Rimantas wrote:
That's not minimal document. This one is:
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
title./titlep.
Strictly speaking, the p is optional - you only need a title and some
content
The shortest document I could get to validate is:
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//X//DTD
The problem here is IE and floats. You can make the design more robust by
adding a negative margin on the side column that's equal to its width. But
you won't get a perfect solution using percentage widths on the side column,
only when using ems or pixels.
Have a look at the samples on this
That's not minimal document. This one is:
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
title./titlep.
Strictly speaking, the p is optional - you only need a title and some
content
In this case dots are optional, p is not. What you say is true for
Transitional DTD.
The shortest page I
Matthew Smith wrote:
tolerate screen motion? (A bit off-topic, I know, but I believe that
accessibility/standards doesn't stop at the content, but extends to
software and OS.)
Not liking fancy animations does not make you an accessibility advocate.
Apparently everyone hates flash, but for
But is it accessible?
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
That's not minimal document. This one is:
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
title./titlep.
Strictly speaking, the p is optional - you only need a title and some
content
In this case dots are optional, p is not. What you say is
Funny enough, website development depends on your site goal, target audience
and client's want. If your site demands that you use a flash (if it's a
major communication) then you have to use flash.
Sunday John
Web Developer
www.isslng.com
-Original Message-
From:
Milosz, those sites are incredibly flash-intensive. Without flash, they
fail. With flash and a slow connection (or even processor), they run
badly. I'm afraid any objective source would give those low marks for
accessibility.
But they are entirely based on style - there is no real substance
Now that's what I'm talking about. When everything is available as raw
XML and you've got XSLT, you're in flexible heaven.
Rob O'Rourke wrote:
Not necessarily, check out what Dan Cederholm wrote about his work on
MTV.com [1], they have a fully flash site that runs from a server-side
generated
Yea, I agree with your comment. Contents that is available through xml for
flash improves performance. Also given the user a choice to switch to
version of site is good idea to meet end users viewing experience.
Like I said, all still boils down to the project goal, target audience and
your
On 2/2/07, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is it accessible?
Oh, man, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Okay, not really, but
it really is funny.
Dan
***
List Guidelines:
Sunday John wrote:
Yea, I agree with your comment. Contents that is available through xml for
flash improves performance. Also given the user a choice to switch to
version of site is good idea to meet end users viewing experience.
Like I said, all still boils down to the project goal, target
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 16:37 +, Rob O'Rourke wrote:
True, I'm starting to realise that more and more now as the works piling
up =$
Still, at least the world of corporate merchandise e-commerce is a
little more accessible now =]
Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity:
miden wrote:
Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity:
...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website
authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so
terribly absent.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/
And that's really
On 2/2/07, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
miden wrote:
Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity:
...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website
authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so
terribly absent.
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 2/2/07, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
miden wrote:
Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity:
...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website
authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so
terribly
Hello All
I've designed some templates for a blogging system about 6 months back, but
neither I nor my client, anticipated
non-breaking text strings or oversized images being uploaded into these
non-liquid designs.
Designs are typical two column floats (nav and main content area are
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 17:01 -0500, Christian Montoya wrote:
On 2/2/07, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
miden wrote:
Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity:
...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website
authors could show toward accessibility
Cole Kuryakin wrote:
[...] To see what's going on, please go here:
http://www.x7m.us/_problems/index_problem.htm.
Sure would appreciate any advise on how I can get overflow:hidden to
target just the images on this site.
You can target all images with 'max-width' in the good browsers, and
At 2/2/2007 05:44 PM, Cole Kuryakin wrote:
What I want to do is target any img within the site
img {
...
overflow:hidden;
}
with overflow:hidden - but for some reason, it's not working.
Overflow applies to the contents of a block, not to the block
itself.
A great example of Faust in practice:
http://www.ivyhotel.com/
Bravo! I took a quick (and only quick) look in Lynx and got a
meaningful site. I think that this could be a first. And also a last,
as this example neatly takes away any excuse for a primarily Flash-based
site to be
20 matches
Mail list logo
