I'm sorry, but I fail to see what semantic meaning the example
tries to convey in the first place ?
A list of terms, which can have one or more descriptions ?
And how, in that case, is the use of UL bad ? Sure, UL is
generic, but it does get semantic meaning from its constituent
list items, in
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:56:37 -, P.H.Lauke wrote:
And how, in that case, is the use of UL bad ? Sure, UL is
generic, but it does get semantic meaning from its constituent
list items, in this case definition lists.
Or are we splitting hairs here ?
I think we are splitting hairs, so which
I agree we have split enough hairs for a while. We are really getting down
to personal opinion. Any further discussion is best done offlist.
Thanks
Russ
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:56:37 -, P.H.Lauke wrote:
And how, in that case, is the use of UL bad ? Sure, UL is
generic, but it does get
I have collected some information about Accesskeys, thought I share.
Accesskey standards
http://www.clagnut.com/blog/193
Whats wrong with this picture?
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter08.html#h4-3500
Improving accessibility with accesskey in HTML
Hi all
Just about to be officially announced, my new fully CSS/XHTML 1.0 Trans site, and the smoothest experience I've had with css so far:
http://www.cinema4duser.com
Comments and crits most welcome.
Peter
x-tad-bigger
/x-tad-biggerUniversal HeadÂ
Design That Works.
7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
Title: Message
looks
awesome, fonts used in titles are really cool, love the effect.
the
only thing I could see was and I don't know if I'm right with this.
in http://www.cinema4duser.com/dltex_handmade.html
the
item boxes, you have the headings of these as h1s I'm not sure if you
http://www.cinema4duser.com
Comments and crits
most welcome.
first
impression: looks lush! very slick. easy to scan/understand whats going
on..
some
real quik thoughts that may relate to the css but also some general stuff (take
with a grain of salt and all that ;-)
with
yr
Very nice Peter. Smooth and clean is all good.
I used to play around with Cinema 4D on the go ole Amiga. Heh, that
brings back some fond memories. ;)
Cheers
Chris Blown
http://hinterlands.com.au
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:49, Universal Head wrote:
Hi all
Just about to be officially
Thanks Tim
You can have as many h1's as you want - it's just a general class for a level 1 heading.
Cheers
Peter
On 12/03/2004, at 12:14 PM, Hill, Tim wrote:
looks awesome, fonts used in titles are really cool, love the effect.
the only thing I could see was and I don't know if I'm right
Title: Message
http://www.cinema4duser.comComments and crits
most welcome.Peter
Impressive. Very
clean, easy to navigate. Links work, downloads work, images are crisp,
text is clear and pleasurably readable. Only thing I wondered about was
the extra click I had to do, to get to the Omega
Your site does look very nice...
one more note about your standardsy message...
My palm browser is the most uptodate (at least until minimo arrives!)
but you are prompting me to upgrade?!
not a major grumble, but changing the wording might be appreciated
also I like it but some accessibility
Peter
Nice one, works well with styles and images turned off as well.
The validator is having some issues with link rel=shortcut icon
try
link rel=icon ... / instead and you'll have a valid site!
Also, if you ever move to Strict, the language attribute in your script
tag won't be needed - the
In response to your extremely helpful feedback, thankyou for it all:
standardsy message ... not a major grumble, but changing the wording might be appreciated
Regarding the accessability message, any suggestions for changing the wording? Is there a 'satandard' blurb? How come so many people saw
This doesn't validate either - does anyone have the correct validating code for inserting a favicon?
Peter
On 12/03/2004, at 12:50 PM, James Ellis wrote:
The validator is having some issues with link rel=shortcut icon
trylink rel=icon ... /> instead and you'll have a valid site!
x-tad-bigger
link
rel="shortcut icon" href=""http://webboy.net/webboy.ico">http://webboy.net/webboy.ico"
/
From: Universal Head
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 1:36
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] New
CSS site
This doesn't validate either - does anyone
That's interesting. The validator was throwing errors on the shortcut
icon attribute ? I've used icon before and it works fine. hm.
Cheers
James
Peter Firminger wrote:
link rel=shortcut icon href=http://webboy.net/webboy.ico; /
*From:* Universal Head [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can put the favicon.ico file in the webroot. This works without the
need for any markup.
However this doesn't work for IE. Works fine other browsers. IE is also
picky about the file format.
Cheers
Chris Blown
http://hinterlands.com.au
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:35, Universal Head wrote:
If your happy to have the same favicon throughout the site's pages you
don't need any code in the head.
You just need to place the favicon.ico in the root dir.
Ian.
This doesn't validate either - does anyone have the correct
validating
code for inserting a favicon?
Peter
On
Peter,
Great site. Well done.
Personally, I'd probably loose the standards message altogether for a
couple of reasons:
Text only and aural browsers will get this message on every page
People may be using text/aural/non-standard browsers for a reason,
such as a disability etc, and may not be
Peter,
About browser warning messages...
About 8 months ago Peter (Firminger - listdad) and I took off all of our
browser warnings entirely.
The message is designed for older browsers (with significant political
reasons at the time it was developed) but it is a pain for other devices
that are
What a shock! ;)
link rel=shortcut icon href=http://www.cinema4duser.com/favicon.ico />
works fine and also vaidates it seems. And you only have to put it in the index.html page.
Thanks
P
On 12/03/2004, at 2:01 PM, Chris Blown wrote:
However this doesn't work for IE. Works fine other
Thankyou David and Russ, a great suggestion which I will put into practice now. I was copying the habit of other sites by doing this, and you're right, it doesn't seem necessary.
P
On 12/03/2004, at 2:03 PM, David McDonald wrote:
Personally, I'd probably loose the standards message altogether
You can also add
link rel=[shortcut ]icon type=image/png href=/path/to/icon.png /
Although this will not work on IE. Shortcut icons work very variably in
IE anyway and even then only when you bookmark a page (sometimes). I've
rarely got them showing up when I used IE in the ol' days.. I use
Peter
Excellent work I love the styling. Leslie's comment on an extra click
is worth doing and Scott's comment on navigational contrast is a
factor. I personally did think the lack of contrast on the horizontal
navbar buttons was hard to read. I viewed it in Safari 1.1 1.2 Mac
MSIE 5.2.2
As long as you don't mind all the 404 errors.
Best practice:
* Use the icon format with as many versions as you like (16x16, 32x32, 16
colour, 256 colour etc.) within that file.
* Use favicon.ico as the filename and put in in the site root. This will
account for a majority by default.
* On every
I meant end of favicon topic, not feedback on the site.
Sorry,
P
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
Hi Peter,
The design appears to be clean. The site loads fast for me. My only wee
critique is that the gray font color doesn't have much contrast
compared to the background colors used. If it were a bit darker it
would be easier to read. Otherwise, I'm going to enjoy reading through
the site.
Now THIS is why I love CS - I've just increased the contrast a little. Easss
Peter
On 12/03/2004, at 3:13 PM, Sarah Sammis wrote:
If it were a bit darker it would be easier to read.
x-tad-bigger
/x-tad-biggerUniversal HeadÂ
Design That Works.
7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
Peter,
Now THIS is why I love CS - I've just increased the contrast a little.
Easss
now you are getting it :-)
john
John Allsopp
:: westciv ::
software, courses, resources for a standards based web
style master blog http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/
http://www.westciv.com/
CSS is great that way. The text is easier to read now.
Cheers
Sarah
On Thursday, Mar 11, 2004, at 20:28 US/Pacific, Universal Head wrote:
Now THIS is why I love CS - I've just increased the contrast a little. Easss
Peter
On 12/03/2004, at 3:13 PM, Sarah Sammis wrote:
If it were a
Im sorry, Peter, but I hate your
new site. I LOATHE it.
Oh, not because you did a rotten job in my
opinion. On the contrary, its so good it reminds me of my own
shortcomings in the artistic/design department. Every time I look
at a nicely designed site, I say to myself DAMN! I wish Id
Nice
one yetagain Peter! All of your recent sites have been a pleasure to
look at and the simple yet beautiful designs are the perfect partner for
table-less layouts...
Miles.
-Original Message-From: Universal Head
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:20
Mike - hilarious! I freaked out there for a sec!!
Never fear, there a plenty of sites online that I hate and loathe too. Todd Dominey and whatdoiknow.org - the guy is a sensitive designer AND can program (it makes me sick!) ... www.jasonsantamaria.com ... damn, I've had that idea for ages and he
Peter,
Great looking site - very beautiful from an aesthetics POV. Can't add much value
to the other comments you've had except maybe... found the body text font on the
small side - especially on the iMac here at work). You could add some more
keywords to the title tag to feed the search engines
I feel like trying out Eric's Pure CSS pop up technique
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo2.html
but the question is if it is viable to use it instead of javascript.
Does anyone know which browser does not work with it?
With Regards
Jaime Wong
~~
35 matches
Mail list logo
