I had this working before and I just noticed today that my plus one buttons are no longer showing on my pages. Inspecting them, I see they are at a top and left of -10000px. I certainly have no styles doing this. I see others reporting similar issues (usually years ago) but I've yet to find a solution that applies. (I've confirmed my pages have a link rel="canonical" tag. The page isn't https.)
It displays normally in IE, FF, but not chrome or opera.
A sample page is here.
Google's implementation page is here.
Pretty simple stuff really so I'm not sure what's going wrong. Any ideas?
edit: This css hack worked
/*fix for Google's f'ed up Google Plus button*/
#___plusone_0, #___plusone_0 iframe {
position:static !important;
width: 100px !important;
height: 20px !important;
}
But obviously I shouldn't have to rely on that. After digging and reading a bunch, I believe it is simply a bug with Google Chrome. Absolutely ridiculous that their own product doesn't work in only their browser.
Related
As you can see below, there is a different at the top of the screen.
(live app) this one is ok no, gap...
(test app) this one is not ok, has 20px gap...
So surely I cannot update my app if this problem wont go away. I am using OnsenUI here. The code is still the same, just the environment is new. I don't know if that has influence.
Previously I built with IntelXDK as IDE. All is well. Since IntelXDK is obsolete, now I just running test on a browser using command cordova run browser.
All is well, except when I test the code on my iPhone device.
Please shade some lights, thanks.
I am a web developer and do not have any experience with developing mobile friendly websites.
When we are developing a mobile friendly website, do we need to create separate files for mobile version? Or can we use same files that we created for desktop version?
I recommend that you use one file set with a responsive design.
there are different ways to do this.
1) You can use bootstrap for that.
2) What I sometime do is that i use the css #media. Take for that a look at this link.
If you are going to develop a big site like flipkart, ebay or facebook, then its better you do separate mobile version, because such type of websites will take more time to load in mobiles. You need to display only relevant content in mobiles.
If its a simple website, better use Bootstrap.
Both you can make one file launch another, or have one big monster file.
How to detect Safari, Chrome, IE, Firefox and Opera browser?
But I think this might be more of what your looking for.
This is how I did it. It could fit only my design. My pages look like a blog page. The DIV floating left is the main content. Then I follow it with small DIV boxes for ads. The main DIV is 40em wide. And has side margins 4em each. That totals 48em = 768 device pixels.
So, I added the following meta instruction to every page:
<meta content="width=768" name="viewport">
That nicely gets the page on the smartphone, except the text is too small. The ads slide down to the bottom. Next, I went to my CSS file. There, I format my regular text with 'para' class:
.para {font-size:1.2em;line-height:140%;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:#333}
#media only screen and (max-width: 768px) {.para{font-size:2em;}}
The upper line is for PCs and the #media one is for phones. Notice that I increased the text size to 2em for the screen just 768px wide.
This all passes Google Mobile Friendly test. You can view-source my web site:
Read source-code of this and test it here.
NOTE: I keep changing my work. This site might be gone in few days.
Good luck.
I'm using textAngular as a WYSIWYG text editor in an angular app. It is a fantastic library that is essentially plug and play. It works perfectly in Chrome and Firefox.
The problem is when I attempt to paste some text into the textAngular window in IE it simply doesn't work. It doesn't raise any console events, throw any exceptions or anything. On the network, it calls 4 URLs, which are then all aborted. They are:
http://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.0.3/css/bootstrap.min.css
http://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.0.3/css/font-awesome.min.css
http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Roboto:400,300
http://www.textangular.com/css/style.css
This network activity does not happen in Chrome and Firefox. So, I think that is where the problem is. But for the life of me I can't figure out what is going on. It doesn't look like this problem has been reported to the textAngular team or has been asked on stack overflow.
Does anyone have an I idea of how I can remedy the situation?
Edit:
Here is a plunk replicating the situation. It is the demo from the github repo, almost verbatim (the link to the textAngular links were dead, and I got ride of the initial text). I'm pretty sure that it is just a problem within the 1.2.2 library and I'm going to report a bug. The version on the main page is 1.2.0. Thanks for you help!
I tested your solution on IE 8,9,10 & 11 without any issues. I did however notice it the page was not formatting correctly no IE. It could be an issue with escape characters.
If you could provide some more details about your system, for example: IE version, the code you tried to paste etc. I think I may be able to sort this one out.
let's assume I have a so called 2.0 app, compatible from IE6 upwards. The app uses quite complex CSS and is driven by heaps of JS. It works, very well it does.
Now let's assume there is a client who own a strangely coded site, archaic in ways, and forces IE7 emulation through this wonder of a tag:
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
Now, he desires to use my app, which is injected in his code using a simple external script call. It works, but not so under the IE7 emulation - obscure bugs from Hell start appearing, not even overflow hidden works properly. By itself the app does work in IE7, but as it turns out, the IE7 emulation is not the same as IE7 and has it's own set of fancy issues.
Turns out the client is unable to strip the emulation meta tag, so I'm left with I don't really know. Does anyone know of ANY WAY I could overpower the rendering mode set in the page header or would there be some other suggestions?
My utmost thanks for anything usable.
Perhaps you could make a wrapper for your app. An iframe that contains an empty page to make the script call. The content of the iframe should not be affected as the meta won't be present in the empty page.
100%I'm modifying an older website for a client that uses Ext-JS 1.1 and I'm having issues with display of date fields in IE and particularly Firefox. The site was left in a semi-implemented state previously, so there's not been a perceived problem before.
In Chrome and Safari everything looks fine and the datepicker drops down and displays correctly. However in Firefox the picker is displayed widened to cover the maximum scrollable brower width (very wide indeed), and in IE it's truncated to about two thirds of the width it should be.
I am somewhat uncertain that this is due to our css, but because Chrome and Safari work fine I think it might be a problem with Ext-js itself. I realise that this is an old version of Ext-JS, but because everything else works fine I don't want to go to the trouble of upgrading unless that would be very straightforward (but how difficult would that be?)
I don't myself use ExtJS and this is the only website my client has with it - so I'm really looking for the simplest possible solution.
EDIT:
Solved nearly as per bmoeskau's answer but changed
table.x-date-inner {
width: 100%;
table-layout:auto;
}
to
table.x-date-inner {
width: 200px;
table-layout:auto;
}
Which changes the previous width from 100% to a fixed px value which works on Firefox. The drop-down is still truncated in IE, but I can live with that and an instruction to my client that he'll need to upgrade the JS library to solve that one
This has to do with a change in how tables were rendered in FF 3.x compared to 2.x. You should be able to add this CSS fix anywhere after the Ext CSS (I think -- this is from memory since the Ext forums aren't loading at the moment):
table.x-date-inner {
table-layout: fixed;
}
You should inform your client that Ext 1.x has not been supported officially for quite some time, so other issues like this are likely to crop up as browsers progress forward.