I know we had this discussion once before, but I was hoping to return to it
to see if there are any new opinions on this topic.
The question I have is what would be the best option to create images as
form buttons in an accessible manner?
So far I have always tried to use css to assign a
Thankyou WSG members for past help that you unknowingly gave me... my
volunteer site is now up for testing at http://ozcranes.net/ Can someone
help? (it seems like a rather long list...)
1. In modern browsers (except Opera) the header h4 migrates down into lower
divs, at large text sizes.
I like Bert :-) He talks sense. And before you say it the other people also
made very good points which I appreciate. A lot of it does seem very
conceptual however, if you know what I mean.
Terence said, Using them for layout is a bit like making up everything in
p tags. Does anyone agree
Stevio wrote:
I disagree with the point about revisiting the design just because CSS
is not up to the job. The web is a visual medium and we should be able
to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure
they are readable and suitable for those accessing them.
i found
Dwain wrote:
Stevio wrote:
I disagree with the point about revisiting the design just because CSS is
not up to the job. The web is a visual medium and we should be able to
design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure they
are readable and suitable for those accessing
Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square
pegs in round holes?) with the way we force it to do things that it perhaps
was not really designed for?
Maybe to an extent, but not nearly as much as using tables for layout
is abusing tables. They were never meant to be used as
- Original Message -
From: Kenny Graham
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Expanding height of left column to fill space
Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square
pegs in round holes?) with the way we force
- Original Message -
From:
Kenny
Graham
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:36
PM
The web is a visual medium and we should be able
to design pages to look how we want, with the condition of making sure
they are readable and suitable for those accessing
Stevio wrote:
Interesting yes. But two points. One is that it assumes the user knows
how to change their font size. I suspect many do not. The default layout
has to be the best one, as over 90% of the time that is what will be
viewed and it will not be changed by the user.
i'll agree, most
Stevio wrote:
When you create columns using CSS, you are creating a table-like look,
are you not? Is CSS3 going to reinvent the wheel?
sure you are creating a table-like look, but there is not as much markup
with css as there is with tables, in most cases.
with html and css you don't have
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Apologies for cross posting, but: could anybody shed some light as to
why system colors have been deprecated in the CSS 3 color module?
This is a bit OT, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't system
colors be a big security threat as far a phishing and spoofing, and
Stevio wrote
When you create columns using CSS, you are creating a table-like look, are
you not?
Not at all. When you create columns you create a columnar layout, in the
same way a newspaper is a column layout, not a tabular layout.
The physical appearance may be the similar, but the implied
URL:
http://scott.therestons.com/development/test.html
To make up for lacking PNG transparency support in IE, I'm using the
filter: attribute to make a div's background transparent (yep - i'm
aware that IE will make all descendents transparent, too...)
I'm running into a problem, though - when I
Alan Trick wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Apologies for cross posting, but: could anybody shed some light as to
why system colors have been deprecated in the CSS 3 color module?
This is a bit OT, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't system
colors be a big security threat as far a
Hello all.
I think we are getting a little off track here. We know we can do this with css:
div#left {
width:50%;
float:left;
border-right:1px solid #000;
display:inline;
}
div#right {
width:50%;
float:left;
border-left:1px solid #000;
margin-left:-1px;
display:inline;
}
This makes two
Hi Al
Your menu hides the submenu from users with javascript turned off. I turned
mine off just to check. Is there an option to display the submenu
information for those without javascript enabled?
Ted
Which menu are you using? This will not happen with our commercial Pop
Menu Magic system,
On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
I then thought I should use input type=image, but realised that
this
doesn't work in all browsers. IE, for example, has got the nasty
habbit of
submitting name.x=0name.y=0 when these kind of buttons are
clicked, which
Hi all
If you haven't read Patrick Lauke's article on using the web developer
toolbar, you should check it out. I thought I knew the toolbar but he's
introduced several features that have made it into my daily work habit.
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/lauke/
Ted
-Original Message-
From: Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] Submenus anyone?
Hi Al
Your menu hides the submenu from users with javascript turned off. I
turned
mine off just to check. Is there an option to display the
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Hi all
If you haven't read Patrick Lauke's article on using the web developer
toolbar, you should check it out. I thought I knew the toolbar but he's
introduced several features that have made it into my daily work habit.
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/lauke/
snip
On
dwain alford wrote:
Drake, Ted C. wrote:
Hi all
If you haven't read Patrick Lauke's article on using the web developer
toolbar, you should check it out. I thought I knew the toolbar but he's
introduced several features that have made it into my daily work habit.
Stevio said:
Does anyone agree that we are abusing the use of CSS (square
pegs in round holes?) with the way we force it to do things that it
perhaps
was not really designed for? Are floats really meant to be used for column
design? If they are then why are there oodles of pages on the net
Bert Doorn said:
(e-govt - is that the real world? LOL)
It's Utopia for an idealist like me =)
If it's your own site and you are happy to have a different layout, sure.
Or if you can convince the client that your way is better. But if the
client wants a particular look, We should give
Christian Montoya said:
Now, the problem everyone seems to have is that one column just *has* to
be a different color. Isn't this a little superficial?
Yes! This is what I'm talking about, albeit less succinctly. Design
differently.
cheers
Terrence Wood.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Curtis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:32 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Images as accessible form buttons
On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
I then thought I
In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen
on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table
based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc).
Because of this, I don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing
tables with divs. But many
On 07/09/2005, at 9:31 AM, Kenny Graham wrote:
In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've
seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never
learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer
gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think along
Kenny Graham said:
In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on
here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never learned table based
layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I
don't/can't think along the lines of I'm replacing
what are you hoping to learn about?
I don't have a clue. But in my experience, every time I've asked
a debate-causing question on here, it's gone off on 50 tangents and
I've learned a lot. *evil grin*
Might I add two cents?
My thoughts on this issue are probably reasonably well known.
But a slightly different angle.
I've recently been undertaking some serious research into current
practices by major companies, government departments, and so on when
it comes to web development. I'm in
I think it's also important to bare in mind that there might be very good
reasons for putting a ul inside a div. The most obvious one I can think
of is the need for two background images. I think once the next standard
incorporates this and browsers support it, there will be even less need for
On 07/09/2005, at 9:31 AM, Kenny Graham wrote:
In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've
seen on here, people refer to divs vs tables. Now, I never
learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer
gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't
Kenny Graham wrote:
I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is
wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than
wrapping it in a table?
No, div-wrapping-mania isn't much better. However, standards and weak
browsers put limitations on what we can
I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design
has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a
raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is
that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based
approach
PS: How did you manage to avoid table layouts Lucky boy!
I'm only 21, and didn't start doing commercial sites until
recently. Before there was wide browser support for CSS, I was
just doing web design as a hobby, and didn't really care if a single
browser in the world displayed it correctly.
The most obvious one I can think
of is the need for two background images.
Sometimes this is the case, but often times it can be avoided with a
little creativity, such as using a background image on the ul,
and classing the first and last li to give them more height and
different background
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Futter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:02 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the location of the overwhelming
Andreas,
I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of
invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use
tables have
got an old-fashioned mindset.
Whatever the reason, if you see a table based design, the chances of
it being invalid are raised
3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML
output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought.
In my world I am starting to win the battle with developers. For us the
fundamental change was to move the ASP.NET developers away from the use
of
At 06:15 PM 9/6/2005, Kenny Graham wrote:
The most obvious one I can think
of is the need for two background images.
Sometimes this is the case, but often times it can be avoided with a
little creativity, such as using a background image on the ul, and
classing the first and last li to give
Donna Jones wrote:
Yes, and I was the one that asked for the link to it. After I got there
found out to get it to read the page one has to hover w/ a mouse - so
totally unlike a screen reader. I think hovering with a mouse could be
helpful to some people but it doesn't give one an idea of
-Original Message-
From: John Allsopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:41 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Andreas,
I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising
the risk of
invalid
Not that I'm into me too posts but here's my 2 cents.
I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of
invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have
got an old-fashioned mindset.
Until a few years ago, I used tables for layout, exclusively.
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid
documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also
through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr
elements).
In short, using tables is a very good way of
Some reasons for div-itis:
1. Columns. table cell = div is wrong, but usually columns = divs is
correct.
2. Boxes. The designer wants to put a box around a group of items. There might
be a heading, a list or two and a paragraph, with border and a background. You
could do this without a div
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the
up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a
questionable
I tested the following site I am working on in Mozilla and it's not
looking too good at the moment.
the URL is: http://www.semlogic.com/test/index.htm
and the CSS is http://semlogic.com/test/CSS/Global.css
some of the issues are the left menu isn't displaying properly, the
background image for
From: Peter Asquith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits
the up-front cost and training required to get to
Maybe a lack of coffee but in XHTML 1.0 Strict, what is there that replaces
iframes?
I vaguely remember once being able to add the SRC attribute to a
div but that's not up to spec.
What's out there thatdisplays the contents of a URIand
validates?
Cheers :o)
Richard
Bruce,
It's not looking too good in IE either - enlarge the text and the content wraps
below the left nav.
General advice: get it working on Firefox *first*, and then adjust to work on
IE.
Specific advice:
1. Get rid of the wrapper divs - you only need the outer one.
Put the background on
G'day
What's out there that displays the contents of a URI and validates?
object type=text/html data=whatever.html id=Something
Alternative content here
/object
Give the object a width and height with CSS
#Something { width: 40em; height: 30em; }
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web
On 07/09/2005, at 1:50 PM, Peter Asquith wrote:
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that
limits the up-front cost and training required to
Objects of type text/html (or application/xhtml+xml) are what I
use. But good luck getting them to work in IE. In my
experience, IE will only do it if it's a local (x)html file.
Al,
Peter wrote,
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that
limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market?
Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to
learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one?
Al wrote
A
54 matches
Mail list logo
