[WSG] Images as accessible form buttons
I know we had this discussion once before, but I was hoping to return to it to see if there are any new opinions on this topic. The question I have is what would be the best option to create images as form buttons in an accessible manner? So far I have always tried to use css to assign a background image to a input type=button, but that doesn't always work, in particular if your button text does not contain a standard font. I then thought I should use input type=image, but realised that this doesn't work in all browsers. IE, for example, has got the nasty habbit of submitting name.x=0name.y=0 when these kind of buttons are clicked, which can make it really difficult if you have got multiple buttons in one form and you wish to detect which of them was clicked. Then there is button, but to be honest I don't know much about this one. I assume it is not being supported in older browsers, so probably not the best accessible solution, either. Which leaves me with no solution, really. Is there a way of making it accessible? Or are our browser limitations that strong that there is really no way to use images as form buttons? Thanks for the opinions. Andreas ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Migrating h4, IE5, Help page large text, top page links
Thankyou WSG members for past help that you unknowingly gave me... my volunteer site is now up for testing at http://ozcranes.net/ Can someone help? (it seems like a rather long list...) 1. In modern browsers (except Opera) the header h4 migrates down into lower divs, at large text sizes. Every combo I've tried, for top bottom padding or margins of the header or its elements, or previous or following divs, causes some other issue - eg the h4 ends up where I don't want it, at normal text size. Or, IE6 develops large gaps (blue background only) between div navmax and div header. 2. I rarely get a chance to test in IE5. Had 3 issues in 5.5 - (a) data tables centred on page, seems OK now? eg http://ozcranes.net/info/resources_3.html (b) div bread (simulated breadcrumb trail, all pages except home page) a shocker. Tried various versions of Fat Erik's breadcrumbs from Listamatic, all that can be said for my current version (craneweb.css, hacks are all at the end) is that it doesn't disrupt modern browsers. Can this be fixed for IE5 (any version)? (c) assumed I had box model problems, symptoms in 5.5 were: div sidebar on right: content was way right, with too much blank blue space between it, and div main's right dotted border. Also, the rightmost of 3 side by side floated contents lists (div sections) in http://ozcranes.net/research/icn.authors.html was dropping below the first two. Have the hacks at the end of craneweb.css fixed this, or should I try something else? 3. Two recent issues: wrote my Help page months ago - decided that everyone I showed, loved larger text (irrespective of age group) so went with an explanation. Also - can't find the thread in the WSG archive to respond to, I think it was mid August, and the issue recently reappeared on Eric Meyer - I have top of page links #top scattered throughout the site, somewhat alarmed by 'tag' story. Can't trigger the behaviour myself, though. Thanks in advance for any advice Elinor Scambler, Australian Crane Network ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
I like Bert :-) He talks sense. And before you say it the other people also made very good points which I appreciate. A lot of it does seem very conceptual however, if you know what I mean. Terence said, Using them for layout is a bit like making up everything in p tags. Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square pegs in round holes?) with the way we force it to do things that it perhaps was not really designed for? Are floats really meant to be used for column design? If they are then why are there oodles of pages on the net about getting them to work right. We never had this problem with tables ;-) I disagree with the point about revisiting the design just because CSS is not up to the job. The web is a visual medium and we should be able to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they are readable and suitable for those accessing them. For those of you who use a background image, how do you get round the problem of the columns changing size? I hope you are not using a fixed width layout (as many CSS column layouts do)! ;-) Regarding my point about CSS taking longer. As I say I have been using CSS for various sites for quite a while, but it's the time taken to find the right hack for the right problem, making sure you have the best hack possible, trying to make sure you have all angles covered etc. If anyone knows of an up to date article detailing the most common CSS design problems and the best solutions then I would love to know of it! The whole concept of using tables for layout is flawed for a number of reasons. It makes assumptions about the type of device being used to render the page, the abilities of the person viewing it, adds unneccessary weight to the design, is harder to update, and directly interferes with the content. Final point I want to know is, in what way does a table (a simple 1 row 2 column table) actually cause any of the above problems you mention? How does it hinder someone from viewing it on a different device for example? How is it harder to update? I am not talking about multiple nested tables. I remember when Java was the next great thing. How Java applets were just what we needed. Yet I remember thinking, well where are the real world examples of how these applets are useful on a web site? The main examples I knew of were games. Then there was Flash. Flash has done a bit better but again, people rush to it and we had to suffer the period of Flash intro pages! Nice to look at ... once... but ultimately pointless. When you go to a web site you want information usually, not entertainment. Flash has now found it's right place as an aid to the visual appeal of web pages, or other uses, but is not so abused now. CSS is very different from both Java and Flash, but we need to keep things real and not go overboard. Why is it we use floats for layout when you could argue relative positioning is how it should be done? Are we using floats for the wrong purpose? Thanks, Stephen - Original Message - From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:56 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space G'day again Once upon a time it was NN4, now it's IE6, and tomorrow who knows? And that's the point of designing to web standards. As for what the client wants, I say it's two of: good, fast, cheap. Yep. And some of those have difficulty with non table based layouts :-) However, I doubt very much that the big driver is the visual design Bert, and I doubt most people visiting or commissioning a web site give two hoots as to how its built. The vast majority of my clients don't care whether I use a table or divs (and would not even know the difference). But they do often want a particular layout and all except a few do look at it with a graphical browser. For the record, the people paying my bills *do* want standards based design - I'm working in e-govt - and they want content that is usable by people, and *easily* manipulated by machines. Standards based (good) does not rule out using the occasional table for layout if it's the quickest way to get something out there (fast and cheap). (e-govt - is that the real world? LOL) If a 2 column CSS layout with a band of color down one side is difficult to implement with todays technology, shouldn't we instead look for designs that work with the technology we are using? If it's your own site and you are happy to have a different layout, sure. Or if you can convince the client that your way is better. But if the client wants a particular look, We should give them what they want. If that means using a *single* table to get two columns of equal length and with different background colors, I will use the table. setting a background on one or two div's *still* uses less code than the equivalent markup for tables. Show me an example?* *Take into
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Stevio wrote: I disagree with the point about revisiting the design just because CSS is not up to the job. The web is a visual medium and we should be able to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they are readable and suitable for those accessing them. i found this to be an interesting article: http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/dao/index.html cheers, dwain -- dwain alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The Savior replied; There is no such thing as sin;... 'The Gospel of Mary of Magdala' ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Dwain wrote: Stevio wrote: I disagree with the point about revisiting the design just because CSS is not up to the job. The web is a visual medium and we should be able to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they are readable and suitable for those accessing them. i found this to be an interesting article: http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/dao/index.html Interesting yes. But two points. One is that it assumes the user knows how to change their font size. I suspect many do not. The default layout has to be the best one, as over 90% of the time that is what will be viewed and it will not be changed by the user. Secondly, their web site uses a fixed width layout that does not fit when the browser window is 800px wide. Stephen -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square pegs in round holes?) with the way we force it to do things that it perhaps was not really designed for? Maybe to an extent, but not nearly as much as using tables for layout is abusing tables. They were never meant to be used as layout, or even for presentation. They were created for tabular data. At least in CSS, we're abusing a presentational language for presentational purposes. The web is a visual medium and we should be able to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they are readable and suitable for those accessing them. I disagree. The web is an information medium. The most common way to access that information is through a graphical "web browser". A visual medium used to "browse" the information made available on the web (information medium). I rarely use a traditional, graphical web browser anymore. I have my computer read my RSS feeds and email aloud to me while I work and play games. I test pages I make in graphical browsers, and post flamebait as anonymous coward on Slashdot. That's about it. For those of you who use a background image, how do you get round the problem of the columns changing size? I hope you are not using a fixed width layout (as many CSS column layouts do)! ;-) *clicks my heels together three times and says "Column support in CSS3? Column support in CSS3?"* Final point I want to know is, in what way does a table (a simple 1 row 2 column table) actually cause any of the above problems you mention? How does it hinder someone from viewing it on a different device for example? How is it harder to update? I am not talking about multiple nested tables. Accessibility isn't just for blind people. It's also for the most disabled users of all: computers. Ever try to teach an HTML parsing script how to tell the difference between a table of data and a layout table? If people would just use semantic markup, it'd be as simple as "It's in a table element? Must be tabular data. It's in a p element? Must be a paragraph."
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
- Original Message - From: Kenny Graham To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square pegs in round holes?) with the way we force it to do things that it perhaps was not really designed for? Maybe to an extent, but not nearly as much as using tables for layout is abusing tables. They were never meant to be used as layout, or even for presentation. They were created for tabular data. At least in CSS, we're abusing a presentational language for presentational purposes. The web is a visual medium and we should be able to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they are readable and suitable for those accessing them. I disagree. The web is an information medium. The most common way to access that information is through a graphical web browser. A visual medium used to browse the information made available on the web (information medium). I rarely use a traditional, graphical web browser anymore. I have my computer read my RSS feeds and email aloud to me while I work and play games. I test pages I make in graphical browsers, and post flamebait as anonymous coward on Slashdot. That's about it. For those of you who use a background image, how do you get round the problem of the columns changing size? I hope you are not using a fixed width layout (as many CSS column layouts do)! ;-) *clicks my heels together three times and says Column support in CSS3? Column support in CSS3?* Final point I want to know is, in what way does a table (a simple 1 row 2 column table) actually cause any of the above problems you mention? How does it hinder someone from viewing it on a different device for example? How is it harder to update? I am not talking about multiple nested tables. Accessibility isn't just for blind people. It's also for the most disabled users of all: computers. Ever try to teach an HTML parsing script how to tell the difference between a table of data and a layout table? If people would just use semantic markup, it'd be as simple as It's in a table element? Must be tabular data. It's in a p element? Must be a paragraph. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
- Original Message - From: Kenny Graham Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:36 PM The web is a visual medium and we should be able to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they are readable and suitable for those accessing them.I disagree. The web is an information medium. The most common way to access that information is through a graphical "web browser". A visual medium used to "browse" the information made available on the web (information medium). Good description, I concede the point. I rarely use a traditional, graphical web browser anymore. I have my computer read my RSS feeds and email aloud to me while I work and play games. I test pages I make in graphical browsers, and post flamebait as anonymous coward on Slashdot. That's about it. I suggest you are in the minority in your use of the web. Most people will use web browsers. For those of you who use a background image, how do you get round the problem of the columns changing size? I hope you are not using a fixed width layout (as many CSS column layouts do)! ;-)*clicks my heels together three times and says "Column support in CSS3? Column support in CSS3?"* Lol. In which case the use of tables is perhaps still justified? Final point I want to know is, in what way does a table (a simple 1 row 2 column table) actually cause any of the above problems you mention? How does it hinder someone from viewing it on a different device for example? How is it harder to update? I am not talking about multiple nested tables.Accessibility isn't just for blind people. It's also for the most disabled users of all: computers. Ever try to teach an HTML parsing script how to tell the difference between a table of data and a layout table? If people would just use semantic markup, it'd be as simple as "It's in a table element? Must be tabular data. It's in a p element? Must be a paragraph." The point is however, that when you create columns, with equal length, you are in essence creating a table grid type layout for your information. Therefore the use of tables with their columns makes sense, even appropriate? When you create columns using CSS, you are creating a table-like look, are you not? Is CSS3 going to reinvent the wheel? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Stevio wrote: Interesting yes. But two points. One is that it assumes the user knows how to change their font size. I suspect many do not. The default layout has to be the best one, as over 90% of the time that is what will be viewed and it will not be changed by the user. i'll agree, most users don't know how to change the font sizes, but a designer/developer should not assume such for accessibility reasons. Secondly, their web site uses a fixed width layout that does not fit when the browser window is 800px wide. touche'! dwain -- dwain alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The Savior replied; There is no such thing as sin;... 'The Gospel of Mary of Magdala' ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Stevio wrote: When you create columns using CSS, you are creating a table-like look, are you not? Is CSS3 going to reinvent the wheel? sure you are creating a table-like look, but there is not as much markup with css as there is with tables, in most cases. with html and css you don't have the need for empty cells in your design as with tables, thus, less markup. plus you have more control over positioning elements than with tables; and you can design with overlapping elements with html and css; i don't see the ability to do that with tables. i used to design with tables and found it unsatisfactory, but since i was wysiwyging it, i didn't know of a better way, plus css was in its infancy. when i made the change to tableless design i had problems until the light came on and i realized that positioning was done with cells if you will. i couldn't do a table layout if my mother's life was on the line. i don't think that css3 is going to reinvent the wheel, but it will allow for better, more sophisticated presentational tools, like being able to use svg as a background image. i can't wait for that one! dwain -- dwain alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The Savior replied; There is no such thing as sin;... 'The Gospel of Mary of Magdala' ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS 3 color module and deprecation of system colors
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Apologies for cross posting, but: could anybody shed some light as to why system colors have been deprecated in the CSS 3 color module? This is a bit OT, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't system colors be a big security threat as far a phishing and spoofing, and getting a client to thing your actually part of the browser when your not? Alan Trick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Stevio wrote When you create columns using CSS, you are creating a table-like look, are you not? Not at all. When you create columns you create a columnar layout, in the same way a newspaper is a column layout, not a tabular layout. The physical appearance may be the similar, but the implied meaning is completely different. A table used purely for achieving a presentational layout goes against the meaning derived from the table element. Using a table for layout is a quick and easy solution, but then where do you draw the line. How many misused tables can you let slip through? Regards Scott Swabey Lafinboy Productions www.lafinboy.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] IE's transparency filter breaks absolute positioning
URL: http://scott.therestons.com/development/test.html To make up for lacking PNG transparency support in IE, I'm using the filter: attribute to make a div's background transparent (yep - i'm aware that IE will make all descendents transparent, too...) I'm running into a problem, though - when I apply filter (as in filter:alpha(opacity=80);) to a containing div, it no longer lets absolutely placed divs within it to break free of it's box dimensions. the inner div is clipped by the dimensions of the container. Everything appears to work fine if the transparency filter is removed or if the containing div is RELATIVELY positioned, but the two together cause problems. Can someone suggest a hack or workaround that allows transparency AND absolute positioning? I need the containing div to be absolutely positioned. I'm open to alternate ways of applying a transparent background to the containing div. Thanks! scott reston [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scott.therestons.com raleigh, nc USA ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS 3 color module and deprecation of system colors
Alan Trick wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Apologies for cross posting, but: could anybody shed some light as to why system colors have been deprecated in the CSS 3 color module? This is a bit OT, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't system colors be a big security threat as far a phishing and spoofing, and getting a client to thing your actually part of the browser when your not? Well they're already there (and have been in browsers since 98) so it's a bit late to worry about that :) -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Hello all.
I think we are getting a little off track here. We know we can do this with css:
div#left {
width:50%;
float:left;
border-right:1px solid #000;
display:inline;
}
div#right {
width:50%;
float:left;
border-left:1px solid #000;
margin-left:-1px;
display:inline;
}
This makes two columns with a single line down the middle. Regardless of height, you have one equal line.
The markup is just two div tags. Much less than a 2 column table, also
it's semantic and easily parsed by screen readers, rss feeds, etc.
Now, the problem everyone seems to have is that one column just *has*
to be a different color. Isn't this a little superficial? If we really
want to talk about what's more correct, semantic, etc, then we need to
consider that xhtml/css are in a transition stage right now and maybe
we need to be a little less superficial until CSS provides the
functionality we want. I know the web is primarily viewed as a visual
medium but the W3C is trying to make everyone realize that the web is
meant to be a lot more than that. Whether your page is being crawled by
Google or parsed into an RSS feed, you are better off using semantics.
Besides, having or not having a color down one side of the layout is
irrelevant to the content. Whether a web site you design for a client
has certain colors or not doesn't change the effectiveness of the page
for me, the viewer. I'm going to visit your client's page to get
information, and I won't mind if the two columns are the same color.
Really, most viewers probably don't care, they just care about whether
the content is there.
Now, may I ask that you please stop insisting that tables for layout
are semantically correct, or that two columns of text are tabular data,
etc. Just be honest: you want to use the wrong tool for the job because
it's the quick and easy solution. That's all you have to say. Let me
just mention a couple things:
- When CSS finally has the functionality for equal columns, and we all
have to go back to our websites and update them, it will be a lot
easier for those of us who used divs.
- For every website that you could show me with a nice looking two
column two color table layout, I can show you 10 websites that use divs
and CSS, are semantically correct, and while not having two colors, are
still beautiful.
Christian MontoyaOn 9/6/05, Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stevio wrote When you create columns using CSS, you are creating a table-like look, are
you not?Not at all. When you create columns you create a columnar layout, in thesame way a newspaper is a column layout, not a tabular layout.The physical appearance may be the similar, but the implied meaning is
completely different. A table used purely for achieving a presentationallayout goes against the meaning derived from the table element. Using atable for layout is a quick and easy solution, but then where do you draw
the line. How many misused tables can you let slip through?RegardsScott SwabeyLafinboy Productionswww.lafinboy.com**
The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] Submenus anyone?
Hi Al Your menu hides the submenu from users with javascript turned off. I turned mine off just to check. Is there an option to display the submenu information for those without javascript enabled? Ted Which menu are you using? This will not happen with our commercial Pop Menu Magic system, guaranteed. Here is a demo site using the menu, let me know if you can get the menu to stick open - I sure can't :-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Images as accessible form buttons
On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: I then thought I should use input type=image, but realised that this doesn't work in all browsers. IE, for example, has got the nasty habbit of submitting name.x=0name.y=0 when these kind of buttons are clicked, which can make it really difficult if you have got multiple buttons in one form and you wish to detect which of them was clicked. The .x and .y values are according to spec; any browser that doesn't do this is broken. I suspect this is your best bet. Is the reason it's difficult to use multiple submits because you are not receiving a name=value in addition to the name.x=xxname.y=yy values? If so, then that browser is broken as well. ...an input type=image creates a submit button... http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html ...a submit button is successful if clicked... http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#submit-button ...successful form elements have their values submitted paired to their names... http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#successful- controls -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility with Firefox
Hi all If you haven't read Patrick Lauke's article on using the web developer toolbar, you should check it out. I thought I knew the toolbar but he's introduced several features that have made it into my daily work habit. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/lauke/ Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Street Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 9:17 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility with Firefox On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 23:40 -0400, Donna Jones wrote: does anyone have an url for this? tried finding it on moz and couldn't and really would like to try it out. http://accessibar.mozdev.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Submenus anyone?
From: Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [WSG] Submenus anyone? Hi Al Your menu hides the submenu from users with javascript turned off. I turned mine off just to check. Is there an option to display the submenu information for those without javascript enabled? Ted The menu is visible to script-disabled browsers by default. However, we hide the menu on our site for for accessibility reasons, as discussed in this article: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/accessibility/pop_integrated/ This online demo shows the menu in its default configuration: http://www.projectseven.com/products/menusystems/pmm/pagepacks/tommi/tommy_v1.htm Those types of issues are controlled in an ordinary CSS file so people have full control. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility with Firefox
Drake, Ted C. wrote: Hi all If you haven't read Patrick Lauke's article on using the web developer toolbar, you should check it out. I thought I knew the toolbar but he's introduced several features that have made it into my daily work habit. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/lauke/ snip On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 23:40 -0400, Donna Jones wrote: does anyone have an url for this? tried finding it on moz and couldn't and really would like to try it out. http://accessibar.mozdev.org/ /snip ted, this is an accessibility tool bar; quite different from the web dev tool bar. dwain -- dwain alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The Savior replied; There is no such thing as sin;... 'The Gospel of Mary of Magdala' ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility with Firefox
dwain alford wrote: Drake, Ted C. wrote: Hi all If you haven't read Patrick Lauke's article on using the web developer toolbar, you should check it out. I thought I knew the toolbar but he's introduced several features that have made it into my daily work habit. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/lauke/ snip On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 23:40 -0400, Donna Jones wrote: does anyone have an url for this? tried finding it on moz and couldn't and really would like to try it out. http://accessibar.mozdev.org/ /snip ted, this is an accessibility tool bar; quite different from the web dev tool bar. dwain Yes, and I was the one that asked for the link to it. After I got there found out to get it to read the page one has to hover w/ a mouse - so totally unlike a screen reader. I think hovering with a mouse could be helpful to some people but it doesn't give one an idea of how the page is read by a screen reader. i didn't download/install it. But that article by Patrick that he references above --- it is a great article talking about the webdev bar - the reference just sorta ended up in the wrong thread. ;-) best Donna ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Stevio said: Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square pegs in round holes?) with the way we force it to do things that it perhaps was not really designed for? Are floats really meant to be used for column design? If they are then why are there oodles of pages on the net about getting them to work right. We never had this problem with tables ;-) I think we actually agree on this point Steve, but we are approaching the issue from vastly different perspectives. What I contend is this: (1) CSS is not up to the job of imitating tables based layouts, (2) Table based layout are worse, and (3) The problem is that we have a visual design expectation we are comfotable with that is wrong for the medium. I say the solution lies in design that uses the strengths of the medium and the tools at our disposal instead of designing like it's 1997, in other words: let's revisit the design. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Bert Doorn said: (e-govt - is that the real world? LOL) It's Utopia for an idealist like me =) If it's your own site and you are happy to have a different layout, sure. Or if you can convince the client that your way is better. But if the client wants a particular look, We should give them what they want. If that means using a *single* table to get two columns of equal length and with different background colors, I will use the table. Doesn't have to be that radical, two columns is fine...just lose the racing stripe =). Customers are only ever 'always right' when you're in a service industry. I think design is much more than that, and it's a dis-service not to give them what they *need* vs what they think they want. setting a background on one or two div's *still* uses less code than the equivalent markup for tables. Show me an example? I come out with a saving of two characters on the side of CSS in a one page two column layout, but I'll leave the solution as an exercise for the reader - be creative! However, let's not forget that external CSS files are cachable, where as table-based layouts are not. I rest my case. The visual design is not always negotiable, so I use the means available to me to deliver what I am paid to deliver in the most efficient way I can. To me that means CSS based layouts *most* of the time. Everything is negotiable (there's even a sales training course called that ;-), but sure, you do what you do. I understand that cars need four tyres - but they don't need racing stripes. I think the whole cnet yellow stripe layout is so 1997. As well as being hard to implement in a table-less layout, it really limits design possiblities. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Christian Montoya said: Now, the problem everyone seems to have is that one column just *has* to be a different color. Isn't this a little superficial? Yes! This is what I'm talking about, albeit less succinctly. Design differently. cheers Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Images as accessible form buttons
-Original Message- From: Ben Curtis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:32 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Images as accessible form buttons On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: I then thought I should use input type=image, but realised that this doesn't work in all browsers. IE, for example, has got the nasty habbit of submitting name.x=0name.y=0 when these kind of buttons are clicked, which can make it really difficult if you have got multiple buttons in one form and you wish to detect which of them was clicked. The .x and .y values are according to spec; any browser that doesn't do this is broken. I suspect this is your best bet. Is the reason it's difficult to use multiple submits because you are not receiving a name=value in addition to the name.x=xxname.y=yy values? If so, then that browser is broken as well. When you say it's broken you mean it doesn't adhere to the standards? Well, that seems to be the case with IE 5 and IE 6. These browsers only submits name.x=xxname.y=yy values, no name=value in the querystring. Firefox on the other hand submits both. Whether you call it broken or not, the fact seems to remain that IE doesn't handle these buttons correctly, which in the long run means they are inaccessible. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] td != div
In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing tables with divs. But many of the XHTML/CSS sites I see clearly do. For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id. Or put the contents of a paragraph inside a span id=p1 instead of giving the paragraph itself an id of p1. The only time divs don't make me cringe is when they're used to enclose a group of elements with the header that applies to them, and this purpose of divs is being replaced with section. I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than wrapping it in a table? Hopefully this will start a debate that I can learn something from, since I have a limited background in tables.
Re: [WSG] td != div
On 07/09/2005, at 9:31 AM, Kenny Graham wrote: In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing tables with divs. But many of the XHTML/CSS sites I see clearly do. For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id. Or put the contents of a paragraph inside a span id=p1 instead of giving the paragraph itself an id of p1. The only time divs don't make me cringe is when they're used to enclose a group of elements with the header that applies to them, and this purpose of divs is being replaced with section. I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than wrapping it in a table? Hopefully this will start a debate that I can learn something from, since I have a limited background in tables. I'd actually be inclined to agree with you, even though I did start out in web development with table-based design. It made sense then, and was especially easy when you used something like Photoshop or Fireworks to design a beautiful graphical layout, carve it up, and export it directly as a table. In hindsight, however, I think it mostly made sense because we knew no other way. Since I've started working towards standards-based design, I actually haven't really done the whole replace every table cell with a div thing. One of the attractions for me was that I could create much cleaner code that was easier to edit by hand (which I much prefer to using a WYSIWYG, most of the time) and so hanging IDs and classes directly on the elements I wanted to style just made sense. I have, however, seen a lot of the sites that you are thinking of here. I've even seen a number of tutorials that follow the table cell = div method. I usually follow the tutorial to make sure I get all the bits right, then go back and try to clean it up by eliminating unnecessary divs. It doesn't always work, and sometimes I find I've completely ballsed it up, but I have learned a lot that way. *grin* Cheers, Seona. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] td != div
Kenny Graham said: In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing tables with divs. But many of the XHTML/CSS sites I see clearly do. For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id. Or put the contents of a paragraph inside a span id=p1 instead of giving the paragraph itself an id of p1. The only time divs don't make me cringe is when they're used to enclose a group of elements with the header that applies to them, and this purpose of divs is being replaced with section. I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than wrapping it in a table? Hopefully this will start a debate that I can learn something from, since I have a limited background in tables. overusing elements in the manner you describe is not the best approach, and is often a result of poor generators, or lack of decent descendant selector support, or (as you imply) simply using divs and spans as surrogates for table elements. As stated on the other current css v. table thread, using tables exclusivly for tabular data makes it easier to scrape the page at a later date for data. what are you hoping to learn about? kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] td != div
what are you hoping to learn about? I don't have a clue. But in my experience, every time I've asked a debate-causing question on here, it's gone off on 50 tangents and I've learned a lot. *evil grin*
[WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Might I add two cents? My thoughts on this issue are probably reasonably well known. But a slightly different angle. I've recently been undertaking some serious research into current practices by major companies, government departments, and so on when it comes to web development. I'm in the processing of surveying well over a hundred sites. Some related lessons. Table based layouts are still very very common. So are malfomed documents. Unclosed elements, missing end tags, missing start start, overlapping elements, containment rules broken. You name it. And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. BTW, I'm presenting these findings at WE05, and hope to have a detailed article online soon, john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] td != div
I think it's also important to bare in mind that there might be very good reasons for putting a ul inside a div. The most obvious one I can think of is the need for two background images. I think once the next standard incorporates this and browsers support it, there will be even less need for unwarranted code. Another thing to remember is that, in the same way table layouts were used as CSS wasn't supported at the time, so too are multiple divs being used to compensate for a lack of support in browsers. Just thing of the dreaded Vertical Align hacks that have been thrown around across the web. One quote I keep remembering was Tm Berners Lee saying something like, HTML was never designed to be a tool for graphically displaying data. Browsers are still catching up with CSS Support and CSS itself is still being developed to allow us humble designers the ability to realise our vision in code. Give it time, the standards will soon allow us to eliminate unnecessary code - it might take a bit to get there though. PS: How did you manage to avoid table layouts Lucky boy! R :o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] td != div
On 07/09/2005, at 9:31 AM, Kenny Graham wrote: In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing tables with divs. But many of the XHTML/CSS sites I see clearly do. For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id. Or put the contents of a paragraph inside a span id=p1 instead of giving the paragraph itself an id of p1. The only time divs don't make me cringe is when they're used to enclose a group of elements with the header that applies to them, and this purpose of divs is being replaced with section. I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than wrapping it in a table? Hopefully this will start a debate that I can learn something from, since I have a limited background in tables. I think one of the sources of this problem is the common misconception that CSS Layout = Layers and that Layers = DIVs Too often, when I speak about CSS layout to developers who are still using tables for layout, they react with: Ah, that's layers, right?. And when layers first came out everybody was using DIVs for them. So you now need to grab those old-fashioned developers by the collar, shake them a little, and explain to them in a honey-sweet voice that there is so much more to css layout than plastering your HTML with DIVs. For somebody like yourself who never came across the table layout business and didn't hear somewhere over the grapevine about DIVs and Layers, it is probably much easier to use CSS in the way it is meant to be done. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] td != div
Kenny Graham wrote: I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than wrapping it in a table? No, div-wrapping-mania isn't much better. However, standards and weak browsers put limitations on what we can do with CSS on single elements. I dislike the use of 'style-hooks' in serious designs, but I can rarely get a design that I may actually like, to become cross-browser stable without some of these 'extras'. On less serious designs -- private site and so on, playing with these messy divitis-constructions is more like a game to me. I see the use of these multiple wrapper-divs and other 'style-hooks' as short term solutions, while standards and browsers grow up. Maybe I'll grow up too... Hopefully this will start a debate that I can learn something from, since I have a limited background in tables. I left tables behind because of the limitations they put on design. Not that the tools available to me make me totally free to design as I want just yet, but at least there's some progress. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based approach are old skool, knowing nothing of standards-based approaches, or dismissing them as unnecessary. This mindset also tends to treat HTML with disdain, and the vast majority of designers/developers under this umbrella fall into 1 of 3 categories: 1. Hacks who have been asked to produce websites for their company/department in the absence of a qualified professional; 2. Old skool warriors whose hard-earned table-based hacks are just too entrenched to let go of; 3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought. The practical upshot of this is that they don't care, or know enough to care, that their markup is invalid, and will always argue that it works. I think the key here - and I know this was the case for me - is getting them to understand the semantic value of their markup, more so than the simple binary opposition of tables vs css. Being inspired to strip away all the crap is the natural and inevitable result of the semantics light bulb coming on in someone's head. Then they realise that it's not an arbitrary debate about style or best practise, but about efficient and effective information architecture and delivery. Hope all that made sense! Kevin On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] td != div
PS: How did you manage to avoid table layouts Lucky boy! I'm only 21, and didn't start doing commercial sites until recently. Before there was wide browser support for CSS, I was just doing web design as a hobby, and didn't really care if a single browser in the world displayed it correctly.
Re: [WSG] td != div
The most obvious one I can think of is the need for two background images. Sometimes this is the case, but often times it can be avoided with a little creativity, such as using a background image on the ul, and classing the first and last li to give them more height and different background images (good for vertical nav bars). But still, I guess sometimes it's necessary if the design isn't negotiable.
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
-Original Message- From: Kevin Futter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:02 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based approach are old skool, knowing nothing of standards-based approaches, or dismissing them as unnecessary. Completely agree with Kevin on this point. I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. Who can blame them, really? They grew up in time where each browser was going its own way, standards were little supported and it didn't really matter if you wrote semantically correct code or not. You forgot to close a tag, so what? The browsers were forgiving enough to let it slip. If you have developed websites in such an environment for a long time it is hard to suddenly change your mind and follow a set of standards. And the current browsers are still forgiving, so many members of the old school probably don't see a reason to change. Let's flip the idea that John suggested: if any follower of web standards would go back to using tables for whatever reasons, do you really think they would suddenly start missing end tags or writing invalid documents? Once you see the value of valid HTML, I don't think you will go back to writing invalid code, be it with tables or without. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Andreas, I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. Whatever the reason, if you see a table based design, the chances of it being invalid are raised monumentally. And we are talking about companies and organizations with billion dollar turnovers, multi billion dollar market caps. I think in part you are right that it is mindset. But I'd also argue that the simple use of tables increases the complexity of code, and with it the chances of error. This is a lesson hard learned in Software Engineering - complex languages and constructs, and syntactic complexity raise the chances of error among all developers. The last 30 years of development of programming languages and software engineering approaches has been one of simplifying, and managing complexity (you might argue that it hasn't worked all that well, at least in the wild) Moonshots famously missed the moon due to the complexity of fortran. These were smart people, smarter than I ever was or will be. We tend to learn these lessons in web development slowly, painfully and fitfully if at all. So not only is it *who* is using the technique, it is the technique itself which is problematic. john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought. In my world I am starting to win the battle with developers. For us the fundamental change was to move the ASP.NET developers away from the use of Grid layout and use more of a flow view. Yes this will not fix the problem of invalid documents entirely. But it makes that seperation of the presentation layer that much more clear and distinct Matthew Barben | Piggles Web Development Phone: 0419 206 112 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.piggles.net Quoting Kevin Futter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based approach are old skool, knowing nothing of standards-based approaches, or dismissing them as unnecessary. This mindset also tends to treat HTML with disdain, and the vast majority of designers/developers under this umbrella fall into 1 of 3 categories: 1. Hacks who have been asked to produce websites for their company/department in the absence of a qualified professional; 2. Old skool warriors whose hard-earned table-based hacks are just too entrenched to let go of; 3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought. The practical upshot of this is that they don't care, or know enough to care, that their markup is invalid, and will always argue that it works. I think the key here - and I know this was the case for me - is getting them to understand the semantic value of their markup, more so than the simple binary opposition of tables vs css. Being inspired to strip away all the crap is the natural and inevitable result of the semantics light bulb coming on in someone's head. Then they realise that it's not an arbitrary debate about style or best practise, but about efficient and effective information architecture and delivery. Hope all that made sense! Kevin On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] td != div
At 06:15 PM 9/6/2005, Kenny Graham wrote: The most obvious one I can think of is the need for two background images. Sometimes this is the case, but often times it can be avoided with a little creativity, such as using a background image on the ul, and classing the first and last li to give them more height and different background images (good for vertical nav bars). But still, I guess sometimes it's necessary if the design isn't negotiable. Kenny, Of course sloppy markup abounds -- as Theodore Sturgeon was known to remark, 90% of everything is crap -- a principal that applies fairly equally to every field of human endeavor -- but don't be too quick to assume that apparently extraneous divs are truly unnecessary until you've carefully dissected the HTML-CSS interrelationships. Sometimes wrapping a div around a structure seems to be required to stabilize an effect cross-browser, to contain floats, to maintain a columnar structure, etc. Often the necessity of wrapping divs won't be obvious until you bring the markup and stylesheet onto your own computer and start deleting tags in an effort to simplify things -- then you'll find in some cases exactly what the original developer discovered, that containers are sometimes necessary to keep things together and to keep everything behaving similarly from one browser to another. Many of us strive constantly to produce the layout effects we want without adding extra divs, and discoveries of how to truly do without them in this circumstance or that are always greeted with great huzzahs and confetti in the streets. I look forward to your own contributions to the field. Regards, Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility with Firefox
Donna Jones wrote: Yes, and I was the one that asked for the link to it. After I got there found out to get it to read the page one has to hover w/ a mouse - so totally unlike a screen reader. I think hovering with a mouse could be helpful to some people but it doesn't give one an idea of how the page is read by a screen reader. i didn't download/install it. when i initially posted the list i said that it gives you a sense of what a screen reader reads the page. it is my understanding that a screen reader will also read title attributes on links and alt attributes on images. although you have to hover the mouse and it is not as sophisticated as a screen reader, there are some other features for accessibility trials. i haven't played with it much, but i will when i get some free time. cheers, dwain -- dwain alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The Savior replied; There is no such thing as sin;... 'The Gospel of Mary of Magdala' ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
-Original Message- From: John Allsopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:41 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon Andreas, I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. I think in part you are right that it is mindset. But I'd also argue that the simple use of tables increases the complexity of code, and with it the chances of error. This is a lesson hard learned in Software Engineering - complex languages and constructs, and syntactic complexity raise the chances of error among all developers. Yeah, I see what you mean. So maybe we should agree to blame the complexity of tables and the stubbornness of people who use them. Hooraay! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Not that I'm into me too posts but here's my 2 cents. I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. Until a few years ago, I used tables for layout, exclusively. However, I made sure my pages validated to html 4.01 strict or xhtml 1.0 strict. Table based designs are not the cause of the errors, nor is it more difficult to make them valid than documents without tables. John: using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. I agree that most sites that have invalid markup use tables (or even frames) for layout. That makes sense, since people who know how to design without tables would more than likely understand the importance of validation. But I don't agree with John's conclusion which seems to reverse that thought. In *many* cases sites that are full of validation errors are either produced a WYSIWYG editor or by some server side script. Indeed, many scripted sites are littered with nested tables and validation errors. So Using programmers is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents?Nah! Anyway, ICSS is not a religion to me and I will use a simple layout table if it helps me achieve what I need to achieve :-) And yes, it will validate! Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. With all due respect, that is not very good logic. So, someone inexperienced enough to make an invalid table layout is going to float right through the process of making a CSS-positioned layout? That's quite a spin, John :-) I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] td != div
Some reasons for div-itis: 1. Columns. table cell = div is wrong, but usually columns = divs is correct. 2. Boxes. The designer wants to put a box around a group of items. There might be a heading, a list or two and a paragraph, with border and a background. You could do this without a div (for example, by setting side borders on all the items, and a top and bottom borders on the first and last items respectively), but it's easier to just wrap it in a div and give it an id and a single style. And since box = section = div, it's the correct thing to do anyway. 3. Multiple backgrounds. 4. Expandability. Sometimes you know you have only one item in a box or a column, and you know you don't need a wrapper div. But you can bet that in a couple of months the designer/editor/cleaner will want to add a more items. So you build the structure to grow. 5. Box model work-arounds. You want to give an item a width, some padding and a border. You could use some CSS hacks, or you could just set the width on a wrapper div, and the margin/border/padding on the item itself. e.g. with columns, I set the width on the column div, then set the margins/borders/padding on the contents. 6. Laziness and deadlines. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to make things simple. Not always worth it. cheers -- Geoff Pack Developer ABC New Media -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kenny Graham Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 9:31 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] td != div In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing tables with divs. But many of the XHTML/CSS sites I see clearly do. For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id. Or put the contents of a paragraph inside a span id=p1 instead of giving the paragraph itself an id of p1. The only time divs don't make me cringe is when they're used to enclose a group of elements with the header that applies to them, and this purpose of divs is being replaced with section. I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than wrapping it in a table? Hopefully this will start a debate that I can learn something from, since I have a limited background in tables. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Al Sparber wrote: I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting bogged down and stressed with the finer points? While I acknowledge that, if you understand the process, you *can* create valid table-based layouts, I don't believe you *should*. In my opinion, a significant contribution to the correlation that John's identified is the sort of cut-and-paste style of page building that allies an incomplete understanding and an eagerness for results. I've seen this often in software and web development - snippets of code are borrowed and used verbatim without the borrower necessarily understanding what they are doing. If the results *seem* OK then that's good enough. It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development. Cheers Peter -- Peter Asquith http://www.wasabicube.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[WSG] site not looking good in Mozilla/FF!
I tested the following site I am working on in Mozilla and it's not looking too good at the moment. the URL is: http://www.semlogic.com/test/index.htm and the CSS is http://semlogic.com/test/CSS/Global.css some of the issues are the left menu isn't displaying properly, the background image for the left column isn't displaying and the footer background isn't extending to the content. Also, the grey bar at the top isn't looking right. Everthing validates, and it actually looks as expected in IE, but I know that these issues, are probably due to coding misjudgements, so if they could be pointed out, I would be greatly appreciative! -- ::Bruce:: ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: Peter Asquith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Sparber wrote: I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? A questionable technique? Would that be because people who make their livings (or try to make a living) evangelizing standards have deemed table layouts dubious. Hmm :-) A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting bogged down and stressed with the finer points? Ah. So web design is elevated to science. And all this time I thought it was a skilled trade. Sheesh. While I acknowledge that, if you understand the process, you *can* create valid table-based layouts, I don't believe you *should*. Interesting. In my opinion, a significant contribution to the correlation that John's identified is the sort of cut-and-paste style of page building that allies an incomplete understanding and an eagerness for results. It is quite evident to me that this type of cut-and-paste technique is just as ubiquitous in the CSS positioning arena - if not more so. We too teach CSS layout - but keep it non-religious. We have tens of thousands of customers and a massive support burden in fixing pages that were built from poorly devised or overly complex tutorials and articles popular in the standards ring of blogs and online magazines. We don't get a fee for that, sadly. It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development. I think perhaps who are mistaken. A table-layout can be just as valid, usable, and accessible as anything else. The key is what is optimal for the project. Using tables on the rare occasion is not a hall pass to skip knowing how to mark up a table - or understand the structure. The problem, in my opinion, is that the same people who devised ridiculous nested table constructs to make web pages look like magazine pages are the very same people who are now condemning tables. Perhaps if they'd taught folks how to make clean table layouts, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] braindead - iframes???
Maybe a lack of coffee but in XHTML 1.0 Strict, what is there that replaces iframes? I vaguely remember once being able to add the SRC attribute to a div but that's not up to spec. What's out there thatdisplays the contents of a URIand validates? Cheers :o) Richard
RE: [WSG] site not looking good in Mozilla/FF!
Bruce, It's not looking too good in IE either - enlarge the text and the content wraps below the left nav. General advice: get it working on Firefox *first*, and then adjust to work on IE. Specific advice: 1. Get rid of the wrapper divs - you only need the outer one. Put the background on the outer wrapper - you can include both shadows, the dark blue left column background, and the grey vertical line in the one background image. By putting all this in the wrapper background, it will extend to the whole length of the wrapper, and you won't need the Project 7 JavaScript (which doesn't seem to be working for FF). 2. Give the header, the left column, and the footer a left-margin equal to the width of your left shadow. 3. You don't need the content wrapper either. All you really need is: wrapper header [clear] left_col, top_bar [break] center_col, right_col, [clear] footer close wrapper 4. top_bar: right-align the text instead of using all that left padding. hope this helps... cheers, -- Geoff Pack Developer ABC New Media -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bruce Gilbert Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] site not looking good in Mozilla/FF! I tested the following site I am working on in Mozilla and it's not looking too good at the moment. the URL is: http://www.semlogic.com/test/index.htm and the CSS is http://semlogic.com/test/CSS/Global.css some of the issues are the left menu isn't displaying properly, the background image for the left column isn't displaying and the footer background isn't extending to the content. Also, the grey bar at the top isn't looking right. Everthing validates, and it actually looks as expected in IE, but I know that these issues, are probably due to coding misjudgements, so if they could be pointed out, I would be greatly appreciative! -- ::Bruce:: ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] braindead - iframes???
G'day
What's out there that displays the contents of a URI and validates?
object type=text/html data=whatever.html id=Something
Alternative content here
/object
Give the object a width and height with CSS
#Something { width: 40em; height: 30em; }
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On 07/09/2005, at 1:50 PM, Peter Asquith wrote: Al Sparber wrote: I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? No, but if, for example, you are creating a site to run on a corporate intranet and you know for a fact that many or even some of the company's employees are stuck on Netscape 4 with no hope of upgrade (usually due to company policy or some such silliness), then should you still create a lovely, semantically-correct CSS-P layout that none of these people will ever get to see? Or should you create a simple, clean table that at least puts the content into the desired columns so that they don't just get everything in one long list down the page? It's one thing to discount such outdated browsers when designing for the internet, because they are now such a small percentage and those users are so used to having a crappy browsing experience nowadays that they'll be happy as long as they can get your content (usually). But intranets are a different story, and when there's a sizable percentage of your target audience stuck with a browser that doesn't do CSS very well, you really ought to at least _try_ to give them a decent browsing experience. Standards / semantic code / CSS-P layouts / whatever else you want to call them are just a tool. Tables for layout are another tool. The mark of a good craftsman is understanding all the tools at their disposal, how to use them properly, and how to select the best one for the job. Just my 2c on this. Cheers, Seona. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] braindead - iframes???
Objects of type text/html (or application/xhtml+xml) are what I use. But good luck getting them to work in IE. In my experience, IE will only do it if it's a local (x)html file.
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Al, Peter wrote, Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? Al wrote A questionable technique? Would that be because people who make their livings (or try to make a living) evangelizing standards have deemed table layouts dubious. Hmm :-) This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things in this context. The World Wide Web is the province of the World Wide Web Consortium. Like it or not. It does not so much as try to make a living evangelizing standards as lead[s] the web to its full potential And it is founded and run by the guy who quite literally invented the World Wide Web. One of its many initiatives (along with, you know, simple stuff like PNG, HTML, XHTML, CSS, SVG) is the Web Accessibility Guidelines 3.3. of which says: Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. 5.3 of which says: Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting bogged down and stressed with the finer points? Ah. So web design is elevated to science. And all this time I thought it was a skilled trade. Sheesh. No, it is a science, at its fundamental level. It is part of computer science/informatics, which teaches us many lessons from history and theory. Most of which we seem very slow to pick up. It is quite evident to me that this type of cut-and-paste technique is just as ubiquitous in the CSS positioning arena - if not more so. We too teach CSS layout - but keep it non-religious. We have tens of thousands of customers and a massive support burden in fixing pages that were built from poorly devised or overly complex tutorials and articles popular in the standards ring of blogs and online magazines. We don't get a fee for that, sadly. The CSS is religious thing is a straw man. In what way is adhering to best practices as recommended by tremendously experienced (and not just in web page development, but in many related branches of computer science) and thoughtful people in a peer reviewed environment religious? Sure I wrote an article called A dao of web design once, but I was hardly arguing that by developing for the web in that way you'll become a daoist :-) It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development. I think perhaps who are mistaken. A table-layout can be just as valid, usable, and accessible as anything else. You can validate pages that use tables for layout. Based on my pretty extensive research it will take more effort than non table based layouts. They can probably be as usable, but according to people who have done an awful lot of work on the issue they won't be as accessible. The key is what is optimal for the project. Using tables on the rare occasion is not a hall pass to skip knowing how to mark up a table - or understand the structure. The problem, in my opinion, is that the same people who devised ridiculous nested table constructs to make web pages look like magazine pages are the very same people who are now condemning tables. Perhaps if they'd taught folks how to make clean table layouts, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is simply ridiculous. Dave Segal? Tod Farhner? I don't see too many articles by them of late :-) The people who have been strong advocates for table free design are in my reasonably well informed opinion a new generation, starting with people like Eric Meyer, and typified perhaps by young bloods like Dave Shea and Douglas Bowman. From the get go the tables for layout approach was a hack - the use of a technology for a purpose for which it was not intended because it works in some narrowly defined set of circumstances. History teaches us that such things, regardless of their present usefulness, we usually come to regret. Y2K anyone? john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
