Whyyyyy

[5tealthh]

Erg.... Why doesn't Internet Explorer see transparency in images? Its so stupid.

I had a signature that I was going to have. It looked somewhat good, and I had to work to get it to function properly. I went to put it on to the UESP forums, and I had to put it in 3 images for some reason (because the height was not functioning properly) and I put the images in there. It worked great, except when I minimized Firefox to see what it looked like in IE, it looked terrible. Where the transparency was, there was white.
So I took off the signature. It was mainly a test, but I was going to keep it on there. Ah well...

What do you think of IE and it's stupid problems?

[Josjie]

I've always loved IE... until I discovered Firefox 2.
It took me a couple of months to convince my dad. Now he prefers Firefox too.
But I still can't convince my mum and sister . They both argue that "they're happy with IE, so why would they download Firefox". I think that's the main problem. Many IE users do not know that Firefox is so much better and that's why they don't download it.

I currently have a 20'' widescreen monitor. My previous monitor was 15'', so at the time I bought this monitor I was amazed how big it was.
Now I've bought a 24'' widescreen monitor and now I think my 20'' monitor is too small .

That's how it goes. It's hard to switch paths, but if you take the big step, you're going to love it.

I'm still using Windows and I do not want to try Linux or Apple. But somehow I know I'm not going to be disappointed.

[5tealthh]

Exactly. Check this out. Doesn't that look amazing?

I'm reluctant to take the step myself, but I'm going to get a new PC with Windows 7 on it when it comes out, and I'm gonna take my old one and put Unbuntu (Linux) on it and make it look like the one in that video!

[nyk45]

I am sorry, but it's probably the file type's fault, not IE's.

Try changing it to gif.

[Josjie]

If it works on Firefox but not on IE, how could it not be IE' fault then?

[nyk45]

That would be weird, but maybe it's different ways to handle file types.

I am no expert, but it's probable. IE _certainly_ has transparency, and when it doesn't, it's due to a wrong file type.

[Dogmantra]

It certainly doesn't work with .pngs, which are the only loads-of-colours formats that are viable for this forum's small avatar requirement. GIFs can't have many (256) colours, so photos look weird. Even weirder than IE transparency.

[Kestral]

Solution; Don't use IE. Use FireFox.

It certainly doesn't work with .pngs, which are the only loads-of-colours formats that are viable for this forum's small avatar requirement. GIFs can't have many (256) colours, so photos look weird. Even weirder than IE transparency.

.png's Don't work with IE, or .png's don't work in general?

[Josjie]

They do work for Firefox

It worked great, except when I minimized Firefox to see what it looked like in IE, it looked terrible. Where the transparency was, there was white.

[Dogmantra]

.png's Don't work with IE, or .png's don't work in general?

With IE.
Which is especially jarring when I surf the Giantitp forums (unfortunately UESP is blocked)... I mean DO PRODUCTIVE INTERNET RESEARCH at school, and all the PNGs have white backgrounds.

[5tealthh]

Gifs suck. PNG's are better then Gifs because they allow transparency and they don't skimp on the image quality. Gifs suck with quality.

[nyk45]

PNG file size is much bigger though.

And avatar limits, as an example, usually don't let you have PNG's.

[5tealthh]

But the signature is what people take pride in. The avatar is some stupid little thing that hangs on the side of your post for no reason besides instant identification, and some people probably mistake me for Guy No.2 anyways, so I need to change my avatar.

[Cactus]

Ah, but in PNG you can reduce image colour without losing quality. I usually reduce mine to about 256 colours. The difference is that PNG will let you use just the colours actually present in the image whilst gif uses the bass 256 colours. Okay.. I'll be honest, I'm basing that PURELY on speculation and personal experience. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that way. Anyway, I know you CAN reduce image size in PNG greatly by reducing colours, but it doesn't seem to reduce quality.

[nyk45]

If you have Photoshop, Save for Web allows you to have a good looking gif. (some of the times)

[5tealthh]

I don't have photoshop though. They should come out with a new version of IE... it seems like they either want to make it incompatible or they just don't care.

Microsoft should get in their head that when most people try out Firefox they'd rather have it over IE.

[nyk45]

Internet Explorer 8 is already available for download.

[Dogmantra]

But the signature is what people take pride in. The avatar is some stupid little thing

NEVER! I love my avatar like the son I never had (because having a son would be illegal for me...)

I don't have photoshop though

Voila!

[nyk45]

I don't have photoshop though

Voila!

Optional voila.

[5tealthh]

I don't have photoshop though

Voila!

Optional voila.

I take Paint.NET anyday over GIMP. Its not because GIMP appeals to Linux users, its just that Paint.NET is so much more easier for me to work with. When I can finally get all the frickin .NET updates... ugh...

But anyways, I solved the problem... maybe. Look at my sig. If it has any white in it (besides the sailboat) tell me. And tell me your browser.
I pulled up one of these forum pages in IE and it looked just fine to me.

What I did was use OptiPNG and compressed the images. I don't know why that helped, but obviously the program did something with the transparency, and made it readable to IE... somehow...

[nyk45]

I upgraded my firefox to 3.5, which is really faster for me, making it as fast as IE. And I am using Firefox as my default browser now. It's ok there.

Changed to IE to clear out your doubt and it's also okay. Fine job mister, as I like your signature.

[5tealthh]

Thanks, it took me quite a while to throw together, and thats the reason I was quite upset when I couldn't use it.