Missing footer and header classic responsive android

[pixelpadre]

comment out line 422

#navCatTabsWrapper, #navEZPagesTop, #navSuppWrapper{display:none;visibility:hidden;}

also, line 193 is the same thing for landscape, so maybe that one too

responsive_mobile.css is only loaded on mobile devices as determined by the code in includes/classes/Mobile_Detect.php which includes most tablets

FWIW Line 12

/* ALL MOBILE PHONES - ORIENTATION:LANDSCAPE */
@media only screen and (orientation:landscape) {

[barco57]

Yes, that wraps a large block for landscape and there is another farther down that wraps the other large block for portrait

[pixelpadre]

Thanks. That fixed the bug.

[barco57]

not really a bug...
more like a choice made by the designer of the template to exclude that information from the mobile view because of the space it takes up and generally doesn't layout well when you collapse cat tabs and EZpages menus. It seems it was easier to go that route than to go through all of the work required to make it look good which would have been somewhat situational to the particular website. Since most of that information is or should be in the mobile slide-in menu there is no point in going through that work.

Your definition of a bug needs to be adjusted, you currently believe that anything that doesn't do exactly what you think it should do or doesn't meet some standard you have set, for what you want to do, is a bug and should be fixed. You need to think a little deeper about why something might be the way it is. Sometimes things are generalized for a larger audience and when you want something specific you need to do the work to adjust it. Welcome to open source. Now with that said, could Responsive Classic be better? Yes, very much so, that's why I don't use it unless forced to because I need to use a plugin that just won't play nice with the the bootstrap template without me having to rewrite the view code. So for me, it is the Bootstrap template almost exclusively.

[pixelpadre]

I disagree....

Google indexes websites as desktop and mobile. I know this because they send me nasty reminders that they dont like my text size and/or spacing.

It's not clear to me that the hamburger menu icon is indexed by google spiders.

[pixelpadre]

not really a bug...
more like a choice made by the designer of the template to exclude that information from the mobile view because of the space it takes up and generally doesn't layout well when you collapse cat tabs and EZpages menus. It seems it was easier to go that route than to go through all of the work required to make it look good which would have been somewhat situational to the particular website. Since most of that information is or should be in the mobile slide-in menu there is no point in going through that work.

Your definition of a bug needs to be adjusted, you currently believe that anything that doesn't do exactly what you think it should do or doesn't meet some standard you have set, for what you want to do, is a bug and should be fixed. You need to think a little deeper about why something might be the way it is. Sometimes things are generalized for a larger audience and when you want something specific you need to do the work to adjust it. Welcome to open source. Now with that said, could Responsive Classic be better? Yes, very much so, that's why I don't use it unless forced to because I need to use a plugin that just won't play nice with the the bootstrap template without me having to rewrite the view code. So for me, it is the Bootstrap template almost exclusively.

I intentionally said BUG because I wanted to snag a big fish. Looks like I caught one. Lets see how many others I can catch.

[pixelpadre]

not really a bug...
more like a choice made by the designer of the template to exclude that information from the mobile view because of the space it takes up and generally doesn't layout well when you collapse cat tabs and EZpages menus. It seems it was easier to go that route than to go through all of the work required to make it look good which would have been somewhat situational to the particular website. Since most of that information is or should be in the mobile slide-in menu there is no point in going through that work.

Your definition of a bug needs to be adjusted, you currently believe that anything that doesn't do exactly what you think it should do or doesn't meet some standard you have set, for what you want to do, is a bug and should be fixed. You need to think a little deeper about why something might be the way it is. Sometimes things are generalized for a larger audience and when you want something specific you need to do the work to adjust it. Welcome to open source. Now with that said, could Responsive Classic be better? Yes, very much so, that's why I don't use it unless forced to because I need to use a plugin that just won't play nice with the the bootstrap template without me having to rewrite the view code. So for me, it is the Bootstrap template almost exclusively.

Your defense of current header/footer deletion assumes that most people know what the hamburger icon is for. I can tell you that more than 50% of the smart phone users have never even tapped on those 3 horizontal bars. In fact I would bet my life that the number is closer to 60%

[barco57]

Of course, you disagree, you wouldn't be you if you didn't disagree...



Understanding how Google crawls is important. They don't see the page the way you do, they are looking at the raw HTML, and being that the mobile menu is in the HTML, hidden from view until someone taps the hamburger menu to slide it in, it is indexable. Just because it is hidden from the viewer until clicked doesn't mean it is hidden from the crawler.


Side note - something I find interesting about that site is when you click the logo it wants to make a phone call instead of going to the home page, an anti-pattern if I have ever seen one, and the alt tag for the logo image is hilarious, dbltoe owes you a beer. how come you decided to make the logo the thing that triggers a phone call when tapped but didn't do the same with the phone number on the contact us page?

<img src="includes/templates/responsive_classic/images/logo.png" alt="dbltoe at zen-cart.com is the best" title="dbltoe at zen-cart.com is the best" width="200" height="164">

[pixelpadre]

I've noticed that on MANY postings, bugs are often defended as intentional by design by the authors with the excuse that if you don't like it, you can change it.

[pixelpadre]

Understanding how Google crawls is important. They don't see the page the way you do, they are looking at the raw HTML, and being that the mobile menu is in the HTML, hidden from view until someone taps the hamburger menu to slide it in, it is indexable. Just because it is hidden from the viewer until clicked doesn't mean it is hidden from the crawler.

Really? All along I thought it was those 8 legs on the spiders that were used for clicking.

how come you decided to make the logo the thing that triggers a phone call when tapped but didn't do the same with the phone number on the contact us page?

User attention deficit disorder of course. 15 second rule https://www.crazyegg.com/blog/why-us...ave-a-website/