it on regularly for this persistent connections testing, and had been browsing as much to exercise that code as to _browse_, so I don't remember much at the moment. But I happen to remember that the appearance of the top of http://straightdope.com was dismaying.
Interesting. They try to move the text somewhere to the left to make it invisible if CSS is enabled: #header .site_tagline a { display: block; width: 788px; height: 116px; text-indent: -2000px; } I guess we don't support this negative text-indent.
Johannes wrote:
I guess we don't support this negative text-indent.
Did we ever do anything about negative margins? I remember that being brought up in the early stages of css, where it wasn't going to be easy to get dw to deal with it...
On So, Apr 06, 2014, eocene wrote:
Johannes wrote:
I guess we don't support this negative text-indent.
Did we ever do anything about negative margins? I remember that being brought up in the early stages of css, where it wasn't going to be easy to get dw to deal with it...
I plan a redesign of dw sizes soon, after floats, before absolute positions. I'll see how it fits in there. (It's on my list now.) Sebastian
Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes things worse?
About halfway down the page at http://arstechnica.com , there's a picture of a bearded guy, and in hard-to-read gray on the background image there's text like "feature story" and "i had my dna analyzed..." I've noticed how sometimes the top of a background image will be repeated, and wondered why that happens.
participants (3)
-
eocene＠gmx.com -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
sgeerken＠dillo.org