05
Dec
2010

The site layout has been updated to support Opera. It’s only been tested in Opera 10.63 though, so if it looks batshit insane in whatever version of Opera you’re using, then it must not be 10.63.

In other news, Opera is batshit insane. Not only is the UI wonky and retarded, it also renders pages like it’s on crack in a funhouse mirror room. Seriously, I encountered so much insanity in the process of fixing the layout to work in Opera. Oh and the WYSIWYG development tools are fucked up, too; they’re a nuisance to use in Opera.

*sigh*

18 Responses to “Site Layout Opera Fix”

  1. Rem says:

    All for you, scrubb.

  2. Nakajitos says:

    That’s weird. The webpage never loaded funny on Opera. Was someone complaining?

    • saru says:

      It was functional in Opera, but didn’t display quite right.

      And it turns out almost 7% of visits were from Opera, so it was worth putting a few minutes into.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I love the mascot picture. It’s cute and not pedo!

  4. Error says:

    Um, you do realise that WebKit = Safari/Chrome? It’s like complaining that your DRM’d itunes music doesn’t play on a Samsung MP3 player.

    • Error says:

      Hmm, sorry to be an ass, but I checked the site using W3C’s validator, and it fails both the HTML5 and the XHTML 1.0/1.1 checks. Considering that all Web browsers do near-perfect XHTML 1.0 rendering, methinks there’s an issue with the code, rather than the browser.

      • Rem says:

        I’m not surprised that this theme fails validation, it’s not as if we’re claiming perfect code in the first place. We’re still working on the theme, so this is basically the site’s early stages.

        The issue is that Opera likes to render things differently to both Gecko and Webkit based layout engines. Basically, this means instead of coding two stylesheets for browser compatibility, you need three.

        • Error says:

          To be fair though, not supporting the -moz-* and -webkit-* CSS extensions shouldn’t be a point against any non-Mozilla/WebKit browser. =P

          I can guarantee to you as someone who creates Web applications for a living, an XHTML 1.0 site with CSS 2.1 stylesheet will look exactly the same in Chrome, Safari 4+, Firefox 3+, Opera 10+, and IE7+.

          Mind you, JavaScript and AJAX are another matter. Here, all the browsers suck in very specific but important cases. =/

          • saru says:

            XHTML 1.0/CSS 2.1 do not render even close to exactly the same across browsers. Unless the markup you’re working with is incredibly simple, which usually it’s not.

      • saru says:

        The site validates now. Both the XHTML 1.1/CSS 2.1 and HTML 5/CSS 3 versions (with the exception of the CSS causing warnings for vendor-prefixed properties).

        And just for the record, Opera still renders the site like ass without its own special CSS file to fix things. Actually, now it jacks up the footer. But I don’t really care about that.

        • Error says:

          My clients wouldn’t pay me if my sites were simple, but that’s not the point. I was going to retort more about the XHTML compatibility, but then I looked at your source, and remembered the deadline disaster of my first contracted work because of the damn table element. I will acknowledge your layout complaints because tables suck. =/

          In other news, I decided to fire up Opera 10.63 and have it pretend to be Firefox and IE, and compared the look of your site to the real thing. They look exactly the same, but I noticed that vanilla Opera loads the HTML5 version, whereas Firefox and IE8 (real and pretend versions) load the XHTML version.

          I can’t really comment on HTML5 compatibility, since there’s no comprehensive HTML5 compliance test yet that any one browser passes with flying colours, and HTML5 itself is still a draft specification. Unless you want to refer to Microsoft’s IE9 tests that show IE’s 100% compliance versus its competition. =P

          • saru says:

            My layout complaints were not about the table element. Opera is one of the browsers that’s supposed to support HTML 5 and CSS 3 (at least to some degree), so it made sense to send it the HTML 5 version, as I’m a forward-thinking person. For the record, Opera renders the XHTML version just fine (it’s tables all the way down though, so that’s not surprising). The only tables used in the HTML 5 version are on the comments page, where one table is used in each comment for the avatar, username and post time. Oh, and the Projects page uses them, but they make sense there.

            Opera fails hardcore at rendering the non-tables HTML 5 version of the layout, but IE 9 DP, Fx 4 beta and Safari 5 render it, as best I can tell, pixel-for-pixel identically. Building the HTML 5 version of this site was the most enjoyable time I’d had doing web design. Ever. (And then I opened it in Opera, ruining that feeling.)

            So the only thing I can conclude here, is that Opera fails (so far) at HTML 5/CSS 3. And that was the crux of my original post. That, and Opera having a wonky UI.

          • Error says:

            (This is supposed to be a reply to saru @ 2010/12/10 5:08PM, but comments nesting has a maximum, methinks)

            Fair enough. It would be too much work to test HTML5 with CSS 2.1 to see if it’s an HTML5 or CSS3 compatibility issue.

            Also, as long as you don’t like Firefox 4’s UI, which is pretty much Opera 10, then we’re golden. =P

    • saru says:

      I was under the mistaken impression that Opera used a fork of WebKit.

Leave a Reply