Print

[Seoson]

Hey Guys,
Just a small Bug:


Maybe it was designed to be a part of the border, but it looks strange.
EDIT: Did some research. Seems to be a bug, not a strange idea of Cespur.

Browser: Firefox 3.6, Internet Explorer 8

Part of style.css

Code: [Select]

h2#download a {
padding-left: 40px;
padding-bottom: -50px;
color: #FFFFFF;
font-size: 14px;
}

Negative values are not allowed in a padding. See the W3C Documentation for CSS.

More coming soon and add a . (dot) after the last Inc in the footer.

Best regards,
Seoson

[pıʞoɹʎd]

Fixed:
1. That odd text placement in the disclaimer.
2. That one tiny white pixel Dr4x noticed (http://i49.tinypic.com/28mohzc.jpg).
3. Changed padding to margin.

I sent Boylett a new batch of updates.

[Coscos007]

I dont have ideia why, but Niko doesnt show here.
I'm using firefox 3.6 beta.
Using IE it appears :d

[pıʞoɹʎd]

Alright, Boylett hooked me up with access to the site's FTP so I fixed everything myself. Now that I have access I can fix bugs ASAP. Let me know of any.

I dont have ideia why, but Niko doesnt show here.
I'm using firefox 3.6 beta.
Using IE it appears :d

I tested the site with FF 3.5.7. You can always expect a new version of a browser to break a little CSS. Also, what is your resolution, if it's too small that could also cause some visual problems.

[pıʞoɹʎd]

New stuff:
- Comments remembers your details.
- Pages added to comments.

[Coscos007]

Alright, Boylett hooked me up with access to the site's FTP so I fixed everything myself. Now that I have access I can fix bugs ASAP. Let me know of any.

I dont have ideia why, but Niko doesnt show here.
I'm using firefox 3.6 beta.
Using IE it appears :d

I tested the site with FF 3.5.7. You can always expect a new version of a browser to break a little CSS. Also, what is your resolution, if it's too small that could also cause some visual problems.

My resolution is 1280x1024 ;d

[pıʞoɹʎd]

I just updated my FF to 3.6 (dunno why Firefox never prompted me to update.. probably because Chrome is my default browser now ). Anyways, I don't see any problems at all with 3.6 at 1440x900.

Can anyone else with 3.6 confirm anything is wrong?

[Christopher]

just a note, i am running on 1920 x 1080 (HD) and the site looks brill, (Browser: Safari)

[pıʞoɹʎd]

just a note, i am running on 1920 x 1080 (HD) and the site looks brill, (Browser: Safari)

What is brill...?

[Seoson]

brilliant?

[pıʞoɹʎd]

This appears to be a brill:

[Cameron (No1Servers.com)]

This appears to be a brill:

lol XD

[beyorn]

I just updated my FF to 3.6 (dunno why Firefox never prompted me to update.. probably because Chrome is my default browser now ). Anyways, I don't see any problems at all with 3.6 at 1440x900.

Can anyone else with 3.6 confirm anything is wrong?

Here's a picture, and I can't see any problems with the site?
1440x900


I guess this isn't a bug, it's just the picture which is too big for the screen.
1280x768

[pıʞoɹʎd]

Got it. Fix is on the way.

[pıʞoɹʎd]

Check it now.