date:20050726

Hello, reality check here.

Quoting the US and Australian available IT infrastructure, as a good
reason for building huge web pages, is wrong for at least three reasons:

1. Over 90% percent of the world population do not live there and do
not have dial-up access or other types of network access of such
quality.
In Romania where I am living dial-up access it's ... frustrating. So
it's cable sometimes, ADSL if way too expensive and other means of
network access are are inaccessible due to cost or limited area of
availability. What about laptops ? Or wireless access? Both are much
slower but in wide spread use. Did you know in my country you are
charged by the megabyte ? Technology is NOT spread uniformly all over
the world, and making your page smaller it's a better, smarter and fair
approach than waiting for the world to catch up with you guys. I'm
surprised you don't care but that's another story.

2.Is technology evenly spread in your countries ( US and Australia)? Is
there no place in those countries where Internet access makes you wanna
kill that evil designer that put a 4 Mb flash intro on your favourite
site ? I bet you all live in big cities, don't you ? Lucky guys ..

3. Australia and U.S are two countries where going big with your
pages will cost you more, as in bandwidth cost (etc), and in the end
will lead to loosing clients. Isn't it ?

Do you know what's the easy way to achieve a pixel perfect design on any browser ? Yes, tables ! Or is it not ?
We here, all know that's not really true and we stand for
it. And for usability and ACCESSIBILITY. And accessibility means
access for everyone regardless of technology availability or other
kinds of disabilities.
I think web standards were meant to raise awareness first and give an
impulse to all of us to build a better web. A web for everyone,
everywhere !

Otherwise we will end up with a web full of 10 Mb pages with embedded
databases, wallpaper backgrounds, tag soup and proprietary technologies
... oh, wait ... we already have that! Damn ...

Re: [WSG] Pure CSS Pop-ups using images... but as background-images in span

2005-07-26 Thread Ingo Chao


Julián Landerreche schrieb:

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...



Yes, that's weird. Maybe this

http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/pseudocss.html#hoverdesc

will be of additional help understanding the problem in IE.


Ingo

--
http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html
**
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

2005-07-26 Thread Donna Jones


Mugur Padurean wrote:

Hello, reality check here.

Quoting the US and Australian available IT infrastructure, as a good reason 
for building huge web pages, is wrong for at least three reasons:


I surely didn't mean to be doing that, please see below.

1. Over 90% percent of the world population do not live there and do not 
have dial-up access or other types of network access of such quality.
In Romania where I am living dial-up access it's ... frustrating. So it's 
cable sometimes, ADSL if way too expensive and other means of network access 
are are inaccessible due to cost or limited area of availability. What about 
laptops ? Or wireless access? Both are much slower but in wide spread use. 
Did you know in my country you are charged by the megabyte ? Technology is 
NOT spread uniformly all over the world, and making your page smaller it's a 
better, smarter and fair approach than waiting for the world to catch up 
with you guys. I'm surprised you don't care but that's another story.


Hi Mugar:  glad to have a reality check, especially from Romania.  ah, I 
care!  and I wasn't saying that *I* make big pages, I try to keep mine 
really small.  That's one reason I still have dial-up, so I don't forget 
what its like for everyone else.  In the city (small to moderate) I live 
in a lot of people have cable.  It was a test city early on for their 
cable  I have never used broadband, some for security reasons, but 
mainly I don't want to lose touch with how fast things load, or not, 
that I'm designing.  That said, I hadn't thought very much about how the 
IT structure, in general, probably makes a BIG difference in how dial-up 
works, so glad to have those thoughts in my brain.  I generally connect 
at 53K and I bet that may be better than a lot of people on dial-up.  I 
had known how in most (a lot) of Europe you are charged for download time.


BUT, in this particular site we're discussing, the designer thinks they 
are targeting local businesses and they probably have figured that out, 
so odds are no one from anywhere else but Australia will even want to 
visit this site; and they're targetting businesses which, apparently, 
are on broadband.  and their html is under 4K, which you have to admit 
is pretty slim.  and the same graphic is in the background on every 
page, so its just one download.


2.Is technology evenly spread in your countries ( US and Australia)? Is 
there no place in those countries where Internet access makes you wanna kill 
that evil designer that put a 4 Mb flash intro on your favourite site ? I 
bet you all live in big cities, don't you ? Lucky guys ..


well, medium size as I said.  But, I do think technology is not spread 
out evenly, I know its not in Maine (n. U.S.).  I think probably most of 
the major population areas can get broadband but if you're not in a 
city its pretty spotty.


3. Australia and U.S are two countries where going big with your pages 
will cost you more, as in bandwidth cost (etc), and in the end will lead to 
loosing clients. Isn't it ? 


I think a site has to be really very active for bandwidth costs to kick 
in.  I know with anything I've ever done it hasn't been an issue; of 
course, its something to keep in mind.  maybe the newsletters at Maine 
Humanities might all of a sudden become wildly popular. :-)


Otherwise we will end up with a web full of 10 Mb pages with embedded 
databases, wallpaper backgrounds, tag soup and proprietary technologies ... 
oh, wait ... we already have that! Damn ...


Cute.

So, I agree with everything you say as a general principle.  I'm 3/4ths 
Luddite, after all.  its just in this particular case, the separation of 
the image from the html - is not building big *pages*. at most it is one 
big page but what feels seems different in this instance is that the 
image is in the background so the image is not even necessary to see the 
page and load the page.  Of course, the general principle is that that 
contributes to over-all bloat but some people have already said that 
e.g. in the case of csszengardens that there are legitimate reasons for 
breaking that rule - I would just argue the same for this website 
(other design problems aside).  they know their audience, its local, its 
on broadband.


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
**

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread Rick Faaberg

On 7/26/05 12:12 AM SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:

 so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right
 in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and
 go 1024+ ?

Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that
support 2560 x 1600 pixels? http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html
800x600 seems a bit prehistoric...

Now, you should think about getting your shift key fixed! ;-)

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

2005-07-26 Thread Hope Stewart

On 26/7/05 4:18 PM, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 And accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology
 availability or other kinds of disabilities.
 I think web standards were meant to raise awareness first and give an impulse
 to all of us to build a better web. A web for everyone, everywhere !

I agree that those are the ideals we should try to achieve.

And Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] also wrote:

 Hello, reality check here.

But part of the reality is that many websites have a specific target market.
One site I work on has a very narrow, highly specialized market. My client
knows his customers and potential customers. They are all on broadband. They
have to be for their industry.

As such, I was instructed to design the site for broadband access. The
client is the one calling the shots and paying the bill. We, as designers,
give advise regarding the pros  cons of various requests by the client and
may recommend other alternatives. But in the end, the client has the final
say. That is the reality. --  But we can still try to make the site as
accessible as possible within the client-defined framework.


Hope Stewart

**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread Clive Walker

We use the stats here to guide our general design choices. In our case we 
still consder that 800 x 600 is used by a significant number of users.


http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

(Use stats with caution)

Having said that, there will always be specific clients with a targeted 
customer base who choose to do it differently.


Clive Walker


CVW Web Design Ltd

http://www.cvwdesign.com

http://www.cvwdesign.co.uk

+00 44 1403 260722
07855 590013  UK mobile


This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use 
of the addressee(s). If you have received this email in error please notify 
us immediately. If this is the case, you should not use, disclose, copy or 
distribute this communication.



- Original Message - 
From: Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)



On 7/26/05 12:12 AM SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:


so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right
in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and
go 1024+ ?


Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that
support 2560 x 1600 pixels? http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html
800x600 seems a bit prehistoric...

Now, you should think about getting your shift key fixed! ;-)

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
**

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread discusster

Sunny,

I couldn't agree with you more.  If a web designer believes they are
worth their salt then they should make their designs accessible on
devices when viewed at 800 x 600 pixels... it's a basic rule surely?

Cheers,
Blair

On 26/07/05, SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology availability
  or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to raise 
  awareness
  first and give an impulse to all of us to build a better web.
 A web for everyone, everywhere !
 
 *applause*
 
 i have to chime in here on this quoted text, but for another reason...
 
 i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
 at 800x600. i LIKE it.
 
 many ppl on this list ask the members for opinions on their work. i
 sometimes nervously reply privately, with a screenshot, to show how it
 looks on a lower res. i don't often get a response. but i do hear ppl
 say in their posts how they sacrifice the low res visitor.
 
 recently there was a thread about websites dealing with statistics
 (browsers, resolutions, platforms etc). i went to one of the sites
 (not belonging to a member here, i think, but a pretty well-known
 stats site). i couldn't see a third of it without horizontally
 scrolling. i was amazed and more than a little annoyed.
 
 i emailed them. their reply stated that they made the decision years
 ago not to support 800x600. when i replied and expressed my surprise
 at years ago i offered a few suggestions about web standards and
 accessibility, and about this being the world wide web (as opposed
 to the office wide). i have to confess, i may have sounded a little
 rude (i was pretty irritated by now) so i probably deserved what i got
 back: Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm not going to be drawn
 into an argument on something so banal..
 umm... accessibility is banal?
 
 another site i contacted recently (i feel like i'm becoming a
 one-woman low-res evangelist) responded with Yeah... It's a harsh
 decision I made. Everything's too skinny otherwise..
 
 so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right
 in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and
 go 1024+ ? i honestly want to know if i should just shut up about the
 fact that i have to horizontally scroll on MANY sites. a large
 majority of them are designed by folk who i would normally assume to
 be in the know about this sort of thing, and THEY don't seem to care
 what it looks like for me.
 
 sunny
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 
 


-- 
Blair Millen
http://theletter.co.uk
http://doepud.co.uk
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

Hi Sunny,

I'll jump right to it and I will tell you NO you are not wrong to hope
that. Most sites can and should scale down to 800x600 resolution
without to much effort for their makers. Bad news is ... they wont
change easily, it's too convenient to work at large resolution: you
wont have to divide your content, you can have a lot of advertising,
etc ... oh, and it looks cool when you pitch it to your client (which
could be in the first place the one who ask for it). All it's good here
in Weberland :) Or is it not ?

I'm all to aware of bad designer's attitude and lack of understanding
of web standards, but more importantly lack of understanding of what
accessibility and usability really are, or in the end respect for their
users or their users needs. Well here are some spoilers :

Web standards are about attitude.
Attitude about coding : xthml, css and so on, are simply the grammar of
a common language we use - the WEB language. Like any language though,
simply knowing this grammar ( or having a logo saying hey I'm standard
compliant xhtml, css, etc ) means only that your page can be
read correctly by any software that handles correctly the grammar of
the programming language you use, it does not put meaning to your
words. It is not required for your users to know that grammar, in fact
the overwhelming majority won't know it, nor will they benefit more
from your site if they know it, nor should they know it to be able to
use your site. Attitude about coding means, in my humble opinion,
sticking to that grammar and use it only for what grammar should be
used. And clean code and separated structure, content and presentation
off course !

Attitude about accessibility: it means (again in my humble opinion) you
have to serve your content to ANY user in a manner that's APPROPRIATE
for he or she. It does not mean you have to push them to your
standards of how your content should be received, and sticking some
access keys won't magically solve that. Accessibility means helping
ALL your users get the meaning of your content regardless of what they
use or cannot use to get to your content. How many designers or
developers see the handheld style sheet as a way to present a smaller
version of your site instead of scaling down the big one ? It's not
impossible or impractical ... and it's ok if your site looks slightly
differently on a handheld or something else. From the very beginning
IT'S SUPPOSED TO. And that is true for smaller resolutions too.

I'm not trying to teach anyone on this list how to code or how to
think, there are to many members of this list from whom I only have to
learn and to them i apologize for this post. I'm not trying to sell
flowers to the gardeners, nor do i try advocacy here. It is however my
opinion that to many web designers and developers jump to code without
any delay and maybe for them this could be useful ...

That way Sunny, me and many others like us won't have to wonder what stinks in Weberland ?

[WSG] Need a fresh eye - cite check please

2005-07-26 Thread Michael Kear

I think I need a fresh eye on this ... I've run out of things to try.  Can
anyone see why in IE, I have a 10px gap at the right of the container div,
but in Firefox it looks how it's supposed to.The image of Patty in the
masthead graphic should touch the right border, as should the horizontal
rules in the navigation menu and the footer.

The site in question is at http://pattyclayton.com/home.cfm
And the relevant style sheets are
http://pattyclayton.com/css/pattyclayton.css
http://pattyclayton.com/css/formstyles.css and 
http://pattyclayton.com/css/menu.css

Any other criticism or comments would be welcome too, if you felt like
making them.


Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer
AFP Webworks Pty Ltd
http://afpwebworks.com
Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month



**
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

True, but how do you keep your site local on the web?
And what if my bussiness in Romania on dial-up finds your services in
Australia (aimed at local broadbanders) so attractive that wants to
do business with you? Hey, maybe this way i can get my business on the
broadband level but here in Romania ! What, you were planning to turn
me down ... becouse i'm on dial-up in Romania?

quote
But part of the reality is that many websites have a specific target market.
One site I work on has a very narrow, highly specialized market. My client
knows his customers and potential customers. They are all on broadband. They
have to be for their industry.
/ quote

They have a specialized target in terms of industry, i agree, but
not in terms of locations of their target clients ( i hope ). If i'm in
the same bussiness in Romania (and i can pay) will they refuse me?

quote
But in the end, the client has the final say.
/ quote

No the client does not have the final say. He has the initial one ...
and it's our job to take them from the Dark Ages of thinking to 21st
Century of doing business on the net. :)

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread Anthony Cartmell


I couldn't agree with you more.  If a web designer believes they are
worth their salt then they should make their designs accessible on
devices when viewed at 800 x 600 pixels... it's a basic rule surely?


Me too. I like my sites to work well on mobile phones and PDAs too - where  
a screen as big as 800x600 seems like luxury!


HTML was designed to work as a flexible presentation medium. I hate the  
rigidity of making it work like paper :)


Cheers!

Anthony
--
www.fonant.com - hand-crafted web sites

**
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] float problem in IE

2005-07-26 Thread Gavin Cooney

Hi all

Quick question for you all:

i have this page that works fine in firefox/ safari
http://www2.websonic.ie/

but on IE 6 for windows it has the following 2 problems:

1. you can't click on the LH menu. something is above it. Z-index
problem i assume.
2. #mainpagecontent inherits the bgimage of #content. And it is in
front of the side content, so blocks out all the contact details on
the side. I've tried to stop it.
#content #mainpagecontent{
margin-right:210px;
background:none;
}

but no luck.

Any ideas? 

Thanks

Gav
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper

2005-07-26 Thread Jeremy Keith


Sunny wrote:

i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
at 800x600. i LIKE it.


I build websites. I'm under 40. I have 20/20 vision. My monitor is  
1440 x 900 pixels but I too like to surf at 800 pixels wide (although  
usually taller than 600 pixels: just personal preference). When I  
come across a site that displays horizontal scrollbars, I *could*  
expand my browser window... but I could just as is easily hit the  
back button (which is what I'll probably what I'll do).


My computer. My browser. My choice. It's all about choice.

Normally choices are made by the designer with the user in mind:  
readable fonts, good colour schemes, etc. But when it comes to  
nailing an entire design onto a fixed layout, this is one of those  
areas where the choice of the designer conflicts directly with the  
choice of the user.



so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right
in my browsing environment?


Nope, you are not wrong at all. Sites that only work for a specific  
resolution are like sites that only work for a specific browser.  
Whether it's 800 pixels wide, 1024 pixels wide or whatever the latest  
trend might be, hardcoding widths is a shortsighted strategy.


Clive Walker wrote:

We use the stats here to guide our general design choices.


I think that's missing the point. The goal is not to design for the  
majority but to design for everybody.


As Anthony Cartmell said:
HTML was designed to work as a flexible presentation medium. I hate  
the rigidity of making it work like paper


In my opinion, John Allsopp's A Dao of Web Design, though five  
years old, remains the best and most relevant article ever published  
on A List Apart:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/

BTW, technically this isn't really a standards question as the  
subject of user-centric, fluid layouts is something that's been  
around since before CSS/XHTML/etc. but, as a question of best  
practices, I think most people would agree that it's relevant.


--
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] Site Check: Broadleaf

quote
what feels seems different in this instance is that the
image is in the background so the image is not even necessary to see the
page and load the page.
/ qoute

Why put it there then ?
If it's not needed then make it go away ! And voila ... you just turned a broadband only into a everyone everywhere page. :)
I think that using images to beautify the page is questionable but not
necessary wrong. No client wants a huge page where the first thing you
see it's a giant forest, nor do they want a text only version. There is
some degree of balance between content and visual composition elements
to be desired, i think. There were like 5 links 20 words and a 800 by
600 pixels image of a forest ! And it's not the forest that i don't see
fit in that page. I liked the forest ... I'm gonna use it as my ...
oops, not gonna say that :)

quote
they know their audience, its local, its on broadband.
/ quote

Wow,
I don't care how much it costs I WANT THAT TECHNOLOGY that will keep my
site being accessed, for all eternity, by anyone else but who I want to
! It will make an incredible spam filter ...
Pardon my joke but why make a website if all they need it's a brochure
(of course I know why, don't you ?). That's more likely to obtain
the desired effect ... don't you think ?

I know these posts become an exercise in free web
thinking and i guess it's time to move them off line.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Teach me a lesson or two :) Let's spare the others ;)

Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

2005-07-26 Thread Hope Stewart

On 26/7/05 7:07 PM, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 True, but how do you keep your site local on the web?
 And what if my bussiness in Romania on dial-up finds your services in
 Australia (aimed at local broadbanders) so attractive that wants to do
 business with you? Hey, maybe this way i can get my business on the broadband
 level but here in Romania ! What, you were planning to turn me down ...
 becouse i'm on dial-up in Romania?

The site is not aimed at local broadbanders. It is aimed worldwide at large
corporations and multinationals like Exxon Mobil, Petrobras, Woodside LNG,
Qatar Petroleum, China Petroleum Corp, Egypt Petroleum Co, Hyundai Heavy
Industries, Nigeria LNG Ltd, Shell, PEMEX. These are some of my client's
customers.


**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

On 7/26/05, SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
 at 800x600. i LIKE it.

I use a TabletPC to surf the web, on my lap, with a stylus, in
portrait mode - so, 768x1024 instead of the other way around. So
horizontally, that's narrower than your standard 800x600 screen. I
also have a 17 LCD that runs at 1280x1024 natively... sometimes I use
it in the loungeroom, lying on the floor or couch, with the font size
cranked up 5 or 6 times so I can read comfortably from a distance.
Also, I gotta say sometimes I change down to 800x600 to test
something, and the type just renders so beautifully at that res I can
stare at it for hours. Then I get sick of scrolling :)

I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating
*any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities.

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

It does not matter who is it you aimed for. I CAN ACCESS IT. And i
don't mean me Mugur, but me, another multi-national, with headquarters
in another part of the world with local to ISP broadband connection but
no broadband outside the country, witch happen to be common practice in
some countries around the world.

You have to understand that whether you approach it purely abstract, or
pragmatic or any other way designing and efficient fast loading
graphically rich web site it's possible, and a good idea. Would your
client want to expand his/her/their business ? Would he/she/they like
more customers? Would he/she/they want a better web/brand exposure ?

Size does not make up for quality, nor does flash for dynamic engaging
content, nor does a beautiful site for well plan business !
Would you sent your client to war (for big bucks) with slow, clumsy outdated weapons from the 20th century?

RE: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread TN38 [Admin]

It's not starting to, it always has been.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kay Smoljak
Sent: 26 July 2005 13:14
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)


I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating
*any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities.

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf - please close this thread

2005-07-26 Thread Ingo Chao


Mugur Padurean schrieb:
Would you sent your client to war (for big bucks) with slow, clumsy outdated 
weapons from the 20th century?


We shouldn't use war metaphors in a thread that has all qualities of an 
holy war.


After reading all possible relevant and irrelevant objections, I would 
prefer to see this thread come to an end.


Thank you.

Ingo

--
http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html
**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

On 7/26/05, TN38 [Admin] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It's not starting to, it always has been.

What I meant was that more people are starting to see it that way.
Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for
blind people :)

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

quote
I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating
*any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities.
/ quote

I think it was from the very beginning. Accomodating dissabilities is where work was needed fast and results were needed badly. 
In time accessibility will mean and do much more than that.

Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)


worse... some people think an accessible site is one that is online =)
On 27 Jul 2005, at 12:42 AM, Kay Smoljak wrote:

Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for
blind people :)


**
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] Need a fresh eye - cite check please

2005-07-26 Thread Nils Kr. Falch

On 7/26/05, Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think I need a fresh eye on this ... I've run out of things to try.  Can
 anyone see why in IE, I have a 10px gap at the right of the container div,
 but in Firefox it looks how it's supposed to.The image of Patty in the
 masthead graphic should touch the right border, as should the horizontal
 rules in the navigation menu and the footer.

It is probably the width of the image in the masthead that is causing
the problem.
The container is 660px wide whereas the image has a set width of 670.
Reducing the image width or increasing the container width seems to
fix the gap problem,

 Any other criticism or comments would be welcome too, if you felt like
 making them.

Just a note on the colour choise. Neither red text on red background
or red text on black background are a wise choise. It is too little
contrast between the colours. I especially had some problem reading
the link text.

I would recomend the Color contrast checker:
http://www.snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html
That was posted  in Some links for light reading the other day
**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread Erica Jean







When I'm making a website for someone else, Ialways make sure there isn't a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600.And instead of just resizing my browser window, I'll actually flip my resolution (which is generally at 1150x860 or something like that) back down. Sinceviewing at low res doesn't just make the browser window smaller, it makes the toolbars, scrollbars and other such items that come along with the browser larger.

HOWEVER my own personalsites? Like, the ones that getmaybe 20 hits a month? lol. While I'll check in 800x600 to make sure it isn't toodistorted, I generally don't fret about itas much. 

I know there are a lot of people whoget into that "Well, people with that small of a resolution should be used to scrollbars by now" theology... but when it comes to making a website that has some sort of information, materials, or anything else that a large number of people are going tobe interested in, accessibility really is key.

Actually, the only times that I've ever had touse a fixed width layout at allwerebefore I discovered CSS and used tables/images sliced from photoshop for the design... 

That's the best thing about table-less layouts. Make the width 90%, 95% or even 100% if that's what suits your fancy. Then you don't have to worry about it being too skinny ona higher resolution, and you don't have to worry about it being to wide for the smaller ones.

Just my2 cents.

---Original Message---


From: Terrence Wood
Date: 07/26/05 09:02:10
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

worse... some people think an accessible site is one that is >
On 27 Jul 2005, at 12:42 AM, Kay Smoljak wrote:
 Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for
 blind people :)

**
The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

[WSG] image + title

2005-07-26 Thread akella

I just want to display image with a shrto description below it.
And i want that combination to float.

What is the right semantic markup for this thing. IS it right to use this
p class=lfigure
img /
span/span
/p
or may be there is some kind of microformat for this situation?
-- glhf,akella.

RE: [WSG] Need a fresh eye - site check please

2005-07-26 Thread Michael Kear

Thanks Nils.  I've got it fixed now.  

You were close, but not exactly correct.  It turned out it was not the image
itself, but the size of the div containing the image that was the culprit.
I needed to set the left and right margins to -10px to override the 10px
padding of the containing div.   The reason I missed it, was that I had that
set correctly in an earlier version of the style sheet, and forgot to copy
across the #masthead div to the new style sheet.

Thanks a lot for helping - you pointed me at the error I'd been hunting for
for hours.

And thanks for your comments about the link colours.  They were decided by
the client and I've advised her to change them.  Waiting to see what she
says.



Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer
AFP Webworks Pty Ltd
http://afpwebworks.com
Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month





 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Nils Kr. Falch
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 11:15 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Need a fresh eye - cite check please

On 7/26/05, Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think I need a fresh eye on this ... I've run out of things to try.  Can
 anyone see why in IE, I have a 10px gap at the right of the container div,
 but in Firefox it looks how it's supposed to.The image of Patty in the
 masthead graphic should touch the right border, as should the horizontal
 rules in the navigation menu and the footer.

It is probably the width of the image in the masthead that is causing
the problem.
The container is 660px wide whereas the image has a set width of 670.
Reducing the image width or increasing the container width seems to
fix the gap problem,

 Any other criticism or comments would be welcome too, if you felt like
 making them.

Just a note on the colour choise. Neither red text on red background
or red text on black background are a wise choise. It is too little
contrast between the colours. I especially had some problem reading
the link text.

I would recomend the Color contrast checker:
http://www.snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html
That was posted  in Some links for light reading the other day


**
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] image + title

2005-07-26 Thread Bert Doorn


G'day


I just want to display image with a shrto description below it.
And i want that combination to float.



What is the right semantic markup for this thing. IS it right to use this
p class=lfigure
img /
span/span
/p


Should be no need for the span if you do this:

.lfigure img { display:block }

p class=lfigureimg /Caption/p

And maybe it should be a div rather than a p(aragraph).  To float 
the paragraph (or div), add a width to .lfigure and give it a 
float:left or float:right as appropriate.


HTH
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] image + title

Russ has a method for creating an image gallery from definition lists  
at  
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/definition/dl-image- 
gallery.htm


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

On 27 Jul 2005, at 1:34 AM, akella wrote:


I just want to display image with a shrto description below it.
And i want that combination to float.

What is the right semantic markup for this thing. IS it right to use  
this

p class=lfigure
img /
span/span
/p
or may be there is some kind of microformat for this situation?


--
glhf,
akella.


**
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] image + title

2005-07-26 Thread akella

so the perfect one would look like this
markup
p class=lfigureimg /Caption/p
CSS
.lfigure{
float:left;
text-align:center; /*to center description*/
}
.lfigure img{
display:block;
}On 7/26/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day I just want to display image with a shrto description below it. And i want that combination to float. What is the right semantic markup for this thing. IS it right to use this p class=lfigure
 img / span/span /pShould be no need for the span if you do this:.lfigure img { display:block }p class=lfigureimg /Caption/p
And maybe it should be a div rather than a p(aragraph).To floatthe paragraph (or div), add a width to .lfigure and give it afloat:left or float:right as appropriate.HTH--Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/Fast-loading, user-friendly websites**The discussion list for
http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**-- glhf,akella.

Re: [WSG] image + title

2005-07-26 Thread Bert Doorn


G'day again


so the perfect one would look like this markup
p class=lfigureimg /Caption/p
CSS
.lfigure{
float:left;
text-align:center; /*to center description*/
}
.lfigure img{
display:block;
}


Nothing is perfect in this world :-)   You'll need to give the 
float a width but other than that it looks about right to me.


You might also want to add margin-right to .lfigure so text that 
wraps around the float has a little breathing space.


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] image + title

2005-07-26 Thread Drake, Ted C.

I prefer the definition list approach.
There may be arguments if it is semantically proper, but I like to put the
image in the dt and the caption in the dd.
Ted


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Terrence Wood
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:11 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG] image + title

Russ has a method for creating an image gallery from definition lists  
at  
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/definition/dl-image- 
gallery.htm

kind regards
Terrence Wood.

On 27 Jul 2005, at 1:34 AM, akella wrote:

 I just want to display image with a shrto description below it.
 And i want that combination to float.

 What is the right semantic markup for this thing. IS it right to use  
 this
 p class=lfigure
 img /
 span/span
 /p
 or may be there is some kind of microformat for this situation?


 --
 glhf,
 akella.

**
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] Re: Fed Up

2005-07-26 Thread Alpha Mugari

Excuse me I am sick and tired of the junk mail that
you always send to me. Pliz stop it

--- Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 quote
 I think accessibility is starting to be as much
 about accommodating
 *any* browsing situation as much as accommodating
 disabilities.
 / quote
 
 I think it was from the very beginning. Accomodating
 dissabilities is where 
 work was needed fast and results were needed badly. 
 In time accessibility will mean and do much more
 than that.
 







Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
**
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] Re: Fed Up


You are in WSG ML
Please don't send this CRAP to the list.

Em 26/jul/2005, às 17:56, Alpha Mugari escreveu:


Excuse me I am sick and tired of the junk mail that
you always send to me. Pliz stop it

--- Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


quote
I think accessibility is starting to be as much
about accommodating
*any* browsing situation as much as accommodating
disabilities.
/ quote

I think it was from the very beginning. Accomodating
dissabilities is where
work was needed fast and results were needed badly.
In time accessibility will mean and do much more
than that.









Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

**
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] correct use of BR tag

2005-07-26 Thread Julián Landerreche


Hi,

this is a doubt I have always when I'm going to use the br / tag.

Should it be an space after/before (or both) the tag or should I leave 
no-spaces?


Examples:

1. The cat isbr /in the kitchen (no spaces between the tag and the words)

2. The cat is br /in the kitchen (one space before the tag)

3. The cat isbr / in the kitchen (one space after the tag)

4. The cat is br / in the kitchen (one space before and after the tag)

Wich one do you think its more correct?

In W3CSchools I have seen they use the example 1 when explaining the use 
of br / tag.


Thanks in advance and excuse my english.
**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper

2005-07-26 Thread Felix Miata

Rick Faaberg wrote Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:41:11 -0700:

 SunUp wrote Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:12:38 +1000:

 i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
 at 800x600. i LIKE it.

I like the highest resolution my equipment can provide, like the difference
between dot matrix printer output and 1200x600 laser printer output. It all
looks better as resolution increases, making jaggies invisible. I'm over 50
 wear trifocals, which makes my vision at best half what it was when I was
a teenager.
 
  so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right
  in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and
  go 1024+ ?

Why not embrace instead of fighting the strength of the web, by going
fluid? http://www.digital-web.com/articles/fluid_thinking/
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/
 
 Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that
 support 2560 x 1600 pixels? http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html
 800x600 seems a bit prehistoric...

2560x1600 isn't so new either. Some of you might be surprised how high
you can go with ordinary equipment. I set up this 2048x1536 screenshot
up on one of 3 identical 19 Dell/Trinitron CRT displays given to me,
which were manufactured 60 months ago:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/2048x1536.jpg

It has 9 Firefox windows, 7 of which are exactly 800x600, and the other
two of which are as indicated. It shows clearly how unfortunately an
800x600 _window_ can display a page even at much higher than typical
resolution when an author fails to consider the use of settings other
than his own when designing a page. It includes 4 pages variously
submitted for site checks:

http://www.organicgrowers.org.au/index.php (Vicki S, subatomic body text)
http://www.ewriteonline.com/ (Tanya R, persisting foldouts  tiny body text)
http://www.fragsburg.com/ (Thomas H, overlapping text)
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel (Tatham O, missing 
scrollbars)

Other there included URLs:
http://gemal.dk/browserspy/window.html
http://gemal.dk/browserspy/screen.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/dpi-screen-window.html
http://www.google.com/
-- 
If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them.
Proverbs 13:24

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

[WSG] help with colour switcher

2005-07-26 Thread Angus at InfoForce Services



**
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

2005-07-26 Thread Angus at InfoForce Services


Sorry for the blank message. Used the wrong keys.

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
**

Re: [WSG] correct use of BR tag



Em 26/jul/2005, às 18:21, Julián Landerreche escreveu:


Hi,

this is a doubt I have always when I'm going to use the br / tag.

Should it be an space after/before (or both) the tag or should I leave 
no-spaces?


Examples:

1. The cat isbr /in the kitchen (no spaces between the tag and the 
words)


2. The cat is br /in the kitchen (one space before the tag)

3. The cat isbr / in the kitchen (one space after the tag)

4. The cat is br / in the kitchen (one space before and after the 
tag)


Wich one do you think its more correct?


I think that is example no. 1.

In W3CSchools I have seen they use the example 1 when explaining the 
use of br / tag.


Thanks in advance and excuse my english.
**
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
**

Blue language - was [WSG] Re: Fed Up

2005-07-26 Thread Drake, Ted C.

I'm not the list monitor, but I would recommend anyone preparing to use blue
language think twice before hitting the send button.  

There are many reasons to not place it on this mailing list.  

For one, it can get the mailinglist banned by overzealous filtering
software. 

Two, these messages have a life of their own in google and you may not want
to have this represent your online personality.

I'll leave the rest of the administration to the honorable list admin.
He/she will probably say this thread is closed.

Ted




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jorge Laranjo
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:17 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Fed Up

You are in WSG ML
Please don't send this  to the list.

 ***
**
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] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only

2005-07-26 Thread AntonyG

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.I have a problem with a site in Firefox for Windows that only appears upon 
first loading the site. Refreshing the page or reloading the site clears the 
problem completely and doesn't seem to replicate until a new browser session is 
opened. I'm very puzzled as to why it happens and would appreciate any 
assistance in tracking down the cause.

The problem is that the background colour of the main content area doesn't 
reach down to the bottom of the container, even though it should (and does upon 
refresh!). I have uploaded an image showing the problem indicated by the red 
arrow here:
http://www.antonygolding.com/trisalford.jpg (670kb)

You can probably see the problem live by visiting the site in Firefox/Windows, 
and see that it's resolved by refreshing the page once.

Thanks in advance for any help,
Antony
**
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: Blue language - was [WSG] Re: Fed Up


What i wanted to say was:
Please don't send this KIND OF EMAIL to this list

Em 26/jul/2005, às 18:44, Drake, Ted C. escreveu:

I'm not the list monitor, but I would recommend anyone preparing to 
use blue

language think twice before hitting the send button.

There are many reasons to not place it on this mailing list.

For one, it can get the mailinglist banned by overzealous filtering
software.

Two, these messages have a life of their own in google and you may not 
want

to have this represent your online personality.

I'll leave the rest of the administration to the honorable list admin.
He/she will probably say this thread is closed.

Ted




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Jorge Laranjo
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:17 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Fed Up

You are in WSG ML
Please don't send this  to the list.

 ***
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



--
Atentamente,
Jorge Laranjo

site  http://thetaoofwebdesign.tk/
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype jorge.laranjo
aim  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sapo  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

**
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] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only


Hello Antony!
The site  http://www.trisalford.info/ works well with Safari in Mac OS  
X (version 312)

Has the same problem usign Firefox for Mac OS X (lastest Night Build)
I think you should see this  
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http:// 
www.trisalford.info/
You should check the structure too  
(http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/view_structure.php?url=http:// 
www.trisalford.info/)


--
Atentamente,
Jorge Laranjo

site  http://thetaoofwebdesign.tk/
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype jorge.laranjo
aim  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sapo  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Em 26/jul/2005, às 18:49, AntonyG escreveu:

I have a problem with a site in Firefox for Windows that only appears  
upon first loading the site. Refreshing the page or reloading the site  
clears the problem completely and doesn't seem to replicate until a  
new browser session is opened. I'm very puzzled as to why it happens  
and would appreciate any assistance in tracking down the cause.


The problem is that the background colour of the main content area  
doesn't reach down to the bottom of the container, even though it  
should (and does upon refresh!). I have uploaded an image showing the  
problem indicated by the red arrow here:

http://www.antonygolding.com/trisalford.jpg (670kb)

You can probably see the problem live by visiting the site in  
Firefox/Windows, and see that it's resolved by refreshing the page  
once.


Thanks in advance for any help,
Antony
**
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] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only

2005-07-26 Thread AntonyG

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.My apologies, the url for the actual site is http://www.trisalford.info

Antony

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of AntonyG 
Sent: Tue 26/07/2005 18:49 
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
Cc: 
Subject: [WSG] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only

I have a problem with a site in Firefox for Windows that only appears upon 
first loading the site. Refreshing the page or reloading the site clears the 
problem completely and doesn't seem to replicate until a new browser session is 
opened. I'm very puzzled as to why it happens and would appreciate any 
assistance in tracking down the cause.

The problem is that the background colour of the main content area doesn't 
reach down to the bottom of the container, even though it should (and does upon 
refresh!). I have uploaded an image showing the problem indicated by the red 
arrow here:
http://www.antonygolding.com/trisalford.jpg (670kb)

You can probably see the problem live by visiting the site in Firefox/Windows, 
and see that it's resolved by refreshing the page once.

Thanks in advance for any help,
Antony

**
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] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only

2005-07-26 Thread Drake, Ted C.

I did a quick look at it and it seems to be a float issue. I floated the
contentcontainer and it stretched to contain all of the elements. I wish I
had more time to do a better analysis. I would suggest looking at your
floats and seeing if you can clear them better.
Ted


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of AntonyG
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:49 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only

I have a problem with a site in Firefox for Windows that only appears upon
first loading the site. Refreshing the page or reloading the site clears the
problem completely and doesn't seem to replicate until a new browser session
is opened. I'm very puzzled as to why it happens and would appreciate any
assistance in tracking down the cause.

The problem is that the background colour of the main content area doesn't
reach down to the bottom of the container, even though it should (and does
upon refresh!). I have uploaded an image showing the problem indicated by
the red arrow here:
http://www.antonygolding.com/trisalford.jpg (670kb)

You can probably see the problem live by visiting the site in
Firefox/Windows, and see that it's resolved by refreshing the page once.

Thanks in advance for any help,
Antony
**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread Bruce

I am also older, and LIKE 800 res.

I feel that to be standards acceptable, there is no reason why a site cannot
be made fluid, so it fits all resolutions.
I see s many sites either a narrow band in the middle at high res,
lately one on the left with a mile wide blank space on the right, (looks
rediculous), or scrollbars at 800.
Fixed width is the culprit here.

If that makes me a leper as well, fine. I'll join the other 40% or
whatever of users who go with 800.

Funny how much is done for 10% for accessibbility (of course) but nothing
for 40+% user preferences
40% or whatever, no arguments on this pls.

Bruce Prochnau
BKDesign Solutions

- Original Message - 
From: SunUp
i have to chime in here on this quoted text, but for another reason...

i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
at 800x600. i LIKE it.

many ppl on this list ask the members for opinions on their work. i
sometimes nervously reply privately, with a screenshot, to show how it
looks on a lower res. i don't often get a response. but i do hear ppl
say in their posts how they sacrifice the low res visitor.

recently there was a thread about websites dealing with statistics
(browsers, resolutions, platforms etc). i went to one of the sites
(not belonging to a member here, i think, but a pretty well-known
stats site). i couldn't see a third of it without horizontally
scrolling. i was amazed and more than a little annoyed.

i emailed them. their reply stated that they made the decision years
ago not to support 800x600. when i replied and expressed my surprise
at years ago i offered a few suggestions about web standards and
accessibility, and about this being the world wide web (as opposed
to the office wide). i have to confess, i may have sounded a little
rude (i was pretty irritated by now) so i probably deserved what i got
back: Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm not going to be drawn
into an argument on something so banal..
umm... accessibility is banal?

another site i contacted recently (i feel like i'm becoming a
one-woman low-res evangelist) responded with Yeah... It's a harsh
decision I made. Everything's too skinny otherwise..

so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right
in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and
go 1024+ ? i honestly want to know if i should just shut up about the
fact that i have to horizontally scroll on MANY sites. a large
majority of them are designed by folk who i would normally assume to
be in the know about this sort of thing, and THEY don't seem to care
what it looks like for me.

sunny
**
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] Right column Float prob?

2005-07-26 Thread Ben Logan

Hi folks

I was wondering if someone would be able to take a quick look over the
homepage I have started developing for a client:

http://www.spotlessdesign.com/documents/456789/

The page is failry consistent across the browsers I have viewed it on using
http://www.browsershots.org

The problem I am having is with the advertisement bar on the right hand
side.

I know the resolution is over the normal size I would design for (800 by
600) but the client was adamant that the adbar appeared, and I mentioned
that to users of screen resolutions under 1024 by 768 that a scroll bar
would appear.

At the moment the advert is dropping down on to the next row in some
browsers in 800 by 600.

Is there a more elegant solution to make this visible to 1024 but pushed
over to the right on 800 by 600 (I appreciate this is breaking usability
princinples)

Many Thanks

Ben



**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)

2005-07-26 Thread standards

Good afternoon Sunny,

I operate a design shop in Dallas, Texas and I always make sure my sites
render properly in 800X600 because there is still a high percentage of
users setting their screen resolutions to 800X600.

I'm not willing to sacrifice or ignore that large audience, which could
have a negative impact on my credibility as a designer. In addition,
there's no valid reason why a site can't be visually engaging and render
properly in a higher resolution.

Kind regards,
Mario S. Cisneros

accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology
 availability
 or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to
 raise awareness first and give an impulse to all of us to build a
 better web.
A web for everyone, everywhere !

 *applause*

 i have to chime in here on this quoted text, but for another reason...

 i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
 at 800x600. i LIKE it.

 many ppl on this list ask the members for opinions on their work. i
 sometimes nervously reply privately, with a screenshot, to show how it
 looks on a lower res. i don't often get a response. but i do hear ppl
 say in their posts how they sacrifice the low res visitor.

 recently there was a thread about websites dealing with statistics
 (browsers, resolutions, platforms etc). i went to one of the sites (not
 belonging to a member here, i think, but a pretty well-known
 stats site). i couldn't see a third of it without horizontally
 scrolling. i was amazed and more than a little annoyed.

 i emailed them. their reply stated that they made the decision years
 ago not to support 800x600. when i replied and expressed my surprise at
 years ago i offered a few suggestions about web standards and
 accessibility, and about this being the world wide web (as opposed to
 the office wide). i have to confess, i may have sounded a little rude
 (i was pretty irritated by now) so i probably deserved what i got back:
 Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm not going to be drawn into an
 argument on something so banal..
 umm... accessibility is banal?

 another site i contacted recently (i feel like i'm becoming a
 one-woman low-res evangelist) responded with Yeah... It's a harsh
 decision I made. Everything's too skinny otherwise..

 so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in
 my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go
 1024+ ? i honestly want to know if i should just shut up about the fact
 that i have to horizontally scroll on MANY sites. a large
 majority of them are designed by folk who i would normally assume to be
 in the know about this sort of thing, and THEY don't seem to care what
 it looks like for me.

 sunny
 **
 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] Things I didn't realise, part 126

2005-07-26 Thread designer



Hi All,

I run a standalone version of IE 5.5 as well as the 'proper' IE6, both 
on WinXP.


I've only just found that if I put a background on the body and define 
it as 'fixed' it works fine in the usual 'standards' browsers (FF, Opera 
8, Mozilla), but not in 'standards' IE6.  (No surprise there! :-). 
However, if I put IE6 into quirks mode it works fine!  So, I tried in 
IE5.5 and guess what? It works.


So this means that support for background fixed works in 5.5, but was 
dropped  in 6, unless it's in quirks. A backward step if ever there was!


Can this be right?  Or am I too tired . . .

Bob McClelland
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Things I didn't realise, part 126

2005-07-26 Thread Rimantas Liubertas

On 7/26/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... 
 So this means that support for background fixed works in 5.5, but was
 dropped  in 6, unless it's in quirks. A backward step if ever there was!
 
 Can this be right?  Or am I too tired . . .

Works perfectly for me in IE6 'standards' mode.
Can you share code?

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] Right column Float prob?

2005-07-26 Thread Ben Logan

Hi folks

I also forgot to add that I have a flicker in Ie6 on the background image of
the li (red tab)

I have seen several resources on this but the way I have cut up my tabs has
made this fiddlier than I would have expected.

Does anyone have any ideas on the best approach to non image flicker of my
tabs (not using a server method please)

Cheers

Ben

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ben Logan
Sent: 26 July 2005 19:30
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Right column Float prob?

Hi folks

I was wondering if someone would be able to take a quick look over the
homepage I have started developing for a client:

http://www.spotlessdesign.com/documents/456789/

The page is failry consistent across the browsers I have viewed it on using
http://www.browsershots.org

The problem I am having is with the advertisement bar on the right hand
side.

I know the resolution is over the normal size I would design for (800 by
600) but the client was adamant that the adbar appeared, and I mentioned
that to users of screen resolutions under 1024 by 768 that a scroll bar
would appear.

At the moment the advert is dropping down on to the next row in some
browsers in 800 by 600.

Is there a more elegant solution to make this visible to 1024 but pushed
over to the right on 800 by 600 (I appreciate this is breaking usability
princinples)

Many Thanks

Ben



**
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] float problem in IE

2005-07-26 Thread Gavin Cooney

anyone got any idea here? i'm lost!

On 26/07/05, Gavin Cooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi all
 
 Quick question for you all:
 
 i have this page that works fine in firefox/ safari
 http://www2.websonic.ie/
 
 but on IE 6 for windows it has the following 2 problems:
 
 1. you can't click on the LH menu. something is above it. Z-index
 problem i assume.
 2. #mainpagecontent inherits the bgimage of #content. And it is in
 front of the side content, so blocks out all the contact details on
 the side. I've tried to stop it.
 #content #mainpagecontent{
 margin-right:210px;
 background:none;
 }
 
 but no luck.
 
 Any ideas?
 
 Thanks
 
 Gav
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 

**
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] help with colour switcher


It's on-topic as a js question.

No guarantees but I think you need to link to both stylesheets in the 
document head and give them the titles you use in your javascript. And 
finally turn off the alternate stylesheet.


so the code should look something like:

link rel=stylesheet type=text/css href=../css/ifsmain.css 
title=ifsmain /
link rel=stylesheet type=text/css href=../css/ifsmain.css 
title=ifsmain-reverse disabled=disabled /


kind regards
Terrence Wood.



On 27 Jul 2005, at 5:28 AM, Angus at InfoForce Services wrote:


Sorry for the blank message. Used the wrong keys.

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.



**
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] correct use of BR tag


I think 2.

T.
On 27 Jul 2005, at 5:31 AM, Jorge Laranjo wrote:


2. The cat is br /in the kitchen (one space before the tag)




**
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] My life as an 800x600 leper

2005-07-26 Thread Ben Curtis



On Jul 26, 2005, at 3:04 AM, Jeremy Keith wrote:


Clive Walker wrote:


We use the stats here to guide our general design choices.



I think that's missing the point. The goal is not to design for the  
majority but to design for everybody.



It is often not a question of designing for the majority or for  
everybody, but a question of optimizing the experience. A horizontal  
scrollbar does not mean the site is broken, it means that it is more  
difficult to use. Similarly, scaling a graphic with text on it (say,  
a map) down to 750px wide or 450px tall might mean that you've just  
made it more difficult for those with high resolution to read. Even  
more difficult if it's sized to 200px tall, to be above the fold  
after all the logo and branding and ads and navs up top. Using SVG to  
scale it would make it more difficult for those using browsers that  
require an SVG plugin. Using Flash instead would make it more  
difficult to repurpose the content outside of that proprietary  
technology.


Design can often achieve satisfactory or even exceptional results for  
everybody. Sometimes, compromises should be made, IMO, and user stats  
can inform those decisions. But be careful: don't use the stats of  
websites that publish stats. These are frequented by us; a biased  
group to be sure. Use the stats of the previous generation of the  
site you are working on, or similar sites. Two personal cases from  
this year:


1- we redesigned a site for a big name actor. His old site was 1020px  
wide, with the content on the left and navigation on the right.  
Before designing, we ran a screen-size tester on the home page and  
found 25% of the visitors with javascript enabled had screens 800px  
wide or narrower. This meant that 25% of the audience did not even  
know there was navigation on the site, partly explaining why 50% of  
the visits were to the home page only.


2- we redesigned a site for an interior design firm. The old site was  
built (by us!) in 1996, and back then maybe 25% of the users had  
800x600 screens, so the site was narrow. We ran the screen tester on  
this audience -- execs and their assistants, artists, and people with  
a bunch of money to spend on making stuff look good -- and found no  
one at 800x600, and the average screen res above 1024x768 -- my  
designer got excited at having a big canvas. On a hunch, I tweaked  
the code to measure the browser window size: average was now about  
800x700, with the big-screen people using a narrow window. Just the  
same as everyone else.


Nothing beats your own stats. But don't use stats as an excuse to  
exclude people.


--

Ben Curtis : webwright
bivia : a personal web studio
http://www.bivia.com
v: (818) 507-6613




**
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] Right column Float prob?

On 7/27/05, Ben Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Is there a more elegant solution to make this visible to 1024 but pushed
 over to the right on 800 by 600 (I appreciate this is breaking usability
 princinples)

Putting the ad banner *within* your page container div (holdingarea)
and adding a width to this element would force a scrollbar for lower
resolutions.

HTH,
K.

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

Re: [WSG] correct use of BR tag