I don't know how many of you have tried IE7(currently Beta 2) yet,
but It has a number of 'features' that could cause some issues /
solve some issues, I thought I would list those that i've experienced
and see if I can get some comments on them:
* More informative Error Pages.
As a
you're right of course. I should use an OL and put the breadcrumb
text as a heading. However I found this method to be the most
compliant and easiest to implement, and it is understandable in most
browsers.
On 23 Feb 2006, at 20:55, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote
On 23 Feb 2006, at 11:19, Ian Anderson wrote:
Kevin Futter wrote:
Anyway, for the benefit of others interested in this thread/topic,
the
upshot from the above link seems to be that the pipe character (|)
is the
best compromise currently available as a screen reader-friendly
element
If the name order is not important, use a UL with LIs styled with
float:left; width:29% or similar. This way, It degrades nicely and
works on small screens (the elements are coerced into a single column.
On 23 Feb 2006, at 11:02, Roberto Santana wrote:
Hello!
I'm creating a page that
Tho I haven't checked it, sounds like the user had Images disabled in
IE6.
On 20 Feb 2006, at 20:02, Designer wrote:
David Nicol wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would appreciate it very much if you could look at this site:
http://www.visitshetland.com/
I have already checked it on several
-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
...
13 on 1152x864 -- !!! Sadist :)
...
21 on 2048x1536
22 on 2048x1536
Less than
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
On 15 Feb 2006, at 11:53, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
If I *have* to open a new window, I use this:
onclick=target='_blank' onkeypress=target='_blank'
It is still script dependent, and does work with key operation as
well.
[pony mode]
?¿? This seems a little ridiculous to me. Just
Heads up,
I haven't properly checked it out yet but Mac have released an OS
update and the second item in the changelog summary is:
- Safari rendering of web pages
This may have broken/fixed websites that you are responsible for.
Stephen
On 15 Feb 2006, at 12:28, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
What I really don't understand is that there are so many people who
participate in this and various other mailing lists, newsgroups and
forums that actively advise against using popups and explain why
they hate them, yet you still somehow
But I think the best option is to completely disable the target
attribute to prevent the author from interfering with your decision
and make it yourself, every single time. You cannot possibly rely
on the author to make the right decision for you, because every
user is different.
so I visited the JKRowling site a while ago and was impressed by the
design of the new site, easy and fun to use.
Later, I read some comments on this site about Lightmaker and the
worth of their accessibility methods (or suggested lack thereof)
Recently I re-visited the site and had some
That's a major reason why I didn't go to university, you don't learn
nuffink(sic. :) ) useful. and have to pay around £10,000 for the
privilege
Stephen
On 13 Feb 2006, at 15:24, Chris Taylor wrote:
A large university here in the UK offers web design courses. But I
don't
hold out much
On 10 Feb 2006, at 19:14, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote:
And how, pray tell, would a screen reader know - based on a
series of presentational rules - what the meaning of a made-up
tag soup is?
The same way that they would with normal HTML, by reading the XML
Ok, one last try. My thoughts have little to do with semantics.
Semantics are based on standards and languages, and therefore if HTML
were dropped, something would HAVE to be introduced to replace it.
However, like the hCard format, trying to break the HTML structure to
add semantics to
Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use
styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce
standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which
element to use. HTML in itself is not a good example of an XML
doctype because the
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and extensible set of display types to replace the default behavior of many current tags. Want to
Sorry, it's late in England. I'm gonna go to bed now :)How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and extensible set of display types to replace
I would agree with you, it seems as if a definition list should only
be used for 'concise' definitions. However, common usage has made it
mean any list of key=value pairs. I guess that it is how the
majority of people interpret a standard that really defines it.
Stephen
On 6 Feb 2006,
You could easily argue that a definition list IS fit for purpose.
Take your example:
h2JAWS (X)HTML interpretationsh2
dl
dt em (Emphasis) /dt
ddJAWS will use pitch and tone to emphasise the words
contained within the em element/dd
dl strong (Strong Emphasis) /dt
ddJAWS will
replacement.
Felix's link to Alertbox is great, btw...
On 2/3/06, Ray Cauchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:47 PM 3/02/2006, Stephen Stagg wrote:
PDF content rarely has the _behaviour_ of a web page
(rich hyperlink structures/inbound/outbound links, etc)
PDF's can and do contain hyperlinks
users do this by 'preference' one way or another.
Josh
On 2/3/06, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006, at 20:57, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
(and ideally force a download via appropriate MIME settings on the
server to send it as an octet stream).
Doing so would override the local
Without wanting to unleash too many ponies, I would be interested to know why using 0(px | em | %) is so much of a standards blunder. I'm sure there some obvious answer but for the life of me, I can't think of one :).If this has already been done to death on the list, please forgive me and email
On 2 Feb 2006, at 20:57, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
(and ideally force a download via appropriate MIME settings on the
server to send it as an octet stream).
Doing so would override the local browser's setting. Is this 'a good
thing'? I would have thought that trying to force the browser
On 2 Feb 2006, at 21:33, Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
I personally would expect the page to appear as any typical printed
document should.
Page Title (your h1 element)
Table of Contents (your ul nav list)
Content (content)
That is a good ethos when designing for monitor-based
Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The
technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in Safari.
Stephen
On 1 Feb 2006, at 17:58, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
The advantages of this solution:
- It uses semantic markup.
- It degrades nicely (hidden
Sarcasm Alert :)
!--[if ! Moral High-Horse Police]
or... you could use a definition list:
dl
dtDays of the Week/dt
dd
dl
dtDay 0/dt
ddSunday/dd
dtDay 1/dt
ddMonday/dd
Should an agent's address really be a definition list??
If you want that sort of semantic pedantry, the markup should be:
block tag
hxAcme Estate Agents/hx
dl
dtAddress/dt
dd
The...Housebr/
Lodge Roa...4DD/dd
dtTelephone/dt
dd0208
OR. cut a few semantics corners and make all visitors happy by using
a standard nested list approach with [add][edit][delete] as text
links after: Even Lynx users will see this:
liItemX a href=[add]/anbsp;a/a
ulliItem X.Y a href=[add]/anbsp;a/a/li
...
...
liItem X.Z.D.E.E.Pa
This may not help at all BUT...
It looks fine on Safari (Mac OSX 10.4) and it would be very
reasonable just to ignore IE 5 for Mac as even Microsoft don't
support it. A way of working round the problem is to use server-side
(or client side if necessary) to serve a cut-down version of the
In my, suitably humble, opinion, PHP 'is a good thing' and so I'm
going to keep using it for the foreseeable future. The only thing
that'll make me really use RUBY is when people start wanting sites
upgraded when they are already using it.
This may come across as a bit of a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:
Question: Is it possible to make IE6 use the broken box model for a
PART of the document?
No, DOCTYPE switching applies to the whole document, not just parts of
the document.
The different box model may one day be able to be chosen using
Slightly off-list but important all the same.
I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at
1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of
800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to
good stats packages for your sites please
% of people have the same resolution as
you Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data.
I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data. But it
doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data.
Stephen
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote
I DON'T DESIGN FIXED WIDTH SITES. -- unless the client really wants it
and they have a good reason
I don't want to scale images until all major browsers support
antialiased or bicubic scaling methods.
I don't want to clip images because I believe that correct proportions
and good cropping is an
Jan Brasna wrote:
I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server
logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me.
I posted link to charts. Not only with resolution (which is mostly
irrelevant) but with viewport sizes as well. What more particularly do
you
Jared Smith wrote:
Felicity Farr wrote:
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and
it's instantly accessible.
...and a direct violation of US Section 508:
A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall
be provided to make a web site comply
of stylistically adding labels to
images? At the moment i'm using:
p class=image title=!label!
img src=!URI! alt=!label!/span class=label!label!/span
/p
is this right? what do you suggest?
Stephen Stagg.
**
The discussion list for http
It depends on who the recipient of the policy doc is. One, very large,
contractor we were working with considered MUST to mean SHOULD, and
SHOULD to be IF YOU CAN BE RSED. They're government funded so no-one cared.
Stephen
heretic wrote:
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets
Al Sparber wrote:
In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which
produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it used
to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't it).
Crazy language :)
Except it's not a rule but an aid to correct spelling.
I take it, therefore, that none of your sites use style sheets at all
(unnecessary), they all use a serif font for body content(easier to read
long para's when in serifs) and that images are only used for
visualization aids?
Very little of what we do is determined by necessity, otherwise we
One site that I'm currently coding (http://www.minimology.co.uk/everest)
uses some simple PHP to manage a few dynamic elements on the pages.
One of these elements (will be | is) 2 Sponsors logos at the top of each
page which will go into the template. I want the links to be randomly
selected
not
understanding what you're trying to do...
Josh
p.s. Cool flowed-frame text!
On 12/9/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One site that I'm currently coding (http://www.minimology.co.uk/everest)
uses some simple PHP to manage a few dynamic elements on the pages.
One of these elements
the CSS to select the appropriate background image.
-- multiple css files, use php to call the appropriate one.
I have an example available if you're interested.
Linda
(breaking away from normal lurk mode)
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WSG wsg
, it means at least passing the WAG 1 test.
I don't think that Managers and The-people-who-control-the-money do
believe that not following standards will cost them and publicising web
standards is still a big issue.
Stephen
Duckworth, Nigel wrote:
Stephen Stagg:
A better way to force
I'm no Lawyer but what are the legal ramifications of a user having the
wrong year set on the client. If the client's clock were set to 1900
then wouldn't the Copyright notice then be invalid?
That is one of the ramifications of not Using PHP or ASP.
Stephen
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Lachlan,
Designer wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Forgive my labouring the point, but after our discussions I have done
what Gunlaug did, i.e., made a page as xhtml, with the headers as below:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;
html
. Even their website has the text:
Image reproduced with permission of Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey
of Northern Ireland
below each image.
designer wrote:
Duh? Stephen?
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Apart from using copyrighted images without attributing them :).
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
If a search page were to only have one piece of Javascript attached to
it (more specifically to the body-onload event) :
document.F.Q.focus();
Should this be placed in a separate JavaScript file in order to make it
more manageable, or just declared inline?
Stephen
The other problem with the validation logos is that they don't always
mean that the page is valid. In my experience, a large number of sites
with these logos don't serve valid code and fail the test that they link
to.
I think that this analog with the construction world is not really
Peter Williams wrote:
From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: This
house is standards compliant?
No, but washing machines, fridges and cars are all now displaying
stickers that advise of their efficiency in terms of an industry
and
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 12/6/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards
would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue
companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites. Once people and
customers
I'm trying to use TSWebEditor (www.tswebeditor.tk) at the moment. It has a
few annoying features but that is offset by a host of good things (including
PHP script debugging - if you need it :) and CSS Editing dialogs)
I'm a bit of a fundamentalist when it comes to editors and use SCITE because
Is it just me or does the Disable Images
option on the Web Developers Toolbar not work with FF1.5?
Stephen
One other point, on FF 1.5, if I click to the left of the main column, it
selects everything and makes things look a bit odd. I don't know if there's
anything you can do about it but it's slightly annoying and can be
confusing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
I thought that it was an implementation of the SVG standard in Firefox,
something that hasn't been present till now.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Geoff Pack
Sent: 30 November 2005 00:24
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG]
Looking at your javascript, I don't understand your reasons for using
javascript. You are determining the season from the Month and Day. This is
constant across the globe (give or take) at any specific time. Therefore
can't you use PHP or some other server script tool or even just a manual
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Stephen Stagg
Sent: 29 November 2005 00:47
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] My Turn for a Site Critique
Looking at your javascript, I don't understand your reasons for using
javascript. You
For what it's worth, I've written a script linked to the hostip.info
database and a local dataset of country latitudes to guess the current
season. It's very rough and ready and you can check it out here:
http://www.minimology.co.uk/geol.php
It was quite an interesting little project
It looks great on FF/Win.
If anything, I would suggest that the overall page background be made even
darker to bring out the Blue/Orange a bit.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Matt Harris
Sent: 29 November 2005 05:09
To:
Actually, a workaround has been proposed
for your specific problem (see earlier in the thread). If Ive read your
post correctly, you have ignored common accessibility and layout standards/conventions
to create a static design and then want the standards group list to help you
work around
Just to stop this thread from being too one-sided, I disagree. While I do
agree that care should be taken, it depends on the content that is being
portrayed and the levels of hierarchy involved. On a relatively simple site
structure, drop-downs can serve to reduce screen clutter while allowing
Could you use the Javascript getComputedStyle() function on an interval loop
to test for Text-size and if the Text size was too great then the Menu's
class could be changed to one with overflow:scroll.
(Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/message/3820)
Also if you define you DL height
dont know, not sure how to do that
but I will look it up.
I cant scale the bg to fit because its a one piece fixed size bg
thanks
From:
Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005
7:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] menu
suggestions and problems
64 matches
Mail list logo
