 Mystery background color, My friend edited a page she manages, now there is a color we can't |
  |
| SoTexFred |
 Sep 15 2023, 02:24 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 15-September 23 Member No.: 29,051  |
Hi, a friend asked me to help her with an issue that popped up on a page she manages for a local broker. She added a property to the "Homes" page and it broke the layout somehow. The HTML specifies the background as a dark blue (# 003466) but on some pages, which are supposed to all match in style, a much lighter color (#0105c3) takes over the entire background. Oddly, that color is a background color for the red "ribbon style" buttons on the left of the main section, but nowhere in the code can I find why it now covers most of the page. The result isn't bad where it covers the entire background, it's actually a better color, but on the "Homes" page you can see the dark blue is the background color. That is the blue specified in the HTML, so ok, but why is it only showing on this page? Every other page has the same background color specified in the HTML, but the light blue is displayed. To see a page that renders with the darker blue for the entire background and the banner is centered over the content see wesellporta.com To see a page with the brighter blue visit http://wesellporta.com/condos.htm and to see the broken layout where the banner and column of buttons are offset and the background is dark visit http://wesellporta.com/homes.htm
What is causing these issues? My friend has been designing web pages for a very long time, and she still uses Front Page on some of her older work, so it's possible Front Page (which is really out of date now) is causing these issues, but I can usually track down where the errors are in the source code. These issues have me stumped, any suggestions are appreciated! Attached thumbnail(s) 
|
  |
 
|
| Christian J |
Sep 15 2023, 03:42 PM
Post
#2
|
|
.  Group: WDG Moderators Posts: 9,661 Joined: 10-August 06 Member No.: 7 |
Both http://wesellporta.com and http://wesellporta.com/homes.htm try to load a stylesheet file at http://wesellporta.com/HOMES/css/txt_style.css which is missing, so instead the background color specified in their BODY start tags is used:
CODE <body bgcolor="#003466" ... The logo and menu buttons are made with image files like http://wesellporta.com/images/banner-interior.gif and http://wesellporta.com/images/button-condos1.gif that have their own intrinsic background colors. On the (working) page http://wesellporta.com/condos.htm the CSS file does exist at http://wesellporta.com/css/txt_style.css which specifies the BODY background color as #0105C3: CODE body { font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 10 pt; font-weight: regular; background-color: #0105C3; color: #000000; } and overrides the background color in the BODY start tag. |
|
|
|
| Jason Knight |
Sep 20 2023, 03:35 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 25-December 22 Member No.: 28,719 |
QUOTE(Christian J @ Sep 15 2023, 04:42 PM)  so instead the background color specified in their BODY start tags is used: The mere presence of which means a 25 year out of date codebase that's telling large swaths of users where to stick it. Tables for layout, presentational markup, no doctype... it's a poster child for everything wrong with web development circa 1997 to 2003 or so. 99% of the problem being explained in one simple line: CODE <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0"> *SIGH* Frontpage. I would REALLY suggest throwing it all in the bin and starting over from a code perspective. It would take less time to refactor it from scratch than to try and struggle with maintaining that mess. More so with the risk of legal ramifications given real estate IS expected to meet ADA minimums. The JS for nothing, images for text controls, gibberish to nonexistant semantics... it's ALL rolling the dice of when -- not if -- they get sued or prosecuted. Given it all seems to be static pages, that's also got to be a headache to maintain in terms of adding/removing listings. Wait, are they legitimately still using Frontpage 6.0 for maintaining their web presence? This post has been edited by Jason Knight: Sep 20 2023, 03:36 PM |
|
|
|
| Jason Knight |
Sep 20 2023, 03:38 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 25-December 22 Member No.: 28,719 |
Ooh, I didn't even notice the black hat pre-2003 keyword stuffing guaranteed to get them pimp slapped clear off of search. Ouch that's just horrifying (by modern standards)... and e-mails as plaintext on the page? The spam must be disastrous.
This post has been edited by Jason Knight: Sep 20 2023, 03:53 PM |
|
|
|
|
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th April 2024 - 12:42 AM |
Invision Power Board
© 2024 IPS, Inc.
Licensed to: HTMLHelp.com, LLC