Just quickly, speaking in Google's favour, I've had to use Gmail in an
emergency via SSH on a text terminal, and it remained eminently
usable. Screenreaders may not fare so well, but for the vast majority
of users, it's key strength is usability and the depth of their
products. It seems they value
Google is the preferred search engine of use for the majority of users of
assistive devices due to its clear and simple layout; another example of the
'religion of the perfection of writing to W3C standards' not always required
to deliver accessibility and usability.
Edward Clarke
ECommerce
But what if Java is disabled in browser ? Maybe you should try this
then - http://koivi.com/ie-png-transparency/
2005/12/8, Matthew Cruickshank [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Artemis wrote:
If anyone knows anything about this htc file, if it would be good to
use, how exactly it works, and where I might
On 08/12/2005, at 5:35 PM, Bert Doorn wrote:
Just thinking Google may fall into this category as it's obviously
script driven.
Yeah, its probably mostly that - they are back end coders and aren't
aware of the front end issues.
But - this is *Google*!! They are hiring the best of breed. I
Hi all,
I am very partial to definition lists for staff lists and staff profiles
but I'm having some problems getting them to work.
Eg. http://www.business.ecu.edu.au/schools/mtl/staff/index.htm and
http://www.business.ecu.edu.au/schools/mtl/staff/spettigrew.htm
In IE I get the 3px jog and in
Hi all,
I was playing with a demo style master that generates quite good standard websites.
If you build such websites for customers, I have noticed that opening
the page in dream weaver would push everything all over the place on
the screen (see screen shot), which becomes very hard for a non
Well it seems you must have fixed it because Cynthia Says is passing
you at Triple A.
Regards,
Ric
Kim Kruse wrote:
Hi,
I thought I've done everything correct with my forms... but no.
So now I'm trying to figure out why Cynthia/WEBXACT fails my form
pages. I just don't understand what
Frederic,
on Thursday, December 8, 2005 at 11:32 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
let's say that you have to built sites that are going to be maintained by
non-techies, and you know they are going to use Dream weaver, what should
you do?
Upgrade Dreamweaver/Contribute to the current version
Hi Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards.
I think the Google question more comes down to if you are on to a good
On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote:
Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an
organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there
are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire
programmers who understand standards.
See, thats where I
Makes it interesting when you are trying to sell clients "validated"
code and web sites if they ask "does Google have validated code?".
Regards,
Ric
James Ellis wrote:
Hi
Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation
attempts to be socially responsible. I'm
I must add, they work fine in IE / XP , if you are using the 'windows
classic' theme (without the fancy round buttons)
Just to be more specific :D
Spark!
On 12/7/05, Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/12/05, Tim Burgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have a clue as to why this
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple
issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is
compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these
days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort of thing,
takes a lot of
From: Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me!
I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate.
I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could
all just shake it off - they are no where near validating.
Lets just look at
G'day
Michael Cordover wrote:
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple
issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is
compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these
days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort
Anyone know what the current status is
with image replacement techniques and google? Do you get penalized?
Barrie North
Compass Design
www.compassdesigns.net
~Professional, affordable web design~
On 12/8/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day
Michael Cordover wrote:
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple
issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is
compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these
days.
. . . before I go back to html 2.0!
But seriously, in my continuing quest to understand/get a feeling for
mime types etc, I've made two files now : thearea.html and
thearea.xhtml. What I did was to make the xhtml first, validate it
etc, then save as html as well. So the two files are
Anyone know what the current status is with image replacement techniques
and google?
See http://www.threadwatch.org/node/4313 + comments.
Do you get penalized?
No.
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
**
The
Thanks for persuing this, i'm trying to understand, too.
designer wrote:
. . . before I go back to html 2.0!
But seriously, in my continuing quest to understand/get a feeling for mime types
etc, I've made two files now : thearea.html and thearea.xhtml. What I did was
to make the xhtml
is there a 'list' of things which happen in 'real' xhtml but not in text/html?
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html#xhtmldiff
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
Thanks Jan, Marvelous information!
I now see why my 'body' background colour doesn't work - it has to be on
html as well. Of course, this means that the background isn't fixed in
IE any more, but I suppose we should expect that! :-)
Jan Brasna wrote:
is there a 'list' of things which
On 09/12/2005, at 12:20 AM, Al Sparber wrote:
But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into
them about this :-)
What, when I can whinge on a mailing list?
No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;)
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address
Well, if they don't know about it already, consider Gmail conspiracy
theories disproved ;-)
On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/12/2005, at 12:20 AM, Al Sparber wrote:
But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into
them about this :-)
What, when I
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
designer wrote:
However, the css behaves differently - the body background colour is not
showing in the xhtml version, but the background image shows OK . . .
...
Is this to do with relative and absolute links again, or what?
No, that was when I linked to the content-type proxy. The relative
Thanx Bert for all your help...
Gerardo
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
En nombre de gchairez
Enviado el: Jueves, 08 de Diciembre de 2005 01:21 a.m.
Para: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Asunto: RE: [WSG] problems!!!
Well, you fixed another problem that I
Just use ALT text? Isn't that accessible enough? Or am I 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
I've been thinking what should be the best term for Sitemap coz I've
had some clients asking me if they are gonna have in that section a
localization map.
Probably the best term would be Index, what do you guys think?
Gerardo Chairez
This message has been scanned by BitDefender
and found
Thx :) Semantically, I thought it better to have like:
a href=http://www.xyzcorp.com; ... class=sponsor xyzcorpXYZCorp/a
and then stylistically 'overload' this with a nice GIF. Perhaps not? I
don't know.
Joshua Street wrote:
Just use ALT text? Isn't that accessible enough? Or am I not
Well, the markup is a bit lighter, but img doesn't really carry any
semantic baggage, so if you just use appropriate alt text that's a
perfectly acceptable (and probably the simplest, from your
perspective) way to do things, IMHO of course.
On 12/9/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thx
That just sounds like ignorance to me but perhaps they'd be more comfortable
with Table of Contents, given that most site maps are nothing more than this
anyway?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Gerardo Chairez [Addictive Media]
Sent:
Unless your site is about physical location, stick with 'site map'
- many (not all of course) users will understand it to be a
structural representation of the current website.
It sounds like your clients aren't heavy web users, which is fine.
You might just need to explain that the
Stephen,
Several options actually are available on the PHP side.
-- you CAN script 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)
In fact, I chickened out and used the IMG tag solution. however
My web host uses PHP as a CGI module, I think, therefore, that it only
handles files with .php extension?
Stephen
Linda Harms wrote:
Stephen,
Several options actually are available on the PHP side.
-- you CAN script
Srecko Micic wrote:
But what if Java is disabled in browser ?
Then it won't work anyway, because all methods I've seen use
progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader() which is itself a
call via Javascript.
(fairly sure that's the case)
.Matthew Cruickshank
I think you can configure Apache to parse whatever file extensions you
like as PHP, in other words you configure it with the hosting
application, the CGI module should not care what it's receiving.
Stephen Stagg wrote:
In fact, I chickened out and used the IMG tag solution. however
My
Not so. It depends on Apache and how it's configured.
You can check how PHP is set up by creating a new PHP page and just inlcude
the following:
?php phpinfo() ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Stephen Stagg
Sent: Friday, 9 December 2005
should be fine. I end with .php as my editor is much friendlier with that.
See: www.dartmouthdigital.com/phpclass/week3.php.
This class project was to deliver different content based on browsers, so
you'll get one of 6 themes. In each of the themes, the banner is selected
randomly - via css
Hi everyone,
Just wondering if anyone else has come across the following problem and if
so, how they fixed it?
I'm working with a page that has auto-generated html from a .net engine that
I then style up with css. In this case I need to reference one item on the
page that has an id of
From: Rachel Radford
one item on the page that has an id of #_1740__ctl2__1125
in Firefox it works fine. IE gets stuck somewhere on
the underscores and ignores the rule
ID and class names can't start with a number either, I wonder if
that is part of the problem, after the underscore the
What, when I can whinge on a mailing list?
No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;)
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :)
Yeah, good luck finding usable contact details on their site ;)
As far as I can tell, Google doesn't write
From: Rachel Radford
page that has an id of #_1740__ctl2__1125
Just to follow up on the underscore thing...
From the W3C HTML 4.01 recommendation
ID and NAME tokens must begin with a letter ([A-Za-z]) and may be
followed by any number of letters, digits ([0-9]), hyphens (-),
underscores (_),
I'd recommend not styling with the generated ids and using classes instead.
On 12/9/05, Rachel Radford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just wondering if anyone else has come across the following problem and if
so, how they fixed it?
I'm working with a page that has auto-generated html
Rachel Radford wrote:
I'm working with a page that has auto-generated html from a .net engine that
I then style up with css. In this case I need to reference one item on the
page that has an id of #_1740__ctl2__1125. When I style this up in Firefox
it works fine. But it seems that IE gets
.htaccess maybe?
On 12/9/05, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so. It depends on Apache and how it's configured.
You can check how PHP is set up by creating a new PHP page and just inlcude
the following:
?php phpinfo() ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 09/12/2005, at 2:42 PM, Joshua Street wrote:
.htaccess maybe?
Yep, the syntax is:
AddType application/x-httpd-php .html .htm .whateverExtension
This part of the thread is closed, please - we're way off topic!
warmly,
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Core Group Member
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :)
Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is
going to become their new My Google style portal page.
The markup still stinks.
h
--
--- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just
On 12/8/05, Matthew Cruickshank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Srecko Micic wrote:
But what if Java is disabled in browser ?
Then it won't work anyway, because all methods I've seen use
progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader() which is itself a
call via Javascript.
(fairly sure
G'day again
Thanx for your response Bert,
My problem is this: If I display the page on 800*600 it would look
correct, the thing is when I use a higher resolution as 1024*786 or
bigger... the quienes somos text would move right below the bienvenidos
section, I need that the twocols items display
On 12/9/05, heretic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :)
Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is
going to become their new My Google style portal page.
The markup still stinks.
That has been around for a
51 matches
Mail list logo
