Re: [WSG] Firefox 3 candidate

[Dave Woods]

I've downloaded Firebug 1.1 Beta and it seems to work fine with Firefox 3

http://getfirebug.com/releases/

Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


2008/6/18 kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>  I hear about so many goodies on my lists I tried to dl Firebug (if our
> people like it its got to be awesome...hahaahah) But FF said it had a
> problem and would not allow in FF3.
> Glad you mentioned Firebug Jason - thanks!
> Kate
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jason Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:32 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Firefox 3 candidate
>
> It will replace it even if you install into different directory. :-(
> Then it means you are not going to have your FireBug available to work
> with.
> FF3 is very nice and I am excited.
> Just can't wait for FireBug to become compatible with it as it is so
> crucial for us of course.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason
> www.flexewebs.com/semantix
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paul Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if it will replace your version of Firefox 2, or will
>> it run side by side?!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ***
>>
>>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
> --
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1507 - Release Date: 6/18/2008
> 7:09 AM
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

[Dave Woods]

*>> I've said it many times, MS try to outdo the competition and invent
their own mad functions and methods of doing things. You have Mozilla that
are promoting a standard and you have MS who are following (to some extent)
the standard and also inventing their own.*

Maybe a few years ago but Microsoft are following standards much better
these days and pass the ACID2 test with IE8.
*
>> What developer on this planet is going to take advantage of a feature
thats been put into IE and not Mozilla, or any other browser engine for that
matter. Thats like giving one user one thing and another user another.*

But that's exactly why Microsoft are having the problems that they are ;o) A
lot of developers DID take advantage of "features" of IE during the browser
wars and because so many intranet's and business critical applications now
rely on these systems, businesses can't upgrade for fear of breaking them,
hence the reason why IE6 is taking so long to disappear.

I fully believe that Microsoft are heading in the right direction though and
whilst I don't agree with everything that Microsoft have done in the past,
they are taking the right steps to improve the browser and are at least
listening to the developer community.

As I mentioned earlier though... Internet Explorer 8 beta 1 is NOT the final
release of the browser and it will hopefully have bugs fixed when the final
release hits the market. Use it for browsing the web, having a look at your
sites, using its new features and reporting bugs back to Microsoft but it
shouldn't be used for the production of websites just yet.

Thanks
Dave
- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk




2008/4/29 James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Ha Ha, i like name inferior explorer. Maybe someone should set up the
> domain name and allow people to comment on I.E for MS to see.
>
> I've said it many times, MS try to outdo the competition and invent their
> own mad functions and methods of doing things. You have Mozilla
> that are promoting a standard and you have MS who are following (to some
> extent) the standard and also inventing their own.
>
> What developer on this planet is going to take advantage of a feature
> thats been put into IE and not Mozilla, or any other browser engine for
> that matter. Thats like giving one user one thing and another user
> another.
>
> They are going to slice their own heads off.
>
> I hate to get into the Unix vs. Windows debate but for reasons like this
> and others related to MS inventing their own standards, Linux will
> eventually take over. Didn't MS try to invent their own version of XML, or
> something like that? I remember seeing a petition in college about
> it.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Sam Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ideas stuff and various work right off the bat with ff and opera
> > tweaking ie can go on for weeks and often requires loads of compromises
> >
> > the list of issues with ie browsers hurts my noggin
> >
> > I can't see m$ using geko though (it would be admitting the competition
> > is better) I wish they would, shame it would be better for everyone
> >
> >
> > should be forever reffered to as inferior explorer :)
> > - S
> >
> > 2008/4/29 James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Microsoft should save themselves all the hassle and use the Geko
> > > engine. There IE still gets shipped with
> > > every version of Windows.
> > >
> > > They have created a nice operating system for general users and by
> > > changing their engine to an open source
> > > one is not going to decrease sales in their O/S.
> > >
> > > This isn't the end of the IE bugs. I can put my house on it there will
> > > be more to come.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Sam Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > looks like another quagmire is about to open up;
> > > >
> > > > funny how I still feel that I am getting over ie6
> > > >
> > > > 2008/4/29 Dave Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > Don't fix or change anything in your site to be compatible with a
> > > > > beta version.
> > > > >
> > > > > The beta version is available so that developers can report
> > > > > problems to Microsoft so that any bugs can be fixed for the final 
> > > > > release.
> > > > > By changing your code now, you're likely to find that you'll need to 
> > > > > change
> > > > > it again when the final re

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

[Dave Woods]

Don't fix or change anything in your site to be compatible with a beta
version.

The beta version is available so that developers can report problems to
Microsoft so that any bugs can be fixed for the final release. By changing
your code now, you're likely to find that you'll need to change it again
when the final release of IE8 is made available.

If you're already getting a significant number of IE8 users (which is
probably unlikely) then do as Rahul suggests and use the meta tag to force
IE7 rendering mode.

Hope that helps?

Dave
--
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



2008/4/29 Rahul Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On 29-Apr-08, at 12:40 PM, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>
>  we just did some testing of our sites in IE8 beta and got some ahhhs and
> > ohhhs - not because of its standard compliance, rather because all sites
> > seem to be broken: logos disappeared, elements misplaced, Google maps
> > blown up, etc.
> >
>
> Dare I say:
> 
>
> Does that not give you enough time to fix the issues with the new layout
> engine and then remove it/set it to content="IE=8"?
>
> Or have I misunderstood how IE works? I frequently do.
>
> Best,
>  - Rahul.
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Thumbnail Floats

[Dave Woods]

Personally, I'd use overflow on the container to clear the float's and then
add width: 100%; to apply layout for IE7 and below.

div#innerContainer ul{margin: 0; padding: 0;* width: 100%; overflow: hidden;
*}

Hope that helps.
Dave

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


2008/4/17 Frederick Matzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I'm pretty much an amateur at this myself but it looks to me like you did
> not use* .clearboth { clear: both; } *at the end of each row.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Chris Kennon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Attempting to get the results crafted here:
> >
> > http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/tutorial0407.htm
> >
> > With l and  elements, but have run into a snag. Would a dashing
> standardista lend some CSS to the following template?
> >
> > http://working.bushidodeep.com/spring_2008/template.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ***
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Frederick
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] seo / standards question

[Dave Woods]

Go for the first option...

section title

page name 1
page name 2
...


Google won't give anymore weight as it'll simply dilute the weight of all
your h3 tags so only use them where they're relavant and where they are
actually heading up contnet.

I'd always advise creating your HTML for the users first and foremost using
semantic markup. By all means consider what keywords/phrases to use but
never abuse semantics in the hope that it'll benefit the search engines.

Hope that helps.



2008/4/9 kevin mcmonagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> hi,
> im generating a list of page links from my cms, its not really for a nav
> bar just a section of the site that has a number of related articles.
>
> im  using h2 for the over all list label but am wondering what to use for
> the list break tags.
>
> right now im using li with the title of each page like this.
>
>
> section title
> 
> page name 1
> page name 2
> ...
> 
>
>
>
> but im wondering if i should use h2's instead?
>
> would google give more importance to the h2s?
> plus it really is a list of page  headings so i guess semantically it
> could go either way right?
>
>
> so either:
> section title
>
> page name
> page name2
> ...
>
>
> thanks in advance
>
>
> -kevin mcmonagle
>
> www.mcmonagledesign.com
> www.donegalimage.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Rogue text appears in IE6.

[Dave Woods]

Try getting rid of the comments in your source code. I've not had chance to
investigate your code thoroughly but that's usually what causes the
duplicate character bug.

I'm sure that there are other fixes for it but I personally find that if
you've structured your markup correctly, indented nested elements and named
classes/ID's sensibly then you shouldn't really need to use comments anyway.

Cheers
Dave

http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 03/04/2008, Rob Enslin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've recently built a website trying to move towards more
> standards-compliant code. After the delight at pushing the site live my
> world 'caved in' (a little over-dramatic maybe) this morning when a
> colleague noticed rogue 'ls." text some way down the home page.
>
> Live site: http://www.londoncalling2008.com
> Screen-grab in IE6: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doos/2384241027/
>
> Testing the site:
>
> IE7 - no problem
> FF2 - no problem
> Safari/PC - no problem
> Safari/Mac - no problem
> FF2/Mac - no problem
>
> ** IE6 - PROBLEM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/doos/2384241027/)
>
> Could anyone find an explanation for this?
>
> --
> Rob Enslin
> http://enslin.co.uk
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml

[Dave Woods]

It's also not part of strict HTML either and makes perfect sense when you
consider that HTML = content, CSS = presentation and JavaScript = behaviour
:o)

target was originally introduced to be used for frames and seeing as frames
shouldn't technically be used anymore (deprecated in HTML5) it makes sense
to deprecate target as well.



On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just read how a target="_blank" is not part of xhtml
>
> Why not.  I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with
> javascript.
>
> http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/
>
> --
> Michael Horowitz
> Your Computer Consultant
> http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
> 561-394-9079
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Any way to defeat legend styling problems in IE?

[Dave Woods]

I'm sure John won't mind me posting a link to his article on the subject...

http://www.tyssendesign.com.au/articles/css/legends-of-style/

Hope that helps.



2008/2/28 Cole Kuryakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Hello All -
>
> I've already spent a lot of time researching this and - from the threads
> I've read - there doesn't seem to be a solution for IE in particular.
>
> If you go here: http://www.crewasia.ph/index.php?cmd=s7,p2 in IE 6, you'll
> see that the question mark icon is held off of the left margin of the
> fieldset (and also displaying a small sliver of the fieldset's top border)
> which ISN'T as per design.
>
> If you look at the same page Firefox, this is the goal.
>
> As mentioned, my previous research has left me disheartened about a fix
> for
> IE... but then again, the posts I've been reading are well over a year
> old.
>
> Is there something I can do to the legend to make that question mark icon
> line up with the left border of the fieldset?
>
> Great appreciation, as always, in advance.
>
> Cole
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] ie problem

[Dave Woods]

Looks like the double margin bug.

Try changing this...

#navMain ul li a
{ margin:43px 35px 0 0;
border:1px solid black;
float:right; display:block;
}

to this

#navMain ul li a
{ margin:43px 35px 0 0;
border:1px solid black;
float:right; display:inline;
}

Hope that helps.


On 15/02/2008, kevin mcmonagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Im frustrated with a margin difference in ie6.  Im modifying a zen cart
> install and didnt create the style sheets and dont have much control
> over the html.
> The problem  is the two links (log in and home) at the top right of the
> page header. Ive added The borders just so you can see the boxes.
>
> http://cart66.macdesign.eu/
>
> heres the rules:
>
> #navMainWrapper{margin-top:15px;
> background-image: url(../../../../images/header.jpg);
> background-repeat:no-repeat;
> background-position:0 -21px;
> _background-position:0 0;
> border:0px solid pink;
> height:65px;
> padding-top:0;
>   margin-top:0;
> padding-bottom:0;
>
>   }
>
> #navMain ul li a
> { margin:43px 35px 0 0;
> border:1px solid black;
> float:right; display:block;
> }
>
> /*i think the problem is related to this rule*/
>
>   #navMain
> {
> border:1px solid pink;
> display:block;
> overflow:visible;
> margin-bottom:0; height:1%;
>
> }
>
>   I've been trying to figure this out for a long time and need help.
> thanks
> kevin
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Fwd: navaigation list rendered bad in ie

[Dave Woods]

That'll work for IE6 but haslayout also exists in IE7 therefore either zoom
or applying a width would be the best fix ;o)

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 14/02/2008, aleagi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello there,
>
> Try adding
>
> * html div.navigation a {height: 1%;}
>
> only for IE6...
>
> I know there's a lot of people that don't like conditional comments,
> but it can save A LOT of time.
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Dave Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > As Thierry has pointed out, Zoom will fix this issue but you may want to
> > have a read of the following as it explains the reasons why...
> >
> > http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html
> >
> > For fix width layouts, I'd usually tend to fix this by providing a width
> (in
> > your case width: 216px; on the anchor will do the same job as the zoom)
> but
> > there's various methods of solving the haslayout issue.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dave
> > - - - - -
> > http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14/02/2008, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Behalf Of Andrew WC Brown
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's an image to the problem
> > > > http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5567/iefirefoxlistcb1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > Here's a link to the page
> > > > http://dutchakscrap.com/about.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > > Try this:
> > >
> > > div.navigation a {zoom:1;}
> > >
> > > As a side note, I don't see a need for that DIV, you could go with the
> UL
> > > alone.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ***
> > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ***
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ***
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ***
>
>
>
>
> --
> Luiz Gustavo Aleagi Nunes
> -
> "Nosce te ipsum"
> -
> http://sapiensdc.com.br
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Fwd: navaigation list rendered bad in ie

[Dave Woods]

Hi Andrew,

As Thierry has pointed out, Zoom will fix this issue but you may want to
have a read of the following as it explains the reasons why...

http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html

For fix width layouts, I'd usually tend to fix this by providing a width (in
your case width: 216px; on the anchor will do the same job as the zoom) but
there's various methods of solving the haslayout issue.

Cheers
Dave
- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 14/02/2008, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Behalf Of Andrew WC Brown
>
> >
> > Here's an image to the problem
> > http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5567/iefirefoxlistcb1.jpg
> >
> > Here's a link to the page
> > http://dutchakscrap.com/about.html
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
> Try this:
>
> div.navigation a {zoom:1;}
>
> As a side note, I don't see a need for that DIV, you could go with the UL
> alone.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] hello

[Dave Woods]

Also, think about the important factors first when creating a website. Build
something that satisfies the requirements, provides the function/content
required, is accessible, usable and uses the latest web standards and if the
site falls into the web2.0 category then so be it, if not then really who
cares?


On 12/02/2008, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Have a read of these for the official definitions or descriptions of web
> 2.0:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2
>
> A good slide show on the topic:
> http://www.andybudd.com/presentations/dcontruct05/
>
> Or, sit down with some popcorn and watch a web 2.0 video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LzQIUANnHc
>
> HTH
> Russ
>
>
> on 12/2/08 11:07 PM, Gitanjali at wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> Can anybody help me in web 2.0 please
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

[Dave Woods]

A better approach would be to switch to a more standards compliant browser
like Firefox/Opera or Safari ;o)

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
http://www.opera.com/
http://www.apple.com/safari/ (still appears to be in beta for windows
though).

If you're a web developer/designer, you should have those three plus IE6 and
7 for testing anyway ;o)

If you don't have multiple systems to test on, then you can install multiple
versions of IE by using...

http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

Hope that helps.


On 01/02/2008, kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh dear me lol
>
> I am still on IE6 and so I guess jump a version.
> Kate
> Bichon Frisé
> http://jungaling.com/kynismarmissmillie/index.php
> Borneo
> http://julienne.wordpress.com/
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

[Dave Woods]

"I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this "version
freezing" thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree
with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die."

Using an HTML5 doctype will remove the need to include the meta tag. Using
"edge" within the meta tag will also set IE8 to use the rendering engine for
whatever the current version of IE is... what impact this will have on
development remains to be seen as I don't think we can really comment until
we've seen it in action.

"Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of
every
page on every clients site I've ever done?
NOT
So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups?

Or am I misreading all this?"

You're misreading it slightly. Presumably you'll have tested your websites
in IE7? Therefore when IE8 is released, all these websites should render
exactly the same as IE7 by default, IE8 will use IE7's rendering engine
unless you use one of the methods of triggering IE8 standards mode.

"I dont think adding another tag makes much sense.. I want my site
accessible to lots of browsers .. not just freaking IE"

We'll need to support IE7 for a while yet anyway so will things change that
much other than for the mean time just leaving out the meta tag and just
ensuring that things work in the IE7 rendering engine (once IE6 users have
ceased to exist).










On 29/01/2008, varun krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I dont think adding another tag makes much sense.. I want my site
> accessible to lots of browsers .. not just freaking IE
>
> Varun,
> http://varunkrish.com
>
> On Jan 29, 2008 6:41 PM, Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of
> > every
> > page on every clients site I've ever done?
> > NOT
> > So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups?
> >
> > Or am I misreading all this?
> >
> > Bruce
> > bkdesign
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Peter Mount" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:18 AM
> > Subject: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
> >
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this "version
> > > freezing" thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree
> > with
> > > Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Mount
> > > Web Development for Business
> > > Mobile: 0411 276602
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.petermount.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ***
> > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ***
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ***
> >
> >
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

[Dave Woods]

"What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?"

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that
the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available.

I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist.



On 25/01/2008, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
> accommodates most users.
>
> How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
> similar to the example that I found?
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
> James
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
> fails completely.
>
> Likely, James A. wrote:
> > Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now
>
> > on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found
> > this example.
> >
> > http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this approach?
> >
> > To me it looks pretty user friendly.
> >
> > Please let me know as this is new to me.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> 
> > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
> > *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
> >
> > The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of
> > trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
> > really no better accessible method than using the correct element as
> > it was meant.
> >
> > If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
> > problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
> > available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
> > using screenreaders.
> >
> > If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
> > enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't
> > support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back
> > of regular forms.
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > - - - - -
> > http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
> >
> >
> > On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
> > a problem that I have.
> >
> > I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
> > have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
> > would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
> > code.
> >
> > The reason I ask is
> >
> > 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
> > the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
> > with disabilities.
> >
> > 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
> > text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
> > read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
> > images?
> >
> > You can see an example of both ways at:
> >
> > Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
> > Using background images:
> > _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_
> >
> > Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
> > love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
> > done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
> > do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> >
> ***
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > <http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubs

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

[Dave Woods]

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying
to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no
better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant.

If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems
for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile
devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders.

If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the
existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript
or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms.

Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a
> problem that I have.
>
> I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a
> checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best.
> Using background images or adding images to the code.
>
> The reason I ask is
>
> 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the
> images have. This would help with screen readers and people with
> disabilities.
>
> 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and
> how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is
> there a way to imitate the alt for background images?
>
> You can see an example of both ways at:
>
> Using images: 
> *http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html*
> Using background images: 
> *http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html*
>
> Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the
> background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to
> see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how
> to make it more accessible?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> James
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Where did I come from?

[Dave Woods]

I completely agree with most of the comments so far. Why create
functionality that is simply replicating the functionality of a browser?

There was an article on text resizing a while ago that I'm sure most people
are already aware of by Roger Johansson...

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200709/scrap_text_resize_widgets_and_teach_people_how_to_resize_text/

I'd consider text resizing quite advanced compared to using the back button
so I personally think that trying to recreate this kind of functionality is
actually a step backwards in trying to educate our users.

- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 18/01/2008, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Jan 2008, at 17:23, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
>
> > You shouldn't always assume that they are just trying to replace
> > the back button.
>
> As assumptions go, when they say "so I can create a button to go back
> to it...", it is a pretty safe one.
>
> > And, not everyone knows about the back button. Don't assume...
>
> The back button should be one of the very first things people learn
> about when they are introduced to the web. If you suspect that your
> users do not, then creating a custom control that works only for your
> site instead of educating them about the software they use, is doing
> them a disservice.
>
> Additionally, an in page control marked "back" causes confusion since
> users don't know if it will act in the same way as their back button
> or go forward to the previous URL (which it is will alter the effect
> on the normal back button).
>
> --
> David Dorward
> http://dorward.me.uk/
> http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Definition List appropriate for FAQ?

[Dave Woods]

Hi,

Personally, I'd use eading's for the questions and aragraphs for the
answers but that's down to my own preference and have seen it done a variety
of ways.

Cheers
Dave

- - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 17/01/2008, Mike at Green-Beast.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Christian,
>
> > I've been trying to decide which is more semantically correct for an FAQ
> > [...]
> > definition list is probably the most appropriate
>
> My vote is in favor of a DL. I feel it is absolutely the most appropriate
> element to use in such a case.
>
> Cheers.
> Mike Cherim
> http://green-beast.com
>
> Join Accessible Web Developers on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7010678585
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Colors for web design

[Dave Woods]

Hi,

Principles of Beautiful Web Design is worth a read, not only for the
information on colours and the theory behind is but there's also plenty of
other useful design information especially for web developers who aren't
from a design background.

http://www.principlesofbeautifulwebdesign.com/

There's also plenty of colour combination websites about, only have this one
in my bookmarks though...

http://www.colorcombos.com/

Hope that helps.

Dave

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk

On 14/12/2007, Michael Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone know a good online resource or book that discusses how to decide
> the best color combinations for use on the web.
>
> --
> Michael Horowitz
> Your Computer Consultant
> http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
> 561-394-9079
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] IE layout glitch on Blog

[Dave Woods]

Looks like it's more likely to do with your use of the  tag.

Firefox is allowing the content to overflow into the other container whilst
IE6 won't.

The easiest fix would probably be to use some kind of overflow: auto; in
that section of the page along with a width to force a scrollbar on any
content that is wider than the left column.

Hope that helps.

Dave
- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 14/11/2007, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not the owner of  http://www.shield.on.ca/Blog/index.php ...
>
> But...I am puzzled as to why the navigation sidebar drops down below the
> blog content in IE 6...but appears fine and dandy (top right immediately
> below the header) in Firefox 2.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> I am thinking it is an IE "double padding/margin" type
> error...yes...no...yes??
>
> Simon
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Idiot's guide to JavaScript

[Dave Woods]

I'm in a similar position and recently bought the "Simply JavaScript" book
from SitePoint... it's easy to understand and all the books I've seen of
theirs in the past have been up to date and use the latest standards so I
presume I'm learning the correct way as apposed to following out of date and
bad practice tutorials online.

http://www.sitepoint.com/books/javascript1/?SID=8a6e5ef267535b16d9b4f5c5b54a008d

Hope that helps.

Dave
- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk

On 13/11/2007, Kevin Lennon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Rob Mason wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Am comfortable with HTML/CSS and accessibility in general, but struggle
> with JavaScript. I'm not a developer by trade, am a business type (sales and
> marketing) so most oft he stuff is well over my head. I am looking for a
> really basic, plain English guide to JavaScript. Either on or offline will
> do.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Mason
> t/a Sponge Project
> www.spongeproject.co.uk
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
> --
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007 
> 11:09 AM
>
>
>  You may want to check out the book called  Javascript for the world wide
> web  visual quickstart guide.
> http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-World-Wide-Web-Negrino/dp/0321423348/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194984888&sr=8-1
>
> That is not an affiliate link but amazon has it for $12.99 plus shipping
> there.
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Social Networking Site Software / Script

[Dave Woods]

Vanilla is definitely the most standards compliant forum software I've seen.

If you wanted to go down the social networking/bookmarking site route then
there's some software called pligg which I believe the likes of digg and
sphinn use.

http://www.pligg.com/


On 09/11/2007, Rahul Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 09-Nov-07, at 5:04 PM, Web Dandy Design wrote:
> > Discussion Forums.
> Vanilla [1] seems to be an interesting project, which aims to be a
> standards-based discussion forum. I seem to remember having little
> difficulty in installing the software, though I haven't experimented
> with styling it yet.
>
> Best,
>   - Rahul.
>
> [1] http://getvanilla.com/
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Request possible?

[Dave Woods]

Hi Michael,

The overall structure is probably how I'd tackle this but I do have a
couple of suggestions.

1 - You don't really need the  for part4 as this seems to just be
applying a margin which could be applied directly to #article.

2 - Within the part4infosmall  I wouldn't use a definition list
for this as it simply looks like another sub heading and then a
paragraph.

I presume this is part of a page and is just to demonstrate the layout
but there are other issues like no doctype or character set and the
your using a heading 3 without 1 or 2 present but I presume this would
be corrected in the final page? Obviously this would also include the
inline style that you have for the margin on the body.

Also you're declaring font-size in pixels but you need to use either
em or a percentage value if you want the page to be accessible.

You might find this useful to convert your sizes
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=79

Other than that though, it's a relatively simple layout so should only
really need a few  containers and then the relevant heading's
applied along with paragraphs of text.

Hope that helps.

Cheers
Dave

- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 06/11/2007, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I received an request from a client, which I am not sure how to
> implement correctly. Would you please be so kind to have a quick look
> at it, and let me know what you think?
>
> A first "implementation" can be found here:
> html: 
> css: 
>
> At the bottom, of the page, you see the photoshop mock up.
>
> I have 2 questions:
> - is there a better way to do the html structure for this?
> - is there a way  that only 2 lines of text are allowed above the
> small box? The other text should flow automatically around the box.
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Michael Vogt
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] CSS/Accessibility question

[Dave Woods]

Hi James,

I'd always create a site and content so that it initially works and
all the content can be reached using just HTML. It certainly won't
look all that pretty but by making sure that everything works fine
before you add CSS or JavaScript then you're ensuring that the site
will be usable and accessible for any user agents that don't support
them.

Once this is in place, add CSS to spice up the presentation and then
feel free to add any JavaScript to make the functionality and
behaviour easier or to add a few dazzles but this shouldn't effect the
core functionality of the site.

The following article is a really good read and explains the ideas behind this

http://accessites.org/site/2007/02/graceful-degradation-progressive-enhancement/

I suspect that you're thinking of using JavaScript to actually display
content so you need to ask yourself, how will users on mobile devices
of using a text browser read this content?

Hope that helps.

Dave

- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 01/11/2007, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am pretty new to this group but have been seeing all of the useful emails
> that have been sent over the past month and thought I would try my luck.
>
> I am working on a feature story box.  I am trying to develop this using web
> standards but since this is fairly new to me, I thought that I would email
> and see if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve. My goal is to make
> this as accessible as possible to users with disabilities.
>
> Note that there is no JavaScript yet, this is just the demo.  Once the
> JavaScript is in place, when the user rolls over the link, the main
> background image would change as well as the selected state of the link.
>
> http://internetworks.ca/james/feature/
>
> Any feedback is welcome, good or bad!
>
> Thanks for taking the time to help!
>
> James
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Rounded Courners .... Your Take

[Dave Woods]

Hi Mike,

I was considering using 's instead of 's for my example but
was a little torn between the two as I'd usually use 's for
their inline purpose in a block of text or for styling something
within an inline element (when obviously a  would be invalid).

I suppose in either case it's using the tag for something that it
wasn't really meant for and as someone mentioned earlier is being
misused slightly due to lack of a better alternative using CSS2.1

Your example does highlight the fact that I could probably do away
with the topleft div in any case though as this could be applied to
container  :o)

Thanks
Dave

- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 31/10/2007, Mike at Green-Beast.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can offer this simple method:
> http://mikecherim.com/experiments/css_smart_corners.php
>
> I prefer spans over divs because divs do have semantic value as divisions
> whereas span are like puffs of air in that they serve as nothing more than a
> hook for styles, etc. I'd rather offer a span to accept the background than
> a full div.
>
> That's my take on it anyway.
>
> Cheers.
> Mike Cherim
> http://green-beast.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Rounded Courners .... Your Take

[Dave Woods]

I'd usually use something like this as it's much easier to reuse for
different purposes and different sizes.

http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/rounded-corners-demo.html

It requires four extra div's and four images but I'd prefer it to the
JavaScript approach and works consistently to my knowledge in IE6,
IE7, Firefox, Safari and Opera.

Obviously if you're dealing with images or gradients behind the box
then you may have to go for a more complicated approach but for a
simple box then this method usually serves its purpose well.

With CSS3 you should be able to create rounded corners by just using
CSS but we're obviously some time away from being able to use it as
currently only Firefox and Safari have any support and even then it's
inconsistent when dealing with irregular curves.

Hope that helps.


On 31/10/2007, Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, and perhaps I am too motivated towards simplicity, I use three
> images.
> One across the top, one in middle, one for bottom.
>
> I find JavaScript annoying as I watch the corners filling in after page
> loads.
> Four to six images using css are better, but still problematical for
> alignment,loading,  and extra css.
>
> Bruce
> bkdesign
>
>
> > James Jeffery wrote:
> >> What methods do you find best when creating rounded corners and
> >> which methods are the most supported?
> >>
> >> I have been using span tags and absolute positioning. I have also
> >> recently started to use the sliding doors method because you can
> >> achive nice rounded boxes with some nice effects, even better if
> >> you use PNG's.
> >>
> >> Using the span method i did find a bug in IE 6, the 2 corner span's
> >> wouldn't sit flush with the bottom of the containing div, although it
> >> displayed fine in every other browser i tested it on and they could
> >> be resized fine. It was odd though, because IE 5.x display them
> >> perfect, was just IE 6.
> >>
> >> Lets have your beloved methods then guys.
> >>
> >> James
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] CSS display: none has SEO impact?

[Dave Woods]

As far as I'm aware, it's not something that Google will automatically
ban a site for anyway but if it is being used for black hat tactics
then the site is open to being reported by anyone (possibly a
competitor) which Google may then do a manual check of and ban the
site if they deem the site to be breaking their terms of use.

If display: none; is being used for a legitimate purpose then I
wouldn't worry about it but as I mentioned earlier, it can have a
negative impact on accessibility so as with most things, it depends
how and why you're using this method.

Thanks
Dave
- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 30/10/2007, Alexander Gounder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The Fact is that SEOs use this CSS feature (display:none) for cloaking which
> is a Black Hat SEO technique.
>
> Further the whole idea of you showing something(h1-3 tags filled with
> Keywords) to Google or any Search bot and hiding these from you end user
> speaks very bad about your intentions...
>
> Instead if your using this for some other purpose and the effect of this can
> be viewed by the end user then its not considered cloaking and google is
> quite intelligent to know that but the same can't be said about other search
> engines.
>
> So you need to decide on this depending on where your traffic is coming
> from.
>
> Thanks
> Alexander,
> Web Designer and SEO in Mumbai, India
> http://www.ecreeds.com
>
> On 10/29/07, Simon Cockayne < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am sure I read that CSS's display: none has a detrimental on SEO.
> >
> > Is this true* or did I dream it?
> >
> > *To clarify...I am keen to know if it is true that there is a
> > detrimental impact...not whether it is true that I read it or not.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> ***
> > List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ***
> >
> >
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] CSS display: none has SEO impact?

[Dave Woods]

It depends what you're using it for. If it's for black hat search
engine tactics which will contain keywords then yes it's bad as it can
get you completely banned from Google.

If it's for hiding an element of the page which you'll then be
displaying using either CSS or JavaScript then it's not neccesarily
bad for search engines but can be bad for accessibility as screen
readers will ignore it so you'd be better off using negative text
indent or negative absolute positioning.

It depends on what situation you're using it for but yes it can be bad
if used wrongly.

Thanks
Dave

- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 29/10/2007, James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I highly doubt that presentational styles will effect SEO.
>
> When you use display:none you are not removing the
> content from the source, you are just hiding it from
> users viewing the web page.
>
> If you was to remove the element from the source using
> DOM that would be different.
>
> James
>
>
> On 10/29/07, Tony Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Oct 2007, at 15:46, Simon Cockayne wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am sure I read that CSS's display: none has a detrimental on SEO.
> > >
> > > Is this true* or did I dream it?
> > >
> > > *To clarify...I am keen to know if it is true that there is a
> > > detrimental impact...not whether it is true that I read it or not.
> >
> > Google specifically caution against hiding text with CSS:
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> >
> > is that what you meant?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ***
> > List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ***
> >
> >
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Re: WSG Digest

[Dave Woods]

Sorry about that, the validator seemed to suggest that you had some
image tags that weren't closed and that you were using & instead of
& but having validated it again, it appears fine. Strange.

I've had problems with the WAI validator in Firefox sometimes as well,
it seems that locally it has problems but once the page is online I
tend to find it works alright.



On 26/10/2007, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> First off, thanks for the feedback.
>
> I do have the Firefox Web Developer tool bar...for some reason the
> tools>validate local accessibility seems to hang...possibly a firewall
> sisue..>i will check on a different network.
>
>
> RE: http://phd.london.edu/ygrushkacockayne/index.html, you
> said...
>
> "I would suggest running it through http://validator.w3.org as you've got
> a few errors (you're using an XHTML doctype so don't forget to close
>  tags as well as escaping ampersands). ;o)"
>
> ...please can you elaborate?
>
> As far as I can tell this page is valid XHMTL STRICT 1.0. as per:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fphd.london.edu%2Fygrushkacockayne%2Findex.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
>
> Dave - I really do appreciate your time and trouble.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] WCAG conformance and checking

[Dave Woods]

Yeah, the webdev toolbar for Firefox has direct links to the
cynthiasays (WAI) checker and the section 508 checker along with some
other useful tools so if you don't already have it, that's a must for
all developers.

http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/

There's also a colour contrast analyzer that's pretty useful for Firefox here

http://juicystudio.com/article/colour-contrast-analyser-firefox-extension.php

I use these as an initial starting point for testing accessibility but
as you've rightly pointed out, these won't guarantee accessibility so
manual testing and common sense are much more important once you've
performed these initial tests.

Hope they help though.

Dave

http://www.dave-woods.co.uk




On 26/10/2007, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am on a mission to get the microsite that I built for my wife
> http://phd.london.edu/ygrushkacockayne/ to conform to W3C's
> "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", available at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505, level
> Double-A.
>
> I am reading http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/.
>
> I realize no automated checking is foolproof...but are there any good
> automated tools to assist in WCAG conformance checking? ( I hear "cynthia"
> mentioned from time to time...any good/any details? Any others?
>
> Any good Firefox extensions/plug-ins?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Re: Alt text for purely aesthetic images

[Dave Woods]

As a general rule, any images that add to the content or are required
for navigation should be applied as a foreground image using the 
tag and an alt attribute should be applied.

If an image is purely for presentation then use CSS and apply it as a
background image.

Obviously there are exceptions to this where you may be using image
replacement and in this situation you should provide text within the
page that provides an alternative for the image.

Looking at the page you've provided, it looks perfectly fine in the
way you've applied the rounded corners although as a side issue I
would suggest running it through http://validator.w3.org as you've got
a few errors (you're using an XHTML doctype so don't forget to close
 tags as well as escaping ampersands). ;o)

Hope that helps.

Dave

http://www.dave-woods.co.uk

On 26/10/2007, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again...
>
> Whoops...butterfingers I unwittingly hit send before completing my email.
>
> Anywise...here is what it should have said:
>
> Hi,
>
> WCAG 1.0 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/) states:
>
> "Guideline 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content
>  Provide content that, when presented to the user, conveys essentially the
> same function or purpose as auditory or visual content.
> ...
>
> 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt",
> "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical
> representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations
> (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames,
> scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds
> (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio
> tracks of video, and video. [Priority 1]"
>
>
> I have two questions regarding images added via CSS.
>
> 1) I added an image for each bullet via CSS .box ul li. How do I specify alt
> text in this situation? Do I add alt text in the HTML...even though there
> would be no image if CSS was disabled?
>
> 2) What is the implication (what do I need to do) for purely
> presenation/aesthetic images?
>
> For example on my wife's microsite (that I built)
> http://phd.london.edu/ygrushkacockayne/ what do I need to
> do, if anything, for the gifs that form rounded corners on the boxes, via
> CCS on .box, box2 et cetera?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Alt text for purely aesthetic images

[Dave Woods]

Hi Simon,

If you have an image for purely presentational purposes then you can
use a blank alt attribute

alt=""

However, if it's purely for presentational purposes then you should
really apply it using CSS as a background image ;o)

Thanks
Dave

http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 26/10/2007, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
>
> "Guideline 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual
> content"
> "1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt",
> "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical
> representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations
> (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames,
> scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds
> (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio
> tracks of video, and video. [Priority 1]"
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Minimum width help

[Dave Woods]

Actually, further investigation, I've spotted what's happening.

You're hiding the submenu's using this

.p7TBMsub {
position: absolute;
visibility:hidden;
left: 0;
top: 0;
width: 100%;
}

But then you're forgetting that the 100% width is being combined with
the padding and therefore forcing your page out by 210px.

You could take my original suggestion and remove the padding but the
better suggestion would be just to remove the width: 100%;

You're applying it to a block element which by default is 100% anyway
but by not applying it, the width will take into consideration the
other padding you're applying automatically.

So, change your code to this and it should work ;o)

.p7TBMsub {
position: absolute;
visibility:hidden;
left: 0;
top: 0;
}

Although, I'm not sure whether using visibility: hidden; will be bad
for screenreaders as I know display: none; will and you're doing a
similar thing so you may be better going for the suckerfish menu
approach where you position the hidden menu using offscreen negative
positioning.

http://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/

But that's a different matter altogether.

Hope that helps.

- - - - - - - - - -
Dave Woods
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
On 24/10/2007, Dave Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dean,
>
> Not sure what these two styles are actually doing but it looks like
> they're the cause within your menu.css
>
> #p7TBMsub03 { padding: 0 0 0 150px; }
> #p7TBMsub04 { padding: 0 0 0 210px; }
>
> Removing them seems to fix the problem with no adverse effect.
>
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> Dave Woods
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2007, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why I am generating a horizontal scroll bar at
> > 1024 width?
> >
> > <http://www3.andersrice.com/>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ***
> >
> >
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Minimum width help

[Dave Woods]

Hi Dean,

Not sure what these two styles are actually doing but it looks like
they're the cause within your menu.css

#p7TBMsub03 { padding: 0 0 0 150px; }
#p7TBMsub04 { padding: 0 0 0 210px; }

Removing them seems to fix the problem with no adverse effect.

Cheers
Dave

- - - - - - - - - -
Dave Woods
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 24/10/2007, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can someone explain why I am generating a horizontal scroll bar at
> 1024 width?
>
> <http://www3.andersrice.com/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] how a href with javascript pass in A level

[Dave Woods]

Hi,

CynthiaSays should only be used as a first step so passing any online
automated accessibility test by no means guarantee's that a site is
accessible so you should always do a manual check.

The search is definitely not accessible on the link you've provided as
it simply doesn't work without JavaScript.

The header (imagemap) also uses JavaScript so this appears broken to
anyone browsing without it. If this same content is still navigable
using the main menu then I wouldn't consider this a major issue
although they should certainly remove the icon (hand pointer) when
JavaScript isn't enabled otherwise it appears clickable when it's not.

I agree, that maybe the online validation tests should give more
warning that you need to manually test as well but I'd always treat
them as an initial test just to ensure you have the basics in place
before a manual accessibility test takes place.

Hope that helps.

Dave

- - - - - - - - - -
Dave Woods
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 23/10/2007, Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> iam trying to understand how a page that have 1 or 2 javascript in
> href could pass in level A of WCAG 1.
>
> it have a noscript but that doesnt prove anything, cynthisays.com and
> TAW validators give the some result. I think they should give a
> warning or even a Human check.
>
> To prove if equivalent information are provide?
>
> The site that iam testing is www.alentejolitoral.pt it use a
> ""
>
> but for using a noscript it pass in level  A, this should be checked
> by humam, right!?
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Dave Woods]

Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible
site and there's every chance that valid, semantic markup could be
just as or even more inaccessible than a site using tables for layout
and inline styles so I do agree and that wasn't the point I was
personally trying to put across.

If accessibility is considered by a skilled web designer who
understands how users are likely to be impacted by different aspects
of accessibility then these issues can be dealt with at the outset
rather than trying to implement accessibility afterwards.

I wasn't trying to belittle accessibility or suggest that it was easy
but with the right skills and knowledge it should cost very little to
implement single A compliance at the very least which in my opinion
far too many websites fail to do.

Considering aspects of the design that you've mentioned along with
things like colour contrast, colour blindness, type of device being
used, browser font-size etc go over and above web standards. However,
if they are considered at the beginning of a project then it's not
something that will add a huge amount of cost to development compared
with another company who only decide at the end of development that
they now need to consider accessibility.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dave Woods
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On 08/10/2007, Steve Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero."
>
> Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am
> dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal
> accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part.
>
>
> "As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't
> consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers,
> screenreaders and google."
>
> That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible
> websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and
> that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you
> like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or
> isn't important or isn't your responsibility.
>
> It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when
> it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they
> can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's
> someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional
> designer.
>
> Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but
> some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user
> agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet
> that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into
> account in your designs.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
> Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
>
> I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I
> think the same exact way.
>
> The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra
> time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper,
> because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic
> web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible
> are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O.
>
> Christian Snodgrass
> Azure Ronin Web Design
>
> Joseph Taylor wrote:
> > McLaughlin, Gail G wrote:
> >>> We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with
> >>> accessibility.
> >>>
> >
> > Why not say "Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality
> > website"?  Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature...
> >
> > In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy
> > website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the
> > whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of
> > a real page?  Thats real cheap and easy.  Heck, there are people that
> > actually do that!  Most people will never know!
> >
> > I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a
> > website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that
> > anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best
> > sites they can.  Adding alt attributes to 

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Dave Woods]

Completely agree with most of the comments. Accessibility ensures that
the site is usable, not just for disabled users but for ALL your
users.

It should come at no extra cost and only if the designer goes out of
their way to deliver an inaccessible site does it become a problem.
Adding alt attributes, using semantic HTML, ensuring that JavaScript
isn't used for critical functionality etc shouldn't be nice to have's
for the client, they should be built in as standard by any reputable
web designer.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dave Woods
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On 08/10/2007, Chris Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> McLaughlin, Gail G  wrote:
> > We always ask the client if they require that the site comply
> > with accessibility. The response ranges from "What is
> > accessibility?" to "we'll worry about that later" to "No!"
>
> So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards?
> Ouch.
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

[Dave Woods]

Hi,

Are these what you're after?

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12

Thanks
Dave

On 03/10/2007, Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi listers,
>
> Does anyone have a reference (link) to a site that actually spells out
> what criteria must be met for the levels of  WCAG and 508 compliance.
> Can't seem to come up with quite what I am after from Google...
>
> Thanks a lot in advance.
>
> --
>
> Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
> ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Positioning a background image

[Dave Woods]

Alternatively you could introduce and extra  and apply padding/margin
to create the effect you need. If the background outside the container is a
plain colour you could always apply a border-top or 120px to make it appear
as you want.

The first will definitely work for your situation whilst the second may work
depending on the layout.


On 01/10/2007, Matthew Pennell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2007, Mike Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's annoying! But thanks for the explanation :)
>
>
> All the information you ever need on background positioning:
>
> http://www.digital-web.com/articles/web_design_101_backgrounds/
>
> :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Form styling

[Dave Woods]

Mike, This is exactly the reason why I include the  at the end of
the labels so that the form still displays nicely without the styles
applied.

I suppose a better case could be made for removing the display: block;
from the labels in this situation but would be needed if for example
you wanted a couple of labels side by side and needed to apply a width
to the label.

John, of course you're right though and the display: block on the
label is doing the same thing as the  in the example above.


On 27/09/2007, Mike at Green-Beast.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> > With your labels set to display: block, you don't realy
> > need the extra  at the end of each one. ;)
>
> You're right, of course, but I think it's a good idea to keep the breaks.
> Not everyone supports styles so the breaks keep the form neat without them.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Cheers.
> Mike Cherim
>
> Just relaunched as v5: http://greenmethods.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Faulds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Form styling
>
>
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/accessible-forms1.html
>
> With your labels set to display: block, you don't realy need the extra
>  at the end of each one. ;)
>
>
> --
> Tyssen Design
> www.tyssendesign.com.au
> Ph: (07) 3300 3303
> Mb: 0405 678 590
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Form styling

[Dave Woods]

Glad it helped :o)

The idea for the  around the legend and  around the
fieldset initially came from
http://www.tyssendesign.com.au/articles/css/legends-of-style/

This then gave me the idea of including a  around the actual
label text as it then provides extra flexibility for styling the form.
It won't always be necessary but is certainly useful if the label and
input can't be styled as you require without the extra markup.

Cheers
Dave


On 26/09/2007, Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Thanks a lot for this. It's really simple and I don't mind the "extra"
> span element. So simple in fact, I threw up in my mouth a little from
> my own embarrassment. :-P
>
> THANKS!
>
> And thanks to the others for the replies. I will hang on to these in
> case a situation arises where one method is needed over another.
>
>
> > http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/accessible-forms1.html
>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
> ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Form styling

[Dave Woods]

Tom,

I put this together a while ago which you'll probably find useful

http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=91 with it in action here
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/accessible-forms1.html

If you group the label with the form field then it's usually much
easier to style the form and position it as you require.

Hope that helps

Cheers
Dave


On 26/09/2007, Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> OK, I hate form styling. It's my least favorite thing. I have started
> using Eric Meyer's "Reset" style sheet.  Does anyone have a favorite
> resource for dealing with forms. I am tired of resorting to... [cough]
> tables. I do manage on occasion to pull it off w/o tables, but it's
> always a struggle. Especially where labels are to the left of text
> inputs.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance.
>
> --
>
>
> Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
> ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | www.mlinc.com
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***