[WSG] RE: Web standards compliant text scroller and it's accessible but...
Peeps, I wrote this text scroller upon request a few weeks ago: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk/accessible_scroller.html It's XHTML strict, standards compliant, accessible and manipulates the DOM via JavaScript. I have a slight problem with IE v5.0. It doesn't recognise the no-wrap property. Consequently what should be on one line is on three. Not good. Now I could insert nobr elements via the DOM but the idea leaves cold. Any other suggestions? mike foskett http://www.webSemantics.co.uk ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] Valid XHTML and Flash
Olajide Olaolorun wrote: I know that some other browsers like Firefox might not work without the embed code, * Olajide Firefox, Mozilla, Opera 7 et al actually support the object tag far better than Internet Explorer for Windows. It's a paradox! This article outlines some of the when's and why's: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/07/02/dive.html HTH James * 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] Smooth fonts with CSS
You mean to Anti-Alias them... Sadly there no way you can do this just thru CSS, you could use Shaun Inmann's Flash Replacement Trick, which scans you code and replaces what you select with Flash http://www.shauninman.com/mentary/past/ifr_revisited_and_revised.php Ive used it on many projects and its great! * 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] Smooth fonts with CSS
hmmm I know just what I can do. I could probaly use a little PHP and GD2 to make it an image instead which would b perfect hmmm/// :) Thanks guys - Original Message - From: Mark Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Smooth fonts with CSS You mean to Anti-Alias them... Sadly there no way you can do this just thru CSS, you could use Shaun Inmann's Flash Replacement Trick, which scans you code and replaces what you select with Flash http://www.shauninman.com/mentary/past/ifr_revisited_and_revised.php Ive used it on many projects and its great! * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Hi folks, Everybody has an opinion on fixed vs flexible layouts. Some people prefer how fixed width sites look, and there is little doubt that they are easier to build. Others hate the whitespace around fixed width designs, thinking they look ridiculous on large monitors. For a site to get a AA accessibility rating, you are supposed to use relative units (%, em) rather than fixed units (px). However the WAI guidelines do say that, if you use fixed units, you must make sure that your site is usable. Personal preferences aside, what accessibility problems to people see with fixed width layouts and what are the scale of these problems. Could the same arguments hold true for elastic layouts (layouts based on ems) and do flexible layouts (those based on %) have their own accessibility issues? Is it acceptable for the vast majority of fixed width CSS based sites to claim AA compliance if all other priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are met? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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] Smooth fonts with CSS
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/ -Original Message- From: Olajide Olaolorun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 July 2004 09:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Smooth fonts with CSS hmmm I know just what I can do. I could probaly use a little PHP and GD2 to make it an image instead which would b perfect hmmm/// :) Thanks guys - Original Message - From: Mark Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Smooth fonts with CSS You mean to Anti-Alias them... Sadly there no way you can do this just thru CSS, you could use Shaun Inmann's Flash Replacement Trick, which scans you code and replaces what you select with Flash http://www.shauninman.com/mentary/past/ifr_revisited_and_revised.php Ive used it on many projects and its great! * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
I have not made a study of the accessibility guidelines in depth, but my guess would be that they are referring to elements that can be resized like text rather than positional elements and that confusion arises because of vagueness like that. Just a thought, probably wrong, but hey. :) -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: 30 July 2004 10:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts Hi folks, Everybody has an opinion on fixed vs flexible layouts. Some people prefer how fixed width sites look, and there is little doubt that they are easier to build. Others hate the whitespace around fixed width designs, thinking they look ridiculous on large monitors. For a site to get a AA accessibility rating, you are supposed to use relative units (%, em) rather than fixed units (px). However the WAI guidelines do say that, if you use fixed units, you must make sure that your site is usable. Personal preferences aside, what accessibility problems to people see with fixed width layouts and what are the scale of these problems. Could the same arguments hold true for elastic layouts (layouts based on ems) and do flexible layouts (those based on %) have their own accessibility issues? Is it acceptable for the vast majority of fixed width CSS based sites to claim AA compliance if all other priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are met? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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 * * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Fixed vs. Liquid. Excellent! I love these arguments. I'm sure we'll see about 300 replies to this that go way off topic in a general Fixed is better! - NO! Liquid is better style. The accessibility concern with fixed (pixel) width layouts that instantly jumps to mind is that if a user with poor eyesight decides to bump up the text size, you're going to find yourself with fewer words per line. If you're not careful, such an action can lead to content being more difficult to read, especially in narrow columns. This is one of the benefits of elastic fixed (em) width layouts - you should maintain the same number of words on a line, no matter what the text size (but then, the larger it gets, the greater the likelihood of dreaded horizontal scroll bars appearing gets). Oh, and then there's the accessibility problems with small-screen devices. If you were to set your content area to 600px wide, for example, some mobile browsers (I'm thinking Pocket PC Windows IE here) will apply that width and you have a scrolling nightmare on screens that will probably be much less than 600px wide. The WCAG are so vague, often with a get out clause of well, if you can't really achieve that then if you vaguely do this to compensate then that's alright kind of thing. It's not that difficult to argue that something is AA for example, because the guidelines give you a lot of flexibility and are open to interpretation. This is why, personally, I don't think WAI standards badges are that useful. Good as guidelines, but not as rules. Patrick Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.com - Original Message - From: Andy Budd For a site to get a AA accessibility rating, you are supposed to use relative units (%, em) rather than fixed units (px). However the WAI guidelines do say that, if you use fixed units, you must make sure that your site is usable. Personal preferences aside, what accessibility problems to people see with fixed width layouts and what are the scale of these problems. Could the same arguments hold true for elastic layouts (layouts based on ems) and do flexible layouts (those based on %) have their own accessibility issues? Is it acceptable for the vast majority of fixed width CSS based sites to claim AA compliance if all other priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are met? * 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] Hacks
Whenever I trawl lists like css-discuss, I'm always surprised about the amount of hack related discussion there is. People are always talking about the holy hack, the underscore hack or the star hack, about IE7, the high pass filter or the mid pass filter. As somebody who is quite experienced with CSS you'd be forgiven for thinking that I'd know about all these hacks. However about the only hack I use (and have ever actually needed) is Taneks old school box model hack, and even this I use sparingly. So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
I'd argue that the best compromise are elastic layouts, where things are positioned and sized in relation to other factors like font size. To say that if we just set our width to 100% or something and rejoice that the site will work in all sizes is misguided; there will always be extremes at both ends of the spectrum (really large desktop sizes, really tiny handheld displays) which will need a complete rethink. As for can I claim AA, I'd say the most pragmatic approach would be - and I know I keep banging on about it, but hear me out once more - to create separate stylesheets, a designery one (with fixed/elastic layout, pastel colours, small-ish font size, all that stuff) and a more accessible one (flexbile layout, higher contrast, slightly large font sizes, etc) and a clear, simple, and obviously accessible mechanism to switch between them. A bit like the if you can't make it accessible, offer an accessible alternative idea (and certainly a lot better than text only versions). And going back to the problem of extremes (ultra large/ultra small displays), I could envisage a few more stylesheets available...lightweight (which could also be set to media=handheld for instance (if any of those little bleeders actually support/understand it), widescreen, tv (again, couple with a media=tv attribute)... (to muddy the waters further, there's also, in my mind, an issue of adapting the content itself to the context; if I'm using a browser on a small mobile phone and access, say, a cinema website, I don't care about the flash intro, the sections about the history of that particular company, etc...I'm just after a quick way to check times when movies are playing; the context is different, my purpose is different, and possibly the site should be different - maybe as a separate domain, or in any case showing a different view into the same data that is more tailored to that specific situation. heck, I'm digressing quite badly here) But yes, my personal opinion, worth about GBP0.02 or less :) Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Andy Budd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 July 2004 10:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts Hi folks, Everybody has an opinion on fixed vs flexible layouts. Some people prefer how fixed width sites look, and there is little doubt that they are easier to build. Others hate the whitespace around fixed width designs, thinking they look ridiculous on large monitors. For a site to get a AA accessibility rating, you are supposed to use relative units (%, em) rather than fixed units (px). However the WAI guidelines do say that, if you use fixed units, you must make sure that your site is usable. Personal preferences aside, what accessibility problems to people see with fixed width layouts and what are the scale of these problems. Could the same arguments hold true for elastic layouts (layouts based on ems) and do flexible layouts (those based on %) have their own accessibility issues? Is it acceptable for the vast majority of fixed width CSS based sites to claim AA compliance if all other priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are met? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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 * * 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] Hacks
The only hack that I think is really necessary is the box model hack. Hacks are over-used, usually to quickly solve a cross-browser problem that can actually be fixed with good, non-hack CSS. This is the goal of web standards after all - one size fits all. Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.com - Original Message - From: Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:19 AM Subject: [WSG] Hacks Whenever I trawl lists like css-discuss, I'm always surprised about the amount of hack related discussion there is. People are always talking about the holy hack, the underscore hack or the star hack, about IE7, the high pass filter or the mid pass filter. As somebody who is quite experienced with CSS you'd be forgiven for thinking that I'd know about all these hacks. However about the only hack I use (and have ever actually needed) is Taneks old school box model hack, and even this I use sparingly. So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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 * * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Well im just swaying away from my gotta keep it fixed way of thinking and slowly getting on with Stretch it like a rubber Johnny as i still dont think a full fluid layout works 100% of the time. But an Elastic one does! As you can still set your width's and if you do everything in EM's images,margins,padding and borders then it should scale up and down very well! the only problem i've seen is with the like of floats and positioning... I've started playing with this (http://www.southtyneside.info/project_area/southtyneside/xhtml/test.asp) yesterday to see if an Elastic design is viable and im pretty much set to move over from Pixel to EM's as it not any harder, just gotta learn the relative size's! The only thing i've found a problem is controling the Text size! Cos as soon as you change the font-size of and element it starts to mess with it width and height too!! * 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] Hacks
Andy Budd said: So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? The most useful CSS 'hacks' I know of are the various filters developed by Tantek Celik. That way, my core style sheets stay hack-free and I can keep browser-specific hacks (like the box model hack) in separate style sheets. It's easier to maintain, and as time goes on and browser support gets better, the hacks become safely redundant. My usual set up is a filter.css that's @import-ed in the page (excluding the geriatric browsers); filter.css then imports the main, hack-free style sheet and uses the mid pass filter to pass an ie5x.css file containing the box model hacks only to IE5/Win. Ingenious! I'm considering the newest filter for IE5/Mac but, since the browser never shows up in my stats, I'm saved another level of hackery. Owen -Original Message- From: Andy Budd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 July 2004 11:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Hacks Whenever I trawl lists like css-discuss, I'm always surprised about the amount of hack related discussion there is. People are always talking about the holy hack, the underscore hack or the star hack, about IE7, the high pass filter or the mid pass filter. As somebody who is quite experienced with CSS you'd be forgiven for thinking that I'd know about all these hacks. However about the only hack I use (and have ever actually needed) is Taneks old school box model hack, and even this I use sparingly. So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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 * __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disclose, copy, distribute or take action on the contents of this information, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee. Any unauthorised use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by email immediately and delete the message from your computer. ECOTEC Research Consulting Limited Registered in England No. 1650169 Registered Office: Priestley House, 28-34 Albert Street, Birmingham, B4 7UD, UK Tel: +44 (0)121 616 3600 http://www.ecotec.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] Hacks
From: Andy Budd [snip] So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? Pretty much hack free here as well. Only thing I may use occasionally is using import to hide things from generation 4 browsers (and occasionally exploiting the flawed handling of single quote @import 'blah.css' statements to hide things from IE5/Mac) Maybe I'm just not pushing the envelope far enough to find myself in situations where hacks are unavoidable... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * 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] Hacks
I never used to use any of the Hacks (Hax 4 those who play CS!) as i could never get around to learning them so in fact i use to just work around them as much as i could. But i do now find myself using the underscore hack alot for IE, but only to give things like min-height values to an element or even to nudge some sizing information a pixel or two down. Hacks are dirty and we should try and avoid them at all costs but sometimes we just need to do it, for the sake of IE mainly Mark Harwood http://phunky.co.uk/2004/ * 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] Hacks
Andy Budd wrote: So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? I try to avoid them. Just this week I had some really good results hack free. I did some testing on Mac IE and came across one of its div layout issues. Which are well known and can be fixed using the div clearing technique, I noticed a javascript function that does a document.write which I quickly added to check and hey presto it fixed the problem. But this was additional markup even if it was added by javascript and I felt that I could get it around it. So I adjusted the footer a bit and put it inside the main div container, since the footer clears:both it corrected the problem and didn't seem to alter the page layout at all. I had the fix and could of left it at that, but I forged on and altered a few things and ended up working around the problem. Its like losing your keys. I am the sort of person who still looks for my missing keys even though I have a spare set ready to go.. I just can seem to forget about it and find them later on, I am not really happy until I've found the missing set... The hack here is the spare set of keys, the solution until I find the missing set.. But I usually can't let it go.. unless I they are well and truly lost. ;) One question I have, Is using a CSS selector that is not support by a certain browser, a hack? Some people think so.. * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Patrick Griffiths wrote: The accessibility concern with fixed (pixel) width layouts that instantly jumps to mind is that if a user with poor eyesight decides to bump up the text size, you're going to find yourself with fewer words per line. If you're not careful, such an action can lead to content being more difficult to read, especially in narrow columns. This is one of the benefits of elastic fixed (em) width layouts - you should maintain the same number of words on a line, no matter what the text size (but then, the larger it gets, the greater the likelihood of dreaded horizontal scroll bars appearing gets). That's my problem with using ems. You maintain the 'words per line' but risk horizontal scrolling. Yet the horizontal scrolling/small screen issue seems to be the main reason why the WAI advocate using relative units instead of absolute units. Oh, and then there's the accessibility problems with small-screen devices. If you were to set your content area to 600px wide, for example, some mobile browsers (I'm thinking Pocket PC Windows IE here) will apply that width and you have a scrolling nightmare on screens that will probably be much less than 600px wide. If you are embedding widths in the HTML this is definitely an issue. However if you are doing it using CSS, these devices should really use 'handheld' stylesheets instead of those intended for 'screen'. I doubt that using a flexible layout would be that much better. Take your typical 3 col layout for instance. Reduced down to a mobile phone sized screen you'd have exactly the same issue as described in your first para. i.e. The text in each col would be so squashed up as to be unreadable. The WCAG are so vague, often with a get out clause of well, if you can't really achieve that then if you vaguely do this to compensate then that's alright kind of thing. It's not that difficult to argue that something is AA for example, because the guidelines give you a lot of flexibility and are open to interpretation. This is why, personally, I don't think WAI standards badges are that useful. Good as guidelines, but not as rules. Agreed. One of the reasons I posted here was because there are a few WCAG members on the list. I'd be interested to hear their rational behind this guideline. It seems to me that whether you use fixed or flexible layouts there will always be accessibility issues at the extreme ends of screen size. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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] Hacks
-Original Message- From: Andy Budd So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? I try to do as little hacking as possible, and subscribe to the minimalist approach. But that is also my downfall, cause I don't have the knowledge of CSS/browser issues most of you guys do, and I probably don't address them as well as most of you do when it comes to fine tuning your CSS. I test my stuff on everything I can, but just get so frustrated that so much of our time and effort is spent supporting user agent shortcomings. So I pose another question, if it was a perfect world and it supported CSS properly, what percentage of your development time would be saved on each project? Geoff * 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] Hacks
Neerav Bhatt wrote: I only use the @import hack for version 4 and older browsers I don't really consider @import a hack. There's no messing around to exploit parsing bugs. Very useful for filtering out the older browsers, though ;) Owen -Original Message- From: Neerav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 July 2004 11:46 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hacks My belief is that hacks cannot be relied upon in 'build-and-forget' one-off websites. I only use the @import hack for version 4 and older browsers -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27 http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disclose, copy, distribute or take action on the contents of this information, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee. Any unauthorised use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by email immediately and delete the message from your computer. ECOTEC Research Consulting Limited Registered in England No. 1650169 Registered Office: Priestley House, 28-34 Albert Street, Birmingham, B4 7UD, UK Tel: +44 (0)121 616 3600 http://www.ecotec.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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Andy Budd wrote: If you are embedding widths in the HTML this is definitely an issue. However if you are doing it using CSS, these devices should really use 'handheld' stylesheets instead of those intended for 'screen'. Indeed they should. Unfortunately, a lot of mobile browsers (such as PPC IE) apply the screen media type. I doubt that using a flexible layout would be that much better. Take your typical 3 col layout for instance. Reduced down to a mobile phone sized screen you'd have exactly the same issue as described in your first para. i.e. The text in each col would be so squashed up as to be unreadable. For some (maybe most) devices, sure, but some screens (especially those on PDA's and PDA-style phones) are wide enough to accommodate multi-column layouts. It depends what you need to do with your design. 3 columns would certainly be pushing it, but two column or (obviously) single column designs would probably usually work better within a fluid design. Like I say, it comes down to what you're trying to do with the page. Dog Boy Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.com - Original Message - From: Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts Patrick Griffiths wrote: The accessibility concern with fixed (pixel) width layouts that instantly jumps to mind is that if a user with poor eyesight decides to bump up the text size, you're going to find yourself with fewer words per line. If you're not careful, such an action can lead to content being more difficult to read, especially in narrow columns. This is one of the benefits of elastic fixed (em) width layouts - you should maintain the same number of words on a line, no matter what the text size (but then, the larger it gets, the greater the likelihood of dreaded horizontal scroll bars appearing gets). That's my problem with using ems. You maintain the 'words per line' but risk horizontal scrolling. Yet the horizontal scrolling/small screen issue seems to be the main reason why the WAI advocate using relative units instead of absolute units. Oh, and then there's the accessibility problems with small-screen devices. If you were to set your content area to 600px wide, for example, some mobile browsers (I'm thinking Pocket PC Windows IE here) will apply that width and you have a scrolling nightmare on screens that will probably be much less than 600px wide. If you are embedding widths in the HTML this is definitely an issue. However if you are doing it using CSS, these devices should really use 'handheld' stylesheets instead of those intended for 'screen'. I doubt that using a flexible layout would be that much better. Take your typical 3 col layout for instance. Reduced down to a mobile phone sized screen you'd have exactly the same issue as described in your first para. i.e. The text in each col would be so squashed up as to be unreadable. The WCAG are so vague, often with a get out clause of well, if you can't really achieve that then if you vaguely do this to compensate then that's alright kind of thing. It's not that difficult to argue that something is AA for example, because the guidelines give you a lot of flexibility and are open to interpretation. This is why, personally, I don't think WAI standards badges are that useful. Good as guidelines, but not as rules. Agreed. One of the reasons I posted here was because there are a few WCAG members on the list. I'd be interested to hear their rational behind this guideline. It seems to me that whether you use fixed or flexible layouts there will always be accessibility issues at the extreme ends of screen size. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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 * * 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] Hacks
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:55 , Geoff Deering So I pose another question, if it was a perfect world and it supported CSS properly, what percentage of your development time would be saved on each project? Very little now, as i've developed a standard for all my sites, which you can tell via the markup. But it would have saved me huge amount during the rather large learning curve that i started with. * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
-Original Message- From: Andy Budd For a site to get a AA accessibility rating, you are supposed to use relative units (%, em) rather than fixed units (px). However the WAI guidelines do say that, if you use fixed units, you must make sure that your site is usable. The absolute irony here is that pixels (px) are classified as relative units. I know, I can never get my head around this one either, but it's great news for those of us trying to get good layouts and address accessibility. see http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-css2-19980128/syndata.html#h-4.3 http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/units.html http://www.juicystudio.com/tutorial/css/units.asp Zeldman addresses this on p316 of DWWS. So if you use em and px for the right elements, following the likes of Eric Meyers and Russ's collection of Liquid designs you fullfil that part of WCAG-AA no problems. The WAI purists would say an all em site is better, but that is just not realistic in todays world. Is it acceptable for the vast majority of fixed width CSS based sites to claim AA compliance if all other priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are met? If they have done that much work to get to almost AA, then it seems that designing with both em and px should not be too much of a further step to take. - Geoff Deering * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Geoff Deering wrote: The absolute irony here is that pixels (px) are classified as relative units. I know, I can never get my head around this one either, but it's great news for those of us trying to get good layouts and address accessibility. A pixel is relative because it can be any physical size - it can be one millimetre wide or one inch wide, for example. That's not particularly helpful for a web designer though. It *is* absolute in relation to the screen size, which is kind of a contradiction, but a much more useful way to think about it. I'm quite sure that when the WCAG authors say absolute units they are talking about pixels. If my memory serves me correctly, they more or less say this. Again, it's open to interpretation, but we all know what they're getting at, really. The WAI purists would say an all em site is better, but that is just not realistic in todays world. Sure it's realistic. It's one of many options and some people have opted for ems and successfully built elastic pages. Fido Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
To Fix or not to Fix, dang we're back in Shakespeare's time with To Be or Not To Be, that is the question. Let's start with the easy stuff ... fonts. If you use font-size: percentage, then your layer or table layout widths should be in percentages. If you use font-size: em, then your layer or table layout widths should be in em's. But, do you know what they both do? Interestingly enough, they take the default font size set in the browser and use it as a basis. If the font-family is a sans-serif and the user set the browser to 10pt then 100% would be equal in size to 10pt. If the you used em's, then the 1em would be equal in size to the 10pt. This allows the visitor the ability to declare their own font sizes without the use of programming a stylesheet ... effectively they are with setting defaults in their browser. So, if I come in and say that I want me font-size to be 1em or 100% then my font size is relative to the browser's default. Now, coming in and using the width attribute with fixed values will obviously cause your width to maintain a fixed value. This is unfriendly to the users of screens smaller than the values you set. It also doesn't always look professional on larger screens - in some people's opinions. By applying percentages you end up running the problem with the presentation causing drip effects in font presentations once the font-size gets too large. The drip effect is when the words start dripping off the line and eventually it will start dripping more quickly so as to make the words drip their letters as well. (Yes, I coined the term drip effect). The only truly scalable width is the em. As you increase the default font-size, the width increases as well. For example, if my default sans-serif is 10pt and I change that to 72pt, then 1em becomes equal to 72pt. If my mobile device uses a font-size of 6pt then 1em is equal to 6pt. But, please don't try to use 6pt on a regular computer. The problem with using scalable widths is people tend to not use them correctly. They'll use a scalable width such as 100% for the width and then turn around and use px or pt for their font-size. I've done it many times ... shame on me. But, now you know how to use scalable widths ... you have to use them with scalable font-sizes. So, I guess your next question would be how many em's would I need to use to make my presentation fill the screen without scrolling right? That is a good question and one I can't answer. In fact, you couldn't answer it either even if you guessed. The reason you can't is because of the visitor. Each visitor can set their own font-size values in their browser. And, since the em is based upon the font-size selected by the visitor, we have no control. My best advice is to tinker until you are happy with the default presentation. But, remember, you will make someone scroll right eventually. For example, if the 800x600 only hold 75em's wide and you decrease the screen resolution to less than that the user will have to scroll. But, still the em is the only truly scalable width. The purpose of having scalable widths is to help prevent the drip effect. I hope this helps. Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.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] Hacks
I often find myself in need of the Holly Hack for one reason or another. That's about the only one I will use. I tend to stay away from the Tantek hack if possible by not using border and padding together on divs. Like many others who have replied to this thread, I try to not use hacks as much as possible. However, sometimes, it is inevitable for a particular layout you are trying to achieve. Will Chatham oOo www.willchatham.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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
From: Geoff Deering [snip] If you are designing for handheld you should be considering display:none for the none content columns, header and footer and just be using the link element for prev, next, etc. Some sort of minimalist approach may be more appropriate for that media. actually, I'd go even further than that and say that this is a case in which we may need completely different sites (or entry points to the same information) depending on user preference - using something like XSLT, or in any case some hefty-ish server-side system. Then, you could serve targetted content for those who wish to have a minimalist view, or more media rich version for those who want it. before anybody jumps up and down and scream bloody murder: i'm not talking about browser sniffing, but about having two or more version of the site (ideally all powered by the same content) to allow modal access to information. yes, you can just display:none, but particularly considering handhelds, mobile phones, etc, you're still sending the data, wasting bandwidth, in an environment where it may well be a scarce commodity (and/or expensive... imagine being charged by the kilobyte or something) just thoughts, P Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * 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] Hacks
Chris Blown wrote: Its like losing your keys. I am the sort of person who still looks for my missing keys even though I have a spare set ready to go.. I just can seem to forget about it and find them later on, I am not really happy until I've found the missing set... The hack here is the spare set of keys, the solution until I find the missing set.. But I usually can't let it go.. unless I they are well and truly lost. ;) I couldn't agree more. I think it's often the case of treating the symptoms rather than looking for the cause. If my CSS doesn't quite 'work' in a particular browser I tend to spend time finding out why and then coming up with an alternate method that will work. A lot of people seem to throw a hack at the problem in an almost knee jerk reaction. Personally I'm yet to come across a CSS issue (touch wood) that couldn't be fixed by taking a different approach. Of course this often involves changing the mark-up which some people would take issue with. One question I have, Is using a CSS selector that is not support by a certain browser, a hack? Some people think so.. Absolutely not. That's the beauty of CSS. Graceful degradation. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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] Hacks
Andy Budd wrote: So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place? I'm like you... box model, and even that, rarely. I KNOW some things on my site don't work 100% on IE. But, it still works, and degrades gracefully- just don't have the same broder, or is not perfectly lined up Everywhere I go on the forums, I'm ranting something about IE and promoting firefox... enough so that my stats are now reaching close to 25% of my userbase has made the move to firefox, and ie is dropping below 60% Soon enough, i think i will be able to say the opposite. * 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: Re: [WSG] Hacks
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Hacks
We've got a site going live next tuesday, or possibly wednesday if copy doesn't get approved. This site we have been working on for a massive 4 days, including intergration with reasonably complex .net backend, and several flash components. Out of some 25 pages there are maybe 9 unique templates and it has to look virtually the same on ie5+win ie5mac gecko1.4+ and safari 1.0 + (and though not required we are also testing on opera7.2) Did we use some hacks... hell yes maybe we aren't very good but to turn this site around we couldn't take the time to finesse everything, if a browser was behaving oddly we fixed that specific quirk, with a hack if necessary... and we imported a separate style sheet for each ie5. Normally I would say avoid using hacks by taking time to build the css properly, but sometimes one does not have that luxury. Plus I would most certainly prefer to put a hack in a css file than to add extra html. What do people feel about that? Is it better to have any mess in the css file, or in every html file? Hacks are also a great stepping stone for a learner, if used properly. Let a learner concentrate on one thing at a time if they need to and let perfection come with experience. On a well developed project most hacks can be avoided, but with any complex layout there is always the chance that some issue will call for desparate measures, especially after you have already had several rounds of client changes. Yes hacks are probably an evil, but in the real world they are probably a necessary evil, or at least that is what I think s Andy Budd wrote: Chris Blown wrote: Its like losing your keys. I am the sort of person who still looks for my missing keys even though I have a spare set ready to go.. I just can seem to forget about it and find them later on, I am not really happy until I've found the missing set... The hack here is the spare set of keys, the solution until I find the missing set.. But I usually can't let it go.. unless I they are well and truly lost. ;) I couldn't agree more. I think it's often the case of treating the symptoms rather than looking for the cause. If my CSS doesn't quite 'work' in a particular browser I tend to spend time finding out why and then coming up with an alternate method that will work. A lot of people seem to throw a hack at the problem in an almost knee jerk reaction. Personally I'm yet to come across a CSS issue (touch wood) that couldn't be fixed by taking a different approach. Of course this often involves changing the mark-up which some people would take issue with. One question I have, Is using a CSS selector that is not support by a certain browser, a hack? Some people think so.. Absolutely not. That's the beauty of CSS. Graceful degradation. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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 * * 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: Re: [WSG] Hacks
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Hacks
Just to pipe in on one small detail I noticed (not just in this message, but I'll piggy back onto it here) Normally I would say avoid using hacks by taking time to build the css properly, It's often not just the CSS that needs to be changed to work properly, but it's a case of revisiting the markup, maybe re-arranging things ever so slightly, being a bit more specific, adding a few hooks here in there (without affecting the semantics/structure...this could mean using DIVs and SPANs within reason, or doing changes like liblah/li to lipblah/p/li just so that you have an extra container/block level element to work with) If the (X)HTML is rubbish/convoluted to begin with, it's then a nightmare to style consistently. Although in theory CSS should be able to do everything, it's often a case of producing markup that is conducive to the particular styling you're trying to achieve. No, not advocating the practice of swamping everything with DIVs and SPANs, but there are certainly many different ways to mark something up in a semantically sound way, and often only one of those ways lends itself to being styled a particular way. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * 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: RE: [WSG] Hacks
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Hacks
G'day As others have said, there's usually a way to avoid using hacks. I try to steer clear of them. I do (these days) import style sheets to hide them from V4 browsers - a beneficial side-effect of using a perfectly acceptable method of adding CSS to an (x)html file. Using conditional statements to get MSIE to load another css file is handy too. To me neither of the two above are really hacks. I use these occasionally (mainly for MSIE's lack of support for position:fixed) but that's about as far as I will go. I won't use hacks that use backslashes, rules hidden in comments etc, because they rely on bugs. What happens if the parsing bug that the hack relies on is fixed but the rendering bug that made the hack necessary remains? Is it such a big deal if a site doesn't look 100% the same in a few browsers? The site in my sig may suffer from it - seems OK in Firefox, Opera 7.5 and MSIE6, but might have some problems in MSIE5.x and certainly will look different in MSIE/NN4. No idea about Safari but I'm guessing it's OK. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.bwdzine.com Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** Scanned by eScan Anti-Virus and Content Security Software. Visit http://www.mwti.net for more info on eScan and MailScan. ** * 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: Re: [WSG] Some light reading
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Smooth fonts with CSS
Yeah I know... it just that it is flash and I don't want to mess with that yet until I get my head right to learn it I would use it if they had the source code ready but it means that I have to be doing it myself and I don't want to do that until I'm ready to go head on with flash - Original Message - From: Mark Harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 5:39 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Smooth fonts with CSS Well you could do that, but thats not doing what you asked... You wanted to smooth your text! and with the FIR that what it basicly does, it does not replace the Markup in the Source, it does not replace it with a image, the text is still selectable and even can be edited via css (color,font,font-size) but if you wish to go down the creating loads of images route then so be it... but FIR is quick, simple and effortless... * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 * 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: Re: [WSG] Smooth fonts with CSS
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
Wow. Cool. Awesome!
Okay, okay, I am excited about something that others may find trivial.
But, I am a newbie to CSS XHTML and just finished my first site
using both (http://www.theinnatsilverlake.com/).
Now I came across a site today that wowed me. I found it on Andy
Budd's list. The site that I am referring to is
http://www.firewheeldesign.com/portfolio/shiningcity1.html
To me this site rules. The header, footer, and all common content stay
on the site without refreshing the whole page when going to a new page
(like frames work). This is something I would love to add to my
arsenal without having to use frames or iFrames (they're a mess). It
appears to me the designer is doing this with CSS (I could be wrong).
Is this so and, if so, how? I do notice this in the code source for
the page:
div class=SwitchBox and in the CSS.
Thank you for your time!
Shane Helm
{ sonzeDesignStudio
*
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] speaking of hacks
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Lee Roberts wrote: The purpose of variable width or elastic designs is to help people by allowing them to increase their font size without destroying the design. I think the better statement of purpose is to allow the users' choices of font sizes to work with the designs. Your statement implies that sites are purposefully designed such that users should need to zoom on sites. Users shouldn't routinely need zoom. The exceptional eyesight of the average web page designer compared to the population in general is what makes a browser zoom feature necessary. -- If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;Proverbs 9:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * 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: Re: [WSG] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
Hi Shane
It looks to me like a simple, clean page that loads fast because the graphics are
cached.
Now that you've worked with some css, you should consider creating an alternate
version of your silverlake site without the flash. The download times for your site
are painful, 43.33 seconds with a 56k modem for this
page:http://www.theinnatsilverlake.com/residences.html and 41.44 on the home page. I
bet you could get a similar page with a download of 15 seconds or less with css.
Use the son of suckerfish brethren for your dropdown menu.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: Shane Helm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
Wow. Cool. Awesome!
Okay, okay, I am excited about something that others may find trivial.
But, I am a newbie to CSS XHTML and just finished my first site
using both (http://www.theinnatsilverlake.com/).
Now I came across a site today that wowed me. I found it on Andy
Budd's list. The site that I am referring to is
http://www.firewheeldesign.com/portfolio/shiningcity1.html
To me this site rules. The header, footer, and all common content stay
on the site without refreshing the whole page when going to a new page
(like frames work). This is something I would love to add to my
arsenal without having to use frames or iFrames (they're a mess). It
appears to me the designer is doing this with CSS (I could be wrong).
Is this so and, if so, how? I do notice this in the code source for
the page:
div class=SwitchBox and in the CSS.
Thank you for your time!
Shane Helm
{ sonzeDesignStudio
*
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: RE: [WSG] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Users shouldn't need zoom, but the problem is graphic designers think 9px font sizes should be the standard. I'm afraid even I can't read that. So, until we get rid of graphic designers who believe concepts such as small font sizes is best we will continue to have the problems. No, IE doesn't allow you to increase or decrease font size when the designer uses px, pc, or pt. So, zoom is required. IE also does not support multiple choice for style sheets. So, the option of allow ing the user to select a font-size isn't always acceptable. However, if you are using the DOM you can help visitors by offering varying style sheets based upon a selection within the code of the page. I think there is an article about this on A List Apart. Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.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: RE: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] SerioNav
Hi, Any tutorials on creating the type of navigation found at this URL: http://www.seriocomic.com/rhetoric/ C * 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] SerioNav
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Ikon, where are you?
Is there anything we can do to keep the ikon messages contained for the next 2 weeks? He may be on a holiday, but he'll wish he wasn't when he gets back after two weeks of these responses. If nothing else, I think we should spread some gossip like he uses the blink tag or something like that. Ted -Original Message- From: ikon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] SerioNav
Hi, Any idea where I can find a tutorial for creating the navigation found @ seriocomic.com? C * 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] Ikon, where are you?
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] SerioNav
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] Ikon, where are you?
Here, here! I second Ted. It's getting very annoying! I can't stand it until August 14th. Shane On Jul 30, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Ted Drake wrote: Is there anything we can do to keep the ikon messages contained for the next 2 weeks? He may be on a holiday, but he'll wish he wasn't when he gets back after two weeks of these responses. If nothing else, I think we should spread some gossip like he uses the blink tag or something like that. Ted -Original Message- From: ikon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * ÿÿÿý8^v+ ºË¢yb²×è®m§ÿÿÁæ쵩Ýj·lº .§ú+ôzm§ÿÿÁæ쵩Ýj·lº.§ú+ù_àº'^)Þ³÷ ú+²)í²é¢Ëb h¶¥Ëÿëm x!zZ * 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] SerioNav
Hi, Any idea where I can find a tutorial for creating the navigation found at seriocomic.com ? C * 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] Ikon, where are you?
I simply set up a filter for his messages - I'll take the filter back off after 14 August. Leslie Ted Drake wrote: Is there anything we can do to keep the ikon messages contained for the next 2 weeks? He may be on a holiday, but he'll wish he wasn't when he gets back after two weeks of these responses. If nothing else, I think we should spread some gossip like he uses the blink tag or something like that. Ted -Original Message- From: ikon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net (This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply send another back - Thanks) * 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] SerioNav
I know he has a tutorial for his sidebar - http://www.seriocomic.com/rhetoric/posts/2004/04/27/the-one-about-the-collapsable-sidebar/ - but I'm not sure about the main navigation. Nikita http://kitta.net Wasabi wrote: Hi, Any idea where I can find a tutorial for creating the navigation found @ seriocomic.com? C * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
-Original Message- From: Patrick Lauke From: Geoff Deering [snip] If you are designing for handheld you should be considering display:none for the none content columns, header and footer and just be using the link element for prev, next, etc. Some sort of minimalist approach may be more appropriate for that media. actually, I'd go even further than that and say that this is a case in which we may need completely different sites (or entry points to the same information) depending on user preference - using something like XSLT, or in any case some hefty-ish server-side system. Then, you could serve targetted content for those who wish to have a minimalist view, or more media rich version for those who want it. I completely agree with that, I think it is rare that the same content fits both types of media. This is also why I am trying to move to server side XML based solutions like Cocoon / Axkit / Forrest, and use TCN for delivery of content. It may be an overkill for some sites, and doesn't fit all situations, but it seems the most encapsulating type of solution for some sites where you need to address these issues. before anybody jumps up and down and scream bloody murder: i'm not talking about browser sniffing, but about having two or more version of the site (ideally all powered by the same content) to allow modal access to information. This is what Cocoon is meant to address, or using TCN (Transparent Content Negotiation) intelligently from the server side (I know TCN is not perfect.. thanks to user agents identifying themselves as someone else). yes, you can just display:none, but particularly considering handhelds, mobile phones, etc, you're still sending the data, wasting bandwidth, in an environment where it may well be a scarce commodity (and/or expensive... imagine being charged by the kilobyte or something) I agree. I'd get frustrated with anyone trying to ram unnessary content to me via a handheld. Geoff * 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] SerioNav[Pardon the Double Post]
Hi, Thanks for the link, sorry for the double-post, my ISP is returning and send messages at the same time. Time for a change. C On Friday, July 30, 2004, at 01:57 PM, Nikita Kashner wrote: I know he has a tutorial for his sidebar - http://www.seriocomic.com/rhetoric/posts/2004/04/27/the-one-about-the- collapsable-sidebar/ - but I'm not sure about the main navigation. Nikita http://kitta.net Wasabi wrote: Hi, Any idea where I can find a tutorial for creating the navigation found @ seriocomic.com? C * 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 * * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
-Original Message- From: Andy Budd Sent: Saturday, 31 July 2004 2:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts Some very interesting discussion point here. I think the topic of fixed vs flexible layouts tends to cover a number of areas. - Accessibility - Usability - Device Independence - Personal Preference - User Control These principles are pretty well executed in desktop GUIs. The developer really does not have to do anything other than follow the SDK and APIs and the application should deploy correctly addressing these requirements, because there features are in the domain of the operating system to manage the application correctly. There are some things the application developer has to do, they have to work with the GetSystemMetrics() information and display according to that, that is mainly working with the resolution the software is running under, and other user preferences. These are the same principles that have been used to develop WCAG. Unfortunately the developers of user agents have either in their ignorance, or by choice, or the need to be quick to market, ignored many of the principles and standards required to build user agents correctly. Some of it is just poor software architecture. If feel there is constant need to expose the short comings in user agents, much like WASP did a few years back. There is a need to keep doing this, because, if we don't, it only makes web developers work more and more difficult, and user agents companies just become complacent. WCAG is not meant to make it hard for developers, it is really meant to try and help everyone, the user and the developer (ideal world again). The W3C people in this area do try and work with the user agent developers, but because they are W3C sponsors they cannot openly critise them. I have done so in shere frustration on those lists and I have been asked to refrain from open critisism on that forum. And I think that request is appropriate, it is not the place to express those things. But developer forums are. It would be great to see some kind of wiki set up so that developers could put data into a public forum addressing user agent compliance with standards, see; http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/eval http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/index.php?option=Test%20Suites http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/index.php?option=Evaluations http://www.maccessibility.com/archive/000595.php If anyone thinks such a site to lobby all the user agent developers would be a good idea, please contact me off list. Also, if you think it is not a good idea, I'd also appreciate such informed feedback. Many people quite understandably end up mixing these issues together. For instance, if you create a fixed width layout and then reduce the browser so that the viewport is smaller than the layout width, you are going to get scroll bars. The same thing happens if you create an elastic layout and up the font size too much. However surely these are more usability issues than accessibility issues. People often bring up the question of mobile phones and PDA's but where does accessibility end and platform independence begin? Many mobile developers would argue that you should be developing specially for mobile devices as the needs of the users and limitations of the medium are very different to that of computer screens. While it's an idealistic goal, it's probably unrealistic to develop once then deploy across all internet enabled devices. Personal preference is a bit of a red herring. It seems that as many people like fixed width layouts as they dislike them. Pretty much all these areas have been covered here, and elsewhere, yet I'm still left feeling that we've not had a definitive reason why fixed layouts are bad for *accessibility*, only personal opinion. Probably because accessibility is a subjective concept that, at certain times, can include all the other areas I've mentioned. This is a fundemental HCI principle that is applied well in the major operating systems. If you read any of the following you will begin to see how these common threads type HCI principles together, and why this is also important on the web and for user agents to comply with these parameters in handling instructions, so that web developers can better support usability and accessibility in their designs. http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/AppleSWDesign/HID esign/chapter_3_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP3353 http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/AppleSWDesign/ind ex.html?http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/AppleSWDe sign/HIDesign/chapter_3_section_3.html http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vsent7/html /vxconAccessibilityDesignGuidelines.asp http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/ http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/draft_hig_new/
Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Geoff Deering wrote: I'm quite sure that when the WCAG authors say absolute units they are talking about pixels. If my memory serves me correctly, they more or less say this. Again, it's open to interpretation, but we all know what they're getting at, really. No, that is not correct, WCAG directly references the HTML and CSS specifications and does not have their own differing interruptation of any of the specifications. Okay, well I took a quick look and there is no direct reference to pixels. It is quite clear that the gist is to use ems or percentages however. In http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units for example: ...you may position an image to be offset by 3em from the top of its containing element. This is a fixed distance, but is relative to the current font size, so it scales nicely. It works for simple layouts, but I don't think it works for complex layouts across multiple users agents. If it does, can you please show me an example. http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/063/063.css I don't see what the big deal is. You can just take a pixel-laden layout and replace values with suitable ems values. Why isn't this realistic? Mutley Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
- Original Message - From: Patrick Griffiths [snip] I don't see what the big deal is. You can just take a pixel-laden layout and replace values with suitable ems values. Why isn't this realistic? until we have fully supported scalable vectors, images will either not resize (changing the font size on the zengarden example, you end up with illegible chopped off text) or look crud when attempting ad-hoc i'll use ems instead of pixels for width/height methods. Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively. [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] http://www.splintered.co.uk | http://www.photographia.co.uk | http://redux.deviantart.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] Tabindex tags not necessary here?
It's not difficult to test... just try navigating your site/filling out your form and see what happens. For a site that really needs to set the tabindex, check out the new Australian white pages redesign... http://www.whitepages.com.au - try searching for a phone number using only the keyboard. Ick. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:59:48 +0200, John Britsios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question: Doesn't my web site pages here http://www.webnauts.net have a logical navigation structure, therefore I do need to use the Tabindex tags? * 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] SerioNav
Maybe you mean Nice Titles. link: http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/nicetitle/ ciao, Z · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Z u l e m a O r t i z W e b D e s i g n e r email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] website : http://zoblue.com/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Nikita Kashner wrote: I know he has a tutorial for his sidebar - http://www.seriocomic.com/rhetoric/posts/2004/04/27/the-one-about-the-collapsable-sidebar/ - but I'm not sure about the main navigation. Nikita http://kitta.net Wasabi wrote: Hi, Any idea where I can find a tutorial for creating the navigation found @ seriocomic.com? C * 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] The appearance of Frames without Frames, only CSS
On 7/30/04 11:11 AM ikon [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible on my return the following day. Thank you for your understanding. Jay Hills - Ikonik.net Would somebody uns*bscribe this person? I am tired of all the vacation messages. Rick Faaberg * 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] Ikon, where are you?
quote And before anyone gets too harsh, think how you'd like to be treated when you accidently commit the same sin. Thanks, Ben WSG Core/quote Personally, I'd hope someone reamed me a new one for being so ignorant so that I would learn - not all lists or people are as forgiving of the stupidity of others. It is NOT hard at all to do as you said, unsubscribe or simply set up a filter - better yet, DON'T EVEN USE AUTO-REPLY. Just my two cents on the matter :-/ Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. -Original Message- From: Ben Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Ikon, where are you? Hi Ted, This reply is recognition of your post, though the message is for all list members: Yes, Out of Office are annoying. This one particularly, as the automated response was sending back to the list. Usually they're set to reply to the original poster. The ever vigilant Core group keep an ever watchful eye for OoO replies, quickly unsubscribing offenders and emailing explanations with directions for signing back up. What can list members do to help? At least two things: 1. Patience. Please do not speed the growing annoyance by venting to the list. The offender will be removed at the first available opportunity. (We try not to let friends, family or fine drinking get in the way of keeping this list in check.) 2. Virtue. If you're going to be out of the office, be it for a holiday, work junket or major surgery, please do not boast to the list. Either set some sort of tricky filter in your email client, or simply unsubscribe from the list for the duration. And before anyone gets too harsh, think how you'd like to be treated when you accidently commit the same sin. Thanks, Ben WSG Core * 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] Fixed vs flexible layouts
-Original Message- From: Patrick Griffiths Geoff Deering wrote: I'm quite sure that when the WCAG authors say absolute units they are talking about pixels. If my memory serves me correctly, they more or less say this. Again, it's open to interpretation, but we all know what they're getting at, really. No, that is not correct, WCAG directly references the HTML and CSS specifications and does not have their own differing interruptation of any of the specifications. Okay, well I took a quick look and there is no direct reference to pixels. It is quite clear that the gist is to use ems or percentages however. In http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units for example: ...you may position an image to be offset by 3em from the top of its containing element. This is a fixed distance, but is relative to the current font size, so it scales nicely. The WCAG1 references the CSS2 specifications on this, which includes pixels as relative units, but it is true that the emphasis is on em as it is the more prefered relative unit for usability and accessibility. It works for simple layouts, but I don't think it works for complex layouts across multiple users agents. If it does, can you please show me an example. http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/063/063.css I don't see what the big deal is. You can just take a pixel-laden layout and replace values with suitable ems values. Why isn't this realistic? Mutley I would not put CSSZenGarden in this category. What I mean by more complex layouts are multi column multi box designs, complex forms within columns, etc. It's not that it is not doable, but if you are trying to compete with the designs houses that use quirks mode and hacks across multiple user agents, maybe it's a bit difficult. If it was an easy solution to address, then why is there so much discussion on lists like this trying to find solutions? I'm not up to date with all the CSS browser design issues at all. I haven't been doing a lot of CSS the last few years, so I'm here to learn. But I'm also curious to find out how developers are dealing with these problems. --- Geoff Deering * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
