Christian Heilmann wrote: > Well, you expect people to keep up with your development and come back > and upgrade their implementations, as obviously you found flaws in the > old one.
I was talking about the "look" of my menu. Its functionality didn't change. I didn't "upgrade" its implementation, I just created a new "skin". > Web development requirements change constantly and being on the > bleeding edge means you bleed. The best example of that is lots of > amazingly cool CSS hacks allowing MSIE6 to be a good browser now > causing havoc in MSIE7. I don't agree. If you do things right, there is no reason that things break later. People who got caught with IE 7 are mostly the ones who thought that plugging the presentational layer with "filters" was smarter than using CC comments. > You can do what you want, but if you offer it and praise its amazing > features people believe they can use your solutions without having to > care about anything, and this is most of the time just not possible. You can't stop everybody from going with CSS solutions. If people want a CSS menu, they'll get a CSS menu. So if a solution is decent why keeping it secret? >> This was a choice. Is it "worst" than using "display:none" for the >> only purpose of easing tabbing navigation? ;-) > No, you just don't use CSS for this purpose as with a menu with multi > levels and lots of links tabbing is just not a usable way of > navigating through it. Be consistent - if you want only mouse users to This is a point of view. Of course it depends on the amount of links to go through, but it can also take *less time* to tab through two or three sub menus than loading a whole new page by following the links in the top level items. Also, if "skip" links exist then there is less issue with such menu. >> BTW, what about my question about me "resorting on nesting things >> inside links"? ;-) > Who claimed that your example does that? I was talking about CSS only > solutions in general, where keyboard enabling means nesting markup > invalidly in links (http://cssplay.co.uk/menu/more.html) Sorry, I thought you're talking about my solution. >>> There is more to UI than just using web standard technologies, if >>> you are to mimick rich user interfaces, then also follow their >>> rules. >> I'd agree but most of the times with this approach, solutions lack >> browsers support. I know, I'm bad, I still think we should care for >> ie 5 (Mac and Win). And that - in its own way - is pushing the >> envelop ;) > Not really, it is keeping outdated technology alive - like trying to > connect a DVD player to a 60ies black and white TV set. If older > browsers don't support certain functionality, don't offer it to them - > another thing you can only do in JavaScript (unless you count > conditional comments as an option): > http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/gbs.html I just pick one, *randomly*: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/examples/menu/example08.html Looks like it comes with usability issues. Also, it is not that well thought, at least mine doesn't let the user follow top level links if JS is enabled... But please *look* at the markup, how semantic is *that* thing! And how *big* is that script? --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
