There are a number of different browsers that you must compensate for when designing your webpage's in any format (CSS, tables etc.), some of the most common browsers are : Internet Explorer 6/ 7, Firefox and Safari. The main issues that arise with CSS design is that all browsers interpret CSS differently, for example Firefox does not understand some of the CSS commands that Internet Explorer does and vice a versa.

One of the main issues I have found when designing with CSS is a problem with margins in Internet Explorer 6. I found that when using a float on a div tag that also had a margin set, the margin would actually double and then knock the whole pages layout out. After numerous late nights and an insane amount of coffee I finally found a solution to this double margin bug. By inserting a simple line of code the double margin no longer double ! That solution is as follows, by adding this line of code to your CSS div tag 'display: inline'.

Another problem I have found with CSS in Internet Explorer 6 is a problem when trying to define a div tag that has a smaller size than the base font size. This problem again can be fixed with a simple line of code this time all we need to add is the following line of code to the div tag: 'font-size:0px'. There is also another solution to this problem that should have the same effect, because the div tag auto stretches to compensate for content overflow adding 'overflow: hidden' should also resolve the problem.

Unfortunately I have been unable to cover all of the cross browser issues that you may experience when designing with CSS, but most of the problems that you may encounter can be resolved pretty easily with simple trial and error. Happy designing!

When choosing the best content management system for your project, it is important to weigh both the technical and non-technical pros and cons. Both technical and non-technical reasons can ultimately affect the bottom line cost. Therefore, it is not recommended to simply choose a content management system based solely on technical language or feature set. In this article, we will take a look at an open source content management system called Radiant CMS.

Radiant is a Ruby on Rails based solution that works with a variety of databases. It has a few years of development and a couple noteworthy deployments. There are technical and non-technical reasons why Radiant CMS is a good choice for a content management system.

Technical Reasons to Choose Radiant CMS: It's Ruby on Rails based which can speed development by taking advantage of the convention over configuration paradigm. In addition, the Radiant code base has excellent automated coverage in unit tests. This means the code is well tested and robust. Unit test code coverage can be one aspect to measure when considering open source content management systems. In fact, we could suggest the amount of code covered by automated unit and integration tests should be considered when choosing any open source library and/or framework. It is an easy indicator to measure and compare. But, that is an entirely different conversation.

Radiant CMS also has an excellent extension system. This allows customizations required by your project to be made. When choosing a content management system, the ability to add and maintain any customizations should be an important factor. This point should be considered not only from the beginning, but how your customizations will evolve as upgrades and enhancements occur within your chosen content management system. In other words, if the core CMS is modified to provide the custom functionality, how can upgrades or patches from the core CMS developers be applied to your modified version. Radiant's extension system provides this separation of concern.

The Radius tagging system of Radiant is fantastic for adding dynamic functionality. It is nice that tags can be added directly to page content rather than some kind of comment or special character sequence in order to indicate non-static content.

Non-Technical Reasons to Choose Radiant CMS: Radiant has an elegant, intuitive administrative interface. It is not intimidating to the non-technical user. In fact, the design encourages people to embrace using the system, because they assume it is going to be easy to pick up and learn.

The lack of workflow functionality can be considered a feature in many cases. In competing CMS products, workflow can seem like an attractive feature at first, but is often hindrance to configure and work around for projects which require only a few administrators of content.

An additional, non-technical reason to choose Radiant CMS is cost. The project is open source and the community of ruby on rails developers and ruby on rails hosting providers is growing, so your cost risk of obtaining these resources is minimized.

Conclusion

From a technical perspective, the open source, Ruby on Rails based Radiant CMS makes an excellent choice. From a non-technical perspective, Radiant CMS makes an excellent choice as well. When combining both perspectives, we have had many positive project experiences and deployments using Radiant over the past year and a half.

Let's begin with a little history. Many years ago, when the web was up and coming and you needed to be on it, I paid someone to build a site for me. Afterwards, I could say, "Yeah, I have a site, go to -" and then I would name my site a feel a hit of pride. I'd also get satisfaction when my webmaster (if you could call him that; I don't know that I would in retrospect, but that's another story) occasionally forwarded me an email of an interested visitor. My satisfaction was short-lived, as you might imagine. I soon began to understand the power of the web and found the sad reality that my "webmaster" was getting all my emails from my website visitors to be annoying. I had him change this so that the emails came to me. He charged me a one-time fee for getting him to do this.

Okay, so these days it is not quite that bad, is it? Your webmaster or whoever is doing the "web thing" for you isn't charging you for every little service? Excuse me. I'll reserve my rant for another article, or possibly a blog entry.

So anyway, I fired my webmaster. I built my own webpage. I did this - of all things - with Microsoft Publisher. Yeah, well, it worked - in that I was able to build a site and, with some effort, get it on the web. I won't go into why you shouldn't try this, kids, at home. I was at home when I tried it, sure. But I don't suggest building a site with Publisher. It can be done, but don't do it.

One thing that happens - talk about annoying: The site crams all against the left side of the page. There's nothing you can do to change that. You might as well type out onto the web page "Look, Ma, I can create a website using Publisher." Don't do it.

Well, I knew at the time I shouldn't be messing around with Publisher. It's great for putting together a book or something for print. It's not good for websites. I had just been so excited because I had created a downloadable book for lulu.com. Publisher was great for laying out a book. I had so much momentum...

I put the Publisher site up, and thought I had done a pretty good job, considering that everything was crammed up to the left of the screen. I had yet to become a blogger, and I had yet to realize the importance of tagging and so on. All that important "extra" stuff. I'm joking. Writing tags is not extra. It's essential. So is the blog - on the website.

Then I bought FrontPage and a book and... That's all she wrote. I learned FrontPage and I haven't tried anything else out since. Why not? So far I don't need to use the fantastic Dreamweaver that everyone talks about. Oh, I can't do Flash on FrontPage? Uh - yes you can. Easily.

I continue to believe that content is all-important. Not bells. Not whistles. Content. I don't care what kind of a site you are putting up. Well, okay, I wouldn't necessarily use FrontPage for every circumstance. But for you and me, the individual or small company that wants to be up and shining on the web, FrontPage is the clear answer. At least it was for me. As I say, I haven't looked back since.

One needn't learn the bells and whistles. One certainly needn't incorporate dhtml or whatever that code is that will make letters pop and fly about. Old browsers can't see it, and new browsers - mine, at least - don't want to see it.

I have affiliated with companies. That is, I've tried to turn a dollar by putting them up on my site, a link or banner or what have you. Let me say that what I don't like are the banners that flicker and blink and all that junk. If I want the Las Vegas experience, I'll go there.

Just give me content. FrontPage can handle that and handle it well. You want to be able to upload Flash, for sure. FrontPage can do it. You want to be able to get as much information on your website with as few bytes as possible. FrontPage can do this as well as any program. So, I'm happy. Are you happy - yet?