Images displayed differently in Firefox

I have a Dreamweaver page that displays normally in IE. But when I open it in firefox, one of the elements is displayed differently. Specifically, I have some social media icons that are supposed to be displayed horizontally, and they are in IE. But when I open the same page in Firefox, it displays those same icons vertically. How can I correct that? Thanks.
http://www.blackexpotourweb.com/hampton.html

This is what I see
<style type="text/css">
html {
    background-color: #000;
    height: 100%
body {
    width: 1000px;
    margin: auto;
    background: url(http://www.keystonemkg.com/Hampton.gif) no-repeat;
    height: 800px;
    position:relative;
    background-image: url(Hampton.gif);
.maintext {
    font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;
#apDiv1 {
    position:absolute;
    width:174px;
    height:305px;
    z-index:1;
    left: 289px;
    top: 329px;
#apDiv2 {
    position:absolute;
    width:328px;
    height:449px;
    z-index:2;
    left: 138px;
    top: -49px;
#apDiv3 {
    position:absolute;
    width:137px;
    height:126px;
    z-index:2;
    left: 448px;
    top: 417px;
.infotext {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    color: #FFF;
siteinfo {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    font-weight: bold;
    color: #000;
.siteinfo {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    color: #000;
#apDiv4 {
    position:absolute;
    width:715px;
    height:22px;
    z-index:3;
    left: 253px;
    top: 804px;
#apDiv5 {
    position:absolute;
    width:170px;
    height:242px;
    z-index:4;
    left: 46px;
    top: 408px;
    text-align: center;
dropsha {
    border-top-style: solid;
    border-right-style: solid;
    border-bottom-style: solid;
    border-left-style: solid;
#apDiv6 {
    position:absolute;
    width:883px;
    height:62px;
    z-index:5;
    left: 71px;
    top: 141px;
    vertical-align: middle;
    text-align: center;
#apDiv7 {
    position:absolute;
    width:170px;
    height:69px;
    z-index:4;
    left: 51px;
    top: 710px;
    text-align: center;
#apDiv4 .infotext .siteinfo {
eventtext {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
#apDiv8 {
    position:absolute;
    width:181px;
    height:27px;
    z-index:6;
    left: 281px;
    top: 327px;
    font-weight: bold;
a:link {
    color: #FFF;
a:hover {
    color: #F00;
#apDiv9 {
    position:absolute;
    width:200px;
    height:115px;
    z-index:6;
    left: 16px;
    top: 764px;
.maintext1 {    color: #FFF;
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
#apDiv10 {
    position:absolute;
    width:115px;
    height:36px;
    z-index:6;
    left: 831px;
    top: 716px;
    float: left;
#rightjust {
    text-align: right;
#apDiv11 {
    position:absolute;
    width:868px;
    height:53px;
    z-index:7;
    left: 77px;
    top: 214px;
    text-align: center;
</style>
What you need to do is add the bold part into this as per
<style type="text/css">
html {
    background-color: #000;
    height: 100%
body {
    width: 1000px;
    margin: auto;
    background: url(http://www.keystonemkg.com/Hampton.gif) no-repeat;
    height: 800px;
    position:relative;
    background-image: url(Hampton.gif);
.maintext {
    font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;
#apDiv1 {
    position:absolute;
    width:174px;
    height:305px;
    z-index:1;
    left: 289px;
    top: 329px;
#apDiv2 {
    position:absolute;
    width:328px;
    height:449px;
    z-index:2;
    left: 138px;
    top: -49px;
#apDiv3 {
    position:absolute;
    width:137px;
    height:126px;
    z-index:2;
    left: 448px;
    top: 417px;
.infotext {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    color: #FFF;
siteinfo {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    font-weight: bold;
    color: #000;
.siteinfo {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    color: #000;
#apDiv4 {
    position:absolute;
    width:715px;
    height:22px;
    z-index:3;
    left: 253px;
    top: 804px;
#apDiv5 {
    position:absolute;
    width:170px;
    height:242px;
    z-index:4;
    left: 46px;
    top: 408px;
    text-align: center;
dropsha {
    border-top-style: solid;
    border-right-style: solid;
    border-bottom-style: solid;
    border-left-style: solid;
#apDiv6 {
    position:absolute;
    width:883px;
    height:62px;
    z-index:5;
    left: 71px;
    top: 141px;
    vertical-align: middle;
    text-align: center;
#apDiv7 {
    position:absolute;
    width:170px;
    height:69px;
    z-index:4;
    left: 51px;
    top: 710px;
    text-align: center;
#apDiv4 .infotext .siteinfo {
eventtext {
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
#apDiv8 {
    position:absolute;
    width:181px;
    height:27px;
    z-index:6;
    left: 281px;
    top: 327px;
    font-weight: bold;
a:link {
    color: #FFF;
a:hover {
    color: #F00;
#apDiv9 {
    position:absolute;
    width:200px;
    height:115px;
    z-index:6;
    left: 16px;
    top: 764px;
.maintext1 {    color: #FFF;
    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
#apDiv10 {
    position:absolute;
    width:115px;
    height:36px;
    z-index:6;
    left: 831px;
    top: 716px;
    float: left;
#apDiv10 img {
    float: left;
#rightjust {
    text-align: right;
#apDiv11 {
    position:absolute;
    width:868px;
    height:53px;
    z-index:7;
    left: 77px;
    top: 214px;
    text-align: center;
</style>
and remove the float: left that you placed in the meantime under #apDiv10
Gramps

Similar Messages

  • PS CS5 Image Display Differs From Used ICC Profile In Win 7

    Hi,
    on my Windows 7 Ultimate x64 machine, I just calibrated my Dell SP2309W monitor using an i1DisplayPro and basICColor 5, creating a ICC v2 profile (I am aware of the problems under Windows with ICC v4 profiles).
    It created the ICC profile and applied it to be used by Windows. I double checked under COLOR MANAGEMENT that the new ICC profile is being used. Although I can see that the new ICC is being used (desktop appearance changes), there are a few issues I am experiencing:
    (1.) Windows Photo Viewer
    The thumbnails in Windpows Explorer look fine (they DO use the new ICC profile), when I double click a jpeg and open the image it DOES NOT use the new ICC profile. When I click the PLAY SLIDESHOW button (starting the slideshow) in the opened image in Windows Photo Viewer, the images DO use the new ICC profile.
    (2.) Internet Browsers
    All current internet browser (Firefox, IE, Safari and Chrome) DO use the new ICC profile and display the image correctly.
    (3.) Photoshop CS 5
    When I open the same image - that Windows Photo Viewer does not correctly displays (according to the new ICC profile) - in Photoshop CS5, I get the same image display that Windows Photo Viewer gives me (when not thumbnail or not in slideshow mode) - it appears to be the sRGB display.
    My color settings in PS CS5 are: North America General Purpose 2 > sRGB IEC 61966-2.1.
    When I go to View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB I get the image display using the new ICC profile.
    Why does the image look different in PS than my calibrated monitor should output ?
    I was under the impression (please correct me if I am wrong), that the sole purpose for calibrating my monitor was to get a uniform display across (ICC aware) applications. Even when one applies different color spaces to a document in PS, I thought the output on my calibrated screen done by the graphic card should always be according to my calibration and the settings in the ICC profile being used.
    What Am I doing wrong or what am I misunderstanding ?
    Any help or input is appreciated !
    Thanks.
    - M

    Hello,
    A note on monitor calibration: calibrating your monitor will not guarentee that every application will display color correctly, it's more of a step along the pipeline, and for the preview part of a color workflow it's the last step.  Here's how color translation follows for an ICC workflow when previewing to a monitor:
    Image Color Numbers > Document Tag or Workspace Profile > Monitor Profile
    For non-color managed applications, if the original document is or isn't tagged with a color profile it will be translated directly to the monitor profile anyway.  This is the equivalent in Photoshop of selecting "Monitor" in soft proofing.  Selecting monitor in softproofing will bypass the tagged or workspace profile to translate colors directly through the monitor profile.
    For most automatic color managed applications (like Firefox), the image will be translated through the tagged profile and then sent through the monitor profile.  If the image is untagged or the profile is unrecognized, the colors get sent directly to the monitor profile.
    For Photoshop, a tagged document will have its profile respected and then sent to the monitor.  An untagged document will be assigned the workspace profile, which acts like a temporary document profile, and then gets sent to the monitor.  This is often why users will notice Photoshop behaves differently from other applications.  It's usually a case of the workspace coming into play.  By default the workspace profile is set to sRGB.  You can change this in Edit > Color Settings.
    The purpose of the workspace is originally for printing workflows, as a way of keeping consistant color translations when dealing with both tagged and untagged documents.  For web output workflows it can be useful for viewing everything through sRGB, which is typical of the average monitor output (not so with newer wide-gamut monitors, another source of confusion...) combined with the fact that originally most web browsers were not color managed.  Hence viewing everything through sRGB is pretty close to what most monitors see and what untagged/unmanaged docs will look like.
    Monitor calibration is useful only because it brings your monitor output to a "known state".  In traditional workflows the monitor was always a middle-man, a preview device which was useful for getting an idea of what the printed output would look like before you print it.  Since print colorspaces are often smaller than display spaces, it's feasible and useful to narrow down the monitor/display space and calibrate it to a known state, so that even if it doesn't totally match the print, you'll get used to its differences/limitations and they'll be consistent so long as the calibration is maintained.
    For web output, your final output is often another user's computer monitor, which can have any form of behavior (most standard monitors are pretty close to sRGB, or use sRGB as an operating system workspace (default monitor profile).  Wide gamuts behave differently, but I'm not sure if there's a particular ICC space that they closely match, or if different wide-gamuts are even that close to each other in their display color spaces.
    Hope this helps!

  • Saved image displays differently outside Photoshop

    When I save an image I've been working on in Photoshop, then open the saved file outside Photoshop, the image looks quite different than it does inside Photoshop, much drabber and less saturated. I have both Photoshop and the display program set to sRGB.  I figure that I should have consistency within the monitor, whether it's calibrated or not.  I'm sure I'm missing something basic here.  I'd appreciate any help here, because my prints wind up drab, too.  Many thanks!

    LBJack wrote:
    I overlooked one switch in the Save dialog.  Now the images display correctly.
    Can you be more specific, please?
    Were you saving images without a color profile before, and some application(s) in your system were displaying them improperly?
    Problem is, in that case one wouldn't really expect to see the kind of difference you describe unless your document profile really wasn't sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
    Is it possible you're editing your images in the Adobe RGB 1998 color space?  That could happen if you're opening images through Camera Raw, as the color space it's set to deliver is configured separately (via the link at the bottom-center of the Camera Raw dialog) from the Photoshop defaults.
    By the way, if you don't already know, you can easily set the status block in the lower-left of the Photoshop window to show you the color space of your current document:
    -Noel

  • Images displaying differently in Library view to Develop - also affecting Exports

    I've run in to a strange problem since the 4.1 upgrade.
    When displayed in the Library view, images are not appearing correctly.  In my case, there is a huge amount more noise in the Library view compared to the Develop view.  This is also affecting Exports.
    I have been unable to find any answers online, and only found one other case of this reported via a You Tube video.
    Any ideas?!
    Many thanks
    Rick

    I am assuming you have a correctly calibrated monitor calibrated using a hardware calibrator. Lightroom sometimes shows the aforementioned problems with canned monitor profiles on windows machines. Now that out of the way:
    I am also having this problem - the library view is closer to the printer output - very frustrating! In dev mode the image is lighter - sometimes appears to be too hot, but in library and during print it is just right. This was not a problem in 3 - what's the fix?
    Have you tried seeing what happens when you soft proof for the paper profile in the Develop module?
    It seem the fit views do not match up...the confusion comes in that it seems the fill views sometimes do, and sometimes do not match. when the images appear different, I've the sense in dev the images are brighter and hotter.
    This can happen if your image is very noisy or has a lot of high frequency detail. The sharpening preview in fit view that is applied in Develop tends to brighten images with lots of noise or detail. It also happens when you are applying a lot of color noise reduction and have a lot of colored detail. SInce Lightroom cannot really show you the result of this correctly but for when looking at 1:1, this results in the Fit preview showing more color saturation than there really is.

  • Image Displays Differently in PS and Br CS4

    I have a gs tif file that I converted to cmyk. In PS the cmyk version looks virtually identical on screen to the gs version although when you hold the eyedropper over the image, cyan displays as a higher percentage than m or y, with k lowest in both the cmyk conversion and the grayscale original...what do I have set wrong!  In Bridge the cmyk version clearly shows a cyan cast.
    Color settings are synchronized in CS4.
    Can anyone tell me why: 1, the images are displaying differently, and, 2. using Convert To Profile, cymk, Working CMYK US Sheetfed Coated v2, image appears to have a distince cyan cast? And why, for that matter, is the GS image showing uneven cmyk percentages?
    Thanks in advance
    J

    the images are displaying differently
    Have you proofing enabled in both of them? Even if the profiles match otehrwise, that option still has to be toggled.
    image appears to have a distince cyan cast?
    Well, if you print CMYK, you want "rich black", which means that it needs to be underprinted with another color to not look like a dull gray. Only spot black/ text black does not require that. That's not the point here, though. It's really due to the conversion being done wrong. If you really want to retain the blacks as a pure channel, use the method described. Also, if you can, in the future simply start out in CMYK to avoid these issues.
    Mylenium

  • Page Displays Different in Firefox

    I am new to web site development and new to Dreamweaver.  When I display the webpage in FireFox 3.6.3, the header picture shows below the logo on the left.  It displays fine in IE.  BTW, the font choice is not mine I tried to talk the person out of it.
    http://www.mulberrylanehillsdale.com/sample3.html

    You answered to the most little part of my comment (there was a suggestion for paged medias or for rendering on smaller displays, but this was not so critical, you should have seen it).
    The main point was about font smooting, that you have enabled in ALL browsers, EXCEPT Firefox on Windows.
    And this gives really a bad/unfair view of what is really Firefox on Windows.
    If one wanted to test a page for Firefox on Windows, he would certainly expect to see what he really sees on its PC, now most often with a flat panel display with pixel precision, but certainly not the non-smoothed rendering which is only for those users that have CRT displays.
    That's why I was not suggesting  really an expansion of the number of browsers. But:
    - if you have renderings for some browsers WITHOUT font smoothing, offer it on ALL browsers, to be fair
    - if you also have renderings for some browsers WITH font smoothing, offer it on ALL browsers, to be fair
    In other words, it should be a generic display option, that is independant of the browsers tested, and that should be selected by your users in their preferences, according to their own preferences: if a browser only supports one option (with or without font smooting), just display this version, otherwise, use the selected option on all compared browsers.
    And you will then see that most of your users are already preferring the pages rendered on any browser with the font smoothing enabled.
    Don't use the Microsoft's ClearType option, which uses subpixel precision, as it would require you to manage at least two versions: for display on your site with a RGB panel, or with a BGR panel : subpixel order would then have to be selected, adding two other versions of the same page for the same browser on the same OS... Instead just offer the pixel-level only smoothing, where smoothing applied equally to all R/G/B subpixel color planes, so that a black font on white background will be smoothed only using only "white-gray-black" full pixels without position-dependant colors).
    Side notes:
    For the long term, note that subpixel precision will be deprecated/obsoleted sooner or later (including on small display panels such as mobile phones, that will be the first to offer the highest pixel densities):
    It should be up to the display panel technology to map internally the standard sRGB colors (computed by softwares or in digital image formats or in web browsers and other computer GUI interfaces) to actual subpixels in a pixel (which may have different patterns, different coverage, different relative positions, possibly also 4 subpixels or more, just like with new Yamaha HDTV sets that use a non rectangular grid for the arrangement of subpixels, and that also use an additional yellow or white subpixel). Subpixel rendering technologies in software will also be deprecated because the display panel technologies will continue to improve to offer higher pixel densities, up to a level where the position of subpixels will not be noticeable : only the full-pixel smoothing will remain as it will reduce a lot the CPU/GPU cost of rendering and will be much faster to compute, using also less memory for finally the same resolution.
    Subpixel smoothing anyway is patented, and only a temporary "cheap" solution that can be implemented in CPU/GPU software, as long as flat panels don't have a higher pixel density (i.e. measured in full pixels per inch, not in colored subpixels per inch). These subpixel software technologies are in fact a nocive brake to allow the technical evolution of hardware display panels (the existing panels using rectangular R/G/B girds arranged in parallel vertical stripes have a poor color gamut, and display noisy color artefacts, as demonstrated by ClearType). The true evolution will not be in software but in hardware display panels, that will still benefit a lot from full-pixel font-smoothing only:
    - for example, the existing software subpixel artificially smoothing triples the horizontal resolution (but effectively only doubles the apparent horizontal resolution, due to correction of color artefacts), but do not increase the vertical resolution which remains poor. This gives an anisotropic result, which is desastrous for natural photographs or videos).
    - newer hardware subpixels arrangements (such as Yamaha's) can effectively double BOTH the horizontal and vertical resolution (and not just for text, but also for photos), using exactly the SAME subpixel density, and will produce a much better isotropic result without color artefacts (fair for high-fidelity colors and smooting of photos and video): this means similar costs of production of these panels, that should already be available in shops today and on notebooks, if this was only compatible with subpixel rendering softwares such as Microsoft's ClearType. and for now, we can't still have them on cheap PCs and notebooks, but only on the most expensive HDTV sets (notably the largest 1080p screens, whose size is more than 35 inches): note that these HDTV sets are also used for computer display (notably as a secondary "theater" screen for playing digital videos on online VOD contents) and for them the subpixel font-smoothing softwares have absolutely no use, only full-pixel smoothing will work correctly.

  • Images displayed strangely in Firefox

    So, I have this bizarre issue with firefox.  Some images (but not all) get displayed with very strange colours.
    For example:
    And how this image should look:
    This only occurs in firefox.  I have tried removing the ~/.mozilla directory, to no effect.  Does anyone know what might be causing this?  I'm totally clueless.

    Klepper wrote:
    I once had the same issue
    switching from internal amd/ati graphics to an nvidia card resolved the issue for me
    LOL!
    That's just about the weirdest solution I've heard in a while - and I mean weird in a funny sense :-)

  • Some Web sites are displayed differently in Firefox 4 in case they are installed different OS, in this case it is a win 7 - Ultimate and Windows XP Pro? how do I fix it?

    "Sportska Kladionica" look different (in two rows) in Firefox 4 with OS Win 7, and in Firefox 4 with Win XP Pro (in one row).

    Reset the page zoom on pages that cause problems: <b>View > Zoom > Reset</b> (Ctrl+0 (zero); Cmd+0 on Mac)
    * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Zoom_text_of_web_pages

  • HELP- Images displayed correctly in Firefox but not IE

    I cannot figure out (I'm a newbie) how to set the code so
    that the picture on my entry page looks the same in terms of
    placement in IE and Firefox In Firefox, it's perfect but there is
    empty space below the image in Internet Explorer. This is driving
    me crazy!

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:50:37 +0000 (UTC), "majpix"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I cannot figure out (I'm a newbie) how to set the code so
    that the picture on
    >my entry page looks the same in terms of placement in IE
    and Firefox In
    >Firefox, it's perfect but there is empty space below the
    image in Internet
    >Explorer. This is driving me crazy!
    Can we see the page so that we can see where the image is in
    the code?
    Sounds like a padding/margin problem.
    Steve
    steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com

  • On my Mac, why do websites display differently with FireFox than Safari.

    I have been using FireFox on my Mac and prefer it over Safari, BUT recently, some, not all, websites are not displaying correctly! When I use Safari all the content is there and the websites display as they are supposed to. (I tried to insert a screen shot but unable to do so) I have the most current FF version installed, unless FireFox is not happy with my older MAC OS ??

    Thank you for the info!! Attached are a few screenshots to show the problem - I now know how to do a screen shot! thx.... anyway note on the Ancestry shot Safari shows a male or female head whereas Firefox show a simple symbol for male/female. I spoke with Ancestry and it is supposed to be the male/female head icons that are displayed. In the Yahoo shot Safair displays the icons and names for reply, delete etc but Firefox has some icon that only if you hover over it will it then display the name or what it is. this is very perplexing as I really prefer Firefox over Safari... any help will be appreciated! thank you

  • Website displays differently in firefox only

    Ive built a site and it displays fine in chrome and internet explorer but in firefox the second javascript slider is displayed to the far right side of the homepage instead of under the first slider like the other browsers display it. Not sure what is going on. I am using firefox 31.0 and html 4.01.

    A good place to ask advice about web development is at the mozillaZine "Web Development/Standards Evangelism" forum.
    *http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=25
    The helpers at that forum are more knowledgeable about web development issues.
    You need to register at the mozillaZine forum site in order to post at that forum.

  • Same image displaying differently in FF and IE6

    This has me beaten
    http://wrfinn.com/map_leros.html
    (login/password fred) - the first image (I know it's out of
    alignment...
    later, later).
    What is displaying in FF is the original image before the
    circle/text was
    added.
    I have deleted it from the server and replaced it
    (desperation as it's fine
    in IE6) checked the scripts are there although I've tested it
    without the
    javascript with no better results. The DOM inspector is
    showing an error on
    the page in FF if this helps -
    [Exception... "'Permission denied to get property
    XULElement.accessKey' when
    calling method: [nsIDOMXULLabelElement::accessKey]" nsresult:
    "0x8057001e
    (NS_ERROR_XPC_JS_THREW_STRING)" location: "JS frame ::
    http://wrfinn.com/map_leros.html
    :: jspw3 :: line 43" data: no]
    <li><a href="#" class="p7PMtrg">About
    Us</a>
    Could somebody possibly throw some light on this?
    Jo

    josie1one wrote:
    > This has me beaten
    >
    >
    http://wrfinn.com/map_leros.html
    > (login/password fred) - the first image (I know it's out
    of alignment...
    > later, later).
    >
    > What is displaying in FF is the original image before
    the circle/text was
    > added.
    >
    > I have deleted it from the server and replaced it
    (desperation as it's fine
    > in IE6) checked the scripts are there although I've
    tested it without the
    > javascript with no better results. The DOM inspector is
    showing an error on
    > the page in FF if this helps -
    >
    > [Exception... "'Permission denied to get property
    XULElement.accessKey' when
    > calling method: [nsIDOMXULLabelElement::accessKey]"
    nsresult: "0x8057001e
    > (NS_ERROR_XPC_JS_THREW_STRING)" location: "JS frame ::
    >
    http://wrfinn.com/map_leros.html
    :: jspw3 :: line 43" data: no]
    > <li><a href="#" class="p7PMtrg">About
    Us</a>
    >
    > Could somebody possibly throw some light on this?
    >
    Hey Jo,
    did you get this resolved? - I don't see the problems that
    you are
    describing nor do I get a dom inspector error.
    The only thing I see is that the image which should reside
    under the
    side nav - you haven't set a path/source for this.
    chin chin
    Sinclair

  • Background image displays differently when published

    I am using Captivate 5. I did a software simulation  and in Captivate the background image is correct (the one on the left) but when i preview it or publish it and view in the browser the colors are off (second image) ..I tried to play around with the brightness/sharpness but it did nothing dramatic...any suggestions?
    Hi,

    Hi there
    Generally speaking, Optimized ofen works well too. I'm unsure of the file size differences (if any) between the two settings. Because the image quality improves it would be logical to assume that the file size will increase.
    Cheers... Rick
    Helpful and Handy Links
    Begin learning Captivate 5 moments from now! $29.95
    Captivate Wish Form/Bug Reporting Form
    Adobe Certified Captivate Training
    SorcererStone Blog
    Captivate eBooks

  • Nested lists display differently in Firefox vs IE7

    Hi All, I hope you can help me out here.
    I am having trouble getting nested lists to appear properly in Firefox as opposed to IE7.
    The code that appears around the tex (list a, b, etc) is in the the graphic below (I could not upload the file and could not paste the code in here).
    Below is a screen capture showing you the problem.
    Can you please help me fix this? I need to release the project by June 19 and we really don't want to say "for optimal viewing in IE7 or higher".
    If I need to do something in the .css, please be detailed in your explanation, as I am still learning!
    Thanks
    Deborah

    Hi there
    You could type the code.
    You could also grab a screen shot of it and insert the screen shot. If that's what you choose, please use the Camera icon and don't attach it.
    Cheers... Rick
    Begin learning RoboHelp HTML 7 within the day - $24.95!
    Click here for Adobe Certified Captivate and RoboHelp HTML Training
    Click here for the SorcerStone Blog
    Click here for RoboHelp and Captivate eBooks

  • Image layouts display differently in Safari than in Explorer

    I have noticed that web page images display differently in Safari than in Explorer on a PC. On a PC, the web page may display three images side by side. In Safari, I might get two images side by side and the theid image below. Is there any correction for this? Thanks.
    Norb

    #sidebar_1 a:vistied {
    color:#000;
    is stating that all visited links in the #sidebar_1 div to be black. Are you saying that all visited links are black, outside the sidebar_1 div?
    Jim

Maybe you are looking for