[WSG] Site Check Footer Question
Hi Guys, I am working on a web site for my Student Guild and I would love some feedback. It has been done very quickly and a lot of the content is still being prepared but I have tried to keep standards and accessibility in mind. http://www.lloydy.id.au/guilddev/ It validates but I would love feedback about whats good, bad and ugly and what I can do to fix it. I know the menus are a bit dodgy, I tried to use the Sucerkfish article from ALA as a guide but it isn't working anywhere near as smoothly as theirs does - especially on different browsers :-( My question relates to the footer of the page. We currently have a black bar which sits very nicely at the bottom of each page... until you scroll. It sits there and goes over the content. Without using frames is there an easy way to either keep it positioned at very bottom unless the page is longer (We want it visible on short pages without space below it...). Oh and another question (Sorry to be a pain): on pages where there is not much content like this: http://www.lloydy.id.au/guilddev/index.php?/representation/evp/ The white box doesn't flow down below the floated side menu. I know if I float the main box it will go the right height but then its width goes whacky and I loose all control over it. Thanks in advance! I hope I am not being stupid and there will be ways to fix these problems :-) Regards, Lloyd ** 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 Driven?
Stuart,
Thanks for the example, but while it displays according to my
example, it's not what I'm looking for. (I guess my example assumed
too much intuition as to what I was trying to obtain).
Here's where your example fails (and perhaps better illustrates the
problem I'm trying to resolve).
If I make each column a different color, they show up as three
different heights.
Try to imagine col 1 is red and has a left menu, col 2 is white and
is the main content area and col 3 is blue and a right menu (or
something) and the body is green.
I need to be able to put different amounts of content from page to
page in the main text column and have all three be the same height as
the center one from page to page without going to 100% height. (Fixed
width, centered box that grows in height according to its content).
A table will do this.
Terrance Wood suggested this:
Here's an easy solution: don't create designs that look like
they're from
1998 (e.g the 2-col cnet yellow stripe and it's ilk)... there are
so many
more creative and useful possiblities once you get past that design
pattern.
For the record: I am past 1998 in my designs, but as I mentioned
earlier, I don't do designs from 1998 because I want to, I have some
clients who want that look.
Should I tell them to go somewhere else?
Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this thread,
I'd like to concentrate on finding a solution to a real problem that
is as reliable (browser-wise) and as easy to implement as it is with
a table,
In other words, Terrance, the goal is a design as described above and
the solution can't be change the design, but has to be: attain the
design without a table. If it can't be done, I'd like to see a humble
admission from the non-table people that maybe there is an instance
in the real world where a table is not only OK, but probably THE
solution so I can fell less unpure:-} about using a table to solve
my problem.
Bob
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original
two cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
I did think more than Rimantas would pop-up with a quick answer for
your question, Bob:
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different
from that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes a 750px high image
in column 3 goes a 500px high image
the end result should be that all three columns are the same height
in other words:
below the image in column 1, no background color shows
below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows
below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows
My response (just for the record!) has a problem displaying the
background colour on Netscape 4.78 and Netscape 6.2 (as far as I
can tell via Browsercam), but otherwise rendering is pretty similar:
HTML:
div id=container
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=1000 width=100 alt= /
/div
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=750 width=100 alt= /
/div
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=500 width=100 alt= /
/div
/div
CSS:
* { margin:0; padding:0; }
body { background-color:#ff0; }
#container { width:90%; background-color:#fff; float:left; margin-
left:5%; _margin-left:2.5%; }
.column { float:left; width:33%; text-align:center; }
.column img { display:block; margin:0 auto; }
Have a look at http://www.stuarthomfray.co.uk/3col/
Unfortunately, due to the behaviour of our good buddy PC IE, an
extra hack is called for (the '_margin-left: 2.5%;')
I thought someone else might as well answer your request! ;)
cheers,
Stuart
--
http://www.stuarthomfray.co.uk/
**
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] CSS Driven?
2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... If it can't be done, It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in real world too): take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com, stylegala.com, etc. I'd like to see a humble admission from the non-table people that maybe there is an instance in the real world where a table is not only OK, but probably THE solution so I can fell less unpure:-} about using a table to solve my problem. Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple encouragament to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to accept is table, and marking up table in you HTML is easier than single background: rule in CSS--use the table. But yes, it is unpure and against the spirit and the letter of standards (I won't quote, it was done before). Five years ago we did not have much choice, but we do have now. I've mad mine, you've made yours. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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] CSS Driven?
Rimantas, Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple encouragament to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to accept is table, Is there anything to gain in these discussions by you always being so polemic If you have nothing except snide remarks to contribute, make way for those who may want to lend a constructive hand. Why does it seem I'm looking for encouragement, when I've stated 100 times I'm looking for a solution? Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non- table people should at least admit it. In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS at the same time. Regarding the sites you listed, I went there and didn't see any that fit the criteria I have laid out. Bob ** 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] Nikon's new standards website
http://www.nikonnet.com/ -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] Nikon's new standards website
Shame about the layout table on the front page. It validates, though with a pair of warnings I thought would make things fail... apparently not (but then who actually believes the validator anyway, hey? ;-)) Josh On 12/15/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nikonnet.com/ -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** 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] Nikon's new standards website
Certainly a big step in the right directions, but still two simple warnings that could be fixed and it is only Transitional. Regards, Ric designer wrote: http://www.nikonnet.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] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz wrote: In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS at the same time. The problem - and yes, it is a problem - is lack of browser-support for those existing CSS-solutions that meet the criteria. I can do all that a table can do without having a single hard-coded table in sight, but there will be pretty weak results across browser-land. That is not a flaw in CSS, although CSS is far from mature. CSS compliance is the barrier. I have not found one, single, design-challenge where tables as design-element were preferable. However, I have severe problems with all those nice-looking sites/pages that exists, where usability have been thrown overboard or not even considered, just because someone wants to prove the point that CSS can solve everything. It can't. I left tables almost as soon as I had started to use them, because they put too many limitations on design. CSS worked better without those tables, and CSS support is constantly improving. A few more years, and tables as design-elements can't be justified at all. Not yet there though, regardless of, or maybe because of, zen garden solutions and so on. There are different philosophies at play here... 1: Table-grid solutions, and limitations. 2: tables where needed (enhanced with CSS) - and full CSS where it works. 3: CSS freedom, and workarounds for weak support. 4: CSS mess that try to satisfy all camps, while ignoring the usability/accessibility side of web design - apart from those badges that are mostly signs of untested claims. Half of zen garden is there, IMO. I prefer to stay at no.3, and play around in no.4 in situations where it doesn't hurt anyone. I would fall back to no.2 if I ever found the need, but that hasn't happened during the last couple of years at my end. 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 **
[WSG] Browser Resolutions
Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to good stats packages for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Whilst stats can tell some stories, your question is almost one of those how long is a piece of string? types. Screen resolutions vary with target audiences. I have clients with agricultural based sites where I am still getting reports of screens at 640 x 480! Don't forget either that the return of resolution does not necessarily mean that the user has the window maximised. Regards, Ric Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to good stats packages for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Design for 800 600 and work with the restrictions I say. Don't forget a lot of laptop and a handheld devices will need to look at your site also. Thanks,Paul Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:42:27 +1100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions Whilst stats can tell some stories, your question is almost one of those "how long is a piece of string?" types. Screen resolutions vary with target audiences. I have clients with agricultural based sites where I am still getting reports of screens at 640 x 480! Don't forget either that the return of resolution does not necessarily mean that the user has the window maximised. Regards, Ric Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to good stats packages for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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 ** Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.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] Browser Resolutions
I once read on the A List Apart web site that a 550px wide text box is about the limit of comfortable reading, so I use that as my base rule for site design. In the end it works out to 760px wide total content surrounded by pretty colors in the margins. Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
I thought I made my point in the original post. While I agree that sites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people don't browse with browser maximised. What I can't do is supply all the images for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants to view the site. What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions. In order to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have the figures as a guide. It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x% of people have the same resolution as you Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data. I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data. But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data. Stephen Lachlan Hunt wrote: Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
This might help you, Screen Res is near the bottom somewhere. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspThe latest figures are for July, so its a little out of date. I agree with Bobs point though, it interesting that we used to design for 800x600 so all our visitors could read our sites without using the scroll bars, now we designso that the content fits comfortably in 800x600 so our uses don't have tomove their heads!somewhere between 15 and 25 words per line appears tobe comfortable for most people. Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 12/15/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I made my point in the original post.While I agree thatsites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people don't browse with browser maximised.What I can't do is supply all theimages for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants toview the site.What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions.Inorder to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have thefigures as a guide.It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x% of people have the same resolution asyou Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data.I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data.But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data.StephenLachlan Hunt wrote: Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768.Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant.It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space.The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen.In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution.So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless.**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Can't give you the stats but the 550px max width for text rule-of- thumb I use sort of dictates image sizes. (about 250px - 300px wide max). I've also found with clients that I often have to design for thier browser/monitor no matter my well-founded arguments to the contrary:-} I thought I made my point in the original post. While I agree that sites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people don't browse with browser maximised. What I can't do is supply all the images for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants to view the site. What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions. In order to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have the figures as a guide. It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x % of people have the same resolution as you Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data. I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data. But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data. Stephen Lachlan Hunt wrote: Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to good stats packages for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. The stats say visitors screen-resolution *width* is between 640 and 2400 - with a few exceptions. That's all I have been able to read from stats, so I design for that range - with a few exceptions. I'm always mis-represented, as I have a resolution of 3840. Have no idea what 'resolution-group' that ends up in in the stats, but it really doesn't matter since it will be wrong anyway. Summary: stats don't tell much. OTOH: I also design for screens below 640, and can't see the problem with large images. If they aren't necessary then they are left out at narrow screen-widths. If they are necessary then they are rescaled to go on whatever width those screens may have - 'max-width: 95%;' or something. The rest is left to visitors own choice of hardware and software - not stats. 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] Browser Resolutions
It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. And everyone should remember this. I have 2560x1024 and available canvas in browsers about 900px wide. There are some graphs: http://weblog.jakpsatweb.cz/b/1108565041-mereni-sirky-okna-v-grafech.html (in Czech only) -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Browser Resolutions
I think all your problems would be solved if you stopped designing fixed width sites. Or at least most of your problems. I make sites that look fine from 640px to 1280px. I use max-width to keep them from getting too wide. I never have to think twice about what resolution to support. The hard part is dealing with IE, since it doesn't do max-width. Sometimes I give IE a fixed width, and sometimes I use Javascript to force max-width on it. A couple of articles on dealing with large images in liquid layouts: http://www.clagnut.com/sandbox/imagetest/ http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Nikon's new standards website
Here we go with the tiny text again. This is a decent website as far as standards go, but the design still looks dated. Or am I the only one who has trouble reading that text? And yes, the layout table on the page could have been handled with divs. Someone got lazy. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] positive-discrimination === not positive and IMG properties
On Dec 14, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Rebecca Cox wrote: Will this also prevent the alt text from being available in say the JAWS screen reader, (which uses Internet Explorer), when the user has javascript enabled? Or is it just the tooltip behaviour not the alt content which is removed by the htc ? The alt text is removed from the element if the image is loaded. It's a very simple htc that runs this code for each image after the page loads: if (element.complete) element.alt = ''; You attach it to the img selector in your css, or a more specific selector if you don't want all images to be affected. I would assume that the blind have their browsers set to not load images. I may be dreadfully wrong in that assumption, but if the images don't load then this code has no effect and the alt text remains. -- 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] Browser Resolutions
I've been watching this thread as being utterly relevant to what I have been thinking a lot on. A lot I believe still browse at 800, and hating bottom scrollbars (seen wayyy too often, I have been looking for answers. AN excellent article (see his demo!) is the man in blue: http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/09/21/ Test the demo at different resolutions...one column text becomes 3 at 1024, one at 800, right menu left aligned etc... This is a very interesting and very relevant topic, no magic answers but I would love to see more solutions...including % margins etc to deal with high res without miles of text. I for one hate seeing narrow sites with yards of blank space, or the sometimes seen left aligned sites on the left even. So far I use fluid widths with the text eaxpanding to fit... Bruce Prochnau BKDesign Solutions - Original Message - From: Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions Stephen Stagg wrote: Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.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] Browser Resolutions
I DON'T DESIGN FIXED WIDTH SITES. -- unless the client really wants it and they have a good reason I don't want to scale images until all major browsers support antialiased or bicubic scaling methods. I don't want to clip images because I believe that correct proportions and good cropping is an important presentational technique. I don't want to read 20 posts from people telling me to use liquid layouts because that's not an issue in this thread I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me. If no-one can do that or is willing to do it then I don't mind, but I believe that the list does not need another fixed-width vs. liquid debate. Thanks Stephen. Christian Montoya wrote: I think all your problems would be solved if you stopped designing fixed width sites. Or at least most of your problems. I make sites that look fine from 640px to 1280px. I use max-width to keep them from getting too wide. I never have to think twice about what resolution to support. The hard part is dealing with IE, since it doesn't do max-width. Sometimes I give IE a fixed width, and sometimes I use Javascript to force max-width on it. A couple of articles on dealing with large images in liquid layouts: http://www.clagnut.com/sandbox/imagetest/ http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 ** ** 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] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
Stephen Stagg wrote: I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way BUT by having a text alternative. I totally agree with you (though Flash can be made accessible... kinda). But if I could play devil's advocate a minute, it CAN be made accessible by not using Flash. If the law says that the text-only version can only be provided, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way, some could certainly argue that compliance could be accomplished by simply ditching the Flash and going with HTML to begin with. This certainly isn't the approach I would take, but other 'elitists' are. Jared ** 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] Frames ?
Hi. I am new to the group and have a question.I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents. In other words, the site will have a header, a menu on the left and content under the header and to the right of the menu area. When a customer clicks on a link (to a manufacturer site which my client represents) within the content area, he wants the new web page to open up only in the contents area and leave his header and menu intact. Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ?If so, are there any examples of this out there ?Thanks so much for any help you can give. Regards,KR
Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Jan Brasna wrote: I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me. I posted link to charts. Not only with resolution (which is mostly irrelevant) but with viewport sizes as well. What more particularly do you need, please? Thank you for that. It was useful, (if also in Czech.:) ). The reason I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more reliable. Also, all the stats (like 3 sets) that I've looked at have shown around 1% of people with a resolution of 800x600 or a corresponding view port size. I was hoping for some simple, easy to carry-out verification of this, that's all. Stephen ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Stephen Stagg wrote: I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me. my stats are here: http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=statssite=s11hondaswapreport=73 based on roughly 500,000 page views a month site, mostly 18-25 yr olds. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Bob Schwartz wrote: I once read on the A List Apart web site that a 550px wide text box is about the limit of comfortable reading, so I use that as my base rule for site design. 550px gives me only about 40 characters per line (28px default), normally much too narrow. Widths based upon line length are much friendlier. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fflinelength.html -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] Browser Resolutions
It was useful, (if also in Czech.:) ) Good to hear :) I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more reliable. Well, as someone smart said - you have to look at your own data to pick an appropriate solution. Other's data may not neccessarily fit your audience. shown around 1% of people with a resolution of 800x600 or a corresponding view port size. 13.1% had 800x600 screens. 28.0% had viewport up to 800px wide. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Browser Resolutions
Jan Brasna wrote: I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more reliable. Well, as someone smart said - you have to look at your own data to pick an appropriate solution. Other's data may not neccessarily fit your audience. Hi, I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution). -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Michael Wilson wrote: I was surprised to see (in the data Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution). Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my machine (basic intel built in graphics card) ** 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] Frames ?
Kevin Ross said: his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers. Ugh. This is a bit pre-dot bomb isn't it? I'd wager that this type of site will only serve to diminish his online presence, not enhance it. Is there a benefit for to the actual client? Is this idea OK with the manufacturers represented (bandwidth, content copyright, existing or alternate preferred supplier agreements)? Wouldn't some acutal blurbage on his own site together with a link to the manufacturers be better (improved SEO, improved user experience, more control over content and ownership of his own brand)? Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Correct. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ? Frames, including iframe form part of HTML 4, and if your site validates then that is standards design. The only other way I know of to have the 'business presence' appear as part of the manufacturers site is to talk with them and insert some server side code at their end based on a the referer header. If so, are there any examples of this out there ? Hijacking other sites in a frameset? Sure there are plenty of pron sites that do this (so I've been told). Or try wayback machine =) Thanks so much for any help you can give. OK. I apologise for my somewhat cynical and jaded answer in the middle here, but the first two paragraphs are worth expanding on. 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] Browser Resolutions
Michael Wilson wrote: I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution). Many graphics adapter drivers substitute the non-standard 5/4 bastard standard 1280x1024 for the standard 4/3 non-standard 1280x960. I have several doze configs around here that can do neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050, but can do 1152x864 and 1600x1200 or more. -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] Nikon's new standards website
Quoting Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Christian Montoya wrote: http://www.nikonnet.com/ Here we go with the tiny text again... Or am I the only one who has trouble reading that text? You're not. Even on 200% zoom its too small for me. More than that and the overlapping makes it totally useless. ... Minimum font-size isn't enough, and it takes 3 clicks to switch styles off in FF now. Yes, and the gray text on gray background? Even links on one of the inside pages are gray on gray [1]. My eyes hurt. But, yes, we should be glad they are moving in the right direction. :) btw: if you have web dev toolbar[2] in FF or Moz, you can hit Ctrl+Shift+S to toggle All Syles on/off. [1] http://www.nikonnet.com/dyn/inspire.html [2] http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/ ciao, Z -- Zulema Ortiz Web Designer browser: http://getfirefox.com Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude. - William James ** 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] Browser Resolutions
On 12/15/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Wilson wrote: I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution). Many graphics adapter drivers substitute the non-standard 5/4 bastard standard 1280x1024 for the standard 4/3 non-standard 1280x960. I have several doze configs around here that can do neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050, but can do 1152x864 and 1600x1200 or more. These popular dell laptops, of which I have one, do 1280 x 768 or 1680 x 1050 widescreen. Not very typical at all. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] positive-discrimination === not positive and IMG properties
On 12/15/05, Ben Curtis wrote: The alt text is removed from the element if the image is loaded. It's a very simple htc that runs this code for each image after the page loads: if (element.complete) element.alt = ''; You attach it to the img selector in your css, or a more specific selector if you don't want all images to be affected. I can't see why you'd want it to have an effect on any images, to be honest. I would assume that the blind have their browsers set to not load images. I may be dreadfully wrong in that assumption, but if the images don't load then this code has no effect and the alt text remains. Dreadfully wrong. Well, you said it, not me :-) The blind have just as many varied setups and configurations as the unblind. If you take away alt text, you take away *critical* information. Even if you target specific images via CSS selectors, I'd question whether nor not it should be removed at all. After all - how do you decide which ones to take away and which ones not to take away? OK - let me rephrase that to be more clear: Don't remove the alt text - it is there for a reason and taking it away is the opposite of web standards. Cheers, Derek. -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Brian Cummiskey wrote: Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution). Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my machine (basic intel built in graphics card) I have 1280x960 available on both of my desktops... one is an ATI 9700Pro and the other a GeForce 6500. And the above should have been 4:3 not 3:4 (I think someone else already caught my goof). 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x960 are all 4:3 ratios I believe. Some of this weird stuff on laptops of recent is really annoying. My CEO is constantly asking why everything looks out of whack on his... -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** 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 Driven?
On 12/15/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS at the same time. Well, I showed you the equal height columns technique. I think I can safely say it is the only method for liquid columns with equal height. If you want fixed width, I might have another solution. It is, like I said, a holy grail of making equal height columns work where we can't rely on display:table. You claimed it was rife with hacks and that was that. Well, the hacks are to deal with poor implementations in old browsers. Browsers, not mistakes in CSS. There is no problem with pure CSS. And all the browsers being hacked are dead browsers, in which case using these hacks doesn't mean that the techniques will suddenly fail later on. The question is whether you prefer to hack the dead browsers or hack the specs. I would rather deploy these ugly hacks for crappy browsers than misuse an html element. That's my choice. Hacks don't hinder accessibility or semantics. They don't bloat markup, and they are surprisingly easy to maintain (just ask any list member). But like you said, I've never had a client ask for something like that. In 5 years when display:table cell has widespread support, you can start using it to give pure CSS equal height columns without table hacking. And since we'll still be supporting version 5 browsers and netscape and everything else we cater to (bang head on keyboard here), I'm sure someone will tell us that there is a problem with pure CSS and they just can't stop using tables yet. Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non- table people should at least admit it. No can do Bob. I showed you the solution. End of story: solution, choices made, move on :) -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz said: Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non- table people should at least admit it. I'm not aware of 'non-table people' making a claim that CSS can solve every design problem. Was that on this list? Who are these people? Why do you need such admission? I think what *can* be solved is encouraging your clients to look to other design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout, because I believe there are real benefits in using a modern design patterns. I have a reply drafted on my home machine that discusses this and I will post it later. 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] Browser Resolutions
Hi Stephen, Another point worth mentioning, which was raised by my all-seeing manager, is that even though people's default screen resolution generally falls in the 1024x768 mark, they often browse in a smaller window. This kind of throws a spanner in the works for those wanting to boost the minimum requirements for websites. -- Paul A Noone Webmaster, ASHM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Stagg Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 12:11 AM To: WSG Subject: [WSG] Browser Resolutions Slightly off-list but important all the same. I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at 1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to good stats packages for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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] CSS Driven?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: encouraging your clients to look to other design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout This is just completely unrealistic. First, don't submit a design that you can't build. Otherwise, if you are not the designer, and have no choice but to build the design the client wants/approved, then you're stuck. The client, in the _vast_ majority of cases, is not going to care how you build anything. Just build the site he/she wants. Period. If you can do it in a standards- based way, all the better. But in my world, if the client approved a design, we have to build it _somehow_. Of course, if a design left this office without saying yes, we can do it or no way, there would be heck to pay... 2¢... well maybe 5¢... :) - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.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] Justify this
On 15/12/05 4:27 PM, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kevin, That's just another limitation of the parameter. Justified text actually comes in several flavours - left, right and both. Actually, that's quite wrong. There is no such thing as left- or right-justified text, only left- or right-aligned text. Justified text is exactly as I described in my last post: text that spans a full block element (print or screen) and is aligned to both left and right margins. I am of course talking about the technical publishing definition of the term, not the CSS version. -- 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] Browser Resolutions
On 16/12/05 7:07 AM, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Wilson wrote: I was surprised to see (in the data Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution). Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my machine (basic intel built in graphics card) It's a standard 4:3 screen resolution, so any graphics card should support it by default. Sounds like a deficiency in your Intel graphics. I use this resolution myself, as I don't like the slight aspect ratio distortions I get using 1280x1024. (Skulks away realising none of this is on-topic ...) -- 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] Justify this
Hi Kevin, Antiquated or inadequate definitions aside, I am actually quite correct. I'm referring to the common problem of how to display the last line of text in a paragraph. This decision can also drastically increase the whit rivers problem already discussed. This last line can, in fact, be aligned either left, right or centre depending on your needs, language, fancy or daft inclination. Indeed this form of justified paragraph is so popular that any professional desktop application worth it's salt has all these styles built-in. InDesign is just one example. I hope that calrifies it for everyone. This has now gone way OT. Direct replies only please. The list is surely bored to death with this by now. -- Paul A Noone Webmaster, ASHM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Futter Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 8:51 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Justify this On 15/12/05 4:27 PM, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kevin, That's just another limitation of the parameter. Justified text actually comes in several flavours - left, right and both. Actually, that's quite wrong. There is no such thing as left- or right-justified text, only left- or right-aligned text. Justified text is exactly as I described in my last post: text that spans a full block element (print or screen) and is aligned to both left and right margins. I am of course talking about the technical publishing definition of the term, not the CSS version. -- 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] Frames ?
Ugh, is right! Go with the advice from Terrence. Duplicated navigation, the risk that the manufacturers sites will use framesetssounds like a users worst nightmare. An example might be a great way of convincing your client not to go down this path! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Ross Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 5:05 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Frames ? Hi. I am new to the group and have a question. I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents. In other words, the site will have a header, a menu on the left and content under the header and to the right of the menu area. When a customer clicks on a link (to a manufacturer site which my client represents) within the content area, he wants the new web page to open up only in the contents area and leave his header and menu intact. Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ? If so, are there any examples of this out there ? Thanks so much for any help you can give. Regards, KR
Re: [WSG] Frames ?
On 12/15/05, Kevin Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ? If so, are there any examples of this out there ? If you want an example of frames being used, just use google/yahoo/etc. image search. Every image you click opens a new window with a google/yahoo/etc. top frame and the site in the bottom frame. Of course, people hate this. One alternative might be to make a page on the client's website for each manufacturer, and on that page have a link to the manufacturer's site. This way the stifling business presence of your client is still asserted. Or, your client could actually convince his manufacturers to put a header on their sites... if he really has that kind of power. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] positive-discrimination === not positive and IMG properties
This is interesting, but a rather pragamitc approach? Are we changing our coding practice to suit the technological limitations of current user agents. Is some of the power of a standards based approach the idea that we do what is considered best practise given the current standards? I use titles where possible because the spec allows for them and I can see them adding value to an image (a link less so?) for certain user groups. If jaws chooses to lock this information away in a preference, then this is unfortunate, but when the next screen reader that does honour this form of content comes along perhaps its market share will grow accordingly. I am not necessarily arguing that the spec is right - to a large extent I agree that content belongs in the document where it can be seen/read, but how do we link them meaningfully? Stephen mentioned the label element which at the moment AFAIK is only linked to a form control. Other elements such as caption and legend exist to perform a similar role. Perhaps a more generic role for the label element would be good, adding a rel attribute to describe the relationship the label has to the associated element? Kim Kruse wrote: Hi Christian, From: http://www.sf.id.au/WE05/indexa.html * Users that rely upon the keyboard to access web content cannot access the TITLE text. * Some users of screen magnifiers will not be able to read the TITLE text. * Most users of screen reader software will not be aware of the TITLE text, some will not be not able to read the TITLE text even if they know it is there. I used to have this misconception about title attributes too, that I could assume every browser displayed them the same and screen readers would read them. That's not the case. Now I hardly use title attributes, and instead I put the content into the document where it belongs. Excellent. Thanks for the explanation :) Kim -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 ** ** 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 Driven?
Thomas Livingston said: On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: encouraging your clients to look to other design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout This is just completely unrealistic. What It's unrealistic to advise your clients? Not in my world, my friend. First, don't submit a design that you can't build. So true. Otherwise, if you are not the designer, and have no choice but to build the design the client wants/approved, then you're stuck. How can you be stuck without a choice? Would you not at least alert them (clients or peers) to the fact that a better solution may exist? The client, in the _vast_ majority of cases, is not going to care how you build anything. Exactly, because they are not designers or developers, and that is the crux of my point. Just build the site he/she wants. Period. I've noticed over the years that I am acutally a better designer than my clients, just as my clients know more about fiscal policy, running an army, and rocket science for example. Clients don't always want, or know, what's good for them - simply because their expertise lies elsewhere - that's why design is a profession... or at the very least a professional service... and not a service industry. Would you like a MacDesign(tm) with that?. That's why we acutally have jobs and the web is not made up soley of pdf's, Word as HTML, and sites that look like Jacob's AlertBox. But in my world, if the client approved a design, we have to build it _somehow_. Clearly, we live in different worlds. Get in early. Even if you only come in at the end of the project, how can your designers get difficult-to-implement designs approved? Don't let the client (or your peers) make mistakes - Yes, I'll have a MacDesign(tm), be sure to give me lot's of blinking text, a yellow stripe on the side, and a skip intro with some pumping drum'n'bass. It is up to us to share our knowledge, make informed decisions, and offer professional advice to our clients and our colleagues. We don't have 2c in NZ, and 5c is being phased out so this will have to be my 10c rant. 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 **
[WSG] Susannah Marks is out of the office
I will be out of the office starting 16/12/2005 and will not return until 19/12/2005. I am out of the office this afternoon and will be back in the office on Monday. If you have an urgent query please call me on 027 490 5513. Otherwise I will respond to your email when I return. Thank you, Susannah Statement of confidentiality: This e-mail message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is IN-CONFIDENCE and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. * This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by the Ministry of Health's Content and Virus Filtering Gateway * ** 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] Frames ?
Kevin, Why don't you ask your client this: How would you feel if your site appeared within another sites design with their logo and slogan above your own? I would try to convince him that you can achieve better results with a small page with information about why the linked site is relevant, a small screen shot of what the site looks like and a link to open a new browser window. With the exception of the link in a new window this can all be done with standards in mind and the link is a lot less evil than some frames. Stress that after they close the newly opened window his site will be sitting there behind ;-) HTH Lloyd On 12/16/05, Kevin Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I am new to the group and have a question. I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents. In other words, the site will have a header, a menu on the left and content under the header and to the right of the menu area. When a customer clicks on a link (to a manufacturer site which my client represents) within the content area, he wants the new web page to open up only in the contents area and leave his header and menu intact. Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ? If so, are there any examples of this out there ? Thanks so much for any help you can give. Regards, KR ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Stephen, A site I maintain is used mainly by lawn mower/hardware shops. It is not uncommon to walk into one and find a network of 5 computers running Windows 95! The computers are far from being up to date but you may find these statistics of some use: http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=meyequau The site is (www.mey.com.au). 90% of users are accessing it with Internet Explorer and the resolution is almost exactly divided between 800x600 (@ 43%) and 1024x768 (@ 44%). I hope this helps :-) Lloyd On 12/16/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I DON'T DESIGN FIXED WIDTH SITES. -- unless the client really wants it and they have a good reason I don't want to scale images until all major browsers support antialiased or bicubic scaling methods. I don't want to clip images because I believe that correct proportions and good cropping is an important presentational technique. I don't want to read 20 posts from people telling me to use liquid layouts because that's not an issue in this thread I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me. If no-one can do that or is willing to do it then I don't mind, but I believe that the list does not need another fixed-width vs. liquid debate. Thanks Stephen. Christian Montoya wrote: I think all your problems would be solved if you stopped designing fixed width sites. Or at least most of your problems. I make sites that look fine from 640px to 1280px. I use max-width to keep them from getting too wide. I never have to think twice about what resolution to support. The hard part is dealing with IE, since it doesn't do max-width. Sometimes I give IE a fixed width, and sometimes I use Javascript to force max-width on it. A couple of articles on dealing with large images in liquid layouts: http://www.clagnut.com/sandbox/imagetest/ http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 ** ** 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] Frames ?
I believe you can make use of the position: fixed css property to get some frame-like behaviour, eg applying it to a navigation div. However I don't know what the browser support is like. _ Peter Levan Web Manager, Australian Institute of Criminology GPO Box 2944 Canberra ACT 2601 Tel: (02) 6260 9257 Fax: (02) 6260 9299 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.aic.gov.au/ From: Kevin Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 5:05 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Frames ? Hi. I am new to the group and have a question.I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and "business presence" is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents. In other words, the site will have a header, a menu on the left and content under the header and to the right of the menu area. When a customer clicks on a link (to a manufacturer site which my client represents) within the content area, he wants the new web page to open up only in the contents area and leave his header and menu intact. Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ?If so, are there any examples of this out there ?Thanks so much for any help you can give. Regards,KR
Re: [WSG] Frames ?
G'day Peter Levan wrote: I believe you can make use of the position: fixed css property to get some frame-like behaviour Which is fine if you have control over the whole page, but not if you're trying to display someone else's site within your own (not recommended), as asked in the original post. Just another point to consider (apart from the other valid points raised about this practice), if my browser window is 750 pixels wide and you're using a 200px frame on the left, you don't leave much room for the other site to display in. 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] Frames ?
I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents. ... Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ? No doubt the list will erupt into complete hysterics about the word frames; but the technology isn't the issue (you could do it with object and script tricks, for example; but IE in particular would fight you every step of the way). Pulling someone else's site into your frameset is extremely hazardous territory. They could face lawsuits, regardless of whether they represent the other company or not. These other sites are not owned by your client and they should not act like they are. Besides that, users hate trapped sites. Much better to clearly mark the intention to launch new windows; or (even better) give the user a choice. From memory, I think about.com may use this sort of approach; as do image searches like Google. Search engines can probably get away with it a little since it's pretty clear that they don't own the site; about.com really pushes that line since they load tutorials and so forth. If they do insist on doing this; a) get something in writing from the client that they are doing this against your advice - I'm serious. At minimum keep a copy of something you've sent to the client in writing, advising them not to do it. b) you're probably going to need to use frames. hope that helps, h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
