I guess that some people here will also be members of the Webaim
Discussion List. Well, I am - but it seems to have stopped working
for me.
Is it just my subscription that it broken?
--
Iain
**
The discussion list for
Monday, November 8, 2004, 10:10:04 PM, Ron wrote:
The main issue there will be trying to balance easy access to nested
information without frustrating the user with unusable navigation.
I suggest that you have a high-level menu for main (section
contents?) pages, and a fine-detail menu for
Thursday, November 11, 2004, 11:02:11 PM, Natalie wrote:
I'm currently wrestling with that most annoying of bugbears, IE 5.2.3
on the Mac.
I put that into the same category as NN4 - a browser that's only
used by people who like broken web pages.
I don't really have good figures, because I get
Friday, November 12, 2004, 1:46:31 AM, Philippe wrote:
But putting it in the same league as NN4 is unfair, to say the least.
I meant in terms of numbers, not of ability!
--
Iain
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Friday, November 12, 2004, 12:04:59 AM, Natalie wrote:
Normally, I wouldn't care about it, because it works fine in Safari,
but the client whom I am developing this for uses IE5 on the mac at
work.
Yes, the client's browser is the most important of all ;-)
Also, their target market may
Friday, November 12, 2004, 9:12:15 AM, Rick wrote:
What's the data that supports that statement?
Sales figures. Market share. Web stats. Globally, the Mac is under
2.5% on web stats. In the UK, our web logs show less than 1% Macs.
--
Iain
Friday, November 12, 2004, 12:33:39 PM, Laurie wrote:
If any of you busy people have a spare 15 minutes, can you give me an honest
evaluation on our new corporate web site.
It appears not to be a web site: just a container for a slow,
bloated, inaccessible flash application, which is dull,
Friday, November 12, 2004, 7:23:40 PM, Ben wrote:
Could be wrong here, or just showing my age, but I recall standards in
1999 saying that underscores were forbidden in class and id names.
I think they were always legal in css as long as they weren't at the
beginning of the name.
However, I'm
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:02:43 AM, Rob wrote:
em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font
Not totally. An em is the width of (no shit!) an 'M' glyph. But the
rest is allright for me.
Totally. The font size is set in em units. The unit is defined as
the width of an 'm' glyph.
--
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:14:21 AM, I wrote:
Not totally. An em is the width of (no s--t!) an 'M' glyph. But the
rest is allright for me.
Totally. The font size is set in em units. The unit is defined as
the width of an 'm' glyph.
Since quoting Bob's message, I've had two bounce
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:22:18 AM, Rob wrote:
I find the description of font-size a bit dodgy,
I agree. Defining a font size in terms of a unit that is based on a
font size seems pretty stupid to me too, but that's how it is. There
are lots of stupidities around.
Here in the UK, we use
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:40:17 AM, Iain wrote:
Fourthly,
There was a third, but I decided it was rubbish. Sorry, folks.
--
Iain
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 12:11:52 PM, Peter wrote:
And fifthly, be careful when inventing class names that they won't
be a rude word in any possible language in the world!
Why would you use anything like that? Why take the chance of embarrassing
anyone?
Now you are being silly.
It's
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 6:01:52 PM, Mordechai wrote:
While pt's are fine for the print media type, when using the screen (by
far the most commonly used media with CSS) pixels (px) essentially
replace points.
When you use points, the system has a chance to compensate for the
screen
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 8:02:50 PM, Patrick wrote:
In my experience IE doesn't resize ems consistently. I've come to use %
for the base (on the html), then em (on the body)
Eh? That makes no sense to me. Body is a child of html.
--
Iain
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 8:28:45 PM, Patrick wrote:
it seems that ems and percentages are
interchangeable
Indeed. Unless you define a unit, I think the base unit is 1em.
--
Iain
**
The discussion list for
Sunday, November 14, 2004, 9:52:20 PM, Mary wrote:
is this the way it is
supposed to work.?
That's my understanding of it, I think.
--
Iain
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 12:50:34 PM, Olajide wrote:
Can anyone tell me the valid code...
Te last one I tried did not work well with IE5.5 or less.
It's really difficult to do all three of:
1. Check for the flash plugin
2. Use a valid method to load the flash object
3. Stream the flash
Hello Ted,
Friday, November 19, 2004, 5:16:55 PM, you wrote:
I want to think that it is something in the main body that is
throwing it off, but I can't find it yet, I'd appreciate any help.
here's a page that is acting up:
http://www.csavg40.com/csa/sitemap-cheap-travel-insurance.do
Notice
Hello Ben,
Friday, November 19, 2004, 8:18:09 PM, you wrote:
Javascript can measure this easily
If you can suggest some javascript to do this, I'd love to run it on
a few pages.
--
Best regards,
Iainmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Gunlaug,
Saturday, November 20, 2004, 12:05:19 AM, you wrote:
IE6 should be seen as an obstacle from a users point of view, as well as
from a web designer's position. I'm not a user and I don't design for
IE6 either.
Although I think I agree with you, the reality is that the vast
Hello john,
Sunday, November 21, 2004, 9:17:44 PM, you wrote:
Besides, is there valid XHTML/CSS forum software
available anywhere?
I did modify phpbb2 to use css positioning instead of
nested tables (for some of it, at least), but getting it all valid
would have taken too long for the
22 matches
Mail list logo
