Bugs? Problems? Report them here!

[ErnieM]

Often, I forget the correct format when using the float=. I suggest including the correct placement of the text description as in: [float={leftIright}]images or videos[/float]text description

[Beyond]

Is anyone (besides me) having a problem with the smilie popup window?
When i click on a smilie in the window, the smilie gets posted, but at the same time the popup window goes beneath what's showing on my screen, so i have to shrink what's on my screen to be able to see the smilie window so i can close it.
This started about the beginning of November, or shortly thereafter. The visible smilies to the right work just fine. It's just the popup window smilies.

[rstevenson]

Nope!

Sounds like a browser issue. Did you update (or let your system's auto-updater update) your browser recently?

One workaround: your browser's menus should contain one called Window. Select the pop-up there and it will come forward so you don't have to shrink your main window.

Rob

[Beyond]

Nope!

Sounds like a browser issue. Did you update (or let your system's auto-updater update) your browser recently?

One workaround: your browser's menus should contain one called Window. Select the pop-up there and it will come forward so you don't have to shrink your main window.

Rob

Everythings up to date.
As for your "workaround", i don't know what you're speaking of. I don't have anything in my Windows 7 that's labeled "window".

[owlice]

Way at the top of your BROWSER window (not talking Windows 7 here), there should be a menu that is similar (but not identical) to this one (this is just a small part of the menu), with "Window" as one of the options:

Screen shot 2013-12-01 at 10.15.19 AM.png (12.29 KiB) Viewed 55965 times

[geckzilla]

Heh, get outta here you Macintosh people. Windows users don't have that.

[Chris Peterson]

Heh, get outta here you Macintosh people. Windows users don't have that.

Windows users don't have a menu bar like that in their browser? I sure do!

[Beyond]

Way at the top of your BROWSER window (not talking Windows 7 here), there should be a menu that is similar (but not identical) to this one (this is just a small part of the menu), with "Window" as one of the options:

Screen shot 2013-12-01 at 10.15.19 AM.png

Right! You're not talking Windows 7. Up in the right-hand corner, i have a 3-part bar: 1)-minimize 2)-restore down 3)-the red close, that takes you out of everything.
Directly below that, is the favorites star and the Tools gear. The only other thing up top, is the address bar.

[geckzilla]

I don't even have a menu bar in Firefox. If I do turn on the menu bar, Window is not one of the options.

[owlice]

I'm using Firefox 25.0.1 on a MacBook Pro running Mac OS 10.6.8 (yeah, old. sosumi), and here's my Firefox menu bar (click to enbiggen):

[Chris Peterson]

I don't even have a menu bar in Firefox. If I do turn on the menu bar, Window is not one of the options.

Of course, I turn on the menu bar on Firefox and other apps that attempt to break the elegant Windows interface. But you're right, Firefox doesn't have a Window menu because it uses tabs to access its separate windows. Depending on how the tabs are configured, popups may be created in a separate tab rather than a separate window, or blocked completely.

I have smilies disabled in this forum, but when I click on them I do get a popup, whether or not I have an exception to blocking enabled for this domain. So the popup is being managed by some kind of script, I guess. Perhaps people having problems are running some kind of script blocking tools, or have certain scripting options disabled in the browser itself.

[owlice]

Hmmmm... I'm running Firefox, with tabs, and still have a "Window" menu item, which is useful when I have more than one Firefox window running.

I often have two Firefox windows open, each with numerous tabs in them.

Screen shot 2013-12-01 at 10.48.10 AM.png (43.72 KiB) Viewed 55955 times

[Chris Peterson]

Hmmmm... I'm running Firefox, with tabs, and still have a "Window" menu item, which is useful when I have more than one Firefox window running.

I often have two Firefox windows open, each with numerous tabs in them.

I think that's something enforced by your operating system, which manages application menus (quite unlike Windows). Whether or not there is a Window menu in a Windows application depends on how it creates new Windows. Some apps (like Word) instantiate windows within a single application instance. Some (like Firefox) create multiple application instances. In the former case you need a Windows menu; in the latter it makes no sense. Because the Windows UI gives you application icons that themselves show separate windows, the Window menu item isn't needed.

If you think you're missing a Window in Firefox in Vista or later, the place to look for it is in the application icon at the bottom of the screen, which is effectively the same thing as the Window menu at the top of your Mac screen.

windows.gif (15.1 KiB) Viewed 55952 times

[rstevenson]

I continue to get no joy from the imghover/hide combination of tags, which are supposed to make it possible to show a blink comparison between two images. The latest post using these tags is this one.

I've tried this post (and previous ones) in Firefox, Safari and Opera, all the latest versions, all running in my iMac under Mac OS X v10.6.8. They all show the same thing: both images visible, one above the other; no blink, no hover effect at all.

Any suggestions?

Rob

PS
I should mention that although Firefox is tuned to my liking in a number of ways, being my main browser, the other two are bog standard, as installed, because I like to use them to test web sites I work on.

[Chris Peterson]

I continue to get no joy from the imghover/hide combination of tags, which are supposed to make it possible to show a blink comparison between two images. The latest post using these tags is this one.

I've tried this post (and previous ones) in Firefox, Safari and Opera, all the latest versions, all running in my iMac under Mac OS X v10.6.8. They all show the same thing: both images visible, one above the other; no blink, no hover effect at all.

Any suggestions?

Rob

PS
I should mention that although Firefox is tuned to my liking in a number of ways, being my main browser, the other two are bog standard, as installed, because I like to use them to test web sites I work on.

Did you try looking at the page source to see if there are any obvious things missing? The hover is implemented with CSS, so you should see lots of style tags.

FWIW, I looked at the example you linked using Safari on two of my reference OS X VMs, running versions 10.6.2 and 10.7.3 and everything worked fine. Any chance you have some sort of utility running that filters CSS in some way?

Also, because of phpBB limitations, hover images using downloaded files are implemented in an odd way, requiring that the actual separate images be on the same page. They are normally hidden, however. You may be seeing those, and not seeing the hover set at all.

For reference, your page source should look like this in the relevant area:

[geckzilla]

If you look at this page: http://asterisk.apod.com/style.php?id=1&lang=en

If you scroll all the way to the very bottom, you can see the Aterisk-specific CSS I have written for the board. It should occupy the bottom 27 lines of and it look like this:

Code: Select all

.postbody .content a { border-bottom: none; text-decoration: underline; }
.postbody .content a img { border: 1px solid #666; padding: 3px; background: #FFF; }
.postbody .content a img:hover { border-color: #368ad2; }
.postbody .content img {
	max-width: 400px;
}
a.imghover .second { display: none !important; }
a.imghover:hover .first { display: none !important; }
a.imghover:hover .second { display: inline !important; }

table.asterisk td { width: 33%; }

table.pretty {
	border-collapse: collapse;
	border: 2px solid #BBB;
	width: auto;
}

table.pretty td, table.pretty th {
	border: 1px solid #BBB;
	padding: 2px 8px;
	width: auto;
}

table.pretty th { border-bottom-width: 2px; }

table.pretty a { border: 0; }

The imghover definitions are the pertinent ones.

[rstevenson]

Did you try looking at the page source to see if there are any obvious things missing? The hover is implemented with CSS, so you should see lots of style tags.

FWIW, I looked at the example you linked using Safari on two of my reference OS X VMs, running versions 10.6.2 and 10.7.3 and everything worked fine. Any chance you have some sort of utility running that filters CSS in some way?

Also, because of phpBB limitations, hover images using downloaded files are implemented in an odd way, requiring that the actual separate images be on the same page. They are normally hidden, however. You may be seeing those, and not seeing the hover set at all.

For reference, your page source should look like this in the relevant area:

capture.gif

That's the code I see when I view source. I pasted the code into my code editor and checked the syntax. There were a few errors which may contribute to the problem. First, the IMG tags are malformed. The page has a doctype of XHTML, which requires the IMG tags to be closed with a slash. Perhaps that is throwing off the rendering. Second, there are two DIVs inside of the SPAN which holds the pair of non-hover images. This may be causing the hover image to be rendered beneath them, or not to be rendered at all. If the Asterisk is going to use an XHTML doctype, the code has to be tighter than when it was plain old forgiving HTML.

Rob

[Chris Peterson]

That's the code I see when I view source. I pasted the code into my code editor and checked the syntax. There were a few errors which may contribute to the problem. First, the IMG tags are malformed. The page has a doctype of XHTML, which requires the IMG tags to be closed with a slash. Perhaps that is throwing off the rendering. Second, there are two DIVs inside of the SPAN which holds the pair of non-hover images. This may be causing the hover image to be rendered beneath them, or not to be rendered at all. If the Asterisk is going to use an XHTML doctype, the code has to be tighter than when it was plain old forgiving HTML.

The errors are probably coming from the phpBB engine. They might not be fixable by the site operators. But browsers are very tolerant of the problems you've identified, and in any case, other people using the same browsers aren't seeing the problem. Seems much more likely that you have a system problem of some sort.

[geckzilla]

Did you check your CSS, Rob? This is perplexing to me. If I had to guess I would say it is ignoring the !important declaration.

Chris: Usually that is the case like with the preexisting BBCodes like Img or the attachment codes, but I can sort of do what I want with the BBCodes that we come up with ourselves. Let me see if I can un-hack this and make it a little tighter so poor Rob can finally blink images again. The strict closing tag is now present.

Rob, if you are familiar with CSS and html, if you save the page locally and are able to isolate the problem (assuming the closing slash isn't it) then that would greatly expedite things.

[rstevenson]

With your changes I can now see the closing slash in the IMG tags in View Source, and the page now loads the correct blinkable image set in both Opera and Safari (which are both unmodified, as installed, as I mentioned above.) I still get the two images and no blink in my main browser, Firefox. That may be because I have some conflicting addon installed, or it may just be that Firefox has cached something it won't let go of. Not to worry, the code is cleaner now and will work for the vast majority of users.

Thanks,

Rob

[geckzilla]

I think it was already working for the vast majority of users. Thanks for telling me it wasn't working for you. There's no way for me to know it otherwise.

[fairfoul]

Under “Education”, in the “APOD In The Classroom” section, in Dr. Nemiroff’s first paragraph, the “search” link no longer connects to the search page.

[geckzilla]

Under “Education”, in the “APOD In The Classroom” section, in Dr. Nemiroff’s first paragraph, the “search” link no longer connects to the search page.

I mailed the editors with your report.

[mrbeanreads]

I recently bought a faster/better computer, and my OS is Windows 8.1. But like it was when I had a slower computer system, the APOD Wallpaper will not update when there is some kind of video involved - the message in the status line is "this type of image is not supported". ?? I could see where that might be a problem back when I had a 572 MB RAM Windows XP Pro system, but now I have a 1.6 GB RAM Windows 8.1 - so shouldn't the "APOD videos" be supported? Is there another link to a "better" APOD Wallpaper program?

[Chris Peterson]

I recently bought a faster/better computer, and my OS is Windows 8.1. But like it was when I had a slower computer system, the APOD Wallpaper will not update when there is some kind of video involved - the message in the status line is "this type of image is not supported". ?? I could see where that might be a problem back when I had a 572 MB RAM Windows XP Pro system, but now I have a 1.6 GB RAM Windows 8.1 - so shouldn't the "APOD videos" be supported? Is there another link to a "better" APOD Wallpaper program?

This has nothing to do with your computer. Wallpaper is static, so you can't have a video wallpaper. A program designed to replace your wallpaper daily might try to find a static picture at the APOD page, but may not find one. In any case, such programs are produced by third parties who have no connection to the APOD site itself.