[WSG] Somewhat frustrated
Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least weachieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. The home page (with inactive links)is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp and the CSS is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6. What he doesn't want is what you'll seeon Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac). The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac). Can anyone tell me whymy valid (XHTML and CSS) pagedisplays so differently in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)? Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS? What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four browsers? Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despiteall the hacks I could find. I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client isvery real!! I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere. Thanks to you all for such a helpful List. John Penlington web developer
RE: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
I am far from an expert yet, but your display issues are very similar to what I got the first time around using CSS I discovered IDs rather than classes fro layers provides more precision. Also, you might want to try dropping the p/p and running block level text. Brian From: John Penlington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least weachieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. The home page (with inactive links)is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp and the CSS is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6. What he doesn't want is what you'll seeon Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac). The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac). Can anyone tell me whymy valid (XHTML and CSS) pagedisplays so differently in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)? Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS? What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four browsers? Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despiteall the hacks I could find. I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client isvery real!! I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere. Thanks to you all for such a helpful List. John Penlington web developer
Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
sure. why not. - Jeremy Flint www.jeremyflint.com Luc wrote: Good evening Jeremy, It was foretold that on 29-3-2004 @ 12:29:47 GMT-0600 (which was 20:29:47 where I live) Jeremy Flint would mumble: snipped a bit JF BTW, even with tables, sites will look differently on different JF browsers. You speak of having to use hacks to get CSS to render JF correctly in all browsers. I think using a spacer.gif would be JF considered a hack. Tables display just as differently as CSS can. JF Different browsers sometimes handle table heights and widths JF differently. Some may measure cellpadding or spacing differently. Jeremy, can i steal this comment to use it for my blog? * 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] Somewhat frustrated
John, Yes, there are slight differences in browsers, but these are easy to overcome. There are a lot of un-needed classes in your code. The aim is to use as few as possible, and use descendant selectors to do their work. Theoretically, for this layout you should only need a few id's on the containers and the rest should fall into place. I am happy to talk offlist about this if you want... Now, some overall points about table use (more for the overall list): 1. although tables and spacer gifs are hacks (when ued for layout, rather than tabular data), there are worse things you can do when developing sites. While important, building to standards are only part of the overall picture that includes good design, useable navigation systems, interesting and accessible content etc. 2. there are some layouts that are easier to achieve using tables. That is a fact. However, you CAN build layouts without hacks (or with minimal hacks), that are stable across all major browsers. Hang in there. Eventually it all clicks into place and it becomes much easier. 3. We have talked before on the list about the two extremes - on one end you have traditional layouts (tables, font tags, image spaces etc) and the other end are standards based layouts (css, accessible, valid, semantically correct code). The aim is to move towards standards based layouts, but at your own pace and comfort level. If you feel that you want to stay with tables for layout and use CSS for all other aspects, this is still a major improvement over traditional layouts. 4. the aim of this list is to encourage developers to move towards web standard not to flame people who are having trouble. Hopefully we can keep this attitude as it is one of the things that sets this list apart from many others. Russ Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] What tha!?
I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done?? Thanks Peter x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
RE: [WSG] What tha!?
Your server is erroneously sending the CSS as text/html, which is the wrong MIME type as it should be text/css. Check your server config. p.s.: apologies if this formats wrong...outlook web client is buggy Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster External Relations Division Faraday House University of Salford Greater Manchester M5 4WT Tel: +44 (0) 161 295 4779 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] webteam: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY -Original Message- From: Universal Head [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 30/03/2004 00:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [WSG] What tha!? I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done?? Thanks Peter Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com b*'+-~u +zmy-jwZ ? ub ~gz'-x-^+-mx!zZ
RE: [WSG] What tha!? (CSS not rendering in Mozilla)
Peter, I have had a similar problem with the BHP Billiton site recently. It looks like the server does not have the mime type for CSS set correctly. In Mozilla, if you select Tools, Web Development, then Javascript Console, you should see an error message reading: Error: The stylesheet http://www.cinema4duser.com/css/main.css was not loaded because its MIME type, text/html, is not text/css. This is a problem on the server end, where they either don't have the experience or the knowledge to set up mime types properly. I woulod hazard a guess and say that the CSS mime type is set to text/x-pointplus. More info at: http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/incorrect-mime-types/ Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] What tha!? Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:51:00 +1000 I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done?? Thanks Peter Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com Regards, David McDonald Web Designer http://www.davidmcdonald.org * 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] What tha!?
I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying CSS. have you validated your CSS? http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ I find that if part of the CSS is invalid, Mozilla ignores the wholething. Sometimes even a single line will crash it. Try commenting out chunks of the CSS to see if you have a problematic line.
Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated
On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 11:07 AM, John Penlington wrote: Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind. I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac). All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers. Well, in this case my IE 5.2 dosn't like your use of position: relative; left: -24px; on your UL setup (in both UL cases). If you want to position the UL, put it in a DIV container and position it. When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely. None ever will, unless the Standards Committee creates it's own ...but that's another story for another day. Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling. I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on. (see below) After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif. The problem is that your page is only pixel-precise on a 96dpi system. To be pixel-precise on all systems, you have to use relative measurement in your CSS (ie: em, %, and or keywords) The home page (with inactive links) is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp and the CSS is at: www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6. What he doesn't want is what you'll see on Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac). Well, as you already know ...you have to start with a standards browser first and work backwards. This is even true with tables. The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac). (see above) Can anyone tell me why my valid (XHTML and CSS) page displays so differently in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)? (see above) Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS? What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four browsers? Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despite all the hacks I could find. Start with ccs2 and a standards browser a include an import of ie7-xml.css. You can find this life-saver at: http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/intro/ Copy it from the src link in the breadcrump tail. I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client is very real !! So, ...do it in tables first, make it look on all, ...then take on CSS2. I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere. Good luck and welcome to the club!! -chuck -a Mac guy- Thanks to you all for such a helpful List. John Penlington web developer * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] CSS the Linux documentation project
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/03/30/0041253.shtml?tid=106tid=126t id=185tid=95 Very interesting - even if just to demonstrate how little most people understand about CSS. Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] New site - looking for feedback
Hi guys, Just looking for some feedback on our latest job*... Feel free to tear it a new one :P Sample homepage: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/homepage.htm Sample content page: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/content.htm CSS is at: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_main.css http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_content.css http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_homepage.css (excuse the long URLs, DNS changes haven't come across yet) Basically, im looking for some design/accessibility/UI comments that I can pass on to our graphics department. Also, could someone run it through the usual Mac browsers for me (and provide feedback)? Our little iMac is playing up. I'd be more than happy to discuss any html/css decisions I made. *Obviously this is just a quick knockup of the initial design, as the client wants to see it in HTML form. Thanks in advance, James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [WSG] Some suggestions needed
Hi Leo. What was the URL for the tutorial? gary Leo J. O'Campo wrote: So Gary... What is complicating it? Just remember to put a clear: both; in the footer rule Just check out this excellent tutorial on how to create footer for a 2 column layout. It step by step by the numbers, easy. Leo On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 02:25 AM, Gary Greer wrote: Looking at http://www.muprivate.edu.au/index_frameset.asp I'm fighting to replicate the same layout as was used with tables. All is going fine, until I got to the footer, when it's just too complex for me to figure out. Could I ask if the group could look at the above URL and see what could be done with the footer? It's the bit that starts University web search Thanks greatly! Gary smime.p7s * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback
pretty slick, I like it.. - with a few little coding tweaks you could probably eliminate most of your CSS IE width hacks. - Rollover colours on top nav could have more contrast - difficult to read dark on dark.. - It seems weird to me that the underline disappears on mouseover of regular links.. well done. B * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] [OT] Outlook error: Can't open this item. Your Digital ID name ... etc
Firstly, apologies for the OT repost and I'm not even sure if anyone else worries about this, but... First list member I started having the problem with was Mark Stanton back in January, now James Silva and Gary Greer as well (and another one-off from Dominique something or other). I'm using MS Outlook 2000 SP3 on XP Pro. I can't open the above member's emails to the list, I get the following error: 'Can't open this item. Your Digital ID name can not be found by the underlying security system' I know from this previous reply: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01806.html that others on the list are having the same problem. I can understand completely that the guys will occasionally neglect to remove the sig that causes the problem, so is there anything I can do at my end so I don't have to ponder what wonderfully enlightening web standards conversations I'm missing out on? ;) Cheers, MT error.GIF attachment: error.GIF
[WSG] WSG member gets a good wrap
Always exciting to see a WSG member getting a good wrap! The Weekly Standard has given this weeks award to Jeff Lowder from Accessibility 1st for his site - Young Achievement Australia. There is a review of the site and also an interview with Jeff: http://www.weeklystandards.com/archives/2004/03/29/index.php Well done, Jeff. Russ * 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] [OT] Outlook error: Can't open this item. Your Digital ID name ... etc
'Can't open this item. Your Digital ID name can not be found by the underlying security system' My apologies Miles and WSG members. This has been raised as an issue in the past and the general consensus (at least at Gruden) was to remove sigs before posting to the list. Unfortunately, I forgot this time around. Sorry :P Here's my original post... -- Hi guys, Just looking for some feedback on our latest job*... Feel free to tear it a new one :P Sample homepage: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/homepage.htm Sample content page: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/content.htm CSS is at: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_main.css http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_content.css http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_homepage.css (excuse the long URLs, DNS changes haven't come across yet) Basically, im looking for some design/accessibility/UI comments that I can pass on to our graphics department. Also, could someone run it through the usual Mac browsers for me (and provide feedback)? Our little iMac is playing up. I'd be more than happy to discuss any html/css decisions I made. *Obviously this is just a quick knockup of the initial design, as the client wants to see it in HTML form. Thanks in advance, James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
[WSG] best method for columns inside a column
Finally a chance for my first attempt at a 100% CSS positioning site and besides using the deprecated align parameter for an input:image, the site validates ok! http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/index.html http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/main.css http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/astute.css (sorry if the dyndns is borked, try 150.101.34.189 temporarily if it is) Its a simple header two-columns footer layout based on a layout-o-matic template. I then use absolute positioning to float the #feature div to the right of the #services div, however the correct top left values seem to differ between IE and Mozilla/Opera. I've managed to get it basically perfect in IE6, but there is small 2-3 pixel discrepancy in Mozilla and Opera (haven't had a chance to check on Safari yet *shudder*) down the left side of the right column. I'm guessing that its to do with how I've made the columns inside a column layout, but I can't work out a better way to do it. Is what I am trying to do not suited to CSS positioning? Or is there a better way to do it? Cheers, MT * 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] WSG member gets a good wrap
Good one Jeff! Great work and a very interesting interview. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] WSG member gets a good wrap Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:32:40 +1000 Always exciting to see a WSG member getting a good wrap! The Weekly Standard has given this weeks award to Jeff Lowder from Accessibility 1st for his site - Young Achievement Australia. There is a review of the site and also an interview with Jeff: http://www.weeklystandards.com/archives/2004/03/29/index.php Well done, Jeff. Russ Regards, David McDonald Web Designer http://www.davidmcdonald.org * 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] New site - looking for feedback
- with a few little coding tweaks you could probably eliminate most of your CSS IE width hacks. Hi Ben, I'm assuming you're refering to the use of padding divs (which is the method I normally use). If not, then please let me know. I chose to use the IE5 box model hack this time around as I want to keep the html as clutter free as possible. It also comes back to the fact that this will be a dynamic website (Coldfusion CMS based) meaning pages won't necessarily be cached, but the CSS will. Therefore, I want to keep as much of the workarounds/hacks in the CSS as possible. - Rollover colours on top nav could have more contrast - difficult to read dark on dark.. Duly noted. Ill bump the brightness of the orange. - It seems weird to me that the underline disappears on mouseover of regular links.. Agreed. Link styles are always an after thought for me. We actually have a generic template (html and css) that our designers use to define their content styles. Which is excellent (when they actually use it - unlike this instance) as it means the designers get a bit of insight into what can/cannot be done with html/css. Cheers, James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Smith Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback pretty slick, I like it.. well done. B * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] New site - looking for feedback
I can't contribute anything on the mac side, but I have to say I like it. I like the graphic device of using the fine white lines across the page and down. Nice effect. And the transparent effect in the heading looks great too. Very smooth. I think it's a clever way to use boxes as wide as the whole screen to overlay one colour over another so it looks like there is a LOT more work in the different sections than there actually is. Screen background in the dark red, then the middle wrapper box overlayed with the olive colour, then the white lines through it looks like you have a gazillion table cells there, but in fact there aren't any. Can you tell us a bit about the design process? Did the graphic designer start out with standards compliance in mind or did you take the sketch/gif/PDF design or whatever and force it into compliance? How much does your designer take CSS techniques into account when designing? The home page must have been a challenge - all those boxes to line up. How will you keep them more or less in balance once they start adding content to it?Are you having a CMS back end on it? I know you're looking for html/css comments, but to tell the truth, the site just looks brilliant in my browsers. If it was my work I'd be telling everyone in the world. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Silva Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback Hi guys, Just looking for some feedback on our latest job*... Feel free to tear it a new one :P Sample homepage: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/homepage.htm Sample content page: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/content.htm CSS is at: http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_main.css http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_content.cs s http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_homepage.c ss (excuse the long URLs, DNS changes haven't come across yet) Basically, im looking for some design/accessibility/UI comments that I can pass on to our graphics department. Also, could someone run it through the usual Mac browsers for me (and provide feedback)? Our little iMac is playing up. I'd be more than happy to discuss any html/css decisions I made. *Obviously this is just a quick knockup of the initial design, as the client wants to see it in HTML form. Thanks in advance, James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com * 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] New site - looking for feedback
Very nice indeed James, thanks for passing me the links otherwise I would've missed out on seeing it... The first word bold, second word normal thing seems to be gaining momentum amongst the various CSS sites I've seen lately, understandably as it is a nice effect for titles. The first thing I though was 'oooh, how did he get the Go buttons to align so nicely with the form fields?', coz I had been trying to do it without resorting to a table or the deprecated align=absmiddle parameter. Then I realised you're using images which gets around the problem, however this will eventually become an accessibility issue as the only way to submit the forms will be via href=javascript:submit() on the image, no good for screen readers. As soon as you replace the img with input type=image I'm pretty sure you'll have the same alignment issues I had. If anyone knows of a solution for this I'd love to know! That's that only thing I could find in what is an aesthetically pleasing design that is a credit to the WSG. Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio? MT. -Original Message- From: Ben Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback pretty slick, I like it.. - with a few little coding tweaks you could probably eliminate most of your CSS IE width hacks. - Rollover colours on top nav could have more contrast - difficult to read dark on dark.. - It seems weird to me that the underline disappears on mouseover of regular links.. well done. B * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] New site - looking for feedback
There is: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat12.cfm Feel free to add your own work to this section, as that is what it is for! Russ That's that only thing I could find in what is an aesthetically pleasing design that is a credit to the WSG. Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio? * 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] New site - looking for feedback
Hi Mike, I can't contribute anything on the mac side, but I have to say I like it. I like the graphic device of using the fine white lines across the page and down. Nice effect. And the transparent effect in the heading looks great too. Very smooth. Well, I'm just a lowly coder, but on behalf of the designer, thanks :) I think it's a clever way to use boxes as wide as the whole screen to overlay one colour over another so it looks like there is a LOT more work in the different sections than there actually is. Screen background in the dark red, then the middle wrapper box overlayed with the olive colour, then the white lines through it looks like you have a gazillion table cells there, but in fact there aren't any. Horizontal line work is actually quite simple with CSS. Just use top/bottom borders and wrapper divs that span the entire width of the page. Vertical line work (that spans the entire height) can usually only be done with background images. And become a right pain when dealing with fluid layouts in particular. Can you tell us a bit about the design process? Did the graphic designer start out with standards compliance in mind or did you take the sketch/gif/PDF design or whatever and force it into compliance? How much does your designer take CSS techniques into account when designing? Well, to be honest, its been an on-going battle with the designers (which Mark Stanton and I are slowly winning). The bottom line I guess, is getting your designers to think in terms of boxes. We try to educate our designers as much as possible as to what can be achieved with CSS. Once they get a grasp of the box model, they tend to design sites which are usually relatively easy to code for. Meaning very little input from us programmers during the design phase :) The biggest issues I come across are vertical repeating background images; images that span multiple boxes and content that requires mixed padding. Especially when a designer wants headings to begin inside a padding area. Always a pain in the rear as you then either need a single redundant div to contain the rest of the content (if we're talking about a H1) or setting up multiple rules for ALL the possible html elements (ugly). I must say one thing at this point, background images are your friend. It is WAY easier to achieve a complex *looking* site using background imagery than it is using inlines images and excess html/css. The home page must have been a challenge - all those boxes to line up. How will you keep them more or less in balance once they start adding content to it?Are you having a CMS back end on it? I've tested it with various amounts of content in all columns (nav and side bar included). It all works fine regardless of the amount of content. The amount of content really makes no difference since all columns are float:left and the footer set to clear:both. I think I threw in a hr or br with clear:both for good measure. As for a CMS, yes, it will be completely CMS driven. We're currently using ShadoMX built by our parters Straker (http://www.straker.co.nz/shado). Heres a couple of our other (largely) CSS based ShadoMX sites: http://www.ccfa.org.au/ http://www.thegeorgeinstitute.org/ /shameless_plug I know you're looking for html/css comments, but to tell the truth, the site just looks brilliant in my browsers. If it was my work I'd be telling everyone in the world. Much appreciated :) Cheers, James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com * 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] New site - looking for feedback
Hi Miles, The first thing I though was 'oooh, how did he get the Go buttons to align so nicely with the form fields?', coz I had been trying to do it without resorting to a table or the deprecated align=absmiddle parameter. Then I realised you're using images which gets around the problem, however this will eventually become an accessibility issue as the only way to submit the forms will be via href=javascript:submit() on the image, no good for screen readers. As soon as you replace the img with input type=image I'm pretty sure you'll have the same alignment issues I had. If anyone knows of a solution for this I'd love to know! Nope. It's a input type=image I know exactly what you mean though. I spent more time on that silly search form than any other element on the page. It basically came down to a balancing act of padding, IE box model hack, vertical-align, height and font size. I just kept fiddling with each untill it appeared ok in most browsers. Using IE6 and my goal for perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard/fast rules for inline form elements. Every browser seems to treat them differently. That's that only thing I could find in what is an aesthetically pleasing design that is a credit to the WSG. Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio? As Russ mentioned, there is a Built by members section at: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat12.cfm Thanks for the feedback. James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback
Oh ffs... Sorry people (about the sig... again). Heres the original... Hi Miles, The first thing I though was 'oooh, how did he get the Go buttons to align so nicely with the form fields?', coz I had been trying to do it without resorting to a table or the deprecated align=absmiddle parameter. Then I realised you're using images which gets around the problem, however this will eventually become an accessibility issue as the only way to submit the forms will be via href=javascript:submit() on the image, no good for screen readers. As soon as you replace the img with input type=image I'm pretty sure you'll have the same alignment issues I had. If anyone knows of a solution for this I'd love to know! Nope. It's a input type=image I know exactly what you mean though. I spent more time on that silly search form than any other element on the page. It basically came down to a balancing act of padding, IE box model hack, vertical-align, height and font size. I just kept fiddling with each untill it appeared ok in most browsers. Using IE6 and my goal for perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard/fast rules for inline form elements. Every browser seems to treat them differently. That's that only thing I could find in what is an aesthetically pleasing design that is a credit to the WSG. Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio? As Russ mentioned, there is a Built by members section at: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat12.cfm Thanks for the feedback. James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com * 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] CSS the Linux documentation project
Geeze, if Slashdot is meant to be the domain of supposedly tech-savvy readers, it's scary how many of them know jack-all about Web development. And statements like I'd support standards if any modern browser was compliant ... Sure, they're not compliant, but for styling most of the pages mentioned, (and the personal sites of some of the commenters) I think that a blind monkey could probably make them look better using only the intersection of all CSS rules that *do* work in every modern browser. -- Cameron Adams W: www.themaninblue.com --- Mark Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/03/30/0041253.shtml?tid=106tid=126t id=185tid=95 Very interesting - even if just to demonstrate how little most people understand about CSS. Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html * 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] CSS the Linux documentation project
They look at it from a purely visual point, the advantages of css for accessibility will outweigh getting the layout right for 0.01% of the viewing population. One of the comments had me in shock, The important thing to remember here is that the new CCS'ed documents should render well on older browsers...So for example, also include the FONT SIZE, bgcolor and Bold or Italics tags. Also, make sure you don't make make tables on CSS, use HTML markup for heavy layout stuff, because most of the browsers above won't be able to handle it. Someone responsed with a sane post about how this was incorrect. Tim Hill Computer Associates Graphic Artist tel: +612 9937 0792 fax: +612 9937 0546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Adams Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS the Linux documentation project Geeze, if Slashdot is meant to be the domain of supposedly tech-savvy readers, it's scary how many of them know jack-all about Web development. And statements like I'd support standards if any modern browser was compliant ... Sure, they're not compliant, but for styling most of the pages mentioned, (and the personal sites of some of the commenters) I think that a blind monkey could probably make them look better using only the intersection of all CSS rules that *do* work in every modern browser. -- Cameron Adams W: www.themaninblue.com --- Mark Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/03/30/0041253.shtml?tid=106tid=1 26t id=185tid=95 Very interesting - even if just to demonstrate how little most people understand about CSS. Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
