the_eggwhite: (Default)
So, IE's up to it's old tricks again. I have a checkbox, which has a label associated with it. I want something to happen when the checkbox changes state - which means either when the checkbox is clicked, when the label is clicked or when the spacebar is pressed when the checkbox has focus. I also want the checkbox to automatically become checked when you do something else.

This should be easy, but there's one small problem. IE manages to fuck it right up. This isn't vastly surprising, but it's still annoying. The best I've managed to get so far is for everything to work as it should, unless you doubleclick, in which case IE somehow manages to get confused and swap the two states over... Everything still works, but when it says it's on, it behaves like it's off. When it says it's off it behaves like it's on.

Idiotic browser.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Internet Explorer, you are like a carbuncle on a diseased dog's arse. You should be lanced before your pustulent secretions infect the world any further. That is all.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Internet Explorer. Yes, both of you. Seven, and your deadbeat parent, Six.

I understand that you want to be special and unique snowflakes in a world full of conformity, but you're got a job to do and you're not doing it. Everybody else in the class understands - even weird little Safari & Opera at the back there!

What you seem to not be able to grasp is that one thing is contained within another in the markup, it is expected that it will be contained within it on the screen - even just a little bit. The anchor point should be inside the container, at the very least. No, not next to it a few pixels away - inside it! Near and Inside have different meanings!

Yes, I know you're doing it right over there. But you're using exactly the same code in these three other places, and getting it wrong. You've shown you can get it right... now why can't you do it more than once?

All I can think is that you're doing it on purpose just to get attention. Stop it. It's not big and it's not clever!

That's it! Go and stand in the corridor. I'll have words with you later.

Don't make me send a letter to your parents, Six, or your grandparents, Seven. Five-point-oh and Five-point-five have enough on their plates dealing with all the drool and constant falling over. They don't need you causing them trouble as well.

Edit: IE has been successfully slapped, and is now behaving.

Edit 2: I'm not sure WHY it's behaving, but it is. I used an analytical process to identify what the problem must be, then applied a fix for that. The fix worked, so I went in to clean up the root of the problem... and found that it wasn't there. I've successfully applied a very specific workaround that will only fix this specific problem. The workaround worked, despite the only possible root cause not actually being there. Sod it. It works - I'm going to leave it alone now. The CSS is clearly haunted.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
You know, when you have a website that's driven by an access database which you occasionally freeze, grab a copy of and manually enter data into (hideous as that is...), you may find that it's generally adviseable to not delete said database. More accurately, it's best if you learn the difference between "copy" and "cut".

If you copy the database, then you'll be working in a new copy. This means that when you utterly fail to FTP it back again because you don't know how your FTP client works, at least the information that was there before will still be there.

If you cut the database then it won't be there anymore. This means that when utterly fail to FTP it back again because you don't know how your FTP client works, and in fact as soon as you cut the database in the first place, your entire site will stop working. This is your fault. Not ours. You rent server space from us - not support time. We do not have to support you for anything other than making sure the machine is running and has a network connection. You do not get to complain that our developer isn't here to hold your hand.

Gah!
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Percussion Rhythmyx, you have brought my wrath down upon yourself. When something works in the preview, it should also work when published out. All of the content items I'm using are in a public state, all of the content types are properly coded. The page is assembled and complete. The CSS is in place and functional, and all of the markup is good.

Why, oh why, when I run a full publish edition, do you decide to simply not bother with half of the homepage? What's more, why do you decide to not bother with it and then tell me it's all worked fine.

To add insult to injury, most of the bits you've left out this time were present last time and working fine. Can it be that adding something new to the page will miraculously break previously functioning parts for no apparent reason? Why yes, it can.

Rhythmyx, you are the diseased offspring of a pile of festering yak sputum and the horn of a bull that has recently been removed from the rear of a matador. Remove yourself from my sight before I am forced to smite you with fire for making me type your name (no mean feat, I should add) in a rant such as this.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
5...
4...
3...
2...
1...
RANT )
the_eggwhite: (Default)
I've asked nicely, Internet Explorer, but you still persist.

Don't make me hurt you!
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Once more, dear Internet Explorer, you astound me with your willingness to give just a little bit more. not content with merely giving 100%, you strive for greatness and deliver 101%.

Alas, in this instance, I required 100%. I have space only for 100% and nothing more... I specified a size of 100%, and then requested five sets of 20% within it. These sets of 20% should combine to use 100% of the space. After all, 20 x 5 is generally considered to be 100. I understand your desire to please is great, but in this instance I would prefer if you only gave what was asked.

There is no need for you, in this instance, to try so hard. Please stop... you are already wounded, and I do not wish you to rupture yourself further in a misguided attempt to give that extra 1%.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
So, the project that was meant to go live yesterday (already rather late, after a lot of slippage at the client end) is now aimed at Thursday. Or perhaps even later. Joy.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
No.

No, when I said no, I meant no. Not Yes. No. A negative response.

I can't "look into it". I can't find a way to make it work. This is why I said no. What you are asking for is impossible. I cannot make a larger amount go into a smaller space without shrinking it. There's an old adage about quarts and pint pots...

Bigger things do not fit into smaller spaces. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Apart from "No", that is. I'm happy to say that some more.

Nonononono.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Images. More specifically, photos. Everybody wants websites with loads of photos on, yet they go quiet whenever you ask them what they want to be in the images, or what messages they want to convey, or to who.

Then they default to pictures of the buildings. Yes, we have some quite nice buildings, but if you're wanting to sell the university, or to make it look vibrant and active, they don't really cut it. They make everything look like an estate agent's brochure. How about some people, folks? Not just mugshots, either. Something active, with a bit of movement or personality...

Gah.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Internet Explorer, you are a wretched piece of filth. Your insistance that whitespace outside of any tags should be relevant in some way is asinine and infuriating in a way previously reserved for particularly stubborn diseases in unfortunate places. Additionally, your "quirky" ways of rendering lists irritate me to the point of wishing to render you sterile, that you may not reproduce, although I know that it is already too late for that. I can only hope that you are swiftly shuffled off this mortal coil and your offspring is kept unaware of the stigma of it's parentage, being raised instead by capable adoptive parents who show it the attention it will so dearly crave.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
5...
4...
3...
2...
1...
boom! )
the_eggwhite: (Default)
My manager just came in and said something along the lines of "You know, I think that from now on we'll have the clients work with the Editoral Officer to plan their content before you get directly involved in the project. You just work with the editorial officer to make sure you stay informed and can put input in as required. Do you think that'll be best?"

No of course I don't think it'd be best! I've been saying we should do just that ever since we got an editorial officer purely out of my sense of perverse whimsy!

I've been explaining for this long that it's been simply a waste of time for me to be involved in projects too early because anything I do before the nature of the content is known will only have to be re-done when we find out! Now she's finally caught on.

The slight problem, however, is that she's twigged this today, which presents a slight hitch in the plan.

As of yesterday, we don't have an editorial officer anymore!
the_eggwhite: (Default)
<div id="Internally bitching at manager">
Bah! What is the point in asking me to "deal with something" when you know full well that I don't have the required server permissions to do any of the work involved in "dealing with it" and will have to just come back to you at each and every step? You could have done the whole job in about 10-15 minutes by just getting on with it. As a bare minimum you could have done the bits I can't do and then emailed me the details so I could do the face to face bit...

As it is, I've already been back to you four times to ask you to do somehting, and each time you do the first bit that's needed towards it and then don't bother with the rest.

Gah!
</div>
the_eggwhite: (Default)
You want to restrict access to this page to a certain group of people. Fair enough... That I can do.

What's that? You want people who are not in that group to have to enter a username or password to get in, but the people who are in that group to just be able to go in with no questions asked? What do we know about the people who are in this group? Do they any common identifying features? No? Can I send them somewhere else first so that I can set up a cookie which identifies them as a part of the group? No?

How the hell am I supposed to distinguish between people who are meant to be able to read it and people who aren't if I'm only allowed to ask for a login and password from those who are not meant to be there! What's more, why the hell am I asking for a username and password from people you don't want to give access to?

I know! I'll just install this psychic powers patch to the server... No, it's not a random number generator... not at all...

Bah! Stupid people! Think things through before you come to me and say "do this now or I'll complain!".
the_eggwhite: (Default)
The way this needs to work, you see, is that I ask you what you want and how you want it to behave, then you tell me, and then I can tell you if it's possible and how long it will take to build it, then I go away and build it based on that specification.

Generally, this process will fail if your response to my "what do you want" and "how should it behave" emails basically boils down to "I don't know... you tell me what I want!".

Doing this is likely to inspire me to create you a virtual goldfish boiling simulator or somesuch. I am rarely short of bizarre ideas for brief or specification free webpages or systems.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Once again, I am compelled to speak in public of matters unseemly.

Once, I had a special relationship. One of those relationships where you hate something, yet for no readily explainable reason you keep going back for more, almost like you were being compelled by outside forces. Once I had that kind of relationship with the scottish browser (we do not speak it's name). It was a destructive relationship, and one which did me no favours. In the end, I managed to break the cycle of guilt and recrimination (its and mine respectively) by ensuring that we were never forced to come into contact again.

Now, history repeats itself, and I find myself in a similar relationship. Internet Explorer, why do you do this to me? Why is it that the world seems to keep forcing me to come back to you and your peculiar ways? Can you not leave me be, or at least learn to get along with everyone else?

Please?

Do not make me list your latest flaw in public... )

Yours Sincerely,

Albumin Eggwhite, Esq.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
Hmmm... I need to deliver a rant, but I don't have time to prepare one properly before leaving the office...

Suffice to say that Internet Explorer is currently acquiring possession of my Capra Hircus in fairly significant proportions.
the_eggwhite: (Default)
:: Warning. This LJ is about to commence Ranting Process.
:: Begin Rant Process - do not approach
:: Warming up rant engines
:: Rant engines now operating at capacity
:: Rant valve released

Graaagh!
Timewasting pointlessness! Tight deadlines making me (more) stressed (and other, far more important stuff also on my mind) so I don't need to be dragged into possibly the least constructive, most timewasting meeting ever for a project I'm only peripherally involved in. I know I'll be using the project later on and I'm the team's "user path design" person, but there was no reason for that meeting. It only existed because my manager had nothing better to do so wanted to have a meeting about something. We're not at any milestones, the project's not having problems, we're on schedule and meeting objectives, everybody's fully informed about where the project is... why the hell did we need a meeting? I could have spent that time working on a project where I'm scheduling down to the nearest 10 minutes because the time is so tight (I'm also the team's POOMA engineer and get all the last minute panic jobs).

:: Spinning down rant engines
:: Rant valve closed
:: Ranting process over
:: Area now safe to approach