Re: [WSG] Mac favour
On 1/21/07, John 'Max' Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone out there with a MAC take a look at this website and tell me if it renders happily in Opera and/or IE5 etc?? www.lilaccoast.co.uk Hi Max, Looks good here with Safari and Firefox, even with JS turned off. The text on some of the pages is pretty low-contrast, though. The home page is a good example. Darker text, please! I'm protanopic (can distinguish fewer shades of red green than most people) which might have something to do with it. Opera runs on many platforms; I don't know that I'd expect any different rendering on a Mac. Also, Safari's rendering engine (Webkit) is based on KHTML from Konqueror. As time goes by they're probably diverging more and more (maybe they're more like cousins than siblings now), but if you're stuck in Windows, firing up a Linux Live CD (or having a dual boot partition) is a low-commitment way to see how your sites render with KHTML which might also give you a hint as to how it renders with Webkit. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] wcag, xhtml and javascript validation
On 1/15/07, DJ Spark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A client of mine has asked for a solution for their testers, to check 'code quality' from partners. Its a big company, where, maybe, hundreds of small to large scale apps are released every year, and checking manually every page for wcag1.0 compliance, xhtml validity and javascript 1.5 correcteness is simply impossible. We have tried TAW ( http://www.tawdis.net/ ) , and it may be a good starting point, for the accessibility, at least. Anyone knows some other like this one ? - standalone app, - a crawler to check every page in a given level or subdomain, - give me a readable report in the end - I'd go crazy if it permits my input in forms where needed (so it could check the result pages of data entry) Hi DJ, Please have a look at the link in my sig; it may give you some of what you ask for. I have researched and found nothing about ecmascript-262 validation (or javascript 1.5 the same, i think). My understanding is that ECMAScript defines the core of JavaScript -- the variable types, function syntax, etc. It does *not* touch the subject of the DOM, so unless your JavaScript avoids manipulating any HTML (pretty unlikely) then you can't call it pure ECMAScript. The JavaScript implementation in browsers is a superset of ECMAScript and each browser family has its own dialect of JavaScript. In short, one can't validate JavaScript because there's no formal specification for all of the non-core functions. Wikipedia expresses it differently and says that ECMAScript is supported in many applications, especially web browsers, where it's commonly called JavaScript. Dialects typically include their own, different standard libraries, of which some are standardized separately – such as the W3C-specified DOM. I think the practical implications are the same for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript HTH -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] site check for broken links, 404 errors and javascript
On 1/10/07, Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: would you check the following site for broken links, links that give a 404 error Dwain, Why ask humans to do the kind of drudgery that computers excel at? Try the W3C link checker instead: http://validator.w3.org/checklink Or there's this one which can be installed locally: http://degraaff.org/checkbot/ There are other services that will perform link checking for you as well, like the one in my sig. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader, Hi Barney, JAWS used to have a free downloadable demo that would give you a taste of what it is like to use it. I used the full version on my last job. It was my first experience with a screen reader and it made me, er, see things differently. A very interesting experience. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] swift - only windows browser with a webkit?
On 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I got this idea from the 'Wow, if only everyone did this' conversation. Swift seems to be the only Windows browser with a webkit, making it an idea to test websites for mac-compatibility if you don't have a mac. But any link I found so far to download this new, open source web browser leeds to www.getswift.org which refuses the connection. Does anyone know where to get swift? An alternative for you Windows folks -- Webkit was based on and is still a close cousin of KHTML, the rendering engine in KDE's Konqueror. Lots of Linux live CDs will let you run Konqueror from a CD. Knoppix comes to mind (and it's handy to have a copy of that anyway for performing surgery on Windows) but any of them that run Konqueror will allow you to test how your pages render in a KHTML-based browser. HTH -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Average Page Sizes
On 9/6/06, Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is considered an acceptable total page size for the web these days? Clearly the smaller the better but I've put together a fairly graphic heavy travel website with a homepage size of about 300k. With GZIP switched on in the server I imagine that this will be reduced fairly substantially (we have some huge stylesheets that will compress well). When I want to determine whether or not a page is too big, I use a test that I call The Blue Test. If you want to try it, here's how it works. The setup is the hardest part, because you have to find a computer and Internet connection that's about average for your client base. You get to decide what average is, but it usually isn't that Dual core Gigasnort Pro with 4G of RAM hooked up to a T1 that's sitting on your desktop. So go to your Mom's house and borrow her trusty ol' Pentium 3 that's on a 56k modem, or whatever you have to do to get an average setup. Once you're there, here's the steps to take: 1) Clear your browser cache 2) Type the URL for the page you want to test. As soon as you hit enter to start the connection, take a deep breath, close your mouth and pinch your nose shut. 3) Wait... 4) Once the page is done loading, begin breathing again. Did you turn blue? If so, then your page is probably too big. Regardless of whether or not you turn blue or pass out (*), this test should give you an excellent appreciation of the discomfort users feel while they wait for your pages to load. It works for me. =) Cheers -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more (*) Not responsible for bonked heads. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Support for IE5/Mac? (was Browser stats)
On 8/3/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SunUp wrote: It's the Mac problem. There's no way my department's budget will extend to purchasing an old Mac just for testing purposes, If I was in that situation, I would either: * refuse to support Macs and refer any compaints to the boss and the IT department. Amen to that. There's no reason to be forced to support hardware it your department won't make allowances for testing on it. If they want you to support it, they need to make that possible. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Support for IE5/Mac? (was Browser stats)
On 8/3/06, SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * refuse to support Macs and refer any compaints to the boss and the IT department. Amen to that. There's no reason to be forced to support hardware it your department won't make allowances for testing on it. If they want you to support it, they need to make that possible. They couldn't care less. I'M the one trying to do The Right Thing and support what I can, but they don't understand and have no desire to understand about browser support. They support IE, that's it, and that's all they care about. I've had an enormous struggle getting our department permission to use Firefox, and the rest of the staff here (3000-odd people) don't have a choice because the Firefox site is banned. I feel badly that I can't do what I know I should be doing. As of today, IE5/Mac users will get no styles at all when they view our site. That's all I can do, and I guess it's better than it being totally broken. Yes, it's easy for me to talk, isn't it? Give me your bosses phone number, I'll call up and straighten things out. ;) I salute your commitment to Doing the Right Thing and, in short, I think you're doing it. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Form check
On 7/18/06, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for those concerned about the single page issue, I see that as a printed page paradigm. I see little cost/benefit to turning pages and all the additional work (and expense) of carrying post arguments backwards and forwards throughout all the case-switch cgi, vs. scrolling up or down ...for the purpose of *this* form. If the purpose of the form was merchandising, I would agree with the added cost of the step by step keep their short attention span occupied - don't lose the sale multi page approach. But that's not a printed page paradigm, it's a talk in short simple sentences paradigm. Hi Dean, There's a difference between multi-page forms on paper and on the Web, and that is that I've never had a paper form lose my data. We've all had the experience of filling out a Web form and having the data get lost for some reason. For instance, suppose I fill out a support ticket at my ISP and it takes me 30 minutes to type up a description of the problem, when I click submit I get the message, Your session has expired. Please log in again and my lengthy problem description is lost. This has happened enough times to me (at my ISP and plenty of other places) that now, when presented with a lengthy form online, I type the bulk of my text into a text editor, paste it into the form and then hit submit so that my effort isn't lost if the form submission goes awry. This is a case where the badly-designed sites I've run across have affected my perception of *all* sites that use forms. Regardless of how well you've coded *your* form/site, I still approach it with the expectation that there's a decent chance that the data I enter will be lost. Your form (which is deliberately demanding, as you pointed out) represents a very significant data entry effort which means it is a lot to lose. Dividing the form into chunks would give users reassurance when they hit Next of so far, so good and that the server still remembers them and is willing to save their data. That's just my $.02 but it is guaranteed to be worth no less. ;) Cheers -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Validation Tool
On 7/12/06, Katrina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gday all, Anyone seen or used this before? Has it proven helpful? Total Validator: http://www.totalvalidator.com/ Hi Kat, I tested this last year and found that it missed some errors that the W3C validator catches. The reverse may also be true; I didn't test it extensively. That's not to say Total Validator can't be helpful, but it seems that it uses different validation methods than the W3C validator which is the gold standard, IMO. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE Hates me and my CSS please help!
On 7/13/06, Buddy Quaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the page in question:
http://tangerinefiles.com/treatyoak/personal.html
Okay, so this might be hard to explain but here goes...
On this page I am using suckerfish dropdowns for the navigation. On this
I must be behind the times; I've never heard of suckerfish dropdowns. =)
[snip]
Now the funny part is if I swap the .over and .on rules so that on
comes before over it will highlight properly and it would be perfect.
This is a shot in the dark since I don't have ready access to IE, but
I can suggest two changes that may help. First, put a space between
your selector and the left curly bracket. IE shouldn't have trouble
with that, but there's no need to challenge its parser, and it makes
the CSS easier to read. Second, try lumping all of your rules into
one, like so:
#mortgage.over, #mortgage.on, #mortgage:hover {
background-image: url(images/index_r2_c8_f2.gif);
}
BTW, are you aware that the page doesn't validate? That's always a
good place to start when trying to roust out misbehaviors.
HTH
--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] NOSCRIPT element
On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I forgot to say Thank you for your response! I did go attempt to read the http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=2891, it served only to confuse me further. Sharron, NOSCRIPT is intended as a sort of partner element to SCRIPT. It provides content for user agents (browsers, screen readers, search engines, etc.) that don't have Javascript enabled and thus won't see whatever the SCRIPT block produces. If all the SCRIPT block produces is a dancing bear or some other non-essential fluff, then it is OK to skip the NOSCRIPT element. But if the SCRIPT block creates something important/essential (like a navigation menu) then the NOSCRIPT block serves an important purpose by providing that navigation menu for script-less user agents. With this in mind, can you see how transparent 1x1 images are not going to be of much help? There's no simple answer as to what should go in a NOSCRIPT element, or if you should even have one at all. You can get some hints pretty quickly by turning Javascript off and trying to browse your site. If you find that important parts of your site are missing, those are the gaps that your NOSCRIPT elements need to fill. HTH -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] PHP Font Sizer Live Test
On 7/13/06, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey gang, I just finished up a new experiment and I have a couple of concerns I'm hoping can be answered here: 1) I want to make sure it looks okay on various browsers. I've tested it on IE 6 and 7, Firefox 1.0.7, Opera 9 (visual and voice), Netscape 7.2, Flock 0.5pre, and Lynx, with styles and without. It looks fine from what I can tell, though on IE 6 the boxes get a little out of whack if the browser text is enlarged (go figure). I haven't tested on Mac at all or anything else (like IE 5.x for Windows) Works well in Safari 1.3.2, FF 1.5 and Camino 1.0 on Mac OS 10.3. It's a nice-looking site in general. 2) I want to make sure the script isn't vulnerable to XSS (Cross-Site Scripting). I wish I was clever enough to cook up an exploit for this, but I'm not. ;) -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] div in li
On 7/13/06, Tee G.Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Is it legal to place a div in .li? Something like this .lix div it does validate/div /li Tee, There is no such thing as a .li element; I assume you mean li. If that's the case, then yes, it is OK to put a div inside li. Besides, if the W3C validator said it was OK, isn't that more convincing than the comments of someone like me who you've never even heard of? =) -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] div in li
On 7/13/06, Tee G.Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, perhaps I should rephrase my question. Is there no semantical reason that it's not quite legal to do so? You must forgive me asking this seemingly stupid question; the heated Alphabetical Listing Buttons thread did make me think twice how to use proper markup. Ah, well, now there's a question that we can argue about! =) Seriously, IMHO it's fine, in general. (In general meaning I'm sure someone will take this as a challenge to devise an example that's not fine, but I can't think of one offhand.) -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
