RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fuji kusaka Sent: 13 June 2008 05:23 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** 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] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** 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] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
I guess it depends on the clients you have. We have several sites getting over 100,000 hits a day, with around 5% of users not having JavaScript enabled. To prevent this number of people from contacting us is completely out of the question. My belief is that the internet is for users, and as web designers we should facilitate as many users as possible to be able to use our sites. That makes things better for both clients and visitors, rather than (but hopefully including) web standards. We would certainly lose business if I started to say that people without JavaScript were not using the web the way I wanted so we would exclude them. I'd argue against an image too on the basis of the increase in mobile browsers were users choose not to download images to reduce and width costs (like my set up). That's without even thinking about people with visual impairments. Maybe I'm just a standards freak, though ;-) J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** 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] *** This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
found it: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ Thanks! On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:28, Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Michael You have made some mistaken assumptions. Search engines are not spam email farmers, so there is no need to PREVENT them from accessing your contacts page. You WANT them to see the contacts page. That is a good thing. Standards compliance policies ARE for the users, and CLIENTS need to understand and respect the users' needs, which is the ability to use any site with their browser of choice. If you design sites solely for your clients needs and not the site visitor needs then you are assuming that users don't matter and the client knows what they need from a site. I would have thought that one thing a client needs from a site is for the visitors to find what they are looking for, without hassle, and to enjoy the time they spend there, i.e.: use the site without problems or difficulties. If you knew ANYTHING about web standards you would see that compliance with standards IS in the client's interest, helps satisfy the client's business needs from the site and standards freaks ARE making things better for BOUTH the clients and visitors. And finally, it is not a war, it is a discussion and a debate and a campaign, but not a war. I remember a few months ago someone posted a great S5 slideshow from sometime in 2004 describing why standards matter for everyone. Can you please re-post it here to help Michael understand standards a bit better? Joe On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:53, Michael Persson wrote: The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
My 2 cents: I'm one of those standards freaks. But when my clients became overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And when I say overwhelmed I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many standards compliant anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM has gotten through in over two years. One could argue that JavaScript renders the contact form unusable for five percent of the population. But without it, the SPAMmers would render it unusable for a hundred percent of the population. My clients aren't going to sift through hundreds of emails to find the needle in the haystack. I wouldn't either. It's not possible to make everyone happy. Use your best judgment. -- Marcello :-) ---Original Message--- From: Chris Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Sent: Jun 16 '08 10:18 Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
On 16 Jun 2008, at 11:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 2 cents: I'm one of those standards freaks. But when my clients became overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And when I say overwhelmed I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many standards compliant anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM has gotten through in over two years. I haven't had a single spam make it through the JS-free forms I have backed with Akismet testing, and no false positives either (as far as I can tell). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Bottomline, what's the best solution? On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16 Jun 2008, at 11:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 2 cents: I'm one of those standards freaks. But when my clients became overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And when I say overwhelmed I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many standards compliant anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM has gotten through in over two years. I haven't had a single spam make it through the JS-free forms I have backed with Akismet testing, and no false positives either (as far as I can tell). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Regards, Srinivas Gattu *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
A decent spam filter will get rid of most, if not all, of the junk - why not encourage your clients to get a good spam filter or use an email client with a good built-in filter? Jason On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 2 cents: I'm one of those standards freaks. But when my clients became overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And when I say overwhelmed I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many standards compliant anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM has gotten through in over two years. One could argue that JavaScript renders the contact form unusable for five percent of the population. But without it, the SPAMmers would render it unusable for a hundred percent of the population. My clients aren't going to sift through hundreds of emails to find the needle in the haystack. I wouldn't either. It's not possible to make everyone happy. Use your best judgment. -- Marcello :-) ---Original Message--- From: Chris Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Sent: Jun 16 '08 10:18 Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Standards freaks are not against JavaScript, please pay attention there. But Standardistas DO want sites to have a useful option available for people who have javascript turned off so THEY can contact you as well. So providing a server side form for people with Javascript turned off would be a useful gracefully degraded JavaScript option. Why was this solution not an option? BTW: which javascript solution did you try that you can recommend? Joe On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 2 cents: I'm one of those standards freaks. But when my clients became overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And when I say overwhelmed I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many standards compliant anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM has gotten through in over two years. One could argue that JavaScript renders the contact form unusable for five percent of the population. But without it, the SPAMmers would render it unusable for a hundred percent of the population. My clients aren't going to sift through hundreds of emails to find the needle in the haystack. I wouldn't either. It's not possible to make everyone happy. Use your best judgment. -- Marcello :-) ---Original Message--- From: Chris Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Sent: Jun 16 '08 10:18 Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Will noscript be an option in addtion to javascript solution, ofcourse when javascript turned off, no. of users get spammed will be very minimal may be 5-10 out of thousands. Sundar On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Standards freaks are not against JavaScript, please pay attention there. But Standardistas DO want sites to have a useful option available for people who have javascript turned off so THEY can contact you as well. So providing a server side form for people with Javascript turned off would be a useful gracefully degraded JavaScript option. Why was this solution not an option? BTW: which javascript solution did you try that you can recommend? Joe On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 2 cents: I'm one of those standards freaks. But when my clients became overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And when I say overwhelmed I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many standards compliant anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM has gotten through in over two years. One could argue that JavaScript renders the contact form unusable for five percent of the population. But without it, the SPAMmers would render it unusable for a hundred percent of the population. My clients aren't going to sift through hundreds of emails to find the needle in the haystack. I wouldn't either. It's not possible to make everyone happy. Use your best judgment. -- Marcello :-) ---Original Message--- From: Chris Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Sent: Jun 16 '08 10:18 Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Thanks Chris, These options are like the options of what size your website should have, and depending on the target group your client have no idea for these technical matters as well as web standards. I am working to make internet a more accessible place to use from any device but im also a realist and i see that clients dont care to pay for my experience or expertise and have not any interest in paying for something they do not understand or have no idea how to use. Are you willing to work 3 days extra for each project to implement the usability / accessibility regulations in order to follow the web standard in order to create a better website that the client will not pay for or even understand what they are paying for...?? Then Chris you are my god of web development really impressive!! Michael Chris Taylor wrote: Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** 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] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Dear Joe, I know very well what web standards are but i have a point of view from the clients side, do the clients know what web standards are and do they really care to pay for something they dont want to pay for!!! Now we have another view of the situation... Im not located in a higly technical enviroment, Greece and there might be a huge difference tio standards or even selling a website Michael Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Michael You have made some mistaken assumptions. Search engines are not spam email farmers, so there is no need to PREVENT them from accessing your contacts page. You WANT them to see the contacts page. That is a good thing. Standards compliance policies ARE for the users, and CLIENTS need to understand and respect the users' needs, which is the ability to use any site with their browser of choice. If you design sites solely for your clients needs and not the site visitor needs then you are assuming that users don't matter and the client knows what they need from a site. I would have thought that one thing a client needs from a site is for the visitors to find what they are looking for, without hassle, and to enjoy the time they spend there, i.e.: use the site without problems or difficulties. If you knew ANYTHING about web standards you would see that compliance with standards IS in the client's interest, helps satisfy the client's business needs from the site and standards freaks ARE making things better for BOUTH the clients and visitors. And finally, it is not a war, it is a discussion and a debate and a campaign, but not a war. I remember a few months ago someone posted a great S5 slideshow from sometime in 2004 describing why standards matter for everyone. Can you please re-post it here to help Michael understand standards a bit better? Joe On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:53, Michael Persson wrote: The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** 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
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
On Jun 16, 2008, at 13:08, Michael Persson wrote: Thanks Chris, These options are like the options of what size your website should have, and depending on the target group your client have no idea for these technical matters as well as web standards. You should have a target display size, even if they do not know what has occurred previously, that's part of your job. You can make an educated guess based on other sites or published information from places like the NN/Group or other websites. I am working to make internet a more accessible place to use from any device but im also a realist and i see that clients dont care to pay for my experience or expertise and have not any interest in paying for something they do not understand or have no idea how to use. Doesn't sound like you are making your sites accessible, sounded like you wanted to avoid that goal. It is your job to help them understand why standards are good, therefore you need to understand this yourself. http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ Are you willing to work 3 days extra for each project to implement the usability / accessibility regulations in order to follow the web standard in order to create a better website that the client will not pay for or even understand what they are paying for...?? The whole point of coding to standards is writing good code in the first place. you should not be adding time to your project, just writing it properly in the fist place. Then Chris you are my god of web development really impressive!! There are many Gods on this list. But they aren't gods, just people who try to do their best. You can be one too! ;-) Michael Chris Taylor wrote: Michael, What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client without JavaScript. These standard[s] freaks you seem to think so little of *are* trying to make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Michael said: Are you willing to work 3 days extra for each project to implement the usability / accessibility regulations in order to follow the web standard in order to create a better website that the client will not pay for or even understand what they are paying for...?? I try to quote clients for the amount of time it will take me to do a website the right way. Following the standards and implementing solutions which fit in with the regulations (in the UK I believe there are laws covering accessible websites) is always the right way. Setting your pricing to cover this would be a good move. I'm a realist as well, but I believe that you should only do things the non-standard, inaccessible, non-degradable, easy way when there's a very strong business reason to do it. Off the top of my head the only valid reason I can think of for ignoring the standards and accessibility would be when you're writing a private intranet with known client software and users. Chris This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Rubbish. I have plenty of experience of commercial-grade spam filters, and when 95% of received mail is spam, you don't have a hope of getting it all, unless you want to block a significant portion of legitimate mail as well. Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Ray Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? A decent spam filter will get rid of most, if not all, of the junk - why not encourage your clients to get a good spam filter or use an email client with a good built-in filter? Jason *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
On 16 Jun 2008, at 14:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rubbish. I have plenty of experience of commercial-grade spam filters, and when 95% of received mail is spam, you don't have a hope of getting it all, unless you want to block a significant portion of legitimate mail as well. You don't need to get it all. You need to get enough that the remainder is manageable. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Dear Chris, I could not said it better myself. I am alone front end developer and technical responsible for the projects we are creating in the company i work. I have tried to implement web standards, accessibility and usability for the last 2 years but sometimes I am just chopped by the shoulders because noone else have any idea of what I am talking about... Michael Chris Taylor wrote: Michael said: Are you willing to work 3 days extra for each project to implement the usability / accessibility regulations in order to follow the web standard in order to create a better website that the client will not pay for or even understand what they are paying for...?? I try to quote clients for the amount of time it will take me to do a website the right way. Following the standards and implementing solutions which fit in with the regulations (in the UK I believe there are laws covering accessible websites) is always the right way. Setting your pricing to cover this would be a good move. I'm a realist as well, but I believe that you should only do things the non-standard, inaccessible, non-degradable, easy way when there's a very strong business reason to do it. Off the top of my head the only valid reason I can think of for ignoring the standards and accessibility would be when you're writing a private intranet with known client software and users. Chris This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com *** 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] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Michael, In many ways we are the lucky ones - if you are doing SQL server day to day, or pretty much anything other than HTML then there are no standards at all - just 'on time/budget' or 'not/fired'. Stuff like SOX has given some impetus to doing things 'the right way' instead of the quick way, but still not nearly as well documented. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 2:34 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Dear Chris, I could not said it better myself. I am alone front end developer and technical responsible for the projects we are creating in the company i work. I have tried to implement web standards, accessibility and usability for the last 2 years but sometimes I am just chopped by the shoulders because noone else have any idea of what I am talking about... Michael *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Michael, I understand where you're coming from, but your original message did not come across like that at all. Of course budgets will be cut, deadlines brought forward, other responsibilities heaped on you etc. That's the nature of business. However wherever possible standard and accessibility should be baked into sites right from the beginning. Doing that gives your clients a better solution, whether or not they understand it. And where they don't understand it, what difference does it make to them? They don't need to know what goes on under the hood, just that it works and is the best solution for the current and future state of the web. If they do ask questions show them the Seybold presentation. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: 16 June 2008 14:34 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Dear Chris, I could not said it better myself. I am alone front end developer and technical responsible for the projects we are creating in the company i work. I have tried to implement web standards, accessibility and usability for the last 2 years but sometimes I am just chopped by the shoulders because noone else have any idea of what I am talking about... Michael Chris Taylor wrote: Michael said: Are you willing to work 3 days extra for each project to implement the usability / accessibility regulations in order to follow the web standard in order to create a better website that the client will not pay for or even understand what they are paying for...?? I try to quote clients for the amount of time it will take me to do a website the right way. Following the standards and implementing solutions which fit in with the regulations (in the UK I believe there are laws covering accessible websites) is always the right way. Setting your pricing to cover this would be a good move. I'm a realist as well, but I believe that you should only do things the non-standard, inaccessible, non-degradable, easy way when there's a very strong business reason to do it. Off the top of my head the only valid reason I can think of for ignoring the standards and accessibility would be when you're writing a private intranet with known client software and users. Chris This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com *** 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] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Hi all, Just to throw another one in the mix. How about using flash as they did on actionscript.org - a little .swf which shows the email as selectable text when clicked on? I guess this is even less accessible though, as it ostracizes not only those without js enabled, but also those without flash player. So does everyone agree that the form is the best option for entire cross - situation compatibility? James Subject: RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:41:33 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Michael, In many ways we are the lucky ones - if you are doing SQL server day to day, or pretty much anything other than HTML then there are no standards at all - just 'on time/budget' or 'not/fired'. Stuff like SOX has given some impetus to doing things 'the right way' instead of the quick way, but still not nearly as well documented. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 2:34 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Dear Chris, I could not said it better myself. I am alone front end developer and technical responsible for the projects we are creating in the company i work. I have tried to implement web standards, accessibility and usability for the last 2 years but sometimes I am just chopped by the shoulders because noone else have any idea of what I am talking about... Michael *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** _ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl001007ukm/direct/01/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
So does everyone agree that the form is the best option for entire cross - situation compatibility? James I think that is really an individual decision - a simple contact form on its own has a number of usability issues, which are well documented elsewhere. For the user there is the lack of inherent feedback, and for the customer there is a significant chance that the form will be spammed just as heavily as an email hyperlink. Regards, Mike Mike Brockington Web Development Specialist www.calcResult.com www.stephanieBlakey.me.uk www.edinburgh.gov.uk This message does not reflect the opinions of any entity other than the author alone. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this
transparency crap to make work ?
I know it's a rather old thread but I just came across a nice solution
which does not even need an iepngfix.htc Javascript.
One template I work on required a semitransparent background. I have it
working nicely cross-browser (FF, IE6, IE7) with the following:
CSS:
.className {background:transparent url('img/707070_90pc.png') repeat 0
0} /* The 'pc' indicates the opacity, 90% here */
* html .className
{background:none;filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoad
er(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale,
src='css/skin-travel/img/707070_90pc.png')}
The first line if for standards-compliant browsers, the second one for
IE6 only.
Image:
You'll also need the PNG image. Here's the magic: Usually a PNG image
used with the proprietary filter overlays any links and renders them
unclickable. But I found a website [1] which offers a fix: You have to
use a certain image size, then IE6 allows clickable links.
So I made the PNG just 10x2 pixels (wXh).
That's it. The site's not live yet, so I cannot offer a link.
Cheers,
Jens
[1] http://www.daltonlp.com/view/217
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies.
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents
of this message or attached files.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
Even that site resource advise's to use the htc approach. I use this on a
number of website and it works really well. I attach it to a style sheet for
IE6 or below that way my CSS still passes validation.
http://bjorkoy.com/past/2007/4/8/the_easiest_way_to_png/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jens-Uwe Korff
Sent: 17 June 2008 00:50
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this
transparency crap to make work ?
I know it's a rather old thread but I just came across a nice solution
which does not even need an iepngfix.htc Javascript.
One template I work on required a semitransparent background. I have it
working nicely cross-browser (FF, IE6, IE7) with the following:
CSS:
.className {background:transparent url('img/707070_90pc.png') repeat 0
0} /* The 'pc' indicates the opacity, 90% here */
* html .className
{background:none;filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoad
er(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale,
src='css/skin-travel/img/707070_90pc.png')}
The first line if for standards-compliant browsers, the second one for
IE6 only.
Image:
You'll also need the PNG image. Here's the magic: Usually a PNG image
used with the proprietary filter overlays any links and renders them
unclickable. But I found a website [1] which offers a fix: You have to
use a certain image size, then IE6 allows clickable links.
So I made the PNG just 10x2 pixels (wXh).
That's it. The site's not live yet, so I cannot offer a link.
Cheers,
Jens
[1] http://www.daltonlp.com/view/217
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files
is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or
any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No
part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written
consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error
please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and
delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness
of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet
communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
***
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: 270.3.0/1504 - Release Date: 15/06/2008
17:52
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
... and all of them ultimately rely on AlphaImageLoader, which (as I mentioned elsewhere) runs the risk of the sort of problems discussed at http://blogs.cozi.com/tech/2008/03/transparent-png.html?cid=106552420 - Korny On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jens-Uwe Korff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I attach [the htc approach ] to a style sheet for IE6 or below[,] that way my CSS still passes validation. Good point which I didn't mention explicitly. However, not using the HTC approach reduces your HTTP requests by one which might be interesting in terms of optimising your site for speed. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
I used a javascript call IE7. And it works in IE6. http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] transparency, png IE6 ??
http://spirit.q9-gaming.com/en/?p=37 A re-arranged article about that. On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Caleb Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used a javascript call IE7. And it works in IE6. http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] *** -- http://spirit.q9-gaming.com/en/ Spirit's Inside: Blog Design *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
