Hi Guys,
I am working on a web site for my Student Guild and I would love some
feedback. It has been done very quickly and a lot of the content is
still being prepared but I have tried to keep standards and
accessibility in mind.
http://www.lloydy.id.au/guilddev/
It validates but I would love
Stuart,
Thanks for the example, but while it displays according to my
example, it's not what I'm looking for. (I guess my example assumed
too much intuition as to what I was trying to obtain).
Here's where your example fails (and perhaps better illustrates the
problem I'm trying to
2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
If it can't be done,
It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in real world too):
take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com,
stylegala.com, etc.
I'd like to see a humble
admission from the non-table people
Rimantas,
Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple
encouragament
to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to
accept is table,
Is there anything to gain in these discussions by you always being so
polemic
If you have nothing except snide remarks to
http://www.nikonnet.com/
--
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to
Shame about the layout table on the front page. It validates, though
with a pair of warnings I thought would make things fail... apparently
not (but then who actually believes the validator anyway, hey? ;-))
Josh
On 12/15/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.nikonnet.com/
--
Best
Certainly a big step in the right directions, but still two simple
warnings that could be fixed and it is only Transitional.
Regards,
Ric
designer wrote:
http://www.nikonnet.com/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Bob Schwartz wrote:
In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The
fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients
asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a
way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS
at
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
Whilst stats can tell some stories, your question is almost one of those
how long is a piece of string? types. Screen resolutions vary with
target audiences. I have clients with agricultural based sites where I
am still getting reports of screens at 640 x 480! Don't forget either
that the
Design for 800 600 and work with the restrictions I say. Don't forget a lot of laptop and a handheld devices will need to look at your site also.
Thanks,Paul
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:42:27 +1100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Stephen Stagg wrote:
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...
It is the viewport size that matters, the screen
I once read on the A List Apart web site that a 550px wide text box
is about the limit of comfortable reading, so I use that as my base
rule for site design.
In the end it works out to 760px wide total content surrounded by
pretty colors in the margins.
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Slightly
I thought I made my point in the original post. While I agree that
sites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people
don't browse with browser maximised. What I can't do is supply all the
images for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants to
view the site.
This might help you, Screen Res is near the bottom somewhere.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspThe latest figures are for July, so its a little out of date.
I agree with Bobs point though, it interesting that we used to design for 800x600 so all our visitors could read our
Can't give you the stats but the 550px max width for text rule-of-
thumb I use sort of dictates image sizes. (about 250px - 300px wide
max).
I've also found with clients that I often have to design for thier
browser/monitor no matter my well-founded arguments to the contrary:-}
I thought
Stephen Stagg wrote:
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
It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is
essentially irrelevant.
And everyone should remember this. I have 2560x1024 and available canvas
in browsers about 900px wide.
There are some graphs:
http://weblog.jakpsatweb.cz/b/1108565041-mereni-sirky-okna-v-grafech.html
(in
I think all your problems would be solved if you stopped designing
fixed width sites. Or at least most of your problems. I make sites
that look fine from 640px to 1280px. I use max-width to keep them from
getting too wide. I never have to think twice about what resolution to
support. The hard part
Here we go with the tiny text again. This is a decent website as far
as standards go, but the design still looks dated. Or am I the only
one who has trouble reading that text?
And yes, the layout table on the page could have been handled with
divs. Someone got lazy.
--
--
Christian Montoya
On Dec 14, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Rebecca Cox wrote:
Will this also prevent the alt text from being available in say the
JAWS screen reader, (which uses Internet Explorer), when the user
has javascript enabled?
Or is it just the tooltip behaviour not the alt content which is
removed by the
I've been watching this thread as being utterly relevant to what I have been
thinking a lot on.
A lot I believe still browse at 800, and hating bottom scrollbars (seen
wayyy too often, I have been looking for answers.
AN excellent article (see his demo!) is the man in blue:
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
Stephen Stagg wrote:
I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore
when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in
any other way BUT by having a text alternative.
I totally agree with you (though Flash can be made accessible... kinda).
But if
Hi. I am new to the group and have a question.I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents.
In other words, the site will have a
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
Stephen Stagg 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.
my stats are here:
http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=statssite=s11hondaswapreport=73
based on roughly 500,000 page views a month
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I once read on the A List Apart web site that a 550px wide text box
is about the limit of comfortable reading, so I use that as my base
rule for site design.
550px gives me only about 40 characters per line (28px default),
normally much too narrow.
Widths based upon line
It was useful, (if also in Czech.:) )
Good to hear :)
I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more
reliable.
Well, as someone smart said - you have to look at your own data to pick
an appropriate solution. Other's data may not neccessarily fit your
audience.
Jan Brasna wrote:
I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more
reliable.
Well, as someone smart said - you have to look at your own data to pick
an appropriate solution. Other's data may not neccessarily fit your
audience.
Hi,
I agree, but still it's
Michael Wilson wrote:
I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my
machine (basic intel built
Kevin Ross said:
his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client
visits a link to one of the manufacturers.
Ugh. This is a bit pre-dot bomb isn't it? I'd wager that this type of site
will only serve to diminish his online presence, not enhance it.
Is there a benefit for to
Michael Wilson wrote:
I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Many graphics adapter drivers substitute the non-standard 5/4
Quoting Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Christian Montoya wrote:
http://www.nikonnet.com/
Here we go with the tiny text again... Or am I the only
one who has trouble reading that text?
You're not. Even on 200% zoom its too small for me. More than that and
the overlapping makes it totally
On 12/15/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Wilson wrote:
I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Many
On 12/15/05, Ben Curtis wrote:
The alt text is removed from the element if the image is loaded. It's
a very simple htc that runs this code for each image after the page
loads:
if (element.complete) element.alt = '';
You attach it to the img selector in your css, or a more specific
Brian Cummiskey wrote:
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my
machine (basic intel built in graphics card)
I have 1280x960
On 12/15/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The
fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients
asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a
way to satisfy them and do pure (in the
Bob Schwartz said:
Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not
withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non-
table people should at least admit it.
I'm not aware of 'non-table people' making a claim that CSS can solve
every design problem. Was that
Hi Stephen,
Another point worth mentioning, which was raised by my all-seeing manager,
is that even though people's default screen resolution generally falls in
the 1024x768 mark, they often browse in a smaller window.
This kind of throws a spanner in the works for those wanting to boost the
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
encouraging your clients to look to other
design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout
This is just completely unrealistic.
First, don't submit a design that you can't build. Otherwise, if you
are not the designer, and
On 15/12/05 4:27 PM, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kevin,
That's just another limitation of the parameter. Justified text actually
comes in several flavours - left, right and both.
Actually, that's quite wrong. There is no such thing as left- or
right-justified text, only left-
On 16/12/05 7:07 AM, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Wilson wrote:
I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on
Hi Kevin,
Antiquated or inadequate definitions aside, I am actually quite correct. I'm
referring to the common problem of how to display the last line of text in a
paragraph. This decision can also drastically increase the whit rivers
problem already discussed.
This last line can, in fact, be
Ugh, is right!
Go with the advice from Terrence.
Duplicated navigation, the risk that the manufacturers sites will use framesetssounds like a
users worst nightmare.
An example might be a great way of
convincing your client not to go down this path!
-Original
Message-
On 12/15/05, Kevin Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is
there a way to do this using Web Standards and CSS (my preference) ?
If so, are there any examples of this out there ?
If you want an example of frames being used, just
This is interesting, but a rather pragamitc approach? Are we changing
our coding practice to suit the technological limitations of current
user agents. Is some of the power of a standards based approach the idea
that we do what is considered best practise given the current standards?
I use
Thomas Livingston said:
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
encouraging your clients to look to other
design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout
This is just completely unrealistic.
What It's unrealistic to advise your clients? Not in my world, my
I will be out of the office starting 16/12/2005 and will not return until
19/12/2005.
I am out of the office this afternoon and will be back in the office on Monday.
If you have an urgent query please call me on 027 490 5513. Otherwise I will
respond to your email when I return.
Thank you,
Kevin,
Why don't you ask your client this: How would you feel if your site
appeared within another sites design with their logo and slogan above
your own?
I would try to convince him that you can achieve better results with a
small page with information about why the linked site is relevant, a
Stephen,
A site I maintain is used mainly by lawn mower/hardware shops. It is
not uncommon to walk into one and find a network of 5 computers
running Windows 95! The computers are far from being up to date but
you may find these statistics of some use:
I believe you can make use of the position: fixed css
property to get some frame-like behaviour, eg applying it to a navigation div.
However I don't know what the browser support is like.
_
Peter
Levan
Web Manager, Australian Institute of
G'day
Peter Levan wrote:
I believe you can make use of the position: fixed css property to get
some frame-like behaviour
Which is fine if you have control over the whole page, but not if
you're trying to display someone else's site within your own (not
recommended), as asked in the original
I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his
logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a
link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents.
...
Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is
54 matches
Mail list logo
