Re: [WSG] Animated gifs
I had to do this once in the past... and in the end I split the animation up into its individual frames, optimized each frame to within an inch of its life, then re-built it as an animation. Cut the file size down to 10% of the original size. I recall that I did screen-shots of every 'frame' of the animation and started from there, but I am sure I later found a way to pull the frames straight out of the file. On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Lynette Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Thanks Frederick and Chris - that's very interesting. Will see what I can do. Lyn *** 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] Animated gifs
Just tell the client that you can charge them for a full day of your time to fix it, or they can just have a still version for free. Let them make the decision for you ;-) On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Lynette Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I had to do this once in the past... and in the end I split the animation up into its individual frames, optimized each frame to within an inch of its life, then re-built it as an animation. Cut the file size down to 10% of the original size. That sounds good, if a lot of work. Thanks Lyn *** 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] IE help
Works fine for me... IE 7.0.6000.16512 on Vista Ultimate On 8/23/07, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some users have complained that when they go to this page http://www.fifeweb.org/wp/lib/lib_current.html and try to download the linked files with IE 7 they get a message stating something like Explorer is unable to download the requested file My Windows (server 2000) testing computer has IE 6 on it and all works fine. The links to the files are absolute, so my guess is these users either have some funny settings in thier IE 7, anti-virus programs, or some Norton firewall-like application. However if someone could have a look in IE 7 I would appreciate it. Thanks, Bob *** 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] Talking about tabular data...
Sorry if this has already come up... but have you seen these? http://www.lenef.com/dotleader/ http://home.tampabay.rr.com/bmerkey/examples/dot-leaders.html On 3/7/07, Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i don't think you are missing anything. imo what you are proposing in your example is not tabular data at all. it's content followed by a string of dots ending in more content. if you are critized for thinking this is tabular data, then you should be critized; but, if you are being critized for wanting to pursue this type of presentation outside of a table, then i too am critized. dwain On 3/6/07, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tabular data thread reminds me of one I participated in in another group. The original post was: quote I have a page with a list of officers of an organization. It's an obvious application for a table because that's what tables were designed for. But I wanted it to look the way it did in the printed version, where there was a row of dots leading from the heading to the person's name. For example (and this might not look right depending on your browser or viewer): President..John Smith Vice-president.Janet Jones In other words, the items in the two columns line up horizontally, and the cell on the left is filled out with dots. /quote I'm curious to know what members of this group think about this. Should this be considered tabular data or not? Do you consider a table the best tool to mark this up? Or at least as good as anything else? I'm curious because I've been so much criticized for my view on this that I'd like to know if I'm not missing something... Thanks. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com http://www.tjkdesign.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- dwain alford p.o. box 145 winfield, alabama 35594 u.s.a. tele: 205.487.2570 cell: 205.495.5619 *** 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] Fully compliant sample site
Hi all, Sorry to ask a silly question, but is there a really good 'Fully Compliant' sample site I could see somewhere? I am basically looking for a template, with associatedCSS files etc, that I could have a really good look at to see how it works rather thanread through stacks of rules. Something with detailed comments explaining why they made the decisions they made would be really sweet. Thanks! dp.
Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
Thank you so much! You just made my life about a million times easier! dp. On 23/08/05, Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Pietersen ...tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML* CSS* WAI* Section 508David,The W3C maintain a useful website that has validators for x/html andcss. http://validator.w3.org/http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/They also have info regarding WIA conformancehttp://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/ Webxact have a testing tool for WAI and Section 508http://webxact.watchfire.com/Bobby is a general accessibility checker http://www.cast.org/bobby/Joe Clark offers a lot of good advice on accessibilityhttp://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/alistapart has many articles on accesibility http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/Google for terms like section 508 check and you'llfind more references and tools. --Peter Williams**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
Hi all, Sorry to be a pain, but I am new to this list. Is there a place somewhere that lists the tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe Thanks! dp. On 23/08/05, Jason Foss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: User testing?On 23/08/05, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, First, I'd just like to check I understand something correctly. Validation for WAI AAA = WCAG 1.0 Priority 3. Is this correct? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Regards, Stuart ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **--Jason Foss http://www.almost-anything.com.auhttp://www.waterfallweb.netWindows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
[WSG] Book- Any good?
Hi All, Sorry if this is off topic, but I was thinking about picking up a copy of... Accessible XHTML and CSS Web Sites: Problem - Design - Solutionby Jon Duckett http://www.wrox.com/WileyCDA/WroxTitle/productCd-0764583069.html Can anyone tell me if this is any good, or let me know of a better alternative? Thanks in advance, dp.
Re: [WSG] Does anyone still design for 640x480?
Visitors to my State Government site are almost divided exactly in half between 800x600 and 1024x768, based on around 30,000 unique visits per day, and we actually provide 2 versions of our sitethrough testing the res before we render the HTML. There is a growing percentage of those with 1280x1024, but it is still tiny compared to the other two I mentioned. We get a VERY small hand full at 640x480, which I suspect is two or three regular visitors. On 03/08/05, Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I know a good design will scale for any size screen (resolution if you prefer that term) but most designers I know pick a minimum size and work out their designs with this as a normal minimum. Any smaller sizes they just make the site work but not fret if things are not perfectly aligned. For example, I usually design pages that work well in screens 800x600 or larger but in smaller screens, everything will be there but if lines have wrapped horribly or tabs and boxes have dropped down to a new line, I'm not going to worry. Is that what you are all doing nowdays? What sizes are you designing for? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month
Re: [WSG] What not to do for colour blind users
Mordechai is totally rightin that it ishue that makes it difficult, but it is only within the specific context of combining the two (either Red/Green or Blue/Green). I had a series of progressively more advanced CB tests when I went to join the Army, and ended up with a rating of 19, with 20 being the worst (on their scale anyway). I can totally see the difference between Red and Green, and in 99.9 percent of the time it makes no difference to anything. The only time I notice it is when someone wants me to look at the pretty red bird sitting in the green tree (unless it moves, I will NEVER find it), or once when I was driving past a field everyone wanted me to stop and take photos and it took me 10 mins to work out it was an apple orchid in full bloom- all I could see was a bunch of boring trees. The reason you can't be an electrician is that if there is a red wire in a bundle containing a lot of green ones, there is little chance you would see it. I can't ever recall a website that caused me grief.If I have come across one, it would have still been usable for me, I just would not see it that same way as the author. dp. On 25/07/05, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Ellis wrote:The box below contains a row of random letters. Most of the lettersare coloured white, some are highlighted. Please enter ONLY the RED HIGHLIGHTED characters in the order in which they appear in the boxbelow and press GO.If it's only red or white letters on a black background, it shouldn't bea problem in most cases, but it's less than ideal. I believe red appears grey to red/green colour blind people.It depends on the form of color blindness. For someone with total colorblindness, then yes, it would appear gray, but this form is very rare. The most common form is red/green. It that case, depending of theseverity, reds and greens do appear to have color, but depending onwhich hue, telling the difference between the two is often very difficult. **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but... You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) I never saidmy site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating.The contenteven works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-) My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-) On 7/15/05, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE. Let me point that this is MY opinion :THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government.Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE optimized ) ? The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... old ways ( to put it mildly ).I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhhouch optimized, so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet. I'm gonna kill that beast (the site) if it's the last thing i'll do.Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be *hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ... On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates.Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnomealready have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not anapplication.SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here.Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in.Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm).Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patchesmade by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning youcan already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well.Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe inthe elusive Longhorn.As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or...Philippe---Philippe Wittenberghhttp://emps.l-c-n.com/** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help **
