Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: HR Rule at 100% width?

  1. #11
    Senior Member franko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tasmania Australia
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    You only have to worry about drop bears if you are an attractive female

  2. #12
    Senior Member 1FugleyKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Playford Waters, South Australia
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by franko View Post
    You only have to worry about drop bears if you are an attractive female
    I didn't know you knew my partner.

  3. #13

    Default

    Franko, I know you're using NOF2013; does it give us this capability? Drop shadows, too? And a header that always stays at the bottom of the user's browser window?

    Neil

    Quote Originally Posted by franko View Post
    Or petition NoF to allow pages to be defined in percentages of the screen width designated in the viewport meta tag.

  4. #14
    Senior Member franko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tasmania Australia
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    neilruda: no, that's why I made the comment. I've been pushing responsive web design capabilities since quite a while before 2013 came out and was therefore disappointed to see they weren't in it. I'm hoping the guys are working on it now (it's a little difficult since the protocols haven't been finalised yet) and we'll see at least some of them in an upcoming release; maybe even a dot release (he said, hopefully)?

    I think you can do drop shadows using CSS but haven't tried yet. I haven't played that much with 2013, simply moved a few of my sites over to see what happened and if there were any issues with them.

  5. #15

    Default

    In your opinion, do you see enough changes, fixes, and new features to make it a worthwhile investment? I'm tired of kicking in my money, hope the next upgrade is better, only to find very little difference, or a whole new batch of bugs. If I buy NOF2013, it will be my eighth investment in the software, and really feel just a couple upgrades were worth anything.

    Neil

    Quote Originally Posted by franko View Post
    neilruda: no, that's why I made the comment. I've been pushing responsive web design capabilities since quite a while before 2013 came out and was therefore disappointed to see they weren't in it. I'm hoping the guys are working on it now (it's a little difficult since the protocols haven't been finalised yet) and we'll see at least some of them in an upcoming release; maybe even a dot release (he said, hopefully)?

    I think you can do drop shadows using CSS but haven't tried yet. I haven't played that much with 2013, simply moved a few of my sites over to see what happened and if there were any issues with them.

  6. #16
    Senior Member franko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tasmania Australia
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    imo yes, it's worth it for the html5 and css3 output alone. It's leaner, faster and while there are still bugs, they're being addressed by netobjects as and when they're being identified. We've already had AU1, and I don't think AU2 is that far away.

    For my money, the biggest cause of application instability is windows itself which seems to get more and more bloated, complicated and unstable with every release. Windows 3.1 and NT4 were far more stable than any of the later releases - XP, Vista, 7 and 8 - have been.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •