RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way its going to happen. Basically, unless theres some fancy new way to encode the image, I dont see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and Ill implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldnt restrict how we work. Also, Im not assuming as you suggest we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isnt a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">).
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
The problem is youre designing for a technology [DSL], not accessibility. May I suggest a handheld stylesheet to alleviate some of the problem with a large media screen footprint? Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) Sent: 25 July 2005 07:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way its going to happen. Basically, unless theres some fancy new way to encode the image, I dont see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and Ill implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldnt restrict how we work. Also, Im not assuming as you suggest we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isnt a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768. There were some css validation errors as well (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile="">).
Re: [WSG] What not to do for colour blind users
I vaguely recall that red on black is not a very good color choice. I always test my color schemes at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ and Russ' link from last week is a good primer: http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/ kind regards Terrence Wood. On 25 Jul 2005, at 3:21 PM, Mordechai Peller wrote: James Ellis wrote: The box below contains a row of random letters. Most of the letters are coloured white, some are highlighted. Please enter ONLY the RED HIGHLIGHTED characters in the order in which they appear in the box below and press GO. If it's only red or white letters on a black background, it shouldn't be a problem in most cases, but it's less than ideal. ** 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] Message size (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
On 25 Jul 2005, at 5:08 PM, Edward Clarke wrote: Yes – I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I’ll implement. As an aside, please spare a thought for those of us on this list stuck on 56k lines? The messages in this thread are now approaching 50K - and growing. Please - trim replies, and use plain text! Thx - N __ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.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] Apache DTD problem
Thanks Patrick, Your diagnosis was spot on, I do have php installed and I do have "short tags" enabled, that's what wascausing the problem. Thanks for your help. Cheers Peter McCarthy
RE: [WSG] What not to do for colour blind users
There's a good article here: http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/ which goes through all the variations quite well. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.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 Check: Broadleaf
Edward, The full stylesheet is only served for media=screen. For media=print and media=handheld they currently just get the raw page, which due to the mark-up works quite well anyway. Is this what you mean at all? Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 5:08 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The problem is youre designing for a technology [DSL], not accessibility. May I suggest a handheld stylesheet to alleviate some of the problem with a large media screen footprint? Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Mugur, I hope you are not upset with me. Not at all. J I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, Ive been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, Ive never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 5:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Your absoutely right when you say our creativy shoud not be restricted by any means. Still, the comment i made was targeted at half of your image that looks to me that coud go safey without affecting your overal design. I'm talking about the part behind the content. No offence but at this point it looks more like a wallpaper to me (in size at least). However this is your choice and in no way am I trying to be critical on that issue, afterall, design it's a subtle thing and i may not read your message right this time. I just expressed a not very well expained opinion, nothing more. I hope you are not upset with me. On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going to happen. Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work. Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Hi Tatham, Perhaps you should consider the bandwidth cost of serving such a 'large' page. Perhaps it's not an issue if your site has a small target audience, but if your site will attract many many visitors, it will eventually become a burden, and more expense to the client. You are right that networks are evolving, but some parts of the world are slower to evolve :-) Kind regards, Stephen Scott, Webmaster, eCosway.com Sdn Bhd -Original Message-From: Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 25 July, 2005 5:16 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Mugur, I hope you are not upset with me. Not at all. J I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, I've been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, I've never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur PadureanSent: Monday, 25 July 2005 5:25 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Your absoutely right when you say our creativy shoud not be restricted by any means. Still, the comment i made was targeted at half of your image that looks to me that coud "go" safey without affecting your overal design. I'm talking about the part behind the content. No offence but at this point it looks more like a wallpaper to me (in size at least).However this is your choice and in no way am I trying to be critical on that issue, afterall, design it's a subtle thing and i may not read your message right this time. I just expressed a "not very well expained" opinion, nothing more. I hope you are not upset with me. On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mugur, This article only discusses reducing the HTML size... which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going to happen. Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes - I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work. Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest - we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mugur PadureanSent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea.Maybe this will help you:http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages.Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute.I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow - and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only
RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Quote: only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Youre assuming everyone has DSL at low contention. As you mention, networks are evolving, more so wirelessly where bandwidth is even more of a premium which is justification enough to serve lightweight pages. Quote: I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Sorry bud but 150Kb is just too heavy. Fact! By all means create a heavy front page as youre the developer but dont forget the high bandwidth disclaimer in the footer of the template. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) Sent: 25 July 2005 10:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Mugur, I hope you are not upset with me. Not at all. J I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, Ive been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, Ive never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
G'day I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Well, you probably fail to take a few things into account. Like people leaving a slow loading site rather than complaining. Like the cost of bandwidth. Like availability of broadband. I could go on, but I think we're far enough off-topic already. But how about cutting down the size of your emails and making them plain text? No need to repeatedly quote 40k of text with all that Micro$oft formatting in it. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 7/25/05 2:50 AM Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: But how about cutting down the size of your emails and making them plain text? No need to repeatedly quote 40k of text with all that Micro$oft formatting in it. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design 100% agreement here. *Please* no more rtf/html posts here! I delete rtf/html posts immediately and other people do too I know for a fact. B-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
You would have thought that a web standards group would be using a more web standards compliant email client like Thunderbird ? Rick Faaberg wrote: On 7/25/05 2:50 AM "Bert Doorn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: But how about cutting down the size of your emails and making them plain text? No need to repeatedly quote 40k of text with all that Micro$oft formatting in it. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design 100% agreement here. *Please* no more rtf/html posts here! I delete rtf/html posts immediately and other people do too I know for a fact. B-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] double table trouble
Hi there Thanks for your previous help on css - though I was sure I had tried the very same solution and it hadn't worked! My problem is a data tablethat I am using for aconference program. I have used CSS to style the table and it has no attributes on any of the elements. I have 2 tables on the same pagewhich I want to look identical for different days of the week. One has a small amount of text and so displays differently to the larger table. If I add a width to the table - it doesn't make any difference - if I add it to the td/th - it still doesn't work. How can I ensure that they look identical? Stephanie Champion
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
On 7/25/05, Chris Cowling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You would have thought that a web standards group would be using a more web standards compliant email client like Thunderbird ? Targetting email clients is like targetting browsers, which is soo 90. And don't forget the few of us who are on web mail (Gmail, Yahoo mail etc.) Prabhath http://nidahas.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] double table trouble
I have 2 tables on the same page which I want to look identical for different days of the week. One has a small amount of text and so displays differently to the larger table. If I add a width to the table - it doesn't make any difference - if I add it to the td/th - it still doesn't work. How can I ensure that they look identical? Did specifying width for tds work? E.g.: td width=100 height=100Whatever/td Tables are a headache even when their use is essential. One way that seems to work fine is specifying the width as a percentage (Enclose it in a div that has a width specified, and use percentages for the tables). IE 5.x has a problem where percentage widths are calculated against the viewport rather than the parent element, so might have to do some hacks there too. cheers, Prabhath http://nidahas.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 Check: Broadleaf
On 25 Jul 2005, at 4:02 PM, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote: Regarding the CSS errors - they are all IE hacks * html is your friend. It validates and only IE loads it, and you can group 'em together as a block rather than polluting individual rules. Hide your PC only hacks from Macs using the commented backslash hack. Also noticed you are hiding a min-height declaration from IE which isn't needed -- IE doesn't support that property. On large pages: I'm not going to bother checking any of those monster size pages you quote elsewhere, but at a guess I doubt any of those pages are primarily single images. And on creativity: delivering work within the constraints of the medium is creative, a 150k photo of trees for a financial (?) consultancy... strictly a matter of opinion. If your client is in a competitative market, which isn't the business of giving away desktop pictures =), you really want to design a page at least one-third that size. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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]
Title: Message Hello, I can't figure out why there is such a large gap at the top of the #content area. I know there should be .5em of h1, but this is larger. http://tagav.com/dev/home.shtml http://tagav.com/dev/css/styles.css Thanks, White Ash
Re: [WSG]
White Ash wrote: Hello, I can't figure out why there is such a large gap at the top of the #content area. I know there should be .5em of h1, but this is larger. http://tagav.com/dev/home.shtml http://tagav.com/dev/css/styles.css Thanks, White Ash If you are interested in converting to a 2 column tableless layout and don't need it yesterday, contact me off-list. Regards, David Laakso -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.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] Large Top Margin
G'day I can't figure out why there is such a large gap at the top of the #content area. I know there should be .5em of h1, but this is larger. http://tagav.com/dev/home.shtml If you put a background on your #header, you will see where the gap comes from. It's in the #header. The browser tries to balance the table cell heights and in so doing makes the header cell taller than you want it. You may be able to fix this by setting a height (in CSS) on the header. Better still, as David hinted, don't use a table for layout. Regards -- 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 **
[WSG] Notes and links for Tim's AJAX Preso (Sydney July Meeting)
Hey hey, Thanks to those who managed to make it to the meeting last Thursday in Sydney. I just want to say it was a lot of fun and thanks for being a great audience. For those who wanted a copy of the preso, or didn't make the meeting, I've posted a (slighty cleaned up) copy here: http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resource581.cfm If you want to experiment with some AJAX yourself I highly encourage you to steal the JS files from my demo site (http://aviditybytes.com/resources.html), look at the HTML source and have a play in your programming language of choice (it's really easy!). If you want to have a play with Rails you'll also find the full source for the demo site too (you'll need Rails installed). Below are a couple of links that relate to some questions I was asked after the presentation (and don't forget there's links at the end of the PDF). If anybody has feedback or questions please feel free to write me. - tim lucas Javascript accessibility and JAWs (also, see comment 14 for discussion of JS onload problems) http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/you_shouldve_be_1.html Javascript best practices http://domscripting.webstandards.org/ http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/articles/goodpractices.php The difference between 'Ruby' and 'Ruby on Rails' http://blogs.eng5.com/~mlightner/?p=19 Invoking SOAP via AJAX http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-ajax1/ Installing Rails on Tiger http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/HowtoInstallOnOSXTiger ** 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] Discussion - The root of all evil
Listers, I felt the need to share this. My apologies if this is Holy-War territory, annoying or even more OT than I think it is... I found this in one of the stories on browsehappy.com: snip ...Until then, I had no idea that that there were other programs that could do what Internet Explorer did -- we don?t read magazines or visit sites which would tell you that sort of information! snip I have said before, on this list and others, that if people were _shown_ the alternatives, there would be far less CSS hacking in the world. If only there were a television commercial budget for these types of things... Off-list replies are probably prefered. -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** 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 Check: Broadleaf
This article only discusses reducing the HTML size. which if you take a look at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going to happen. I'm not sure i understand what all the feedback regarding the background image is about either. it seems to me that the size of the html is what matters, its not like the page is dependant on the background. i'm half a planet away, n. U.S., the html loads real well, then the background comes in in about half a minute (i'm on dial-up, too). I downloaded the background image to see if I could optomize it to smaller but it seems like its already as small as it will go. I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is abandoning smaller dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed that and just not loaded yet. regards Donna Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off. Yes - I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work. Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest - we have bandwidth stats from the current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant concern. Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea. Maybe this will help you: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/ The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good motivator for small size web pages. Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute. I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly, almost as dial-up (or so it feels). On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward, Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue as: * most of the target market will be on office internet connections and ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia * the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content pages, just with different column layouts * because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit will be slow - and first page hit occurs because users are after something on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case we're only about 4k total * because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection - just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well * many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as well: * microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k * sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k * yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k * ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k * news.com.au home page is pushing 383k Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to most visitors. Edward Clarke ECommerce and Software Consultant TN38 Consulting http://blog.tn38.net Creative Media Centre 17-19 Robertson Street Hastings East Sussex TN34 1HL United Kingdom _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats. It is not noticeable
Re: [WSG] Large Top Margin
Aha ~ That clarifies a part of the mystery ~ thanks for that. I took out the table cell height and declared a height for the #header area in the css. No dice. I would love to do it via div's only, but for now would be happy if I could make the light table work. Any other ideas on that? Thanks, White Ash If you put a background on your #header, you will see where the gap comes from. It's in the #header. The browser tries to balance the table cell heights and in so doing makes the header cell taller than you want it. You may be able to fix this by setting a height (in CSS) on the header. ** 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 Check: Broadleaf
Sites where designers can show off their chops cater to a specific audience - other designers who want to be thrilled by a primarily visual experience. There is nothing wrong with eye candy sites for people interested in eye candy, but using such examples as an argument in support of creating really big web pages for every/any site is flawed. One size does not fit all, and in fact the entire design industry is built on this truth. Remember design is about creatively solving business problems, not the business of expressing your creativity. There are many sound reasons not to create large web site pages, some of which are discussed in this thread already, and I suggest that where a peer review of a design repeatedly invokes the same criticism that there is probably something in that criticism. I don't know of anybody in the real world (broadband or not) who has asked for a bigger slower web. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 4:30 AM, Donna Jones wrote: I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is abandoning smaller dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed that and just not loaded yet. ** 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 Check: Broadleaf
Hi Terrence: in checking the speed report (under Tools in FF), the site comes through with flying colors - under 4K. http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php?url=http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel quoteTOTAL_HTML - Congratulations, the total number of HTML files on this page (including the main HTML file) is 1 which most browsers can multithread. Minimizing HTTP requests is key for web site optimization. /quote best Donna Terrence Wood wrote: Sites where designers can show off their chops cater to a specific audience - other designers who want to be thrilled by a primarily visual experience. There is nothing wrong with eye candy sites for people interested in eye candy, but using such examples as an argument in support of creating really big web pages for every/any site is flawed. One size does not fit all, and in fact the entire design industry is built on this truth. Remember design is about creatively solving business problems, not the business of expressing your creativity. There are many sound reasons not to create large web site pages, some of which are discussed in this thread already, and I suggest that where a peer review of a design repeatedly invokes the same criticism that there is probably something in that criticism. I don't know of anybody in the real world (broadband or not) who has asked for a bigger slower web. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 4:30 AM, Donna Jones wrote: I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is abandoning smaller dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed that and just not loaded yet. ** 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] Site Check: Broadleaf
Donna Jones wrote: I'm not sure i understand what all the feedback regarding the background image is about either. it seems to me that the size of the html is what matters, its not like the page is dependant on the background. i'm half a planet away, n. U.S., the html loads real well, then the background comes in in about half a minute (i'm on dial-up, too). Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome when designers rely on the background image and define colour for their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback background colour. in fact, i just found an official one, and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller but still Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many cases how one can push the boundaries using CSS. I would not hold it as a model for what should or shouldn't be implemented on a production site. -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Hi, The background image only renders across 3/4 of the viewport in Safari 2.0. On Jul 24, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Tatham Oddie ((Fuel Advance)) wrote: Hi all, I’ve just placed the first page of a new site on our test-drive server: http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/ Which is a redo of: http://www.broadleaf.com.au/ There is also a mock up which shows how it is meant to look: http://fueladvance.com/broadleaf/HomePagePreview.jpg I have tested in IE6 and FF1.0.6PC and it seems to work fine. If a few of you could take a look in other browsers that’d be great. Also, any design / coding suggestions would be greatly appreciated. J Thanks, Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.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] Large Top Margin
G'day I took out the table cell height and declared a height for the #header area in the css. No dice. Worked for me in Firefox, but I did not check other browsers I would love to do it via div's only, but for now would be happy if I could make the light table work. Any other ideas on that? Sure, as your header only has an image, how about not putting it in a separate table cell? In other words, put it in the same cell as the content. Or if the image has no semantic meaning, you cold even put it (via css) into that cell as a non repeating background, centered at the top of the cell and give the cell padding-top to taste. #content { background: #fff url(/dev/images/headhome.jpg) center top no-repeat; padding: 133px 0 0; vertical-align:top; } This setup is very easy to do with divs only. I don't have the time to do it for you, but have a look at the resources section of the webstandardsgroup website - there's plenty of resources there for two column css layouts. Regards -- 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 **
Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf
Thanks Donna, that's funny. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 10:03 AM, Donna Jones wrote: Hi Terrence: in checking the speed report (under Tools in FF), the site comes through with flying colors - under 4K. http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php?url=http:/ /testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel quoteTOTAL_HTML - Congratulations, the total number of HTML files on this page (including the main HTML file) is 1 which most browsers can multithread. Minimizing HTTP requests is key for web site optimization. /quote best Donna ** 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 Check: Broadleaf
Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome when designers rely on the background image and define colour for their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback background colour. Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many cases how one can push the boundaries using CSS. I would not hold it as a model for what should or shouldn't be implemented on a production site. Hi Patrick: In this case there is fallback colour. Its perfectly readable w/out the background image, at least it is when I hide background image w/ the webdev toolbar in Firefox. and from what i've observed when it is loading. okay okay *smile* maybe zengardens is not a good example, I mainly mentioned it because I was familiar with it, of course, and knew that others would be on here, also. I also realize that ZenGardens is sorta frozen in space and time and Eric would have done some things differently if he was doing it today - I found that real interesting reading in the csszengardens book. I think there are issues w/ this design but I can't see how the background image is particularly an issue - if it was embedded in the html, altogether different, obviously. so okay, I'm a newby and can't believe I'm arguing with you experts (maybe because its too hot here in Maine even though its much better than a lot of the U.S.) but nobody has convinced me that the background image here is a problem. cheers Donna ** 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] Pure CSS Pop-ups using images... but as background-images in span
Hi, I'm playing with both Pure CSS Popup technics developed by Eric Meyer. http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo.html http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo2.html I'm wondering if there is any issue by doing a merging between both technics. I want to show popup images, but not by using img tags (the second technic). So, my idea is to add an empty (or not) span tag inside the a tag. Example: a href=http://www.mydomain.com/; Link text spantext/span/a Then, in the stylesheet, I add something like this: a span { display: none; background: url(image.jpg) left center no-repeat; } a:hover span { display: block; position: absolute; top: 0; left: 225px; width: 320px; height: 425px; z-index: 10; background: url(image.jpg) left center no-repeat; } I'm testing it and it seems to work flawlessly in Mozilla Firefox 1.0.6 But it doesnt work... guess where... in IE 6!! Why it doesnt work? What am I doing wrong? It seems to be exactly the SAME technic used by Eric Meyer in the Pure CSS Popup technics. Thanks in advance. Julián Landerreche ** 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] Pure CSS Pop-ups using images... but as background-images in span
Hi, Well, Now, I have understood the solution. I need to add a property to the a:hover rule. a:hover { border: none; } Voilà! Now it works in IE6... Weird, weird bug... Julián Julián Landerreche wrote: Hi, I'm playing with both Pure CSS Popup technics developed by Eric Meyer. http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo.html http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo2.html I'm wondering if there is any issue by doing a merging between both technics. I want to show popup images, but not by using img tags (the second technic). So, my idea is to add an empty (or not) span tag inside the a tag. Example: a href=http://www.mydomain.com/; Link text spantext/span/a Then, in the stylesheet, I add something like this: a span { display: none; background: url(image.jpg) left center no-repeat; } a:hover span { display: block; position: absolute; top: 0; left: 225px; width: 320px; height: 425px; z-index: 10; background: url(image.jpg) left center no-repeat; } I'm testing it and it seems to work flawlessly in Mozilla Firefox 1.0.6 But it doesnt work... guess where... in IE 6!! Why it doesnt work? What am I doing wrong? It seems to be exactly the SAME technic used by Eric Meyer in the Pure CSS Popup technics. Thanks in advance. Julián Landerreche ** 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 **
[WSG] link ?
ok i'm having a problem, I have a nav section on my page (see code below) that should be limited to the navwrapper div but it's not, anywhere on the page I make a link it's styled like the nav even outside the div, never had this problem before any ideas? tia #navwrapper { padding: 5px; height: auto; width: 98%; } #navwrapper ul { margin: 10px; padding: 0px; } #navwrapper li { list-style-type: none; background: transparent; display: block; } #navwrapper li a:link, a:visited { color: #006699; text-decoration: none; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Geneva, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: .9em; background-color: #FF; text-align: left; text-indent: 10px; padding: 4px; margin: 3px 0 2px; display: block; border-top: 1px solid #006699; border-right: 1px solid #006699; border-bottom: 1px solid #006699; border-left: 3px solid #006699; } #navwrapper li a:hover, #navwrapper li a:active { color: #33; text-decoration: none; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Geneva, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.9em; text-align: left; text-indent: 10px; padding: 4px; margin: 3px 0 2px; display: block; border-top: 1px solid #006699; border-right: 6px solid #006699; border-bottom: 1px solid #006699; border-left: 3px solid #006699; font-weight: bold; background-image: url(../images/linkover.gif); background-position: right center; background-repeat: no-repeat; }
Re: [WSG] link ?
G'day I'd say your problem is here: #navwrapper li a:link, a:visited { See the a:visited? That affects ALL links on the page. I think you meant to say: #navwrapper li a:link, #navwrapper li a:visited { Regards -- 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 **
Re: [WSG] link ?
Doh, got beaten to it. :P I second Bert's opinion.On 7/26/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'dayI'd say your problem is here:#navwrapper li a:link, a:visited {See the a:visited?That affects ALL links on the page.I think you meant to say:#navwrapper li a:link, #navwrapper li a:visited { Regards--Bert Doorn, Better Web Designhttp://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/Fast-loading, user-friendly websites** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**-- Ben Wonge: [EMAIL PROTECTED]w: http://blog.onehero.net
Re: [WSG] Pure CSS Pop-ups using images... but as background-images in span
an actual live example will help because if your CSS is the same as Eric's then the problem lies in your html -- e.g. it could be a doctype issue. position:relative on your 'a' delcaration might help. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 26 Jul 2005, at 2:30 PM, Julián Landerreche wrote: But it doesnt work... guess where... in IE 6!! ** 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] link ?
yup that was it, i completely missed that, thanks :)From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:04 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] link ?G'dayI'd say your problem is here: #navwrapper li a:link, a:visited {See the a:visited? That affects ALL links on the page.I think you meant to say:#navwrapper li a:link, #navwrapper li a:visited {Regards-- Bert Doorn, Better Web Designhttp://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**
[WSG] help with colour switcher
I think this might be off topic, so please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am trying to get a simple colour switcher happening and having no luck. Can someone please help me get mine fixed or help with another simple one? Thank you. My main style sheet (ifsmain.css) is in a positive image. My alternate style sheet (ifsmain-reverse.css) is the negative image. I would also entertain any feedback for button placement, button text and colour choices. HTML: http://infoforce-services.com/index.php CSS: http://infoforce-services.com/css/Ifsmain.css Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. 2nd Vice president Choroideremia Research Foundation Canada Inc. 1st Vice President http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] ADMIN: Re: Site Check: Broadleaf
Lets try and keep the broadleaf discussion on topic and polite, shall we people? Thank you! Lea -- Lea de Groot Core Member ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **