I'm extremely new to Media Queries so I was playing with the min-width: attributes with my Firefox 12.0 and noticed that it just wasn't working. After some playing around and after experimenting with this lovely website
http://barrow.io/lab/media-query-viewport/
I found out that the minimum min-width that my Firefox supports on my machine (it's an XP box) is 615px. Why? I'm trying to play with Media Queries so that I can make a website that works well on many devices as well as desktops. This includes devices that are 480 and 320 pixels wide. With Firefox not allowing me to test the smaller widths it's going to seriously affect my development.
Is there any kind of a work-around for this other than trying a different browser?
Thanks.
EDIT: Now that my Firefox has gone through a few upgrades (now at v22) this is not longer a problem. I'm glad it got fixed.
As of this: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/772847#answer-125895,
Firefox supports no more than 480 width, so if you want to test for 320 px, you must use a different browser. I would point out that if you want to test smartphones on your site, you should be using smartphone browsers on smartphone hardware... not just desktop browsers set to really small resolutions, which is what it sounds like you were trying to do.
There's a simple workaround: load the site in an iframe of your desired width.
Oh, and as for why, the behavior you observe is due to the Firefox user interface not shrinking down below a certain width for some reason. Often due to extensions mucking with the UI.
Use the Web Developer toolbar extension and you can see a selection of common screen sizes by selecting Resize > View Responsive Layouts
Here is the simple solution
install chromEditPlus Plugin from here http://webdesigns.ms11.net/chromeditp.html
And then Goto Tool-> ChromEdit Plus-> ChromEdit
select userChrome.css pannel
copy and pate below code Save then restart
#namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"); /* only needed once */
#main-window:not([chromehidden~="toolbar"]) {
min-width: 200px !important;
}
Thus solved the Problem this made your windows minimun to 200px
Thanks
Related
I'm developing a React project in Windows 10 and the issue I've come across is that my website design looks too big(when on 100% resolution of Chrome) on my laptop screen and works fine on 75%, I guess it's rendering the design of large screens on my laptop. Please guide me how to get rid of this problem and view the website in normal mode.
I've set my Window's Scale and Layout as 150%(Recommended), and Resolution of 1920 * 1800(Recommended), but when I view my website in the Chrome inspect tool at the dimension of 1920, it seems fine but when I view it in normal mode, then it content becomes so bigger.
Note: You might say that it's due to 150% but I've also checked by decreasing this, it decreases all the other content on screen but website looks same.
Please note that Chrome's resolution and Window's layout are two different things mentioned above,
first one is set to 100% and the second is 150%.
I'm at a loss as to why my website (violetoeuvre.com) display differently on a PC than on a Mac. It might be plausible if I was using different browsers, but I'm using Chrome in both cases.
I can't figure out why Emma Carmichael and the navigation at the top (Writing, Blog, Contact) is a little above the black on the PC, but bleeds into the white on a Mac (what i want).
Mac:http://imgur.com/ZDRpMDj
PC: http://imgur.com/E5TbV4K
Thanks!
Are the images randomized? They are two different images shown. Is there a chance on is a chance one has a cached version with different CSS / HTML?
How about posting the code for the page - maybe someone will know the intricacies of mac vs pc in chrome with respect to the elements you're using.
I guess issue is with height of black section.
try giving height of black section in %.
That might work!!
Hope it helps.
I've just downloaded the latest Nivo slider 3.2 as I need it on a responsive site and out of the box with no modifications the transitions in ie7 and ie8 don't work.
They simply flick between images - no sliceDown or Fade they just rotate.
I've used it in the past with no problems - I've just view 2.6 in ie7 and ie8 and it's fine.
Does anyone know what can be done to fix it?
I've just checked out their demo too http://nivo.dev7studios.com/responsive-demo/ and the same issue is happening there.
Cheers
Just sharing what worked on my site -- I was using the default demo code, pretty much unedited from the download. It was beautiful and responsive (which I wanted) in all of the browsers I tested, except any version of i.e.. If i.e., it was just a rotation, no effects.
However, when I designated a size dimension for the wrapper div and the image divs, the transitions worked in i.e. also. (height: 350px;) You can specify the dimension in your css/stylesheet or inline -- if that's what it takes.
On my site, I only needed to specify a height dimension; for your site, you might need both height and width, or just width. A little experimentation was all it took.
But, with the height dimension specified, this threw off the display in the other browsers, so the dimension needs to be specified in terms of a "hack" for internet explorer: either a separate stylesheet just for internet explorer users or by using whatever your favorite internet explorer hacking method is: underscore, or \9, and so on. Here's a list of useful internet explorer workarounds, just for reference: internet explorer hacks
I know we hate to recommend hacking, but we all do it :). Would love to find out why this one worked for me, maybe there's a better way without the hack.
I am having trouble with a custom template I currently have on my website: http://irishgourmet.ie
In the latest versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari the images in the image placeholder (top right) all load fine and in the correct dimensions. However in the latest version of IE, the first image loads fine then the subsequent images are huge. This trend applies to every category page.
Anyone have any ideas?
Firstly, definitely get your hands on Firebug Lite for IE. I use the bookmarklet. It takes a while to load on some versions, but has definitely saved my ass more than once.
Secondly, I'm having quite the opposite problem. I see no issue with the images in the very top right, but if you'r referring to the image carousel on the right, the first carousel image is fine, but the others are being set to
width: 178px;
height: 30px;
And are loading very small. They look like this
Hope this helps in some way.
We have a website that currently serves drawings to users via the SVG Viewer plugin. We have one client that sees it through IE8. With IE8, when they do a Change Zoom Level on the browser to anything other then 100%, the viewer tries to occupy the new space and zooms correctly. However, when the user tries to manipulate the frames inside that bound the viewer (it's a frameset website with the viewer being in the center) the entire site hangs. IE8 also shows that it takes up CPU cycles on the client computer, so it's trying to do something but hitting a loop.
I don't think this is actually our code and might just be something with SVG and how IE8 handles plugins and it's zoom. Does anyone know if this is a real problem and if there's a good solution?
If you are referring to the Adobe SVG Viewer plug-in, then I recommend that you (ideally) get your clients to start using a web browser that supports SVG natively — i.e. Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera; even IE9 (to some extent) — or use a different shim like SVGWeb to provide SVG support for those users of older browsers who also have Flash installed.
I found out what the problem was. I thought it was the SVG viewer trying to do something with the frames, when it turned out that I was just setting the frameset's initial size to the clientHeight and clientWidth, and then subtracting something from the height. That subtraction was a toolbar based in the frameset and, when you change the zoom level in the browser, there's a lock up that can occur with you trying to pull a components size and the client's size. At least, this is what I was seeing.