Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict
On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have that little down-pointing arrow (probably not using the same browser as you are). After 12 clicks, I probably wouldn't even remember the original site's title anyway. I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within arm's reach (which includes all the popular browsers except Safari -- I don't have a Mac here at home to refer to) implements some form of extended Back functionality which displays a list of all the previous pages for the current window/tab and allows any one of them to be selected. I wouldn't assume that. In fact some of my audiences specifically have said that they want back directly to my site and simply closing a window is good way to do it. Even so, I can't help agreeing with others in this thread and state that the best option is to let users choose what they want to do rather than forcing the issue. Consider the options: 1. Force a new window/tab for the link. Users who want the new window/tab will be happy, but users who do not will be annoyed. 2. Force nothing and provide an ordinary link. Users who want a new window/tab will be able to get it by whatever expedient their browser provides (often a middle-click or a Shift+click) With option 1, you cause annoyance because your site forces a particular browsing convention on a set of users who dislike that convention. With option 2, you cause no annoyance because your site allows all users to follow their own preferred browsing conventions. Thus, option 2 is the clear winner. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict
Rick Faaberg: All popup windows break the back button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not). So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're fine with clicking back 12 times to get back to the original site? Assuming of course that no-one else is opening windows for me then I'd use the drop down that most browsers have, or the history function. The back button is still the quickest way of backing out of a single link that doesn't suit me and going back more than one link is a simple repetitive action that requires minimal effort on my part. Wouldn't close window in the new window (with the 12 clicks inside) be much quicker? If your site was the only site in the world to open new windows then sure this might be quicker. But when a lot of sites (randomly) insist on opening windows it is easy to loose track of where you are and where you came from. The effort required to close a window. Locate other open browser windows and select the one I want to return to is most definitely more than hitting the back button. 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 **
Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict
On 2/16/06 1:22 AM Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Safari has this same functionality: onclick= 1 step back; onmousedown= popup menu with your recent widow history. I'm not sure how many steps it remembers, I never use Safari except for testing. Even then, there is the History (Go in some other browsers) menu to help the user out. It remembers them all afaict. Not the point. It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-) They can of course continue in that new window - their choice. 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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict
On Feb 16, 2006, at 5:58 PM, James Bennett wrote: I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within arm's reach (which includes all the popular browsers except Safari -- I don't have a Mac here at home to refer to) implements some form of extended Back functionality which displays a list of all the previous pages for the current window/tab and allows any one of them to be selected. Safari has this same functionality: onclick= 1 step back; onmousedown= popup menu with your recent widow history. I'm not sure how many steps it remembers, I never use Safari except for testing. Even then, there is the History (Go in some other browsers) menu to help the user out. Philippe Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict
On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-) One click to close the window. Two clicks to summon the appropriate Back functionality. Does it make enough fo a difference to justify annoying those users who don't want a new window? They can of course continue in that new window - their choice. Their choice? *You're* the one who made their browser open a new window... -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
- - This is an automatic reply - - I am out of the office until Monday 20 Feb. If your email is regarding the University webite, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] in my absence, or contact: Sarah Bell Marketing Communications Manager e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: 023 9284 2948 or Paul Krycler Web Content Editor e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: 023 9284 2747 Regards, James Mellor ** 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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict - ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED
ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED Reason: There has been a lot of good points raised within this thread, on both standards and usability. However, we have definitely moved away from cooperative, useful advice on web standards practices towards strongly held and vocal personal opinion. Please do not continue this thread. If you have a problem or a comment associated with the closing of this thread please do not reply on-list. Instead, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
---"we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design for the 'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but as he/she becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their own choice." I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty, or maybe these are less than ordinary users... I dunno. I think that in making it too simple it takes away the point of literacy for some... i.e. they don't attempt to learn.
[WSG] site check
hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, i got some great help here allready for it. ..1st it dosnt validate right now but i will get it to pass after i address some other issues. the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is the original email. -not sure how much truth is in some of this stuff. i know that there are a good few hacks and some bugs in it but im trying!!! Hi Nick, Well I had a very quick look at it and though visually the site is nice there are a couple of serious problems, I'm afraid. The first is that it has been developed using a table based layout. This is a very outmoded way of developing and can be problematic. Now content and presentation are separated using CSS. This in itself goes long way to creating an accessible site. Some alt text has been used to describe images, which is good. The bigger problem is that there are no HTML headings used in the site, from what I can see. All site content must be marked up using semantic HTML to structure the document.This enables a blind user to see the document and navigate it easily. The site does however look good and hopefully many users will be able to find what they need, but people with disabilities will more than likely have a hard time as the site is not accessible to them. The HTML issue can be easily changed by structuring the page content using structural HTML. here is the address http://63.134.237.108/ any feedback at all greatly appreciated thanks a mill kvn ** 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
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://63.134.237.108/ any feedback at all greatly appreciated Table-based layout? Was that guy looking at the same site? Looks pretty layout-table free to me... You're missing a H1, which isn't great... wrap the header image in an H1 element (because it's already got ALT text, so there's nothing particularly wrong with this IMO) for starters. The BIGGEST thing I can see wrong with this site is the image map. Obviously the link areas aren't regular shapes, so even if you were to use a UL (navigation list) with positioned LI elements you couldn't achieve the same effect... so maybe build a UL version that just has slightly-less-perfect (geographical) clickable areas and replace that with a Flash version if the user's browser supports it? Yeah, I'm suggesting Flash... because it would work great there. Vector graphic, you can have objects whatever shapes you like (and rollovers quickly and easily, oh my!), and (most importantly) it can degrade really well when there's no Flash available (object element... google flash graceful degradation if this doesn't sound familiar) Aside from that, great site. The third-party consultant seem to have not even looked at your markup if they're seeing tables... same goes for using semantic markup, it's mostly pretty good. Bizarre. Josh ** 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] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
blqberi wrote: I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty, or maybe these are less than ordinary users... I dunno. I think that in making it too simple it takes away the point of literacy for some... i.e. they don't attempt to learn. This is an extremely common reaction I receive when I complain about usability issues to individuals within companies about their website. Oh, you must be a moron. I don't know why I persist in telling people the difficulties I experience in using their sites. If you receive an email from a user letting you know of their difficulties, be thankful and polite. Don't in any way indicate that they are a moron because that was a rare occasion, and most users will never tell you, they just won't shop with you again. Simply because you work with it, and you know it, doesn't mean that other people do. They have a different mental model than you do. They think differently. They perceive differently. Example in case: Take the current Adelaide Fringe Website. http://www.adelaidefringe.com.au/ticketing/Home.aspx Who is this website for? The organisers have a mixed mental model of themselves, the caterers, the volunteers and the performers. The actual audience is left last in their organising frame of mind. They perceived the audience as buying tickets. But the audience comes to the website to find out about performers and events, and their only chance of using this system is to click on the link labeled Tickets and Merchandise. on the bottom left. I didn't perceive myself as wanting to buy a ticket (just yet). I perceived myself as wanting to find out information about who was performing, what events were on. I emailed them with the task I was attempting to accomplish and the difficulties I had with it, and I got the same reaction: Oh, you must be a moron. I was fortunate enough to know from other sources that a particular performer was coming to Adelaide to perform, and found out the information that way. The Adelaide Fringe failed me totally. So it's not a matter of people being stupid. It's a matter of *you* understanding how *they* work. If they can't use your website, you aren't communicating successfully. You aren't selling your ideas across. The onus is on you. Kat ** 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
I don't see what this person is complaining about. Are you sure he looked at the right site? I do see a table in your code that could easily be replaced and should be. But in general, the home page didn't look bad. I got a similar message from a client that had a friend look at the design. The guy was spouting some stuff that made sense about using no tables, accessible language, blah blah. Unfortunately, he never looked at the code or really examined the page. He was just passing off something he'd heard to make himself look impressive to the client. I showed him how I had already done everything the guy was telling us to do. So, if your letter writer knows about web standards, really knows and not someone that read a post in a design blog, make sure he/she saw the real page. Otherwise, I'd print the note and check off the stuff as its finished. Since most of it is done already, that shouldn't take long at all. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:35 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] site check hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, i got some great help here allready for it. ..1st it dosnt validate right now but i will get it to pass after i address some other issues. the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is the original email. -not sure how much truth is in some of this stuff. i know that there are a good few hacks and some bugs in it but im trying!!! Hi Nick, Well I had a very quick look at it and though visually the site is nice there are a couple of serious problems, I'm afraid. The first is that it has been developed using a table based layout. This is a very outmoded way of developing and can be problematic. Now content and presentation are separated using CSS. This in itself goes long way to creating an accessible site. Some alt text has been used to describe images, which is good. The bigger problem is that there are no HTML headings used in the site, from what I can see. All site content must be marked up using semantic HTML to structure the document.This enables a blind user to see the document and navigate it easily. The site does however look good and hopefully many users will be able to find what they need, but people with disabilities will more than likely have a hard time as the site is not accessible to them. The HTML issue can be easily changed by structuring the page content using structural HTML. here is the address http://63.134.237.108/ any feedback at all greatly appreciated thanks a mill kvn ** 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
kvnmcwebn wrote: hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, ... the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is the original email. Well I had a very quick look at it and though visually the site is nice there are a couple of serious problems, I'm afraid. The first is that it has been developed using a table based layout. Hi Kevin Gotta love consultants! Hopefully he wasn't in a paid position if that was his professional judgement of the site. If he was I would be suggesting a refund. Great looking site by the way. Regards Scott Swabey Design Development Director Lafinboy Productions www.lafinboy.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] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
blqberi: I agree, but just how low do you go? Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Einstein. .. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty Occams razor says choose the simplist amongst possible solutions. Sounds like too simple is not a solution in this case. Thankfully your users are easy to identify =) 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 **
RE: [WSG] site check
I'd love to see the site of the third party consultant... come on... sneak it into a message to us... Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:35 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] site check hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, i got some great help here allready for it. ..1st it dosnt validate right now but i will get it to pass after i address some other issues. the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is the original email. -not sure how much truth is in some of this stuff. i know that there are a good few hacks and some bugs in it but im trying!!! Hi Nick, Well I had a very quick look at it and though visually the site is nice there are a couple of serious problems, I'm afraid. The first is that it has been developed using a table based layout. This is a very outmoded way of developing and can be problematic. Now content and presentation are separated using CSS. This in itself goes long way to creating an accessible site. Some alt text has been used to describe images, which is good. The bigger problem is that there are no HTML headings used in the site, from what I can see. All site content must be marked up using semantic HTML to structure the document.This enables a blind user to see the document and navigate it easily. The site does however look good and hopefully many users will be able to find what they need, but people with disabilities will more than likely have a hard time as the site is not accessible to them. The HTML issue can be easily changed by structuring the page content using structural HTML. here is the address http://63.134.237.108/ any feedback at all greatly appreciated thanks a mill kvn ** 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
Joshua Street: The BIGGEST thing I can see wrong with this site is the image map. Nice site. Check the typos: Skip to nazvigation (top of page). Outside of that I mostly agree with Josh except I'd like to see the county names as plain text and positioned instead on the map instead of as graphics and part of it. This may help low vision users. Does the you are here text refer to the image map or is there a broken breadcrumb? If it refers to the image map maybe you need a different label. 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 **
Re: [WSG] Web design education
I've been following this discussion with great interest. I've taught HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a TAFE, but not as part of a coding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's an interesting environment in which to think about standards -- the students were totally focused on design and graphics, and were really learning three applications: Photoshop, FireWorks and DreamWeaver, rather than what web pages were all about. A brief excursion into source code left them for the most part baffled, if not horrified. Why would anybody do it that way when we have Dreamweaver? I agree with points others have made: 1) IT staff have an amazing amount of control over what is allowed -- to the detriment of the students' learning what happens in the real world. Not one of my students had ever FTPd a file to a server so, for instance, all their paths had to be relative and they could make mistakes with case-sensitivity with impunity. 2) Syllabuses are either out of date, or more likely, so general as to be meaningless -- students on my JavaScript course had to learn a scripting language. Students on my HTML course had to learn a markup language. I could have taught them Visual Basic and SGML and been entirely within the guidelines. 3) There's no time -- I taught a class of fifteen graphic designers the very basics of HTML in a class lasting in total, five hours or so. When they said how do I get two columns in my page? I taught them to do a table. Mea Culpa. I did, of course, explain about table versus div positioning, font tags versus CSS, but I didn't attempt to teach them two completely different languages in that very short time. If they achieved a valid page with an h1, a couple of ps and a working link, I was happy. But I can't say I advanced the cause of standards much... Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 8333 3594 Developer, ABC Kids Onlinehttp://www.abc.net.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] site check
thanks guys, Yes we did double check and make sure he checked the right site. at first i thought he surely must have been checking the old site... http://www.families.ie/ but no he was checking the right url. The consultant is an employee of the irish government.nevermind i wont go there. Unfortunately i have no site address for the consultant but he did recommend that the developers visit this url to learn more http://www.webaim.org/techniques/ If i get my hands on it though- ill slip it in bigtime. thanks again kvn ** 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
I will do as josh suggested. Actually using flash is a good idea for the maps especially as they are going national and will have all counties in the republic on there. The you are here is a breadcrumb that has yet to be programmed. good idea on using positioned text instead of the image map buttons.- Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? thanks kvn ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web design education
Hi John,How long ago was this per chance?I find your comments very interesting because it's taken right from direct experience in formal web education (albeit to graphic designers at the time).In essense, higher/further education guidelines (IT/Graphic Design or otherwise) don't seem to be able to bridge the gap between basic 'HTML know-how' and 'Web Standards-friendly' web design techniques. This is an extremely important foundation for shaping a web design community that is more web-standards aware...and it's an epic task to try and overhaul this in one country - yet alone the world at large (!) I greatly appreciate insights from educators (or former educators) such as yourself - because it gives other web design professionals a greater sense of what the educational establishments are teaching to the next generation of potential web professionals. Regards,Matt---http://www.mattrobin.comOn 16/02/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been following this discussion with great interest.I've taught HTML, CSS and _javascript_ at a TAFE, but not as part of acoding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's aninteresting environment in which to think about standards -- the students were totally focused on design and graphics, and were reallylearning three applications: Photoshop, FireWorks and DreamWeaver,rather than what web pages were all about. A brief excursion intosource code left them for the most part baffled, if not horrified. Why would anybody do it that way when we have Dreamweaver?I agree with points others have made:1) IT staff have an amazing amount of control over what is allowed --to the detriment of the students' learning what happens in the real world. Not one of my students had ever FTPd a file to a server so,for instance, all their paths had to be relative and they could makemistakes with case-sensitivity with impunity.2) Syllabuses are either out of date, or more likely, so general as to be meaningless -- students on my _javascript_ course had to learn ascripting language. Students on my HTML course had to learn amarkup language. I could have taught them Visual Basic and SGML and been entirely within the guidelines.3) There's no time -- I taught a class of fifteen graphic designersthe very basics of HTML in a class lasting in total, five hours orso. When they said how do I get two columns in my page? I taught them to do a table. Mea Culpa. I did, of course, explain about tableversus div positioning, font tags versus CSS, but I didn't attempt toteach them two completely different languages in that very shorttime. If they achieved a valid page with an h1, a couple of ps and a working link, I was happy. But I can't say I advanced the causeof standards much...Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 8333 3594Developer, ABC Kids Onlinehttp://www.abc.net.au/ **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] site check
One other thing... typo, your are here » above the imagemap. ** 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
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? It must've been offlist, but I'd guess it was about fonts ;-) My second opinion is I agree... he's generally right about such things! ** 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
kvnmcwebn: Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? What did Felix advise? 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 **
RE: [WSG] site check
What did Felix advise?
He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility
problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the
screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of
manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers provide users with a
preference adjustment precisely so that they can optimize to the size
that best suits them. Your visitors are not interested in having you
rudely reduce content text size from their preference by some arbitrary
%. Even though your text is technically resizable, a WinIE visitor who
already has his text already set to larger or largest will be unable to
make your text larger or enough larger and thus big enough to read with
his text resizer widget. Let your visitors be able to use your site
without fighting through this rude and unnecessary basic
usability/accessibility obstacle. See:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html;
-kvn
**
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
Terrence Wood wrote: kvnmcwebn: Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice? What did Felix advise? Stab in the dark: don't define font size below 100%... -- 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
kvnmcwebn wrote:
What did Felix advise?
He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility
problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the
screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of
manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers provide users with a
preference adjustment precisely so that they can optimize to the size
that best suits them. Your visitors are not interested in having you
rudely reduce content text size from their preference by some arbitrary
%. Even though your text is technically resizable, a WinIE visitor who
already has his text already set to larger or largest will be unable to
make your text larger or enough larger and thus big enough to read with
his text resizer widget. Let your visitors be able to use your site
without fighting through this rude and unnecessary basic
usability/accessibility obstacle. See:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html;
It's just a shame that people who pay for web design usually insist on
the smaller text sizes, because historically 99% of web sites in the
wild have tended to serve a slightly reduced font size...
--
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
On 17 Feb 2006, at 1:31 PM, kvnmcwebn wrote: What did Felix advise? Let your visitors be able to use your site without fighting through this rude and unnecessary basic usability/accessibility obstacle. See: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html; I didn't really need to ask... and I concur. Interestingly, I was pretty much repsonsible for one of the lengthy font debates with Felix a couple of years ago, where I took the designers side. I have since changed my mind. I have 20/20 vision, but I now have little time for sites with teeny text and/or bad leading - I'm just too busy. Text at my size suits me best =) 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 **
Re: [WSG] Web design education
Title: Re: [WSG] Web design education How long ago was this per chance? Just last year. In essense, higher/further education guidelines (IT/Graphic Design or otherwise) don't seem to be able to bridge the gap between basic 'HTML know-how' and 'Web Standards-friendly' web design techniques. To be honest, the HTML know-how part is a quick glimpse of code because that's a formal requirement of the course. Given the choice I think both students and staff might gladly skip it altogether in favour of more time with Photoshop. The real issue is that the course is, from the point of view of the people on this list, back to front. A website should not be something which starts out as an attractive graphic and is then wrestled into HTML-table/GIF/JPEG format so that it can be put on the web. But that's the way it's taught, in the same way that students in other modules are taught to create work, then turn their work into other output formats, wrestling with the details of different colour systems, inks and papers. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner (+612 / 02) 8333 3594 Developer, ABC Kids Online http://www.abc.net.au/
Re: [WSG] site check
On 17 Feb 2006, at 00:43, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
kvnmcwebn wrote:
What did Felix advise?
He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility
problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in
the
screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of
manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers provide users with a
preference adjustment precisely so that they can optimize to the size
that best suits them. Your visitors are not interested in having you
rudely reduce content text size from their preference by some
arbitrary
%. Even though your text is technically resizable, a WinIE visitor
who
already has his text already set to larger or largest will be
unable to
make your text larger or enough larger and thus big enough to read
with
his text resizer widget. Let your visitors be able to use your site
without fighting through this rude and unnecessary basic
usability/accessibility obstacle. See:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html;
It's just a shame that people who pay for web design usually insist
on the smaller text sizes, because historically 99% of web sites in
the wild have tended to serve a slightly reduced font size...
I admit that I'm guilty of this but only because the Windows IE
default font looks UGLY at 100%, Even with ClearType. Perhaps once
everyone has a nice screen-font like Calibri on their Windows
computers, I'll revert to 100%.
The current windows fonts were designed to look best at specific
sizes because of the traditional Aliasing issues. IE and Firefox
default sizes are bigger than this default, meaning that if you want
your text to look nice, then you have to reduce it :(.
Stephen
**
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: FONT sizes
Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. L -Original Message- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just a shame that people who pay for web design usually insist on the smaller text sizes, because historically 99% of web sites in the wild have tended to serve a slightly reduced font size... -- 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 ** ** 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: FONT sizes
Herrod, Lisa wrote: Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. But only if the button for larger looks like Ricardo Montalban and the one for smaller like Hervé Villechaize... -- 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: FONT sizes
Herrod, Lisa wrote: Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. L song id=yankee-doodle Oh, Lisa Herrod came to town a-riding on a pony But then Russ bucked and threw her off because her bum was bony! Yes, web standards are such fun bringing joy and order With sarcasm and some sly digs designers we do slaughter! /song *runs and hides* ** 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: FONT sizes
I've always wanted my own theme song. I believe I have finally arrived. -Original Message- From: Mark Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 17 February 2006 12:27 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes Herrod, Lisa wrote: Yes but Patrick, If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user could increase the font as much as they like. It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'. L song id=yankee-doodle Oh, Lisa Herrod came to town a-riding on a pony But then Russ bucked and threw her off because her bum was bony! Yes, web standards are such fun bringing joy and order With sarcasm and some sly digs designers we do slaughter! /song *runs and hides* ** 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
Stephen Stagg wrote Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:02:11 +: On 17 Feb 2006, at 00:43, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: It's just a shame that people who pay for web design usually insist on the smaller text sizes, because historically 99% of web sites in the wild have tended to serve a slightly reduced font size... I admit that I'm guilty of this but only because the Windows IE default font looks UGLY at 100%, Even with ClearType. Perhaps once everyone has a nice screen-font like Calibri on their Windows computers, I'll revert to 100%. The current windows fonts were designed to look best at specific sizes because of the traditional Aliasing issues. IE and Firefox default sizes are bigger than this default, meaning that if you want your text to look nice, then you have to reduce it :(. Please tell us which combination(s) of display size and resolution and at which DPI values your description applies to: 13 on 800x600 14 on 800x600 15 on 800x600 16 on 800x600 17 on 800x600 13 on 1024x768 14 on 1024x768 15 on 1024x768 16 on 1024x768 17 on 1024x768 18 on 1024x768 13 on 1152x864 14 on 1152x864 15 on 1152x864 16 on 1152x864 17 on 1152x864 18 on 1152x864 19 on 1152x864 20 on 1152x864 21 on 1152x864 13 on 1280xX 14 on 1280xX 15 on 1280xX 16 on 1280xX 17 on 1280xX 18 on 1280xX 19 on 1280xX 20 on 1280xX 21 on 1280xX 14 on 1400x1050 15 on 1400x1050 16 on 1400x1050 17 on 1400x1050 18 on 1400x1050 19 on 1400x1050 20 on 1400x1050 21 on 1400x1050 15 on 1600x1200 16 on 1600x1200 17 on 1600x1200 18 on 1600x1200 19 on 1600x1200 20 on 1600x1200 21 on 1600x1200 22 on 1600x1200 16 on 1800x1350 17 on 1800x1350 18 on 1800x1350 19 on 1800x1350 20 on 1800x1350 21 on 1800x1350 22 on 1800x1350 17 on 1920x1440 18 on 1920x1440 19 on 1920x1440 20 on 1920x1440 21 on 1920x1440 22 on 1920x1440 17 on 2048x1536 18 on 2048x1536 19 on 2048x1536 20 on 2048x1536 21 on 2048x1536 22 on 2048x1536 Less than 13 or 800x600 Other -- Love your neighbor as yourself.Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/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 **
RE: [WSG] site check
I think that requires a purchase order felix. -Original Message- From: Felix Miata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please tell us which combination(s) of display size and resolution and at which DPI values your description applies to: 13 on 800x600 14 on 800x600 15 on 800x600 16 on 800x600 17 on 800x600 13 on 1024x768 14 on 1024x768 15 on 1024x768 16 on 1024x768 17 on 1024x768 18 on 1024x768 13 on 1152x864 14 on 1152x864 15 on 1152x864 16 on 1152x864 17 on 1152x864 18 on 1152x864 19 on 1152x864 20 on 1152x864 21 on 1152x864 13 on 1280xX 14 on 1280xX 15 on 1280xX 16 on 1280xX 17 on 1280xX 18 on 1280xX 19 on 1280xX 20 on 1280xX 21 on 1280xX 14 on 1400x1050 15 on 1400x1050 16 on 1400x1050 17 on 1400x1050 18 on 1400x1050 19 on 1400x1050 20 on 1400x1050 21 on 1400x1050 15 on 1600x1200 16 on 1600x1200 17 on 1600x1200 18 on 1600x1200 19 on 1600x1200 20 on 1600x1200 21 on 1600x1200 22 on 1600x1200 16 on 1800x1350 17 on 1800x1350 18 on 1800x1350 19 on 1800x1350 20 on 1800x1350 21 on 1800x1350 22 on 1800x1350 17 on 1920x1440 18 on 1920x1440 19 on 1920x1440 20 on 1920x1440 21 on 1920x1440 22 on 1920x1440 17 on 2048x1536 18 on 2048x1536 19 on 2048x1536 20 on 2048x1536 21 on 2048x1536 22 on 2048x1536 Less than 13 or 800x600 Other -- Love your neighbor as yourself.Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/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 ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web design education
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been following this discussion with great interest. I've taught HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a TAFE, but not as part of a coding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's an interesting environment in which to think about standards -- the students were totally focused on design and graphics, and were really learning three applications: Photoshop, FireWorks and DreamWeaver, rather than what web pages were all about. I actually think that is a sign of the educational institutions being slow to catch up in their approach to web design. From what I can tell it currently seems to be considered either: * an add-on to a graphic design course, in the form of 'and you can turn your print/marketing campaign into a web site/online marketing campaign'. * as a part of programming and applicatoin development. Again, anecdotally, either scenario seems to prioritise one aspect of the process whilst downplaying or ignoring the importance of the other. It would seem that eventually a crossover course is needed, perhaps in the form of some type of 'design or development major' . Design students interested in the web should receive the relevant knowledge to work in that environment right from the beginning. Equally developers should we well versed in aspects of usability and interface design, particularly when learning their client side technologies. At the moment in Ultimo we have the balance of 9 hours/week multimedia and design, 9 hours per week scripting, HTML, CSS and XML, and 1 1/2 hours usability and accessibility. It's a fairly good balance but there is so much to get through in 6 months. Once they leave the Cert IV they don't cover any aspects of client side web design again - the next year is all .NET development (no PHP unfortunately ;( ) I have sat in course implementation workshops where interface design has been dismissed as drawing pretty pictures, and then HTML and CSS has been downplayed to learning a few tags - 6 or 8 hours tops (by the same person, no less!) I am not suggesting that we produce a jack of all trades, but I feel the education must start out in a much more generalised way. On a positive note, I have noticed a steady stream of designers enrolling in the course to learn how to work for web. Most come in with some Dreamweaver experience and the notion that they will learn advanced Dreamweaver. For some of them 12 weeks of css and html in notepad is too much, but most of them embrace the idea of learning theories of usability, accessibility and end up performing really well. It would be great, however, if there was a course that started taking responsibility for the different aspect of web design in a far more holistic way right from the begiinning. I agree with points others have made: 1) IT staff have an amazing amount of control over what is allowed -- to the detriment of the students' learning what happens in the real world. Not one of my students had ever FTPd a file to a server so, for instance, all their paths had to be relative and they could make mistakes with case-sensitivity with impunity. 2) Syllabuses are either out of date, or more likely, so general as to be meaningless -- students on my JavaScript course had to learn a scripting language. Students on my HTML course had to learn a markup language. I could have taught them Visual Basic and SGML and been entirely within the guidelines. 3) There's no time -- I taught a class of fifteen graphic designers the very basics of HTML in a class lasting in total, five hours or so. When they said how do I get two columns in my page? I taught them to do a table. Mea Culpa. I did, of course, explain about table versus div positioning, font tags versus CSS, but I didn't attempt to teach them two completely different languages in that very short time. If they achieved a valid page with an h1, a couple of ps and a working link, I was happy. But I can't say I advanced the cause of standards much... Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 8333 3594 Developer, ABC Kids Onlinehttp://www.abc.net.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 ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web design education
On 2/16/06, James Gollan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be great, however, if there was a course that started taking responsibility for the different aspect of web design in a far more holistic way right from the begiinning. I think in terms of four year or two year programs, especially in things like information science, web development, etc, the one thing that is overlooked the most is CSS. Even for graphic designers, this is a shame, since just a few minutes of browsing the CSS Zen Garden shows how much graphic designers can do with even a basic knowledge of CSS (and it can't be done so elegantly with tables... sometimes not at all). I think the day I see programs with a full semester dedicated to CSS, I can celebrate. Even a semester of CS130 at Cornell, covering 1/3 CSS (the rest XHTML and basic PHP) is not enough to teach decent layout/positioning skills... and I'm saying this because I've seen other students struggle with it. Next fall I'll most likely get to be a Teaching Assistant for the course, so I'll get an even better idea of just how much time and material students need to really learn CSS. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 **
