Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible!
I have to say i agree with Gary here. Google have provided a free service, and if it does not work for you, then go use something that does. On the other hand... Gmail Does provide a way for disabled people to read their mail... a simple email POP account. (look under setttings). At the very least a disabled person can access the email in this way. Just my 2c Gav ** 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 14:54:59 +1000, Gary Menzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? It's not that Google *has to* make GMail accessible, semantic, minimal, and all the other qualities we admire in good website building. Of course they don't. But should people stop criticising them and shut up (to quote an infamous US cable shockjock )? Not at all. To me, it's a real shame that Google, which is creating some of the most amazing web experiences around (Google Maps, Google Suggest, GMail...), appears to be pretty much ignoring accessibility (in the case of GMail, anyway). Google has taken some huge steps forward in the world of browser-based applications. It has devised some amazing services, with great usability - for those that can get access to the sites. But it's made some poor choices along the way. I reckon it's possible to build those great web apps in a way that is degrades gracefully, is accessible, has clean and lean markup, complies with standards, and separates content from presentation. ... but I fear we are veering somewhat into a philosophical discussion here ... ** 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!
Gavin, Firstly Yahoo provides a free service, why all the hoo-haa about it using CSS... Most sites on the net provide free information, why should they bother being compliant and accessible... I mean why bother - its a free site for the public... Your outlook on standards and accessibility is terrible :S - BTW - How does a disabled person see that message about POP mail? I cant see ANY source on the page. I wonder what JAWS or other screenreaders would do when they load the page... - Chris Gavin Cooney wrote: I have to say i agree with Gary here. Google have provided a free service, and if it does not work for you, then go use something that does. On the other hand... Gmail Does provide a way for disabled people to read their mail... a simple email POP account. (look under setttings). At the very least a disabled person can access the email in this way. Just my 2c Gav ** 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!
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:09:58 +1100, Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - BTW - How does a disabled person see that message about POP mail? I cant see ANY source on the page. I wonder what JAWS or other screenreaders would do when they load the page... Unless the screen reader is simply pulling rendered text from a browser with Javascript capability, they won't get past the login screen, which tells them that Gmail does not support their browser. -- 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 **
[WSG] Site Review - Another Government site thats Standards Compliant
Hi Everyone, I will not bore you with a long intro, I'm Esteban Aguilar, I got into designing standard compliant sites after attending the web standards briefing at UTS on Sep 2nd 2004. After the briefing I joined this mailing list and have been reading it ever since. With Standards in mind I re-designed our projects website, it can be accessed in two ways: http://www.communilink.org.au or http://www.ci.crc.nsw.gov.au I would like to know what you standards pros think of design. Kind Regards, Esteban Aguilar -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005 ** 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 think Scott touches on a good point here that GMail is really a web application and many of Google's current projects are really pushing into quite new areas, Google Maps in particular. I think the previous analogy from Andreas; why do we still bother with these useless ramps infront of public libraries?, completely misses the point. If GMail WAS a library website (being deliberately close to the original comparison here but fill in your own; news site, govt site, whatever) then of course we'd expect it to be accessible. GMail is a web application and is using technologies (like XMLHTTPRequest) which are themselves pushing the capabilities of current browsers. Web applications already struggle within the constraints of browsers and depending on their use often need to be doing so. This is one area I feel where the general referral to web standards begins to get on to loose ground. If I handed out a magazine and asked it to be semantically marked up, It would involve some discussion but would certainly be doable, but what if I handed out an email client? I know it would be a lot harder and that's just the semantics. I think this really is a case of needing to cut them some slack, as what they are doing is a bit like the Haute Couture of web development and you would expect it to filter down in time. I think I'd be following Chris' point with what most web developers/programmers have been doing which is asking why are Google HAVING to do it like that?. I know for sure in the application development I do, I wish there were easier ways. Nick 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 ** 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!
Behalf Of Nick Lo I think Scott touches on a good point here that GMail is really a web application and many of Google's current projects are really pushing into quite new areas, Google Maps in particular. ... GMail is a web application and is using technologies (like XMLHTTPRequest) which are themselves pushing the capabilities of current browsers. Web applications already struggle within the constraints of browsers and depending on their use often need to be doing so. This is one area And the reason for that is, of course, that HTML was never designed to be a rich and interactive web application platform. That's what Java and co were promising to be (shame really). However, the point is (as I see it anyway): as it *is* delivered via the web, some consideration should be given (within reason) to constraints of the medium. A lot of the core functionality of GMail and similar services can be done with nothing more than standard HTML. Sure, it may involve multiple calls to the server, and change a one-page process into a three or four page process...but at least it's possible. It usually is considered best practice to cater for the largest possible audience by providing some graceful paths of degradation. Yes, use the bells and whistles which XMLHTTPRequest and co can offer, but don't forget about other platforms which may not support it. Sure, Google don't *have* to make their site accessible at all (not under current legislation, anyway), but the point is that it's a shame they didn't. IMHO, anyway. 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 **
[WSG] DTD is a formality?
A project I am working on requires the use of a menuing system (as in, it isn't my choice). In an effort to achieve similar rendering across browsers I added a Transitional DocType to all of the pages on the site. This made things MUCH easier for me to work with, but it also broke the menu appearance and behavior. We sent an e-mail to the makers of this menu software and received this very puzzling response: The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues should be resolved. Using one of our older and backwards compatible menu packages might be the only solution if you must have the doctype tag. However the doctype tag is really a formality used for checking compliancy and nothing more. Removing the tag will solve your rendering problems. I was not aware that a DTD was a mere formality. In my experience, operating without a DTD puts most browsers into Quirks mode which, by its very definition, isn't a standards compliant rendering mode. Basically, my purpose for sending this is to acquire more understanding of the purpose of the DTD. Is it there to set the rendering mode, or is it, as this support person purports, simply a formality? Thanks, -Sam ** 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] DTD is a formality?
Basically, my purpose for sending this is to acquire more understanding of the purpose of the DTD. Is it there to set the rendering mode, or is it, as this support person purports, simply a formality? Go to the source - W3C quote Why specify a doctype? Because it defines which version of (X)HTML your document is actually using, and this is a critical piece of information needed by browsers or other tools processing the document. For example, specifying the doctype of your document allows you to use tools such as the Markup Validator to check the syntax of your (X)HTML (and hence discovers errors that may affect the way your page is rendered by various browsers). Such tools won't be able to work if they do not know what kind of document you are using. But the most important thing is that with most families of browsers, a doctype declaration will make a lot of guessing unnecessary, and will thus trigger a standard parsing mode, where the understanding (and, as a result, the display) of the document is not only faster, it is also consistent and free of any bad surprise that documents without doctype will create. /quote Source: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/Doctype Also worth a read is this: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/ HTH Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] DTD is a formality?
The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues should be resolved. This is sooo untrue. If they require invalid HTML, their product is NOT compiliant. If you remove doctype, browsers emulate IE5 invalid CSS interpretation. Far from being modern. However the doctype tag is really a formality used for checking compliancy and nothing more. As you see, it is not a formality, but neccessity to get proper document (styles) interpretation. Removing the tag will solve your rendering problems. ...will cause... I'd get rid of that menu. It *needs* browser *bugs* in order to work! Is this menu accesible when: - javascript is off? - styles are off? - styles and js are off? - keyboard is used to navigate? -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] DTD is a formality?
However the doctype tag is really a formality used for checking compliancy and nothing more. As you see, it is not a formality, but neccessity to get proper document (styles) interpretation. Removing the tag will solve your rendering problems. ...will cause... Heh... my thoughts exactly... I'd get rid of that menu. It *needs* browser *bugs* in order to work! Is this menu accesible when: - javascript is off? - styles are off? - styles and js are off? - keyboard is used to navigate? Which is exactly what I've done. I went and found a menu system that works under all of these circumstances and I am quite pleased with it so far. And now I'll just ask that we stop this thread as I have gotten the responses I needed to allay that fear that I might have been going crazy. Thanks for the comments folks. -Sam ** 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 14:39:46 -, Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Yes, use the bells and whistles which XMLHTTPRequest and co can offer, but don't forget about other platforms which may not support it. Sure, Google don't *have* to make their site accessible at all (not under current legislation, anyway), but the point is that it's a shame they didn't. ... Without DHTML in general and XMLHTTPRequest in particular GMail would end being just another lame webmail system. These exactly features make it my webmail of choice. Or is it a shame for car manufacturer not to provide racing car which could be driven by a blind person? While it would be nice to have accessible-plain-text-many-trips-to-the-server it should not be done at the expense of the current one, and it is up to Google to decide, do they want to provide it. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] IE7 Confirmed
...Straight from Scoble's blog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/02/15.html#a9441 This should prove interesting -- -David R ** 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] IE7 Confirmed
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:03:01 +, David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...Straight from Scoble's blog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/02/15.html#a9441 This should prove interesting No... he used word compatibility, which means that all bugs must remain untouched. They're just going to implement new infobar alert: You're trying to open a web page. Web pages can be harmful to your computer. Click here to start Unwanted Toolbars Removal Wizard ;) -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] DTD is a formality?
Kornel Lesinski wrote: The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues should be resolved. This is sooo untrue. If they require invalid HTML, their product is NOT compiliant. Funny you reach that conclusion just on the OP's mail (in which te makers of the menu state it to actually be compliant!). If the menu at hand is written in valid XHTML strict, for instance, putting a HTML4.01/trans DTD in top of the html _will_ cause validation issues and _might_ cause rendering issues. If you remove doctype, browsers emulate IE5 invalid CSS interpretation. Far from being modern. I would dare say that this is at best partially true. Opera sure tries to emulate IE when it is told to do so (and even emulates some parts of IE's behaviour while in 'Opera' mode), but I'm not so sure that a Gecko in quirks mode mimics IE on purpose. Removing the tag will solve your rendering problems. ...will cause... Why? I'd get rid of that menu. It *needs* browser *bugs* in order to work! Is this menu accesible when: - javascript is off? - styles are off? - styles and js are off? - keyboard is used to navigate? The sequence of your advice and questions suggest you are assuming all answers to be 'no' beforehand, whilst you haven't seen any line of the menu code whatsoever. I'm sorry if my reaction feels a bit harsh, but jumping to conclusions like this just doesn't help the standards' case, does it? ;-) Jeroen -- vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/ ** 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!
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:39:46 -, Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without DHTML in general and XMLHTTPRequest in particular GMail would end being just another lame webmail system. These exactly features make it my webmail of choice. Obviously you're not familiar with the concept of graceful degradation? Nobody is saying they shouldn't use it, but they *can* provide a fallback mechanism for users that can't use JS. Or is it a shame for car manufacturer not to provide racing car which could be driven by a blind person? Offensive troll! While it would be nice to have accessible-plain-text-many-trips-to-the-server it should not be done at the expense of the current one, and it is up to Google to decide, do they want to provide it. Again, missing the point. It doesn't have to be done at the expense of the current one. It's not an either or. *rolls eyes* -- 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] DTD is a formality?
Sam Brown wrote: The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. Which either means XHTML (in the best case) or some proprietary, extended farce masquerading as HTML4+bells/whistles (in the worst case). So which one was it? -- 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] DTD is a formality?
Sam Brown wrote: The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues should be resolved. Using one of our older and backwards compatible menu packages might be the only solution if you must have the doctype tag. However the doctype tag is really a formality used for checking compliancy and nothing more. Removing the tag will solve your rendering problems. I was not aware that a DTD was a mere formality. In my experience, operating without a DTD puts most browsers into Quirks mode which, by its very definition, isn't a standards compliant rendering mode. Basically, my purpose for sending this is to acquire more understanding of the purpose of the DTD. Is it there to set the rendering mode, or is it, as this support person purports, simply a formality? Russ's response covers the purpose of adding a DTD to your HTML code (DTD meaning Document Type Declaration in this situation - not to be mistaken for Document Type Definition, to which the declaration actually refers). A now common 'feature' of DTD's is that it puts modern browsers into a specific rendering mode (quirks, almost-standards or standards-compliant). [2] You already know this part, I understand, but this effect of a DTD is not what DTD's 'are there for'. It's just a handy way for browsers to deal with the fact that the _large_ majority of web pages is a 4th generation legacy that just isn't going to go away. And it's pretty hard to market a browser that renders only a handful of real-world sites (apart from all the geek webdev blogs ;-). So -here it is- the world is not perfect, the majority of web users still surf with IE5.x or 6, the latter possibly having more issues with standards-compliant code than with tagsoup. [2] Some web developers purposefully keep IE6 out of standards compliance mode, because this saves you from coding two separate IE css files in some cases. In this particular case, you may want to: - try and find out to which standard the menu is coded and use that for your own code as well; - or try and convince the makers of the menu to provide you with a HTML4.01 version (could be hard to achieve ;-); - or ditch the menu (which apparently is out of your reach); - or ditch the doctype. I'd try the first option, but when that fails, stick with the last. Pursuing standards is not the way to go if this could result in a majority (!) of your visitors not being able to use the menu normally. [1] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ [2] http://www.positioniseverything.net/ Jeroen -- vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/ ** 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! - ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
This Gmail Thread is now closed Please do not respond to this thread Reason: it has moved from standards discussion (on the relevance of accessibility) into arguments and personal stances. If you have issues with its closure, please contact info@webboy.net offlist Thanks Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Review - Another Government site thats Standards Compliant
Hi Esteban... congratulations on the site... looks great. If I were to suggest anything at all I would suggest that you restrict the size of your contents div (or your dl which ever suits) to prevent the text from spreading out too much. the line length is really long at full screen...makes is a bit hard to read. Other than that i think it all looks great. jackie Esteban Aguilar wrote: Hi Everyone, I will not bore you with a long intro, I'm Esteban Aguilar, I got into designing standard compliant sites after attending the web standards briefing at UTS on Sep 2nd 2004. After the briefing I joined this mailing list and have been reading it ever since. With Standards in mind I re-designed our projects website, it can be accessed in two ways: http://www.communilink.org.au or http://www.ci.crc.nsw.gov.au I would like to know what you standards pros think of design. Kind Regards, Esteban Aguilar ** 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 21:05:39 +, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously you're not familiar with the concept of graceful degradation? Nobody is saying they shouldn't use it, but they *can* provide a fallback mechanism for users that can't use JS. ... While it would be nice to have accessible-plain-text-many-trips-to-the-server it should not be done at the expense of the current one, and it is up to Google to decide, do they want to provide it. Again, missing the point. It doesn't have to be done at the expense of the current one. It's not an either or. ... Sorry to disappoint, I am familiar with a concept of graceful degradation. Just think that does graceful degradation really means in GMail case--and that is my point you seem to miss-- that graceful degradation, or anything done not at expense of the current user experience means simply another, _totaly_ different GMail -- without DHTML based UI, without XMLHttprequest -- which would be just like thousands web mail systems around. Ok, automatic message threading, labels and mail search could stay, but that's not the same. Google was trying to build the most innovative web mail, not the most accessible. Maybe they did not find it beneficial to spent time and resources building parallel, accessible, version of GMail. Shame on them. And this is way off-topic. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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] Site Review - Another Government site thats Standards Compliant
It looks great! Well done. How exciting for you to have completed it! Rosemary Norwood On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:56:09 +1100, Esteban Aguilar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Everyone, I would like to know what you standards pros think of design. Kind Regards, Esteban Aguilar -- ** 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] IE7 Confirmed
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:21:58 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No... he used word compatibility, which means that all bugs must remain untouched. Here's a quote from the press release: Internet Explorer 7.0, designed to add new levels of security to Windows XP SP2 while maintaining the level of extensibility and compatibility that customers have come to expect. Sounds like the bugs are staying -- maintain compatibility is synonomous with leave the bugs alone in MS terms :( 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 **
Re: [WSG] DTD is a formality?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:54:47 +0100, Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kornel Lesinski wrote: The issue at hand is that [productname] is completely compliant, but is more modern than HTML 4.01. If you remove the doctype tag, all your rendering issues should be resolved. This is sooo untrue. If they require invalid HTML, their product is NOT compiliant. Funny you reach that conclusion just on the OP's mail (in which te makers of the menu state it to actually be compliant!). If the menu at hand is written in valid XHTML strict, for instance, putting a HTML4.01/trans DTD in top of the html _will_ cause validation issues and _might_ cause rendering issues. I understand that remove means using HTML without any doctype. There aren't any rendering differences between HTML4.01 and XHTML Strict (at least not in major browsers). Gecko triggers almost-standards mode for XHTML trans and frameset and it only changes minimal line-height calculation on empty boxes. If you remove doctype, browsers emulate IE5 invalid CSS interpretation. Far from being modern. I would dare say that this is at best partially true. Opera sure tries to emulate IE when it is told to do so (and even emulates some parts of IE's behaviour while in 'Opera' mode), but I'm not so sure that a Gecko in quirks mode mimics IE on purpose. I'm quite sure it does. Quirks mode is for compatibility, and Trident is the only popular, non-standard CSS engine. Removing the tag will solve your rendering problems. ...will cause... Why? Quirks mode is IMHO less reliable than standards mode (although I don't care about IE5 at all) I'd get rid of that menu. It *needs* browser *bugs* in order to work! Is this menu accesible when: - javascript is off? - styles are off? - styles and js are off? - keyboard is used to navigate? The sequence of your advice and questions suggest you are assuming all answers to be 'no' beforehand, whilst you haven't seen any line of the menu code whatsoever. Ok, I've made lots of assumptions, like: Someone who cannot make menu render in standards mode, or at least doesn't have good explanation for it ready, is IMHO unlikely to make code good enough to get all 'yes' answers. -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] IE7 may ship ahead of Longhorn
This doesn't appear to have been posted to the list yet. Sorry in advance if it has. http://news.com.com/Reversal+Next+IE+update+divorced+from+Windows/2100-1032_3-5577263.html Good news for web standards? Chris ** 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] IE7 Confirmed
Andrew Krespanis wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:21:58 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No... he used word compatibility, which means that all bugs must remain untouched. Here's a quote from the press release: Internet Explorer 7.0, designed to add new levels of security to Windows XP SP2 while maintaining the level of extensibility and compatibility that customers have come to expect. Sounds like the bugs are staying -- maintain compatibility is synonomous with leave the bugs alone in MS terms :( Possibly. But what about DocType overriding? They can correct CSS2.1 handling for strict and XHTML doctypes whilst maintaining non-compliant sites who continue to use the HTML4.01 (and prev) DTDs. Of course, adding support for the application/xhtml+xml MIME-type wouldn't do any harm. -- -David R ** 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] Unclickable text field inside float in IE?
Hey, I've managed to somehow get an unclickable text field in explorer. It's in a float:right div, and unfloating the div fixes the problem, but I've had text fields in floats before without problems. For some reason only the top border of the text field can be clicked on :( Any suggestions as to what I should be looking for? -- So come and join us all you kids for lots of fun and laughter While Roger Ramjet and his men get all the crooks they're after [ Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald ] -- [ Pirion Systems, Brisbane] [ 07 3257 0490 ] -- [ 0437 221 380 ] -- [ http://www.gfunk007.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] IE7 may ship ahead of Longhorn
Chris, http://news.com.com/Reversal+Next+IE+update+divorced+from+Windows/2100-1032_3-5577263.html Good news for web standards? Being the eternal naysayer that I am, I'll say, um, nay. Why? >From the article linked, this quote from a ms spokesperson Microsoft's Nash declined to shed any light on the question of features in the IE update, restricting his comments to planned security enhancements such as better defenses against phishing scams and improved spyware protection. Right now, the focus is security, Nash said. There may be other things that are in there, but the goal is on security. IE 6 buggy rendering engine it is then. Sigh john p.s. developers everywhere are excited by this, checkout Slashdot, etc ad nauseam. Why? Cause no one RTFAs. The fineprint is that this is IE6 SP2 all over again. If I were a cynic, I'd say this were directed at precisely that group (developers), who, um, are precisely the single greatest adopters of Firefox. I'd go so far as to say it a tactical strike to attempt to stem the flow of developers to using Firefox as their main browser. But that would be cynical, and MS are of course never cynical. 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/
Re: [WSG] IE7 may ship ahead of Longhorn
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:03, John Allsopp wrote: Chris, http://news.com.com/Reversal+Next+IE+update+divorced+from+Windows/2100-1032_3-5577263.html Good news for web standards? Being the eternal naysayer that I am, I'll say, um, nay. Why? From the article linked, this quote from a ms spokesperson Microsoft's Nash declined to shed anylight on the question of features in the IE update, restricting hiscomments to planned security enhancements such as better defensesagainst phishing scams and improved spyware protection. Right now, the focus is security, Nash said. There may be otherthings that are in there, but the goal is on security. IE 6 buggy rendering engine it is then. Sigh Maybe this is a blessing in disguise At least at this time point in time the quirks in IE are well documented and can be handled. Who knows what new bugs^H^H^H^H interpretations of the standards IE7 would introduce. Also it should be noted that IE7 will only be for Longhorn and XP SP2. Older IE browsers will be with us for a while yetor more people will move to alternatives. -- Bruce Morrison designIT http://www.designit.com.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 **
Re: [WSG] Site Review - Another Government site thats Standards Compliant
Hi Esteban, Good effort! Just a few comments: 1. There is no validation of data entry fields on the Feedback page. 2. Reset button instead of clearing data entry fields, submits the form. 3. Would be good to highlight the current page in side navigation menu. For example, if I am on Events page, Events menu item should look somehow different from all other items. 4. I think that header and welcome divs take too much space on every screen real estate. Maybe you leave welcome div only on the home page, so user can see more of the content from the first glance. Cheers, Irina. On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:56:09 +1100, Esteban Aguilar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Everyone, I will not bore you with a long intro, I'm Esteban Aguilar, I got into designing standard compliant sites after attending the web standards briefing at UTS on Sep 2nd 2004. After the briefing I joined this mailing list and have been reading it ever since. With Standards in mind I re-designed our projects website, it can be accessed in two ways: http://www.communilink.org.au or http://www.ci.crc.nsw.gov.au I would like to know what you standards pros think of design. Kind Regards, Esteban Aguilar -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005 ** 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] IE7 may ship ahead of Longhorn
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:03, John Allsopp wrote: Being the eternal naysayer that I am, I'll say, um, nay. On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 11:35, Bruce Morrison wrote: Also it should be noted that IE7 will only be for Longhorn and XP SP2. Older IE browsers will be with us for a while yetor more people will move to alternatives. I don't know why MS just don't do what Apple did with Safari and leverage an open source rendering engine like Gecko or KHtml. Oh, that's right they'd break all those IE only web applications that just about every large MS shop / corporation uses to do business. Now that wouldn't be very nice, would it? Chris ** 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] Unclickable text field inside float in IE?
Buh? Try position:relative; Wild guess, but always worth a try On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:02:28 +1000, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I've managed to somehow get an unclickable text field in explorer. It's in a float:right div, and unfloating the div fixes the problem, but I've had text fields in floats before without problems. For some reason only the top border of the text field can be clicked on :( Any suggestions as to what I should be looking for? -- So come and join us all you kids for lots of fun and laughter While Roger Ramjet and his men get all the crooks they're after [ Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald ] -- [ Pirion Systems, Brisbane] [ 07 3257 0490 ] -- [ 0437 221 380 ] -- [ http://www.gfunk007.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 ** -- 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 **
Re: [WSG] Unclickable text field inside float in IE?
If it comes up again I'll give that a shot, had to give up and put them in tables - the powers that be aren't gonna pay for hours of fucking around with explorer when 2 minutes of table code will do it :'( Cheers, -Josh On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:21:32 +1000, Andrew Krespanis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buh? Try position:relative; Wild guess, but always worth a try On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:02:28 +1000, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I've managed to somehow get an unclickable text field in explorer. It's in a float:right div, and unfloating the div fixes the problem, but I've had text fields in floats before without problems. For some reason only the top border of the text field can be clicked on :( Any suggestions as to what I should be looking for? -- So come and join us all you kids for lots of fun and laughter While Roger Ramjet and his men get all the crooks they're after [ Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald ] -- [ Pirion Systems, Brisbane] [ 07 3257 0490 ] -- [ 0437 221 380 ] -- [ http://www.gfunk007.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 ** -- 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 ** -- So come and join us all you kids for lots of fun and laughter While Roger Ramjet and his men get all the crooks they're after [ Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald ] -- [ Pirion Systems, Brisbane] [ 07 3257 0490 ] -- [ 0437 221 380 ] -- [ http://www.gfunk007.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] Unclickable text field inside float in IE? - THREAD CLOSED
ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED If it comes up again I'll give that a shot, had to give up and put them in tables - the powers that be aren't gonna pay for hours of... Please do not reply to this post Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Form field validation query
Hi Folks Have a validation error (this link over *two* lines): http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xert.org%2Fwarnings=yesspider= yeshidevalid=yes on this page of my site: http://www.xert.org/contact/index.php?formtype=personalsubmit=Display+Form I am using php to check user input and therefore require a value in the form fields (eg value=?php echo $newDate ?). Obviously, $newDate has a null value until a user enters one. So I get the following error: Error: there is no attribute value for this element (in this HTML version) Can anyone suggest a work around to this, or perhaps suggest what I'm doing wrong. Thanks in advance, and hope this is on topic. Sarah :) -- XERT Communications email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: +61 2 4782 3104 mobile: 0438 017 416 http://www.xert.com.au/ web development : digital imaging : dvd production ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Form field validation query
select tags don't have a value attribute. You will need to add a selected attribute to the child option tags. On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 16:43, Sarah Peeke (XERT) wrote: Hi Folks Have a validation error (this link over *two* lines): http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xert.org%2Fwarnings=yesspider= yeshidevalid=yes on this page of my site: http://www.xert.org/contact/index.php?formtype=personalsubmit=Display+Form I am using php to check user input and therefore require a value in the form fields (eg value=?php echo $newDate ?). Obviously, $newDate has a null value until a user enters one. So I get the following error: Error: there is no attribute value for this element (in this HTML version) Can anyone suggest a work around to this, or perhaps suggest what I'm doing wrong. Thanks in advance, and hope this is on topic. Sarah :) -- Bruce Morrison designIT http://www.designit.com.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 **
Re: [WSG] Form field validation query
G'day I am using php to check user input and therefore require a value in the form fields (eg value=?php echo $newDate ?). Obviously, $newDate has a null value until a user enters one. So I get the following error: Error: there is no attribute value for this element (in this HTML version) Can anyone suggest a work around to this, or perhaps suggest what I'm doing wrong. Can't help you with the PHP, but select elements do not have a value attribute. Values for these go in the option elements. When the form is submitted, the selected option(s) value(s) are passed to the form processing script. You don't even need to specify the value in the options unless what you want to pass is different from what you want to display: select name=newDate option value=Date/option option1/option option2/option option3/option !-- etc -- /select If your script needs to pre-set a specific option, you will need to get it to add: selected=selected to the appropriate option (in the example below, option 2 is selected) select name=newDate option value=Date/option option1/option option selected=selected2/option option3/option !-- etc -- /select Can't tell you HOW to do that in PHP because I don't speak PHP and it would be off-topic for this list. HTH -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
