RE: [WSG] Please review http://www.mad4f1.com
Looks pretty good to me - I have that problem sometimes as well with footers in IE. Have not looked at your CSS, so no idea if this would have anything to do with it on your site. But sometimes, I think when you use position: absolute; bottom 0; to place your footer, if there's (for example) images with no height declared, or DHTML which adds an element into the page after onload, these heights don't get accounted for when the browser goes where is the bottom of this page to place the footer Other browsers eg Safari, Firefox don't have this issue;( If all else fails possibly try a bit of javascript to check / recalculate heights of things. Hope that makes sense - is the end of the week so I am a bit scrambled:) -Rebecca I am freelancer from INDIA... I have designed a website http://www.mad4f1.com for one of my client CSS JS HTML with NO TABLE tags to make it more search engine friendly... I tried to make it ... cross browser compatible But I am facing problem with footer in IE.. a DIV TAG with Class= footer gets overlaid. not always but sometimes. Need suggestions, feedback -- Thanks, Sachin K Nnvyjqz
[WSG] Please review http://www.mad4f1.com
I really like the nice clean design and commmend you for your work. Like Steven I think that the calendar page could also benefit from being a table. Simple rule of thumb; if the page could easily fit with an Excel spreadsheet, it is a possible table candidate. When constructing the tables, remember to include the appropriate row and column scope attributes so that a screenreader user can easily navigate the data. I would also really like to see your pages contain headings - h1, h2, h3 etc. The obviouds candidates on your home page would be Top story, Latest News, Featured Article etc. This again is extremely useful for screenreader navigation. I concur also re the previous comment re putting the menu into unordered lists. Graham Cook Standards Manager - Content Integrity Data Online Telstra Technology 32/300 Latrobe St Melbourne VIC 3000 Ph- (03) 9632 8035 Fax - (03) 8600 9850 Mob - (03) 0417 876 869 Email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Find out more about Standards : http://telstra.com.au/standards/index.cfm The information contained in this e-mail message may be CONFIDENTIAL and may also be the subject of Legal Professional Privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please reply to this email to advise of the incorrect delivery and then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Yeung Sent: Friday, 22 April 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Please review http://www.mad4f1.com The site looks good, works well with Safari, Mozilla, FireFox, Netscape, IE, and Opera. Good content layout, and best of all no tables. - Anthony On 4/21/05, Pixel n Paints [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I am freelancer from INDIA... I have designed a website http://www.mad4f1.com for one of my client CSS JS HTML with NO TABLE tags to make it more search engine friendly... I tried to make it ... cross browser compatible But I am facing problem with footer in IE.. a DIV TAG with Class= footer gets overlaid. not always but sometimes. Need suggestions, feedback -- Thanks, Sachin K NXnvyjfwq)zX )
[WSG] a required field marker in forms
I've set up a base standard form layout to use as a starting point for projects requiring a form - with text input boxes, check box's, radio buttons, a select menu, and a text area that could all be swapped in or out or duplicated relatively easily. here's the page: http://skunkworks.farcrycms.com/wsg/forms.html 2 questions, 1) I'm curious if the use of an asterix to indicate a required field, and the way I've done it, is ok accessibility-wise or if theres anything else i could/should do...? 2) theres also an error message placement that would flick on if you've missed a required field: http://skunkworks.farcrycms.com/wsg/forms_error.html the error message seems to be displaying fine across a wide range of browsers (courtesy of browsercam: http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=157477) except good ol mac ie5. if anyone can see an easy fix for mac ie5 that'd be most welcome. cheers, pete ~~ Peter Ottery ~ Senior Designer Daemon Pty Ltd 17 Roslyn Gardens Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011 www.daemon.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 **
[WSG] can you hack the alt tag open?
Sorry for the cross posting. Is it possible to serve up the textual contents of an alt tag, outside of the tag? In other words, can I make the stuff inside the alt tag as important as the document contents? I'm not exactly sure what I am asking here... I don't have the vocabulary. I want Googlebots to *really* see my alt tags and give them as much weight as the regular content of my website. ::pd::
Re: [WSG] a required field marker in forms
Hi Peter, I am not shure about asteri, but I think it is not very usable that if I click on the text near checkbox, checkbox doesn't change its state. On 4/22/05, Peter Ottery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've set up a base standard form layout to use as a starting point for projects requiring a form - with text input boxes, check box's, radio buttons, a select menu, and a text area that could all be swapped in or out or duplicated relatively easily. here's the page: http://skunkworks.farcrycms.com/wsg/forms.html 2 questions, 1) I'm curious if the use of an asterix to indicate a required field, and the way I've done it, is ok accessibility-wise or if theres anything else i could/should do...? 2) theres also an error message placement that would flick on if you've missed a required field: http://skunkworks.farcrycms.com/wsg/forms_error.html the error message seems to be displaying fine across a wide range of browsers (courtesy of browsercam: http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=157477) except good ol mac ie5. if anyone can see an easy fix for mac ie5 that'd be most welcome. cheers, pete ~~ Peter Ottery ~ Senior Designer Daemon Pty Ltd 17 Roslyn Gardens Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011 www.daemon.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 ** -- Best regards, Dmitry Baranovskiy ** 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] can you hack the alt tag open?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:02:47 -0700, Paul Dwyer wrote: Is it possible to serve up the textual contents of an alt tag, outside of the tag? In other words, can I make the stuff inside the alt tag as important as the document contents? snip I want Googlebots to *really* see my alt tags and give them as much weight as the regular content of my website. Sadly, no - its vaguely possible that you might be able to make it appear with CSS (never seen it dont, though) but Google still wouldn't see it. But if the image is a link then G will see and index your text :) Lea ~ looking for a permanent position in Brisbane. Contact me for CV. -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, Australia ** 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] safari list question
Is it possible to create effect of clickable checkbox title in Safari?
Looking at Peret's example I find out that labels behaviour is
different in Safari.
On 4/22/05, Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a filter for Safari?
I'd like to define no-repeat for the rest of the browsers and hide it from
safari.
Thanks
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Philippe Wittenbergh
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:26 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] safari list question
On 21 Apr 2005, at 12:58 am, Drake, Ted C. wrote:
However, in Safari, the bullet is appearing, as it should, on a list
and
then immediately above bullet is a half bullet. This is really odd. It
is
repeating the background image.
Here's the style:
ul li {list-style-type:none; background: url(bg-bullets.png) no-repeat
0
5px; padding-left:12px;}
Safari has problems with background-repeat:no-repeat. A problem that is
*not* fixed in the latest release (1.3) and will probably be there in
the 2.0 version of OX X Tiger (10.4).
A similar problem is seen here (hover should move the image).
http://dev.l-c-n.com/safari/background-hover.php
The problem is *less* pronounced if you move the image horizontally.
A solution is to space out the fragments of your sprite more, or put
them in an horizontal row.
Philippe
---/---
Philippe Wittenbergh
now live : http://emps.l-c-n.com/
code | design | web projects : http://www.l-c-n.com/
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/
**
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
**
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Baranovskiy
**
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] a required field marker in forms
Dmitry wrote: Hi Peter, I am not shure about asteri, but I think it is not very usable that if I click on the text near checkbox, checkbox doesn't change its state. for sure. that behaviour (thanks to using labels) works for me in PC IE5+ and Firefox (which is a pretty large slice of users) in this example. what browser are you looking at it in? ** 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] Weird IE 5.0 method test
Hi! In a (ugly) javascript I try to test if window.location.replace exists, before I use it: if(window.location.replace) window.location.replace(href); else window.location.href = href; This works well in IE = 5.5, Safari, Netscape and Mozilla. IE 5.0 seems to have a different implementation of replace(), because I get an error. Does anybody know a bullet proof solution to this problem? Thanks! Martin. ** 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] can you hack the alt tag open?
So theoretically... If I use images and make them as, redundantly linking them to their current page, I could deliver text to google from within the alt tag? And Google will give it as much weight as the main content text of the site? ::pd:: On 4/22/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:02:47 -0700, Paul Dwyer wrote: Is it possible to serve up the textual contents of an alt tag, outside of the tag? In other words, can I make the stuff inside the alt tag as important as the document contents?snip I want Googlebots to *really* see my alt tags and give them as much weight as the regular content of my website.Sadly, no - its vaguely possible that you might be able to make it appear with CSS (never seen it dont, though) but Google still wouldn'tsee it.But if the image is a link then G will see and index your text :)Lea~ looking for a permanent position in Brisbane. Contact me for CV. --Lea de GrootElysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web DesignBrisbane, Australia**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] can you hack the alt tag open?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:27:07 -0700, Paul Dwyer wrote: If I use images and make them as, redundantly linking them to their current page, I could deliver text to google from within the alt tag? And Google will give it as much weight as the main content text of the site? *assuming* Google pays any attention to a link to the current page (who knows? never tested it.) - yes, that makes sense. Basically if you put an image inside an anchor then Google will see the alt attribute as the text of the link (remember that the bot for the main google doesn't pay any attention to the actual image), which means that standard compliant code is good for SEO (yay! we're back on topic! ;)) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] php-files get horizontal scrollbar ONLY IN IE
Hi Stefan,
Me head I scratch no more, and boy was it sore... - I found the solution:
put into the CSS:
html {
overflow-x: hidden;
overflow-y: auto;
}
and gone he is!
I found that via google search (IE bugs horizontal scrollbar) in
http://www.noscope.com/journal/2004/02/horizontal_scrollbar_bug
And next time I won't use tables no more (or frames - I still think it's
nice when the navigation bar stays put, but maybe there's another solution
even for this) but dive deeply into CSS, I've added csszengarden to the many
tutorials that I've already collected on this item, this
webmasterworld-forum I find a bit expensive - 70 EUR for 1/2 year!!.
I've thought very different about tabelless CSS (like you don't have to
become a vegan to eat somewhat healthier...), but that changed now, and
thinking about this 'mystery believe' discussion I'd say now: if my house
moved a couple of meters each time I try to enter it, I wouldn't ask for the
brand of hammer the builder used but for his home adres to pay him a
thorough visit!
thanx for your reply's (je woont dus ook in holland? Ook Amsterdam?)
Dani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Stefan Lemmen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] php-files get horizontal scrollbar ONLY IN IE
maybe this will help you:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/9798.htm
Stefan Lemmen
Holland
On 4/21/05, Stefan Lemmen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Daniela,
My first reply didn't make any sense at all when I looked in it
further. (I just woke up when I replied)
I have had the problem myself too. Couldn't find the problem either.
I'm sure there must be a sollution somewhere.. Maybe you could try
using some css instead of tables to position inside the frames. I'm
sure the problem has to do with the combination frames and tables.
Maybe try to position everything in tables and dont use frames at
all.. or use frames without using tables. I know this is
time-consuming. But I cant give you any better advice at this point.
In the future you take a different approach on positioning stuff..
take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com
It gave me another look on designing and positioning.
Good luck with your project. Hope you find the cause of the problem soon.
Stefan Lemmen
Holland
**
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[2]: [WSG] Weird IE 5.0 method test
Bert, Am Freitag, 22. April 2005 um 11:10:20 haben Sie geschrieben: Sending this off-list since it doesn't appear to be standards related (it's not DOM ECMAscript?) IMHO it is on topic, because following the standard it should be possible to test, if a method exists. Without seeing why you would use convoluted javascript to load a different page, given a regular link works in any browser, it's hard to work out what you want to do. Well, this little code snip is part of a flash detection. The user should be automatically redirected after detection. There is a noscript-part with a simple link for users with disabled javascript. We are going to drop this detection soon, but now we have to keep it, because there are several parts of a complex web application which depend on it. I need the replace method because the detection page may not be recorded in the browser history. (Otherwise we'll get some problems with google and their ad-words policies). Martin ** 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] a required field marker in forms
Here's a little piece of DOM scripting that will redress the lack of
label behaviour in Safari. It's basically just doing what's built in to
many browsers: clicking on a label brings the associated from element
into focus:
function makeLabelsWork() {
if (!document.getElementsByTagName) return false;
var allforms = document.getElementsByTagName('form');
for (var formcount=0;formcountallforms.length;formcount++) {
var labels =
document.forms[formcount].getElementsByTagName('label');
for (var i=0;ilabels.length;i++) {
if (!labels[i].getAttribute('for')) break;
labels[i].formfield = labels[i].getAttribute('for');
labels[i].formnumber = formcount;
labels[i].onclick = function() {
eval('document.forms['+this.formnumber+'].'+this.formfield+'.focus()');
}
}
}
}
You'll need to call the function when the document loads:
window.onload = function() {
makeLabelsWork();
}
It isn't targetted at any specific browser(s). If the browser already
does this, then the script is just duplicating what's already there. If
the browser doesn't have this behaviour by default, it has now.
HTH,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
http://adactio.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] Please review http://www.mad4f1.com
The news-div overflows when you increase the text size (to the size my standard is): http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=screenshot6av.png, and the same with the calendar-thingy: http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=screenshot6rn.png -Kristian Rasmussen -- Free Software Foundation associate member #3080 Protect your freedom by joining: http://member.fsf.org/ On 4/22/05, Cook, Graham R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really like the nice clean design and commmend you for your work. Like Steven I think that the calendar page could also benefit from being a table. Simple rule of thumb; if the page could easily fit with an Excel spreadsheet, it is a possible table candidate. When constructing the tables, remember to include the appropriate row and column scope attributes so that a screenreader user can easily navigate the data. I would also really like to see your pages contain headings - h1, h2, h3 etc. The obviouds candidates on your home page would be Top story, Latest News, Featured Article etc. This again is extremely useful for screenreader navigation. I concur also re the previous comment re putting the menu into unordered lists. Graham Cook Standards Manager - Content Integrity Data Online Telstra Technology 32/300 Latrobe St Melbourne VIC 3000 Ph- (03) 9632 8035 Fax - (03) 8600 9850 Mob - (03) 0417 876 869 Email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Find out more about Standards : http://telstra.com.au/standards/index.cfm The information contained in this e-mail message may be CONFIDENTIAL and may also be the subject of Legal Professional Privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please reply to this email to advise of the incorrect delivery and then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Yeung Sent: Friday, 22 April 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Please review http://www.mad4f1.com The site looks good, works well with Safari, Mozilla, FireFox, Netscape, IE, and Opera. Good content layout, and best of all no tables. - Anthony On 4/21/05, Pixel n Paints [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I am freelancer from INDIA... I have designed a website http://www.mad4f1.com for one of my client CSS JS HTML with NO TABLE tags to make it more search engine friendly... I tried to make it ... cross browser compatible But I am facing problem with footer in IE.. a DIV TAG with Class= footer gets overlaid. not always but sometimes. Need suggestions, feedback -- Thanks, Sachin K NXnv(r)y(c)jfwq)zX )
Re: [WSG] Web standards as a selling point?
Hi, I want to express my gratitude to all who answered my question regarding the Web standards as a selling point. I only managed to read through all your messages today, your answers have helped me clarified some doubts I have. Tee, have a look at one more: http://vivabit.co.uk/articles/wsbp/ - I thinks it was not mendioned yet. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] CSS mit neuen Augen sehen
Worth a try people. Awesome tool for checking your HTML and CSS. 'CSS mit neuen Augen sehen' indeed. http://www.culturedcode.com/xyle/ Regards, Amit Karmakar http://karmakars.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] Web standards as a selling point?
Tee, have a look at one more: http://vivabit.co.uk/articles/wsbp/ - I thinks it was not mendioned yet. One of the first points on that web site is: Sites built with web standards take less time to develop I have to disagree. Trying to lay a site out with CSS can be very complicated and time consuming, given all that hacks that you have to research and use in order to get things to look right and work right across multiple browsers. Table layout, on the other hand, is straightforward and simple. It might be more complicated to maintain when you come back to it a while later and have to work out the nested table colspan'ed layout and make an adjustment to it. However, would a CSS layout be any easier to come back and maintain? (I don't know, I'll find out in a while I suppose.) Here is something that annoys me too - people dismiss table layout because basically, using tables for layout is not what tables are intended for. Therefore using tables for layout is a 'hack'.However, whenever you try to use CSS for layout, you find out you have to use various 'hacks' to get it all to work right. Therefore, you negate on of the main reasons for using CSS layout in the first place. Not only that, newer CSS versions introduce tables into CSS! Reinventing the wheel anyone? Is it just a case of CSS layout (and browser's implementation of it) not being mature enough yet to really trust and use fully, or should we carry on regardless with it? An example of a hack is to use a background image behind the layers of your 3 column layout. Surely the proper thing to do should be to specify background colours in the stylesheet, which is a lot easier to maintain than changing an image's colours and widths. Plus it often means that you are building in fixed column widths, not recommended usually in an ideal world. Here's another thought - is using floats to design things like 3 column layouts a hack in itself? Shouldn't relative positioning be the proper way to do it? Maybe not I just ask :-) Please don't shoot me down in flames for these views! One of the things I like about this list as opposed to another list I am on is that you people discuss these issues in an open, reasonable way and acknowledge such problems. I look forward to your replies! :-) It helps me with my understanding of CSS, web design and the best way to carry on designing. Stephen -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 ** 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] Web standards as a selling point?
Stephen, how long have you benn designing CSS based layouts? I can confirm the Patrick's opinion, after some time you get enough experience to build a CSS-P layout much faster and without any incompatibilities etc. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] can you hack the alt tag open?
I believe that is what object is for. If IE didn't screw it up so royaly with it's activeX it would be a considerably better option than the img. With an object tag, this object src='place' type='thisisnotsupported' object src='place' type='thismightbesupported' pThis is some alternate text for browsers that do not support 'thisisnotsupported' or 'thismightbesupported'. If a browser supports 'thisisnotsupported' it will display that, otherwise it will fall back to 'thismightbesupported', and if it doesn't support that, it will fall back to this text. You can also put emcool/em markup in here./p pA question to the guru's out there. If I put a script tage in here, will a browser that supports one of the above objects still execute the script?/p /object /object -Alan Paul Dwyer wrote: Sorry for the cross posting. Is it possible to serve up the textual contents of an alt tag, outside of the tag? In other words, can I make the stuff inside the alt tag as important as the document contents? I'm not exactly sure what I am asking here... I don't have the vocabulary. I want Googlebots to *really* see my alt tags and give them as much weight as the regular content of my website. ::pd:: ** 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] Web standards as a selling point?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:36:25 +0100, Stevio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the first points on that web site is:
Sites built with web standards take less time to develop
I have to disagree. Trying to lay a site out with CSS can be very
complicated and time consuming
...when you don't have equal experience in CSS as you do in table-layouts.
given all that hacks that you have to research
or remember.
and use in order to get things to look right and work right across
multiple browsers.
I code for two browsers: good ones and IE.
Table layout, on the other hand, is straightforward and simple.
tabletdtdtdtd, bonanza!
Here is something that annoys me too - people dismiss table layout
because basically, using tables for layout is not what tables are
intended for.
I dismiss it because tables add complexity to my server-side code, which is
complex enough without worrying about markup.
It's quite easy to output few ps or divs than to worry about proper
colspans/rowspans, order of data, etc.
Not only that, newer CSS versions introduce tables into CSS! Reinventing
the wheel anyone?
Tables for layout aren't good, but tabular layout isn't that all bad.
The point is that you can easily manipulate layout without touching HTML.
Columns?
#left, #right {display: table-cell;}
and that's it.
Hybrid layouts aren't that all bad, if you can't manage to handle
floats'n'stuff.
The worst thing is when you use 9-cell table with spacer gifs simply to get
something like:
foo {padding: 1em; margin: 1em; border: 1px dashed black;}
or when you slice your images adding useless markup and increasing
load time (TCP/IP + HTTP overhead) just to get effect of:
foo {background: url(image); position: relative;}
foo bar {position: absolute;}
--
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] Web standards as a selling point?
On 4/22/05, Stevio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the first points on that web site is: Sites built with web standards take less time to develop I have to disagree. Trying to lay a site out with CSS can be very complicated and time consuming, given all that hacks that you have to research and use in order to get things to look right and work right across multiple browsers. Depends on skills. For me, handcoder CSS is extremely more efficient way to develop. Table layout, on the other hand, is straightforward and simple. With the help of Dremweaver, I guess. I don't mind table based layouts that much, but I must admit - I came across tableless layouts more often than I see good table based layout. Frankly, I cannot give you any example of such. By Good table based layout I mean one using no more tables than necessary, that is 1 or to in most cases. What I see in reality is dozens, often hundred or more tables - in one page. Now go ahead, code http://www.socmin.lt/ by hand. 191 table and still look crap in Firefox. Not table layout is simple, but the fact that it can be done with WYSIWYG easily makes table layout so attractive. It might be more complicated to maintain when you come back to it a while later and have to work out the nested table colspan'ed layout and make an adjustment to it. However, would a CSS layout be any easier to come back and maintain? (I don't know, I'll find out in a while I suppose.) In table based world presentational markup gets too much into content, so it makes _content_ difficult to maintain (and maintenance cost may exceed those of development many many times, depending of the lifespan of the site). In the case of CSS layout you rarely have to maintain CSS - only in the case of changes in design, not content. Here is something that annoys me too - people dismiss table layout because basically, using tables for layout is not what tables are intended for. Therefore using tables for layout is a 'hack'.However, whenever you try to use CSS for layout, you find out you have to use various 'hacks' to get it all to work right. Therefore, you negate on of the main reasons for using CSS layout in the first place. Wrong. Intent is not the main reason. Main reason for CSS layout is separation of content from presentation. And that gives benefits in development, maintenance and accessibility. ... Here's another thought - is using floats to design things like 3 column layouts a hack in itself? Shouldn't relative positioning be the proper way to do it? Maybe not I just ask :-) ... It does not matter. It may be paradox but the best way to see benefits of CSS layout is to switch off the CSS (given that structural markup is well executed). And that is the point. I rarely use any hacks in CSS, theres is much more talk about them than real nead for them. Walking around the browser bugs is another story. But once again - even if you use hacks they are less hacks because they are removed from your content and document structure. They live isolated, and can be squashed easily when needed. This topic is very flamable, so I won't go on it any more (at least in this thread ;), 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] Web standards as a selling point?
- Original Message - From: Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] ah, but (from what you say elsewhere in your post) you are just learning CSS layout - of course you are finding it more difficult. I wouldn't say I am just learning CSS, I've been using it for a while. I would say I am not an expert either however. I, on the other hand, haven't done full on table-layout in something like 5 years now. I assure you, I don't remember all the little tricks and hacks required for that and it would take me ages to make it look just so. Don't be confused between the effort of the learner and the effort of the master :) Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ I had a look at your web site out of interest to see what it's like :-) I'm using IE6 on Windows XP, 1024 by 768 resolution (probably a very common configuration). There are some strange problems with your footer and copyright area. The copyright line is mostly hidden to the left of the green area. Only '005' shows. Also, when you mouseover your footer links, they jump to the left slightly. Sometimes your copyright line does show and then is hidden when you mouseover the links. A white gap also appears sometimes between the two green side columns and the footer as you scroll. These are the sort of things that drive me nuts when designing with CSS! And to be fair you must agree these problems do not occur with table layouts? If this was my site I would then have the choice - research why these problems are happening, find the hacks to make them work, and then implement and test. Or convert to tables. What often happens in these cases is that I do the research and the best option ends up being to use tables anyway, as it is the best and most reliable option. I realise as well that many problems with the use of CSS can be laid at the feet of IE6. However, IE6 is the dominant browser and is what most of your clients and their clients are using. As long as that is the case then first and foremost, your site has to work in this browser. Please don't mistake me for being anti-CSS. I am not. My designs at the moment tend to be a mix between CSS and table layouts. CSS is also great for text styling. I just feel it has some way to go before it is the definitive solution for layout, and that people are too quick to dismiss table layout. Thank you for your feedback. Here's a final thought for this email - one of the reasons that the internet became such a big thing is because it was so easy to create web sites, not necessarily good web sites, but easy nonetheless. The concept of sticking tags round things to affect how they behave is relatively simple. Using tables for layout is also a fairly intuitive thing, so using them was not a problem for people making web sites. However, I think you would agree that there is a steeper learning curve in learning to use CSS, which therefore means that less people are going to be able to create web sites. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Stephen -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 ** 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] Web standards as a selling point?
On 4/22/05, Stevio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Using tables for layout is also a fairly intuitive thing, so using them was not a problem for people making web sites. ... Yes, that indeed was the case. Now web is getting mature, so we have to make sites that are easy to USE (and access), not easy to make. 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] Web standards as a selling point?
From: Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic is very flamable, so I won't go on it any more (at least in this thread ;), Don't worry about that. It's important to discuss these issues I think. Anyone who has been in this business for a while as I have, will have seen the latest and greatest development ideas come and go. Remember when Java applets were the future of the internet? Remember all those Flash intro pages with the skip buttons (lol)? Latest is not always greatest - if we're going to use something we need to be convinced it is the right and best thing to use. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 ** 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] Web standards as a selling point?
I realise as well that many problems with the use of CSS can be laid at the feet of IE6. Indeed. However, IE6 is the dominant browser and is what most of your clients and their clients are using. Unfortunately :( Using tables for layout is also a fairly intuitive thing, so using them was not a problem for people making web sites. Nope. What is your process of drawing on paper? Do you draw the separate objects independently and combine them, or do you use squared paper and draw the image at once, square by square? In the 1990's tables were raped for creating layouts on web, because there were no alternatives. Now the situation is different and I can't see any advantage of drawing box by box than using freely the whole available space. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] can you hack the alt tag open?
Google DOES spider and index alt text, it's one of their 12978985741 elements in their algorithm to serve results. Read up on some search engine optimization tricks and one of them is to place an invisible gif near the top of your page (under body tag) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lea de Groot Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:27 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] can you hack the alt tag open? On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:02:47 -0700, Paul Dwyer wrote: Is it possible to serve up the textual contents of an alt tag, outside of the tag? In other words, can I make the stuff inside the alt tag as important as the document contents? snip I want Googlebots to *really* see my alt tags and give them as much weight as the regular content of my website. Sadly, no - its vaguely possible that you might be able to make it appear with CSS (never seen it dont, though) but Google still wouldn't see it. But if the image is a link then G will see and index your text :) Lea ~ looking for a permanent position in Brisbane. Contact me for CV. -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, Australia ** 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] Web standards as a selling point?
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: On 4/22/05, Stevio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Using tables for layout is also a fairly intuitive thing, so using them was not a problem for people making web sites. ... Yes, that indeed was the case. Now web is getting mature, so we have to make sites that are easy to USE (and access), not easy to make. You make a good point but you join two things together there that are not automatically connected. Easy to use - yes, what we all want Easy to Access - yes, again but not relevant to the above point. I have seen many to many sites that have had the most horrendously complex div ... layouts to get the layout that they want that the accessibility has deteriorated to a great degree, just as bad as nested tables. To my mind the object of a site being accessible is that facilities exist for screen-readers and the like to get to content/navigation/whatever as easily as the visual user does. An example is the problem of 3 column layouts, frequently a demand of the client but hard to implement in current css across all browsers. A simple table does that layout in one set of tags compared to several layers in a pure css driven design. That has to be more accessible, surely. What I mull over is the blurring between web standards and accessibility. They are different requirements and often compete. We run an Internet Hosting Provider, a small, specialist firm that provides hosting to mainly commercial entities that make their living out of their websites. In general their main interest is getting their websites available to the largest possible audience, simply that. For them a layout that has one table of 3 columns rather than about 5 divs is better simply because it is less hassle for those last few percent of users that could be clients, and they could have as much revenue potential as any other client.. -- yours, Kym K ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
