[WSG] Targeting Mac IE5.1 on OSX
Hi [WSG], I'm wondering if anybody can help. I'm having real problems positioning an element absolutely on Mac IE 5. It works fine in IE 5.23 on Mac OSX but is out on IE 5.1 on OS9. Does anybody know a way of targeting IE 5.1 on OS9 without effecting IE 5.23 on OSx? Thanks in advance, joe ** 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] Targeting Mac IE5.1 on OSX
you can use IE's conditional comments, which let you target specific versions of IE: http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp regards kemie Joe Leech wrote: Hi [WSG], I'm wondering if anybody can help. I'm having real problems positioning an element absolutely on Mac IE 5. It works fine in IE 5.23 on Mac OSX but is out on IE 5.1 on OS9. Does anybody know a way of targeting IE 5.1 on OS9 without effecting IE 5.23 on OSx? Thanks in advance, joe ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- ...:| kemie |:... .:| www.monolinea.com http://www.monolinea.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] Targeting Mac IE5.1 on OSX
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:27:46 +0100, kemie guaida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you can use IE's conditional comments, which let you target specific versions of IE: Unfortunately, conditional comments are Windows only :( -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.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] Targeting Mac IE5.1 on OSX
I can't find the exact webpage, but it is possible to arget IE on
Mac...like this...it's an odd hack that does work...
.innerbox {
/* commented backslash for IE5-Mac \*/
background: url(../imgs/bg-menu-test.png) repeat !important;
/* end hack */
background: #666;
height: 36px;
padding: 6px 0 0 51px;
}
What I'm doing in this example is using a PNG background for modern
browsers and then for:
IE/Mac it ignores the background item and goes to the background color
option instead
IE/PC it ignores the !important line and uses the background color
option...
No need for conditional statements...v
**
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] Targeting Mac IE5.1 on OSX
Vaska.WSG wrote:
I can't find the exact webpage, but it is possible to arget IE on
Mac...like this...it's an odd hack that does work...
.innerbox {
/* commented backslash for IE5-Mac \*/
background: url(../imgs/bg-menu-test.png) repeat !important;
/* end hack */
background: #666;
height: 36px;
padding: 6px 0 0 51px;
}
Thanks Vaska, but I am using that hack already, But I need to target
version 5.1 (OS9 ) separately from version 5.23 (OSX) as they seem to
have slightly different behaviors with regard to relative/absolute
positioning.
joe
**
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] Project: New
I dont know if Kevin Leitch is part of this list, so I thought I would post this on here for him. http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/projectnew/index.php Basically Kevin Leitch has started something called Project: New. The goal is a syllabus of material aimed at the new web designer or the web designer new to working with web standards. The course will start at a very basic level and progress through the whole design process. I thought that it should be posted on the WSG list since it is going to be encouraging new designers to be thinking in the New way. Kevin knows what he is doing, and I am sure that this will become a great resource. Link to it from your websites if you can; Just think, wouldnt it be nice that when some kid searches for how to design websites on Google, that this would come back instead of a DHTML Tutorial that will teach them bad habits and bad practice. Yes, link link link! http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/projectnew/index.php Regards, Phil Baines Netring media and technology website: www.netring.co.uk telephone: 01239 711 471 my weblog: www.wubbleyew.com/blog The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us immediately. Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
[WSG] Pages reloading
Title: Message I am not sure if this is on topic or not but I have to issue a cry for help. There are a series of pages I am working on that have different floor plans that you can click on and you get a different floor plan image (http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/room_208.php ). The client is telling me that the pages 'flick' when they click on the link for each new floor plan as if it was loading a new page, but sometimes it seems very fluid and doesn't 'flick'. So I guess my question is ( if it's not shot down by a mod) is: 1) is there any better way to get around this problem then I am doing to make it more consistently fluid in it's reloading? 2) how do I tell my client that this is how it is ? thanks for any help, Paul
Re: [WSG] Pages reloading
It is reloading, so what's the problem? It depends on the line speed and cache how fast it will load the new page. So it may flicker sometimes, sometimes not. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: alphanumeric.cz | janbrasna.com Stop IE! - http://www.stopie.com/ | http://browsehappy.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] Pages reloading
Paul wrote: 1) is there any better way to get around this problem then I am doing to make it more consistently fluid in it's reloading? First of all, why do you have #anchor appended to each link? There's no real need for it, from what I can see. You *could* provide an additional bit of javascript which attaches to the links' onclick behaviour and simply loads the two new images and replaces the ones currently on the page. However, don't throw the baby out with the bath: keep the functionality as it stands, so that if js is unavailable/disabled, the pages still work. 2) how do I tell my client that this is how it is ? Tell them how much more it's going to cost if they want it any other way? :-p -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | 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] Pages reloading
I'm looking at the pages with a T-1 line and they are still flickering. I think you have an issue with it re-building the structure of the page. Are you doing something unusual with the watermark double text? Are you using a table to get the zebra effect? Are you using sifr flash replacement somewhere? I'm interested in seeing the solution. Ted -Original Message- From: Jan Brasna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 8:29 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Pages reloading It is reloading, so what's the problem? It depends on the line speed and cache how fast it will load the new page. So it may flicker sometimes, sometimes not. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: alphanumeric.cz | janbrasna.com Stop IE! - http://www.stopie.com/ | http://browsehappy.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] Pages reloading
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:29:14 +0100, Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is reloading, so what's the problem? It depends on the line speed and cache how fast it will load the new page. So it may flicker sometimes, sometimes not. True. You can't do much about it. If your client can't stand it, tell him to switch to Firefox or Opera, which don't flicker (...that much). -- regards, Kornel Lesiski http://browsehappy.pl ** 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] Print Preview Image Discrepancy
Hello WSG: I wrote a separate print.css for this page: http://www.watchhilldesign.com/92/ so I could turn off items that aren't needed in the printout, etc. And I'm using a smaller image for the printout as well (using a background for a div). All looks good in the print preview, but when I actually print, the image is very small. Also, is there a way around having to tell the browser to print background images and still use a background image? Sounds like a silly question when I put it that way, but I was trying to avoide using an img tag. Is there technique for this? TIA! - Robert ** 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] Pages reloading
At 08:18 AM 2/14/2005, Paul wrote:
I am not sure if this is on topic or not but I have to issue a cry for
help. There are a series of pages I am working on that have different
floor plans that you can click on and you get a different floor plan image
(
http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/room_208.phphttp://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/room_208.php
). The client is telling me that the pages 'flick' when they click on the
link for each new floor plan as if it was loading a new page, but
sometimes it seems very fluid and doesn't 'flick'. So I guess my question
is ( if it's not shot down by a mod) is:
1) is there any better way to get around this problem then I am doing to
make it more consistently fluid in it's reloading?
2) how do I tell my client that this is how it is ?
Paul,
Some amount of flicker is probably unavoidable when downloading new
images. Once an image has been downloaded to the client it's usually
cached and therefore won't flicker a second time.
You can avoid all flicker, if that's really important, by downloading all
the images to begin with and then merely toggling between them when the
user clicks on a link. This generally requires using client-side scripting
such as JavaScript.
It's important to make your page work even when JavaScript isn't supported,
so you can keep the page-reload technique your current system and merely
add a layer of JavaScript on top that will switch between images when the
floorplan thumbnails are clicked.
The way I usually do this is to set the body class equal to the
currently-selected item and use CSS to display the current image and
suppress the others from display. Because the body class can be set either
from a server-side script or a client-side script, the same technique can
be used for both. E.g.,
body class=boardroom
...
div id=floorplans
img id=theatre ... /
img id=boardroom ... /
img id=ushaped ... /
/div
CSS:
div#floorplans img
{
visibility: hidden;
}
body.theatre div#floorplans img#theatre,
body.boardroom div#floorplans img#boardroom,
body.ushaped div#floorplans img#ushaped
{
visibility: visible;
}
Note that an image suppressed with {display: none;} will not pre-load,
however images suppressed with {visibility: hidden;} will. The trouble
with using visibility: hidden; is that objects maintain their position in
the flow, just invisibly, so it's slightly more complicated to get all the
images to appear in the same position. One solution is to position the
images absoutely within a relatively-positioned div, so in effect all the
images exist in the same spot. Then when one image is hidden and another
is shown, the second appears to replace the first.
Paul
**
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] Pages reloading
The anchor links are to ensure it stays on the low side of the page where the floorplan images are located...why the floorplan images are 455-500 pixels down the screen...it was graphically designed by a print graphic artist who doesn't do web. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:11 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Pages reloading Paul wrote: 1) is there any better way to get around this problem then I am doing to make it more consistently fluid in it's reloading? First of all, why do you have #anchor appended to each link? There's no real need for it, from what I can see. You *could* provide an additional bit of javascript which attaches to the links' onclick behaviour and simply loads the two new images and replaces the ones currently on the page. However, don't throw the baby out with the bath: keep the functionality as it stands, so that if js is unavailable/disabled, the pages still work. 2) how do I tell my client that this is how it is ? Tell them how much more it's going to cost if they want it any other way? :-p -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re.dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | 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 ** ** 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] Pages reloading
I'm on a dialup connection, so the fact that it is reloading is quite apparent. It doesn't bother me all that much, but if the client is really hard set on no reloading here's my suggestion. Keep the basic format as it is now, so that non js users can still use it fine, load all the images and stuff when they go to room_208.php but have all the other ones 'display:hidden;' then put onlclick='somejavascript;return false;' on the links and have somejavascript switch which ones are hidden. That way it will look fine for either javascript or no javascript, but those with javascript will not reload the page. Kornel Lesinski wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:29:14 +0100, Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is reloading, so what's the problem? It depends on the line speed and cache how fast it will load the new page. So it may flicker sometimes, sometimes not. True. You can't do much about it. If your client can't stand it, tell him to switch to Firefox or Opera, which don't flicker (...that much). ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] ie INSANITY ... please help me
note to all: IF IN DOUBT, add position:relative; -- it fixes many,
many IE bugs :)
Would it be excessive or treacherous to declare for Win IE:
* html * { position:relative; }
?
Is the default of position:static; important?
Off the top of my head, I think this would only negatively affect later
opting to position:absolute;, since it would be absolute in relation
to the immediate parentNode.
--
Ben Curtis
WebSciences International
http://www.websciences.org/
v: (310) 478-6648
f: (310) 235-2067
**
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] Targeting Mac IE5.1 on OSX
I don't think it is possible to get at these two browsers individually through CSS alone. I would be inclined to optimise for the OS9 (IE5.1) version as that is the last decent browser for that platform (Mozilla 1.3 aside), and leave some rendering bugs in the OS X version. Mac OS X users (IE 5.2+) have an actively developed OS, and it's safe to assume that most users are probably going to use Safari, Firefox or Opera. Terrence Wood. Joe Leech wrote: I need to target version 5.1 (OS9 ) separately from version 5.23 (OSX) as they seem to have slightly different behaviors with regard to relative/absolute positioning. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] ie INSANITY ... please help me
note to all: IF IN DOUBT, add position:relative; -- it fixes many,
many IE bugs :)
Would it be excessive or treacherous to declare for Win IE:
* html * { position:relative; }
Yes, I think so. One instance I can think of is that links within a
scrolling div will not scroll (in IE) if they are assigned
position:relative; This is a major problem as the links sit still
while the rest of the content scrolls underneath them.
There are times when position:relative; is the best IE fix, but there
are other times when it does nothing. In those instances, try
height:1%; (the Holly Hack), as this has the same affect as
position:relative (it sets 'hasLayout' to 'true'), but seems to be a
bit more potent.
Andrew,
http://leftjustified.net/
**
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] GMail... Terrible!
Wow, I only just realised that Gmail would have to have the WORST
accessibility for everyone.
I just wanted to get the HTML code for the site.
And there have to be about 10 frames inside frames.
This is the most code I could get without having to open each frame
individually...
I feel for the people using screenreaders who want to use gmail.
HTML
HEAD/
BODY onkeypress=return top.js._EV_RedirectMainKeyPress(event)
onresize=top.js._IF_OnResize() style=margin: 0pt;
font-family: arial,sans-serif;
DIV id=d_v1
IFRAME scrolling=auto frameborder=0
onload=try{if(top.js.init)top.js._IF_OnLoaded('v1')}catch(e){}
style=width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top:
0pt; z-index: 0; left: -1px;
src=/gmail/html/loading.html name=v1 id=v1/
/DIV
DIV id=d_v2
IFRAME scrolling=auto frameborder=0
onload=try{if(top.js.init)top.js._IF_OnLoaded('v2')}catch(e){}
style=width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top:
0pt; z-index: 1; left: 0pt;
src=/gmail/html/loading.html name=v2 id=v2/
/DIV
DIV id=d_v3
IFRAME scrolling=auto frameborder=0
onload=try{if(top.js.init)top.js._IF_OnLoaded('v3')}catch(e){}
style=width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top:
0pt; left: -1px;
src=/gmail/html/loading.html name=v3 id=v3/
/DIV
DIV id=d_v4
IFRAME scrolling=auto frameborder=0
onload=try{if(top.js.init)top.js._IF_OnLoaded('v4')}catch(e){}
style=width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top:
0pt; left: -1px;
src=/gmail/html/loading.html name=v4 id=v4/
/DIV
DIV id=d_hist
IFRAME scrolling=auto frameborder=0
onload=try{if(top.js.init)top.js._IF_OnLoaded('hist')}catch(e){}
style=width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top:
0pt; left: -1px;
src=/gmail/html/hist1.html name=hist id=hist/
/DIV
IFRAME scrolling=no frameborder=0
src=/gmail?view=pageamp;name=blank_modalamp;ver=6ae1910f12c398eb
style=position: absolute; z-index: 5; display: none; id=mi/
DIV
style=padding: 2px; background: rgb(204, 68, 68) none repeat
scroll 0%; position: absolute; z-index: 3; -moz-background-clip:
initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy:
initial; color: white; font-size: 75%; top: 1px; right: 16px; display:
none; id=lo
Loading.../DIV
DIV
style=position: absolute; z-index: 3; color: white; font-size:
75%; bottom: 1px; right: 16px; display: none; id=ind/
/BODY
/HTML
--
Chris Stratford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neester.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] GMail... Terrible!
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:42:14 +1100, Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, I only just realised that Gmail would have to have the WORST accessibility for everyone. I just wanted to get the HTML code for the site. And there have to be about 10 frames inside frames. Yeah, Mark Pilgrim wrote up a pretty good review of Gmail's accessibility issues when the service started up: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/04/10/gmail-accessibility The Gmail knowledge base claims they're working on a DHTML-free version to help work around this, but doesn't say much more about the topic. For figuring out the structure of a Gmail page I've found the best method is to use Mozilla's DOM Inspector; it lets you pick through all of the framesets and hidden DIVs to figure out what's actually going on. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** 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] GMail... Terrible!
James Bennett wrote: For figuring out the structure of a Gmail page I've found the best method is to use Mozilla's DOM Inspector; it lets you pick through all of the framesets and hidden DIVs to figure out what's actually going on. Yesh thats what I used to get that deep. But the DOM inspector doesnt seem to nest below the second or third iframe. (i cant remember). Thanks for the link :) damn gmail:S -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.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] GMail... Terrible!
My opinion. Dont use it if it doesnt work for you. While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone with accessibility issues from using the comptetition (such as Yahoo or Hotmail). And while there is plenty of noise about court cases from people who have been disadvantaged by people not adhering to accessibility guidelines, you would find that if there are suitable alternatives for people to use that such cases dont hold water. No-one is forcing people to use GMail (or even your website - for that matter). The biggest problem is for businesses who have clients who cannot use a site because it is not accessible (especially if the business expects all clients to deal with it through the website). So.. GMail. if it works for you - use it - if it doesn't - then use something else. Regards, Gary Menzel On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:09:14 +1100, Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Bennett wrote: For figuring out the structure of a Gmail page I've found the best method is to use Mozilla's DOM Inspector; it lets you pick through all of the framesets and hidden DIVs to figure out what's actually going on. Yesh thats what I used to get that deep. But the DOM inspector doesnt seem to nest below the second or third iframe. (i cant remember). Thanks for the link :) damn gmail:S -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.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] GMail... Terrible!
-Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:28 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible! My opinion. Dont use it if it doesnt work for you. While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone with accessibility issues from using the comptetition (such as Yahoo or Hotmail). That's the right attitude! While we're at it: why do we still bother with these useless ramps infront of public libraries? There are enough buildings around that have got wheelchair access for those people that need it. So let's do something more aesthetically charming with stairs or, even better, a climbing wall! Woohoo! Here comes the 21st century. Progress at its best. ** 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] GMail... Terrible!
I actually don't use any systems. For one of my jobs I needed to have a similar styling to gmail. So i wanted to see the source. and that is how I came to my issue. Gary Menzel wrote: My opinion. Dont use it if it doesnt work for you. While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone with accessibility issues from using the comptetition (such as Yahoo or Hotmail). And while there is plenty of noise about court cases from people who have been disadvantaged by people not adhering to accessibility guidelines, you would find that if there are suitable alternatives for people to use that such cases dont hold water. No-one is forcing people to use GMail (or even your website - for that matter). The biggest problem is for businesses who have clients who cannot use a site because it is not accessible (especially if the business expects all clients to deal with it through the website). So.. GMail. if it works for you - use it - if it doesn't - then use something else. Regards, Gary Menzel On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:09:14 +1100, Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Bennett wrote: For figuring out the structure of a Gmail page I've found the best method is to use Mozilla's DOM Inspector; it lets you pick through all of the framesets and hidden DIVs to figure out what's actually going on. Yesh thats what I used to get that deep. But the DOM inspector doesnt seem to nest below the second or third iframe. (i cant remember). Thanks for the link :) damn gmail:S -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.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 ** -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.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] GMail... Terrible!
Also, it's beta, and it's FREE, so don't complain, really. Francesco On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:28:27 +1000, Gary Menzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: My opinion. Dont use it if it doesnt work for you. While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone with accessibility issues from using the comptetition (such as Yahoo or Hotmail). And while there is plenty of noise about court cases from people who have been disadvantaged by people not adhering to accessibility guidelines, you would find that if there are suitable alternatives for people to use that such cases dont hold water. No-one is forcing people to use GMail (or even your website - for that matter). The biggest problem is for businesses who have clients who cannot use a site because it is not accessible (especially if the business expects all clients to deal with it through the website). So.. GMail. if it works for you - use it - if it doesn't - then use something else. Regards, Gary Menzel On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:09:14 +1100, Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Bennett wrote: For figuring out the structure of a Gmail page I've found the best method is to use Mozilla's DOM Inspector; it lets you pick through all of the framesets and hidden DIVs to figure out what's actually going on. Yesh thats what I used to get that deep. But the DOM inspector doesnt seem to nest below the second or third iframe. (i cant remember). Thanks for the link :) damn gmail:S -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.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 ** Francesco: Web Developer, Photographer, Philosopher My Photography - http://flickr.com/photos/blackcoil/ My Personal Blog - http://dissectinglife.com URL123 Link Tools - http://url123.com My Crazy Neighbor - http://mycrazyneighbor.com My Business Site - http://blackcoil.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] GMail... Terrible!
I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious about this.. There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the right to shoot themselves in the foot and lose all the users who can't access their FREE site because of all the other alternatives. Now - if they had a monopoly on free webmail sites - it would be a different story. But they dont. In fact, they are a late-comer to the marketplace and may have a great deal of difficulty in gaining market share. Tough luck to GMail if they lose any or all of that share because their product is not able to meet everyones needs. Now.. the GOOGLE site is a different story - because they DO have somewhat of a monopoly. Although there are many search sites, very few provide the same functionality in terms of the accuracy of searching as their site does. That one HAS to be accessible or they are actually denying someone the unique features of that product. So - build more ramps on more buildings - they need to be accessible. But there are plenty of free webmail clients out there. Lets leave GMail alone so we ALL get some choice. Regards, Gary Menzel On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:40:57 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:28 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible! My opinion. Dont use it if it doesnt work for you. While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone with accessibility issues from using the comptetition (such as Yahoo or Hotmail). That's the right attitude! While we're at it: why do we still bother with these useless ramps infront of public libraries? There are enough buildings around that have got wheelchair access for those people that need it. So let's do something more aesthetically charming with stairs or, even better, a climbing wall! Woohoo! Here comes the 21st century. Progress at its best. ** 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] GMail... Terrible!
-Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:55 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible! I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious about this.. There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? To continue evolving into a society that treats everybody equally, there is no reason why companies should not TRY to make their websites as accessible as possible, considering the little amount of effort required. I can understand if companies do not fulfil all the different priorities, but we can at least try, hey? And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the right to shoot themselves in the foot and lose all the users who can't access their FREE site because of all the other alternatives. I don't even have to quote legal issues - it's a matter of moral. A lot of websites do not fulfil accessibility guidelines, but that is mostly because they don't know much about them. The big difference is that GMail should know better. I am sure they have got enough people around that could quickly and easily make the website more accessible. ** 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] GMail... Terrible!
It seems like we are making the world less free by forcing companies/corporations/individuals to conform to equality laws. Isn't this just another form of conformity and regulation? Francesco On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:51:05 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: -Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:55 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible! I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious about this.. There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? To continue evolving into a society that treats everybody equally, there is no reason why companies should not TRY to make their websites as accessible as possible, considering the little amount of effort required. I can understand if companies do not fulfil all the different priorities, but we can at least try, hey? And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the right to shoot themselves in the foot and lose all the users who can't access their FREE site because of all the other alternatives. I don't even have to quote legal issues - it's a matter of moral. A lot of websites do not fulfil accessibility guidelines, but that is mostly because they don't know much about them. The big difference is that GMail should know better. I am sure they have got enough people around that could quickly and easily make the website more accessible. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Francesco Sanfilippo --- Blackcoil Productions - http://blackcoil.com URL123 Link Service - http://url123.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] GMail... Terrible!
I dont use GMail, I just thought I would raise the issue because GMail is like Francesco said still a Beta. So Google are already walking in the wrong direction of standards. Just so you know, I think that google and gmail SHOULD try and be as accessible as possible. If you disable javascript you can't use Gmail at all. Anyway. I think you are walking the same direction as google... An attitude like that will end up back in the early 90's again... We are trying to get out of the ditch, not dig deeper into it... My 2 cents. Sorry to open the can of worms :) - Chris Gary Menzel wrote: I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious about this.. There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the right to shoot themselves in the foot and lose all the users who can't access their FREE site because of all the other alternatives. Now - if they had a monopoly on free webmail sites - it would be a different story. But they dont. In fact, they are a late-comer to the marketplace and may have a great deal of difficulty in gaining market share. Tough luck to GMail if they lose any or all of that share because their product is not able to meet everyones needs. Now.. the GOOGLE site is a different story - because they DO have somewhat of a monopoly. Although there are many search sites, very few provide the same functionality in terms of the accuracy of searching as their site does. That one HAS to be accessible or they are actually denying someone the unique features of that product. So - build more ramps on more buildings - they need to be accessible. But there are plenty of free webmail clients out there. Lets leave GMail alone so we ALL get some choice. Regards, Gary Menzel On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:40:57 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:28 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible! My opinion. Dont use it if it doesnt work for you. While I am all for webstandards, there is nothing that says people HAVE to produce a program that works in a particular way. And while there are accessibility standards - there is NOTHING stopping someone with accessibility issues from using the comptetition (such as Yahoo or Hotmail). That's the right attitude! While we're at it: why do we still bother with these useless ramps infront of public libraries? There are enough buildings around that have got wheelchair access for those people that need it. So let's do something more aesthetically charming with stairs or, even better, a climbing wall! Woohoo! Here comes the 21st century. Progress at its best. ** 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 ** -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.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] GMail... Terrible!
Francesco, It seems like we are making the world less free by forcing companies/corporations/individuals to conform to equality laws. at the risk of sounding terribly cynical, corporations in particular are by their very nature selfish. They exist to generate shareholder profit. To the extent they are permitted by law, they will by and large pollute, gouge their customers, and trample of people's rights. So we have limits on corporations behavior, to ensure that society isn't a total disaster. Many people on this list have spent many frustrating year dealing with the fact that clients, or employers really don't care about issues like accessibility. Hey, they generally don't even care about usability, notwithstanding that can effect your bottom line overnight. Isn't this just another form of conformity and regulation? Just like standards in television, radio, cinema, telecommunications, food production, pollution control... Sure. But the fact you can listen to the same CD on every player you stick it in, but can barely visit the same site with two different browsers should tell us that standards and conformity are not always bad things. Right now, everyone on the web is working to implement standard based browsers except one. Who is it and why? John oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a raving communist, I run a business, am a director of two, and try to be as ethical as possible in all my business dealings. Its public corporations that I am referring to here. j John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ ** 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] GMail... Terrible!
possibly a more interesting question to be asking is exactly what 'standard' should gmail be following? WCAG doesn't seem appropriate to me, as this is certainly more an application than a web page so does this mean we should use a standard like ATAG (authoring tools accessibility guidlines http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-AUTOOLS/) or look to other software based accessibility guidlines? The problem with ATAG is that while a lot of people have looked in depth at WCAG it is much harder to find practical infromation on ATAG. Most of the things we do to accomadate WCAG are based upon lessons learned from delving into picking apart the practical implications of the guidlines. I think this must be one of the next issues tackled on the web, as tools like gmail, moveabletype, blogger, flickr... become more prevalant. But at the moment these tools are still in their beginning stages, and really can't be expected to do all the RD involved, I think this is a community issue. thoughts, opinions...? s Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:55 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible! I'll repeat myself - just so that people know I am serious about this.. There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? To continue evolving into a society that treats everybody equally, there is no reason why companies should not TRY to make their websites as accessible as possible, considering the little amount of effort required. I can understand if companies do not fulfil all the different priorities, but we can at least try, hey? And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the right to shoot themselves in the foot and lose all the users who can't access their FREE site because of all the other alternatives. I don't even have to quote legal issues - it's a matter of moral. A lot of websites do not fulfil accessibility guidelines, but that is mostly because they don't know much about them. The big difference is that GMail should know better. I am sure they have got enough people around that could quickly and easily make the website more accessible. ** 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] GMail... Terrible!
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? To continue evolving into a society that treats everybody equally, there is no reason why companies should not TRY to make their websites as accessible as possible, considering the little amount of effort required. I can understand if companies do not fulfil all the different priorities, but we can at least try, hey? And quoting the laws about discrimination wont cut it. They have the right to shoot themselves in the foot and lose all the users who can't access their FREE site because of all the other alternatives. I don't even have to quote legal issues - it's a matter of moral. It's not a legal issue or a moral issue. If it was, then the insurance companies that ONLY insure over 50's drivers would HAVE to be ACCESSIBLE to everyone. They aren't. Good on-em. Freedom and diversity. If there are alternatives that are accessible, then it's a business decision. If as Gary pointed out, they have a monopoly, that disadvantages people, that then becomes a issue. But Gmail isn't in that ball park. Ben. PS Personally, I think it would a wise and smart move on google's part to make it accessible, but I don't feel that they HAVE TO. -- Ben Hamilton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hamilton.id.au/?:-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
