Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
Could be technical if you want to allow your pages to be parsed with XML parsers. I've done that in the past because I made some software to fetch data from my site. -Thom From: Andrew Maben Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote: stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5 IMHO (and given the depth and breadth of the replies to my original post I'm feeling very humble right now, as well as extremely grateful to you all) - I do think that given the current state of the art this is the best approach, at least for me. But, indeed, let's not get into XHTML vs. HTML - I understand and respect the XHTML proponents' viewpoint, but in the end isn't it a choice based on personal taste? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest
I am currently out of the office, returning Tuesday 6 May 2008. I will respond to your email on my return. Many thanks Nikki Pickering Please consider our environment before printing this email Please note that Goldman Sachs JBWere makes important disclosures of its interests at http://www.gsjbw.com/Disclosures. If you do not wish to receive future communications of this nature, you can unsubscribe by going to http://www.gsjbw.com/?p=Unsubscribe[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you require any further information regarding our SPAM policy, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] This communication and its attachments are also subject to copyright. NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS: The information contained in and accompanying this communication may be confidential, subject to legal privilege, or otherwise protected from disclosure, and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please delete and destroy all copies in your possession, notify the sender that you have received this communication in error, and note that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, this communication is expressly prohibited. E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or may be intercepted, deleted or interfered with without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. To the extent permitted by law Goldman Sachs JBWere makes no warranties, and expressly disclaims any liability, in relation to the contents of this message. Goldman Sachs JBWere reserves the right to intercept and monitor the content of e-mail messages to and from its systems. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability
There are two people I know of in my company (over 100,000 people) who can see the color red fine in the real world, but cannot read red text , typically error messages, on a computer screen. They did not know they had a problem until they called a help desk to find out why they were having a problem completing a form. Turns out they received errors but could not read them. The area where the error messages appeared looked like smudges to them, not text. I have not read anything that describes this problem, yet they clearly could not see the text well enough to read it. My recommendation to developers is to show error messages as black text on a white background with a bold red box around the error message. On 5/4/08 10:01 PM, Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiya, What we need more information about is how the colour red can affect readability. I have done research, and I know about the w3c colour contrast algorithm. I've also had a look at the psychology of the different colours and that red is associated with anger and intensity. I used to work on a site that had a red/white/black corporate look and I can sympathise :) I suspect that actually you know all the reasons why not to use red in certain ways, but you're being outvoted by a client. I'd keep fighting for certain basics - your colours must at least comply with the W3C contrast rules (if you're not already using it, grab the CCA to make that easier - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrast-analyser.html). I'm sure there is research out there for everything else; but you could try a different tack and run some usability tests with real live users. Get ten people to test drive your designs and see if anyone finds the colours confronting. There's no research as relevant as your own :) Anecdotally, a key thing to avoid is primary red #f00 - it's just too bright. Also especially avoid using red on white (or reverse) for blocks of text, people often describe the result as it vibrates and that's prime territory for headaches; particularly for anyone who's photosensitive. cheers, Ben *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability
Every month I get a statement in Red print and every month I think I am in debt or they are writing to warn me about something that is overdue. Except this month. I have changed bank. I was sat here on a bank holiday bored out my scull till I read that..ahahahaha Good on ya about changing ya bank Jane. Kate http://jungaling.com/katesplace/ http://jungaling.com/Malaysia/ - Original Message - From: ROBEY,Jane To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 5:38 AM Subject: RE: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability Well, apart from what has already been said, I have a personal experience of being on the receiving end of a Red brand. I bank with HSBC, who in Australia have Red and Grey as their brand colours. Every month I get a statement in Red print and every month I think I am in debt or they are writing to warn me about something that is overdue. Except this month. I have changed bank. Regards Jane -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Linda Simpson Sent: Monday, 5 May 2008 12:46 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability Hi, We've been asked to change our colour scheme on our websites to fit into our corporate colour scheme. We currently use blue, and the colour we've been asked to change to is now red. Our site will be using a solid background, with white for the content area (along the lines of news.com.au). Our concern is that such a large amount of red may cause accessibility/ usability issues (we are not only talking about the background colour but also the navigation). We may possibly have some say into the shading of the red, but for the moment think of a nice bright colour (#A80D35). What we need more information about is how the colour red can affect readability. I have done research, and I know about the w3c colour contrast algorithm. I've also had a look at the psychology of the different colours and that red is associated with anger and intensity. What I am wanting to know, does anyone have any failure/ success stories of using a large amount of red on a site without it adversely affecting users. We also wanted to know if there was a particular range that might cause headaches in some users. I would also be interested to know of any research into what borders on acceptable luminosity. For example, I know in a couple of mockups that we have done, the red has been very glary, and makes focusing on the content quite difficult. Unfortunately, this being a personal opinion, we need the research to back it up with. Any help that you can give will be appreciated. Regards, Linda *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***Notice: The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please notify the DEEWR Service Desk and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1413 - Release Date: 03/05/2008 11:22 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability
Linda, You mentioned that you need research to back up some decisions. How about taking the mock-ups that you have done already and just go to a coffee shop. Just ask some one to take a look at the site and give them 5-10 seconds. See what there first thoughts are for the site and what did they see. We have used this in the past and seemed to be pretty effective. James From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ROBEY,Jane Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability Well, apart from what has already been said, I have a personal experience of being on the receiving end of a Red brand. I bank with HSBC, who in Australia have Red and Grey as their brand colours. Every month I get a statement in Red print and every month I think I am in debt or they are writing to warn me about something that is overdue. Except this month. I have changed bank. Regards Jane From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Linda Simpson Sent: Monday, 5 May 2008 12:46 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability Hi, We've been asked to change our colour scheme on our websites to fit into our corporate colour scheme. We currently use blue, and the colour we've been asked to change to is now red. Our site will be using a solid background, with white for the content area (along the lines of news.com.au). Our concern is that such a large amount of red may cause accessibility/ usability issues (we are not only talking about the background colour but also the navigation). We may possibly have some say into the shading of the red, but for the moment think of a nice bright colour (#A80D35). What we need more information about is how the colour red can affect readability. I have done research, and I know about the w3c colour contrast algorithm. I've also had a look at the psychology of the different colours and that red is associated with anger and intensity. What I am wanting to know, does anyone have any failure/ success stories of using a large amount of red on a site without it adversely affecting users. We also wanted to know if there was a particular range that might cause headaches in some users. I would also be interested to know of any research into what borders on acceptable luminosity. For example, I know in a couple of mockups that we have done, the red has been very glary, and makes focusing on the content quite difficult. Unfortunately, this being a personal opinion, we need the research to back it up with. Any help that you can give will be appreciated. Regards, Linda *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***Notic e: The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please notify the DEEWR Service Desk and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability
On May 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, McLaughlin, Gail wrote: There are two people I know of in my company (over 100,000 people) who can see the color red fine in the real world, but cannot read red text , typically error messages, on a computer screen. They did not know they had a problem until they called a help desk to find out why they were having a problem completing a form. Turns out they received errors but could not read them. The area where the error messages appeared looked like smudges to them, not text. I have not read anything that describes this problem, yet they clearly could not see the text well enough to read it. My recommendation to developers is to show error messages as black text on a white background with a bold red box around the error message. Who would ever have thought? That's really good to know - I've already started changing all my .error classes. Reviewing the changed pages, they seem easier to read/understand to me - another case of improving accessibility for a small set of users becoming an improvement for all. Thanks! Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Colour accessibility/ usability
There are two people I know of in my company (over 100,000 people) who can see the color red fine in the real world, but cannot read red text , typically error messages, on a computer screen. They did not know they had a problem until they called a help desk to find out why they were having a problem completing a form. Turns out they received errors but could not read them. The area where the error messages appeared looked like smudges to them, not text. I have not read anything that describes this problem, yet they clearly could not see the text well enough to read it. My recommendation to developers is to show error messages as black text on a white background with a bold red box around the error message. On 5/4/08 10:01 PM, Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiya, What we need more information about is how the colour red can affect readability. I have done research, and I know about the w3c colour contrast algorithm. I've also had a look at the psychology of the different colours and that red is associated with anger and intensity. I used to work on a site that had a red/white/black corporate look and I can sympathise :) I suspect that actually you know all the reasons why not to use red in certain ways, but you're being outvoted by a client. I'd keep fighting for certain basics - your colours must at least comply with the W3C contrast rules (if you're not already using it, grab the CCA to make that easier - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrast-analyser.html). I'm sure there is research out there for everything else; but you could try a different tack and run some usability tests with real live users. Get ten people to test drive your designs and see if anyone finds the colours confronting. There's no research as relevant as your own :) Anecdotally, a key thing to avoid is primary red #f00 - it's just too bright. Also especially avoid using red on white (or reverse) for blocks of text, people often describe the result as it vibrates and that's prime territory for headaches; particularly for anyone who's photosensitive. cheers, Ben *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Definition lists for testimonials
Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's company) and figured that a definition list might be a better option. My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the established structure: dl dt client's quote /dt dd client's name /dd dd client's company /dd /dl ...the 'term' will be way longer than the two 'definitions'. But clearly the client name and company name should come after the quotation. Is this actually un-semantic or is it just slightly counter-intuitive? Can a DT be 10 times the length of its DDs? Alternatively, should I be looking at a blockquote/paragraph combination instead? (that doesn't feel as elegant because it lacks the self-contained nature of a DT/DD set). Suggestions welcome. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials
Definition Lists are wonderful markup tools. They do create a nice relationship between element pairs and I find myself sometimes using them for lists of real estate properties for sale: Something like: dl dtproperty photo //dt dtaddress, city st zip/dt ddprice/dd ddbeds / baths/dd /dl You can style them well in a wide range of ways and without any styling, additionally the raw dl display natural indentation also explains the relationship. Browsing properties The photo/address (what I would say we humans consider the property's definition term) Then, descriptive features like bedrooms, baths etc (which are to be considered the definition description). At the same time, microformats could be used... div class=vcard div class=testimonial...Testimonial Text/div div class=orgName of Client's Company/div /div Or even something like: p class=testimonialI want to take the time to let you know that both of our websites get many compliments daily. You did a great job. Thanks. span class=fromClient Name/span/p// Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rick Lecoat wrote: Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's company) and figured that a definition list might be a better option. My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the established structure: dl dt client's quote /dt dd client's name /dd dd client's company /dd /dl ...the 'term' will be way longer than the two 'definitions'. But clearly the client name and company name should come after the quotation. Is this actually un-semantic or is it just slightly counter-intuitive? Can a DT be 10 times the length of its DDs? Alternatively, should I be looking at a blockquote/paragraph combination instead? (that doesn't feel as elegant because it lacks the self-contained nature of a DT/DD set). Suggestions welcome. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Lecoat Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:26 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's company) and figured that a definition list might be a better option. My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the established structure: dl dt client's quote /dt dd client's name /dd dd client's company /dd /dl I think you're missing an important element: blockquote but then it won't be allowed in a DT -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Full flash websites
The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
Hi, A forum I used to go to uesd to say some HTML and Flash. Maybe this site helps a little bit: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html Or: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200610/full_flash_websites_and_seo/ Kate http://jungaling.com/bichons/ http://jungaling.com/Malaysia/ http://jungaling.com/katesplace/ - Original Message - From: Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:15 PM Subject: [WSG] Full flash websites The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1415 - Release Date: 05/05/2008 06:01 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
I've used flash sites that have been poorly done - confusing interfaces etc. Awful Experience. I've used flash sites that have been built well. Excellent experience. Accessible? Not really, but... If you're providing a fall-back HTML version you're covered. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Persson wrote: The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
Michael Persson wrote: What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? Hate 'em. I usually look in the footer for 'html/lite version' link. If there isn't one, i'll probably end up leaving a lot sooner. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? Im a big fan of xhtml/flash hybrid sites myself. Usually I'll consider using flash for anything but links(usability reasons) and the body text ( for seo). But at the moment Im working on a design that uses flash for some links but its not necessary to use them. Heres an example of a typical hybrid-its still a work in progress. http://www.seaviewnightclub.com/friday *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
The look good but aren't standards. You pretty much hit the head on the problem. The same usability problems also give them a problem with being found by search engines. Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Michael Persson wrote: The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
I've not done any full Flash websites. For reasons of accessibility and the loss of browser navigational tools. But I have been playing with an idea; use XHTML as data source for the site instead of plain XML. That way you build a site with all the accessibility and features of HTML with Flash as a layer on top. - Original Message - From: Joseph Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Full flash websites I've used flash sites that have been poorly done - confusing interfaces etc. Awful Experience. I've used flash sites that have been built well. Excellent experience. Accessible? Not really, but... If you're providing a fall-back HTML version you're covered. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Persson wrote: The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
I say avoid flash whenever possible. Sometimes, however, it isn't. I am just waiting for SVG to get more widely in use. That is going to be... awesome! Flash is good for use on sites on YouTube. Other things? Nah. HTML and JavaScript can easily replace flash in many many cases. Regards, Svip 2008/5/5 Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Full flash websites
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 1:16 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Full flash websites The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. I heard Flash is not that bad as long as authors know what they are doing: http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: R: [WSG] Firefox skips dropdown and multi-select list with tabbing (?)
If it's a mac issue, the most usual cause is that full keyboard access isn't enabled. Solve this by going to System Preferences - Keyboard Mouse - Keyboard Shortcuts - select the All Controls radio button in the full keyboard access section at the bottom of the pane (not in the scrollable area). This drove me nuts in Firefox on a mac for ages (especially why trying to use phpMyAdmin which requires tabbing through a lot of radio buttons that Firefox would just ignore!) Hope that solves your problem :-) Ben -- e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://bendodson.com/ On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would say it's the mac that's causing your problems. I'm running XP Pro with Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14 Good to see Magneto being put to good use. Still rebuilding my server to take it with it's new approach to the database connecton. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 05 May 2008 00:11 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: R: [WSG] Firefox skips dropdown and multi-select list with tabbing (?) On May 4, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd wrote: Just tabbed through the whole checkout forms in FireFox without any problems This is VERY ODD!!! What version of FF /platform do you use? I am on Mac, FF v2.0.0.14. I wish I can capture the tabbing in action so that I can show you :( tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1413 - Release Date: 03/05/2008 11:22 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? Accessibility and search engine visibility of Flash in most cases is zero. I've only heard of one Flash site that was considered accessible and it made a lot of news at the time! Flash only reliably works for users with no physical or technical barriers; and search engines can't read Flash in any useful manner. I generally don't like the usability aspects either - that's subjective I guess, but I've found Flash is generally used when someone thought HTML didn't make them look cool enough. Which means they wanted lots of stuff to bounce and flash and so on ;) Essentially you should only ever add a Flash layer over the top of XHTML; and give users the choice between the two. Flash isn't evil, but *only offering Flash* is evil. -ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
I disable flash on all of my browsers because its most commonly used for really really annoying advertisements. On the rare occasion that I want to go to some site that needs flash to work, i reluctantly turn it on. But I've not found one site of that type that I go back to - they contain too little content. I don't own a Wii either :) Sven Michael Persson wrote: The company I worl with has a big love for full flash websites and we have produced some very nice but heavy and slow ones. What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? I am personally and professionally against them as they cut of the usabiity, have bad accessibility and for me the navigation most often i very difficult and difficult to use. Michael Persson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Professional Wiki Innovation and Support Sven Dowideit - http://DistributedINFORMATION.com A WikiRing Partner http://wikiring.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Full flash websites
As many have already commented I apply caution when using flash (because of it creates extra work, because users like Sven disable it by default and much more besides) The thing is some clients care initially more for the visual appeal (things bouncing around etc) of websites and not for features that improve the accessibility or user experience overall. others have made points about ensuring content is available to all. In a lot of cases it is possible to display the same content in a no flash format (server side scripting helps a great deal - not writing script srcs or codeblocks to the page [setting this in a user setting session var]) I make use of swfObject to replace a summary of the content that the swf displays, often with links to further info of the extent of work produced by this can mushroom, and become unwieldy. admittedly this is much easier if the site is not full browser flash, but if the site is small and all the content is loaded in dynamically Flash can recreate (often poorly) things that are achieved with traditional html - deep linking And this is then an aspect of the site that must be cared for, increasing the overall complexity (and therefore potential err) - there if a lot to bear in mind here also there is shadowbox (by Michael Jackson [not the former jackson 5 pop sensation]) that does a real nice job in displaying all kinds of content lightbox (lokesh dhakar) style of the page - this is what Ben Buchanan was refering to I think - http://mjijackson.com/shadowbox/index.html - S 2008/5/6 Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in general?? Accessibility and search engine visibility of Flash in most cases is zero. I've only heard of one Flash site that was considered accessible and it made a lot of news at the time! Flash only reliably works for users with no physical or technical barriers; and search engines can't read Flash in any useful manner. I generally don't like the usability aspects either - that's subjective I guess, but I've found Flash is generally used when someone thought HTML didn't make them look cool enough. Which means they wanted lots of stuff to bounce and flash and so on ;) Essentially you should only ever add a Flash layer over the top of XHTML; and give users the choice between the two. Flash isn't evil, but *only offering Flash* is evil. -ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] oops! OT post that shouldn't have gone to the list
well, i miss fired again. sent something to the list that was meant to go somewhere else. my sincerest apologies. cheers, dwain -- dwain alford The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: R: [WSG] Firefox skips dropdown and multi-select list with tabbing (?)
Ben, Thanks for the tips. I thought I had the full universal access turned on, but was missing the full keyboard access. Geee, so much for Apple universal access - just like the one button mouse ! totally useless. tee On May 5, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Ben Dodson wrote: If it's a mac issue, the most usual cause is that full keyboard access isn't enabled. Solve this by going to System Preferences - Keyboard Mouse - Keyboard Shortcuts - select the All Controls radio button in the full keyboard access section at the bottom of the pane (not in the scrollable area). This drove me nuts in Firefox on a mac for ages (especially why trying to use phpMyAdmin which requires tabbing through a lot of radio buttons that Firefox would just ignore!) Hope that solves your problem :-) Ben - *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: R: [WSG] Firefox skips dropdown and multi-select list with tabbing (?)
Ok, I think I need to modify my comment a bit. It looks like Firefox has a dependency on Mac's keyboard access - it didn't occur to me to check out the System Preferences that something needed to enable because Safari has no problem. tee On May 5, 2008, at 7:32 PM, tee wrote: Ben, Thanks for the tips. I thought I had the full universal access turned on, but was missing the full keyboard access. Geee, so much for Apple universal access - just like the one button mouse ! totally useless. tee On May 5, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Ben Dodson wrote: If it's a mac issue, the most usual cause is that full keyboard access isn't enabled. Solve this by going to System Preferences - Keyboard Mouse - Keyboard Shortcuts - select the All Controls radio button in the full keyboard access section at the bottom of the pane (not in the scrollable area). *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
