Dejan Kozina wrote:
This is what you're looking for:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/
Tom Livingston wrote:
only errors left involve the embed tags and I don't know how to
make the Validator happy with it.
djn
and this does it without javascript ala bert doorn:
object
Hello David,
Over site impression cool
its well structured and well designed. Especially I liked color scheme of the site.
Some Suggestions:
Somehow I am missing link to HOME Page. My observation is majority of people expect to see a Home link. It's not enough that logo is a link to
Amit,
Many thanks for your suggestions - I agree with them all!
We will definitely take action to improve the site according to your ideas.
Kind regards
David
On 8/3/05, Amit Pimpalnerkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello David,
Over site impression –cool… its well structured and
At the present time, Safari has minimal support for styled form
controls. Safari 2 on Tiger seems to support some colouring and
sizing, but little else. It was announced earlier in the week,
however, that the Safari team are working on a rewrite on their forms
code with a view to making them
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
For newer sites I try to make them at least good at
800x600 but also like to make sure that things don't get messed up as they get
smaller than that. However, if you are using CSS with a 3 col layout you have
the problem of IE not having a correct implementation of min-width which means
Don't forget however, just becausea user has
their resolution at 800 by 600 it doesn't mean they view at that size. They
might have the browser window smaller than the maximum screen size, or they
could have any one of multiple sidebars that browsers allow you to display on
the left hand
On 3 Aug 2005, at 8:58 pm, Michael Kear wrote:
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
For what its worth..
I'm developing an intranet solution for a manufacturing company. Whilst all
users have screens capable of at least 1024 x 768 or even higher a few 'older'
users typically set their monitors at 800 x 600 which restricts my application
to a fixed width 700+px container div
Hello,
Can I just point people in the direction of http://www.independent-testers.org/, just in case any of you have spare time and feel charitable (please note that other than being a tester, I'm not affiliated to this site in any way).
Regards,
Josh.
To help you stay safe and secure online,
Expanding and collapsing content has been
near the front of my brain for the past week or so and I thought I'd send
out a request to the group for better answers.
Here's the goal:
Have the ability to open and close content
sections by clicking on the header. Don't hide the content
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:58:32 +1000, Michael Kear wrote:
Is that what you are all doing nowdays? What sizes are you
designing for?
Personally, I design for the minimum width I can achieve, since
I see students at a computer lab I attend switching their monitors
to 800 x 600 and NOT maximizing
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Expanding and collapsing content has been near the front of my brain
for the past week or so and I thought I'd send out a request to the
group for better answers.
Don't know about 'better answers, but I've used a panel switching
variant for quite a while:
I've been waiting for one of the Australian members of the mailing
list to comment on the new look/code for http://abc.net.au/ so I
might as well raise the issue myself.
I personally had nothing to do with the design, code or any other
aspect of it (apart from being involved in a very broad
There's a philosophy you can adopt of designing with 640x480 in
*mind* but which doesn't necessarily meaning designing *for* it.
We had a note in our guidelines to the effect that the main content,
headline, breadcrumb nav etc should be within the 640x480 area, even
if the page itself is much
I have a test site set up at
http://www.wealthdevelopmentmortgage.com/test/test_file.htm
and part of it I am struggling as the best way to code it. That would
be the thumbnail images links you see around the middle of the page
(free applications, cost estimate, one on one).
right now I have a
I
am working on a Translation of a English webpage to Chinese I tell my
client its best to go with unicode(utf-8), and
he tell me this:
"Yes, we are aware of using Unicode, but the problem is that a lot of
Chinese web browsers do not accept unicode. The standard is GB for
Simplified
Defintion list to the rescue.
Gawd, it's been ages since I said that
div id=thumbnailheaders
dl
dtFree Applications/dt
dd class=imageholderimg.../dd
dddefining text/dd
/dl
dl
dtCost estimate/dt
dd class=imageholderimg.../dd
dddefining text/dd
/dl
dl
dtmain link text/dt
dd
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 9:35 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
For some reason - the layout is quite different between IE and Firefox.
I found the site fairly nice. I thought
there was a nice use of white space. There looks like a stray in the
headlines. I was surprised by the use of small tags. Were those
deprecated or are they viable?
The orange headlines on orange background
is a bit low contrast. I like the blue
John,
I've been waiting for one of the Australian members of the mailing
list to comment on the new look/code for http://abc.net.au/ so I
might as well raise the issue myself.
I personally had nothing to do with the design, code or any other
aspect of it (apart from being involved in
not to me - want screenshots? IN IE the homepage actually defaults to
http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm
and in FF to
http://abc.net.au/
I thought all those nasty browser-sniffing days were over
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
On 8/4/05, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am very glad that there aren't any drop down menus (I am happy to
say these are an abomination on principle and should be avoided like
the plague)
Hi John
I want to convince people not to have drop down on some of our sites at work...
I am
Bruce Gilbert wrote:
I have a test site set up at
http://www.wealthdevelopmentmortgage.com/test/test_file.htm
and part of it I am struggling as the best way to code it. That would
be the thumbnail images links you see around the middle of the page
[...]
These are are few image gallery
After a quick view I've got to say I think it's pretty good... bit of
sniffing on the front page for resolution... skip links... alternative
formats... good meta.
Visually, it's a solid, clear three (or four) column display.
I'm not a fan of portal type sites as they tend to be link heavy and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas
Boehmer [Addictive Media]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:46 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL
small is valid in HTML4.01
On 4 Aug 2005, at 11:47 AM, Drake, Ted C. wrote:
I found the site fairly nice. I thought there was a nice use of white
space.
There looks like a stray in the headlines. I was surprised by the
use of
small tags. Were those deprecated or are they viable?
it's not browser sniffing it's resolution sniffing, and it it browser
independent.
Browser sniffing is bad becuase it breaks stuff. Enhancing things based
on browser capabilities (in this case how much content fits in the
viewport) is OK, most scripting relies on it. The important thing is
IE6, Win XP, SP2
Strange - it doesn't redirect for me. Are you using PC or MAC? I have tried IE
6 and IE 5.5 on the PC and in both cases I go to http://www.abc.net.au, not
http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm
**
The discussion list for
I thought all those nasty browser-sniffing days were over
This is all new to me, as I didn't work on the project.
If you look at the .js files, it's redirecting, not necessarily on
browser version, but on window size, sometimes *combined* with
browser version.
Frederic,
I want to convince people not to have drop down on some of our
sites at work...
I am looking for some good reasons not to have them...
We have some on our current site and it looks like (from the web
stats) that people are actually using them a lot
Thanks for the opportunity for
Browser sniffing, resolution sniffing - same difference to me.
It leads to fractured site design and multiple pages / scripts doing one thing.
I'm on 1280 x 1024 and so wondered whay I got the 800 x 600 page. Turns out my
browser fired up at just under 1024 x 768 and I was lumped into the less
What sizes are you designing for?
For the sites I work on, the majority of the audience has 1024x768 *or
better*, but a significant amount (10-25% depending on the site) still
have 800x600. So we design for 1024x768, but designs have to remain
usable/functional at 800x600 without horizontal
thanks
how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is using a mix of
drop down menu and apparent second level navigation.
It could be seen as a solution to make everyone happy!?
f
On 8/4/05, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frederic,
I want to convince people not to have
Frederic,
how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is using a mix of
drop down menu and apparent second level navigation.
It could be seen as a solution to make everyone happy!?
Its probably straying a little from Web standards directly, onto
usability issues, but still within
Guys,
I am a web development student at a TAFE college in Brisbane, Australia.
Very new to web standards and usability and accessibility.
If you have time, could you tell me how the menus at http://Algester.CommunityBillboard.info
stack up in regards of usability.
Many thanks for
Please reply to this off-line because its off topic,
but Im posting this here because its the biggest group of
designers who understand accessibility that I know .. Sorry if I offend anyone
ANYWAY
I have been bidding for quite a large project, and have
built in a guess for
just a quite note, ourbrisbane.com is not my site
i am just a user, living there now!
Has anyone done any user testing on drop downs? Tania maybe?
yes, would be interesting
On 8/4/05, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frederic,
how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is
I have done usability testing on both drop-down and flyout menus.
I have never, and would never, recommend sideways flyout navigation. It is just
too
difficult for people, even with normal mobility, to manipulate. And even worse,
people
blame themselves for not being able to use them, thus
-Original Message-
From: John Allsopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 12:15 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Tania Lang
Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Frederic,
how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is
. I'm confused. Is it drop downs or flyouts that are the problem (or
both)?
As a web development student, what resources are available for me to read to
help me better understand this issue?
cheers
Craig FattyBoombah Rippon
Brisbane, Australia
-Original Message-
From: Andreas
Thanks for the insight Donna. Nothing like actual testing as opposed
to my usual hand waving!
Although I still avoid them (I think they are often used as a
crutch for poor information
architecture), there are some advantages to using them. They do
allow people to gain
a better
Did you test with people without disabilities? I'm wondering as I could
interpret this as
meaning that the navigation groupings may not have been clear and people wanted
the additional information. But this would happen for all groups...
Donna
On 4 Aug 2005 at 12:55, Andreas Boehmer
Craig,
. I'm confused. Is it drop downs or flyouts that are the
problem (or both)?
the way I read Donna's post was (editorializing, not Donnas words)
1. flyouts dire, avoid at all cost
2. drop downs don;' have quite the same usability concerns, or at
least not tot eh same extent, but
Andreas
With regard to accessibility and usability testing, I'm very interested in
your comments about Deaf users in particular. Especially relating to
navigation, including Flyouts and Dropdowns.
Did the Deaf users you interviewed indicate why they had a preference for
drop-downs?
From a
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:27:08 +0100, Stevio wrote:
Don't forget however, just because a user has their resolution at 800
by 600 it doesn't mean they view at that size. They might have the
browser window smaller than the maximum screen size, or they could
have any one of multiple sidebars that
That's a pretty good summary ;)
Craig, there isn't a magic list of dos and donts. Usability doesn't really work
like that - it
is dependent on individual contexts and implementations. I'm sure someone will
shortly create usable flyout navigation and prove me wrong (the one you just
sent
On 4 Aug 2005, at 2:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled
users
recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in
particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities
asked
I'd have to agree with that. Our studies also show maximized browsing
for over 90% when users are working at 1280x1024 or below.
--
Francesco Sanfilippo
Web Architect and Software Developer
http://www.blackcoil.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10
-Original Message-
On 4 Aug 2005 at 12:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote:
Actually we have done some usability testing with a range
of disabled
users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns,
however in particular users with hearing disabilities and
What about mobile phones? Isn't anyone taking them into consideration?
Chris
--
Chris Velevitch
Manager - Sydney Flash Developers Group
www.flashdev.org.au
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Craig, I think you'll find your answer in the new front page for abc
thread in progress on this forum. Despite their claim PVII's flyout
menu's do not comply with WAI priority 3.
Nice visual design.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
On 4 Aug 2005, at 2:32 PM, Craig Rippon wrote:
Guys,
I am a
'Users with Disabilities' is better than 'disabled users' generally,
however, when referring to deaf users, it depends on whether the user is
culturally deaf or not.
Culturally Deaf users are those that use sign language for communication and
belong to the deaf community. They're referred to as
Craig,
Looks really good!
As far as valid W3C code only 15 issues
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Falgester.communitybillboard.info%2F
which is nothing compared to more than 200 at
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com
The biggest problem is easy!
In
-Original Message-
From: Terrence Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 1:43 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
On 4 Aug 2005, at 2:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 at 13:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote:
Actually no, that particular site we only tested with disabled people,
although I have to add the range of impairments was extremely wide, so
I don't think we would have found many other results had we tested
people without
-Original Message-
From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 1:22 PM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: [WSG] Accessible/Usable Navigation WAS: New front
page for http://abc. net.au/
What accessibility/usability issues did they have with
I would guess that unless one is aware that mobile phones are a
significant population (over a few percent), one could simply detect
mobiles and serve them an unstyled page, rendering plain text? This
would fit into any browser width if done correctly.
Francesco
On 8/3/05, Chris Velevitch
-Original Message-
From: Donna Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:15 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
On 4 Aug 2005 at 13:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote:
Your learnings entirely
Mobile phone issues can be solved by serving separate stylesheets for
handheld browsers.
It's best to not specify the minimum nor the maximum width of a layout
in handheld media stylesheets.
--
Kris Khaira
Website: http://kriskhaira.com
On Aug 4, 2005, at 11:55 AM, Chris Velevitch wrote:
This is a really interesting thread and I have to say I've been waiting
years for something solid on deafness and accessibility and usability to
show it's pretty face here :)
I'd like to expand on something Andreas wrote about deafness and content
length. I completely agree with your comments
-Original Message-
From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:55 PM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
(Deafness and Con tent Length)
This is a really interesting thread and I have to say
Sorry that should have said this is for a FEW reasons.
-Original Message-
From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:55 PM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ (Deafness and
Con tent Length)
The
Hi,
Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of
Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the
correct terms to use are:
In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be 'disabled
users'.
In the UK - instead of 'physical
64 matches
Mail list logo
