Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

2006-02-16 Thread James Bennett
On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have that little down-pointing arrow (probably not using the same browser as you are). After 12 clicks, I probably wouldn't even remember the original site's title anyway. I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

2006-02-16 Thread Terrence Wood
Rick Faaberg: All popup windows break the back button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not). So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're fine with clicking back 12 times to get back to the original site? Assuming of course that no-one else is opening

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

2006-02-16 Thread Rick Faaberg
On 2/16/06 1:22 AM Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Safari has this same functionality: onclick= 1 step back; onmousedown= popup menu with your recent widow history. I'm not sure how many steps it remembers, I never use Safari except for testing. Even then, there is the

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

2006-02-16 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh
On Feb 16, 2006, at 5:58 PM, James Bennett wrote: I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within arm's reach (which includes all the popular browsers except Safari -- I don't have a Mac here at home to refer to) implements some form of extended Back functionality which

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

2006-02-16 Thread James Bennett
On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-) One click to close the window. Two clicks to summon the appropriate Back functionality. Does

[WSG] digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

2006-02-16 Thread james.mellor
- - This is an automatic reply - - I am out of the office until Monday 20 Feb. If your email is regarding the University webite, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] in my absence, or contact: Sarah Bell Marketing Communications Manager e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: 023 9284 2948 or Paul Krycler Web

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict - ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED

2006-02-16 Thread russ - maxdesign
ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED Reason: There has been a lot of good points raised within this thread, on both standards and usability. However, we have definitely moved away from cooperative, useful advice on web standards practices towards strongly held and vocal personal opinion. Please do not continue

Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]

2006-02-16 Thread blqberi
---"we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design for the 'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but as he/she becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their own choice." I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain

[WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread kvnmcwebn
hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, i got some great help here allready for it. ..1st it dosnt validate right now but i will get it to pass after i address some other issues. the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is the original email. -not

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Joshua Street
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://63.134.237.108/ any feedback at all greatly appreciated Table-based layout? Was that guy looking at the same site? Looks pretty layout-table free to me... You're missing a H1, which isn't great... wrap the header image in an H1 element

Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]

2006-02-16 Thread Kat
blqberi wrote: I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty, or maybe these are less than ordinary

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Ted Drake
I don't see what this person is complaining about. Are you sure he looked at the right site? I do see a table in your code that could easily be replaced and should be. But in general, the home page didn't look bad. I got a similar message from a client that had a friend look at the design. The

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Scott Swabey
kvnmcwebn wrote: hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, ... the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is the original email. Well I had a very quick look at it and though visually the site is nice there are a couple of serious problems, I'm

Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]

2006-02-16 Thread Terrence Wood
blqberi: I agree, but just how low do you go? Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Einstein. ..  on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Ted Drake
I'd love to see the site of the third party consultant... come on... sneak it into a message to us... Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:35 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG]

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Terrence Wood
Joshua Street: The BIGGEST thing I can see wrong with this site is the image map. Nice site. Check the typos: Skip to nazvigation (top of page). Outside of that I mostly agree with Josh except I'd like to see the county names as plain text and positioned instead on the map instead of as

Re: [WSG] Web design education

2006-02-16 Thread john
I've been following this discussion with great interest. I've taught HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a TAFE, but not as part of a coding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's an interesting environment in which to think about standards -- the students were totally focused on design

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread kvnmcwebn
thanks guys, Yes we did double check and make sure he checked the right site. at first i thought he surely must have been checking the old site... http://www.families.ie/ but no he was checking the right url. The consultant is an employee of the irish government.nevermind i wont go there.

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread kvnmcwebn
I will do as josh suggested. Actually using flash is a good idea for the maps especially as they are going national and will have all counties in the republic on there. The you are here is a breadcrumb that has yet to be programmed. good idea on using positioned text instead of the image map

Re: [WSG] Web design education

2006-02-16 Thread Matt Robin
Hi John,How long ago was this per chance?I find your comments very interesting because it's taken right from direct experience in formal web education (albeit to graphic designers at the time).In essense, higher/further education guidelines (IT/Graphic Design or otherwise) don't seem to be able to

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Joshua Street
One other thing... typo, your are here » above the imagemap. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Joshua Street
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? It must've been offlist, but I'd guess it was about fonts ;-) My second opinion is I agree... he's generally right about such things! ** The discussion

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Terrence Wood
kvnmcwebn: Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? What did Felix advise? kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread kvnmcwebn
What did Felix advise? He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers provide users with

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Terrence Wood wrote: kvnmcwebn: Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? What did Felix advise? Stab in the dark: don't define font size below 100%... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
kvnmcwebn wrote: What did Felix advise? He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Terrence Wood
On 17 Feb 2006, at 1:31 PM, kvnmcwebn wrote: What did Felix advise? Let your visitors be able to use your site without fighting through this rude and unnecessary basic usability/accessibility obstacle. See: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html; I didn't really need to ask...

Re: [WSG] Web design education

2006-02-16 Thread john
Title: Re: [WSG] Web design education How long ago was this per chance? Just last year. In essense, higher/further education guidelines (IT/Graphic Design or otherwise) don't seem to be able to bridge the gap between basic 'HTML know-how' and 'Web Standards-friendly' web design techniques. To

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Stephen Stagg
On 17 Feb 2006, at 00:43, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: kvnmcwebn wrote: What did Felix advise? He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as

RE: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes

2006-02-16 Thread Herrod, Lisa
Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. L -Original Message- From: Patrick H.

Re: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes

2006-02-16 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Herrod, Lisa wrote: Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. But only if the button for

Re: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes

2006-02-16 Thread Mark Harris
Herrod, Lisa wrote: Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. L song id=yankee-doodle Oh,

RE: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes

2006-02-16 Thread Herrod, Lisa
I've always wanted my own theme song. I believe I have finally arrived. -Original Message- From: Mark Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 17 February 2006 12:27 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes Herrod, Lisa wrote: Yes but

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Felix Miata
Stephen Stagg wrote Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:02:11 +: On 17 Feb 2006, at 00:43, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: It's just a shame that people who pay for web design usually insist on the smaller text sizes, because historically 99% of web sites in the wild have tended to serve a slightly reduced

RE: [WSG] site check

2006-02-16 Thread Herrod, Lisa
I think that requires a purchase order felix. -Original Message- From: Felix Miata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please tell us which combination(s) of display size and resolution and at which DPI values your description applies to: 13 on 800x600 14 on 800x600 15 on 800x600 16 on

Re: [WSG] Web design education

2006-02-16 Thread James Gollan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been following this discussion with great interest. I've taught HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a TAFE, but not as part of a coding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's an interesting environment in which to think about standards -- the students were

Re: [WSG] Web design education

2006-02-16 Thread Christian Montoya
On 2/16/06, James Gollan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be great, however, if there was a course that started taking responsibility for the different aspect of web design in a far more holistic way right from the begiinning. I think in terms of four year or two year programs, especially in